Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I appears my posting was misunderstood. I understand why. I propose ideas that conflict with Christian theology, etc. As for the Roman soldier beating Jesus to death, I saw that in a dream. Then I researched the crucifixion. Apparently, there is no documented evidence for the event, just historical opinions based on rumors.
So, assuming Jesus was God, and not His son, and God didn't sacrifice himself to save humankind, then what we have is a horrible murder. That of course doesn't sell bibles, it's not adventuresome enough. It is probable best that I not post on this forum again, my ideas are too controversial.
If you believe the bible is not wholly true and that Jesus may or may not be god, that's hardly controversial. Not to worry.
If you believe the bible is not wholly true and that Jesus may or may not be god, that's hardly controversial. Not to worry.
Thanks for the encouraging words. I think I'm very dense. It has taken me a long time to finally figure it out. Over a period of about twenty-seven years I've had almost two dozen dreams and a few visions about God, angels, Satan, the universe, paradise and the Bible. I know that covers a lot of territory. My mistake has been to think others would have an interest. Mostly, my dreams fit into Judaism, but only partly. In short, I am in conflict with every religion on earth, without exception. As an example, what religion believes paradise was during the dinosaur era. Well, I had a vision and dream that told me just that. Then, I've had people tell me Satan has given me these dreams. You see, if you believe your religion has all the answers and you believe in devils, then, naturally that explains it.
this is a patently ludicrous thing to say. your ability to reason is quite handicapped
by your anti-Christian bias. The passages were written by Jewish sages in both Talmuds
and you're over here saying that it's related to the destruction of the temple. Sorry,
guy, but I think the Talmud writers knew how to distinuguish between 40 years
before the temple was destroyed and 70 a.d. You also don't know anything about
prophecy or the nature of what Christ did as a sacrifice to the Father, because it
has everything to do with Jesus that these events ocurred.
I'm willing to be convinced. The Talmuds were, I believe, written after the Jewish war (Jamnia talmud and Babylonian talmud) Just how do you date this event, since I recall that the priest is not one who appears in the list anyway, to 40 years before the destruction fo the temple? Is it not that your Christian Bias is telling you that it must date to 30 AD?
yes, and the information is easily available online concerning the origins of these talmuds.
just because they were transcribed after the fall of the second temple does not mean they
were "written" concurrently. oral tradition was taken very seriously, of utmost importance.
it was the primary method by which information and critical matters were passed on from
one generation to the next. since the rabbis who transcribed the talmuds were not Christians,
(obviously not, and that is expressed voraciously within the talmuds themselves), there would
be no reason for them to transcribe the events in such a manner as to "make themselves look bad"
because YHWH rejected their sacrifices.
I appears my posting was misunderstood. I understand why. I propose ideas that conflict with Christian theology, etc. As for the Roman soldier beating Jesus to death, I saw that in a dream. Then I researched the crucifixion. Apparently, there is no documented evidence for the event, just historical opinions based on rumors.
I am sorry to say that what you saw in a dream counts as poor evidence against a crucifixion agreed by all the gospels, so definitely an original feature of the story, one confirmed by Paul and by Tacitus - the only extra - Biblical source I am willing to give some credit to. I also consider the princliple of embarrassment very telling; Christianity had the initial task of glossing over a very embarrassing 'stumbling - block'. The fact that Jesu was crucified - the most degrading and defiling method of execution there was - and not only in the view of jews.
Quote:
So, assuming Jesus was God, and not His son, and God didn't sacrifice himself to save humankind, then what we have is a horrible murder. That of course doesn't sell bibles, it's not adventuresome enough. It is probable best that I not post on this forum again, my ideas are too controversial.
Assuming Jesus was God and not his son, (given that one doesn't see the terms as essentially the same) is assuming what one wants to prove, or in your couse is an unjustified starting point for a lot of other stuff you want to prove.
We love controversial stuff. But, as the saying has it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And dreams and visions, old chum, do not cut it.
yes, and the information is easily available online concerning the origins of these talmuds.
just because they were transcribed after the fall of the second temple does not mean they
were "written" concurrently. oral tradition was taken very seriously, of utmost importance.
it was the primary method by which information and critical matters were passed on from
one generation to the next. since the rabbis who transcribed the talmuds were not Christians,
(obviously not, and that is expressed voraciously within the talmuds themselves), there would
be no reason for them to transcribe the events in such a manner as to "make themselves look bad"
because YHWH rejected their sacrifices.
I am still waiting for your evidence that the sacrifice refusal event as described in the Talmud was of the date that puts it nearer to Jesus than to the destruction of the temple, as you assert.
If you can't do that, your argument collapses, mine stands up as valid at least, and your post above was mere misdirectional floundering.
P.s you not only have to justify your claim, but your piece of rudeness here: "this is a patently ludicrous thing to say. your ability to reason is quite handicapped by your anti-Christian bias."
I am sorry to say that what you saw in a dream counts as poor evidence against a crucifixion agreed by all the gospels, so definitely an original feature of the story, one confirmed by Paul and by Tacitus - the only extra - Biblical source I am willing to give some credit to. I also consider the princliple of embarrassment very telling; Christianity had the initial task of glossing over a very embarrassing 'stumbling - block'. The fact that Jesu was crucified - the most degrading and defiling method of execution there was - and not only in the view of jews.
Assuming Jesus was God and not his son, (given that one doesn't see the terms as essentially the same) is assuming what one wants to prove, or in your couse is an unjustified starting point for a lot of other stuff you want to prove.
We love controversial stuff. But, as the saying has it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And dreams and visions, old chum, do not cut it.
In the case of the crucifixion, there is no evidence, just a strong desire by Christians leaders to begin a new religion. It is the same old story from the beginning of civilization, refute old ideas, promote new ideas, and make oneself recognized as the author of new ideas. I prefer truth to recognition. There is no evidence for the crucifixion, just rumors. If you read history you find the crucifixion was used for convicted criminals, Jesus was not a convicted criminal. At least there are no historical records for that charge. Christians can prove almost nothing. All they really know is Jesus existed. Then there are all those other gospels, the ones that where rejected by church propagandists. If you read them you get a different story about Jesus. Gospel authors were fiction writers looking for notoriety. They jumped on a good story and, like good Hollywood writers, made it a best seller. Gospel writers were not Jews, they were Greeks who never visited the holy land.
It would have been even more embarrassing for church leaders to admit that Jesus was murdered, and then allow to rot on a dirt road for more than three days. So, the crucifixion story takes everyone off the hook. They didn't really treat Jesus's body that way! Jesus crucifixion was a consequence evil Jews conspiring to execute him is a far better story. I believe the Revelation story about the two witnesses (Rev. 11) is the real story about Jesus. It fits if you assume God is a duality. That is also what no one believes. After this exchange, I am retiring from the debate business, it's like hitting your head against a stone wall. I know enough controversial stuff about God, angels, and Jesus to fire up a huge bonfire, but I don't have a fireproof suit. Ha. Ha.
I at least do feel confident that there was a Jesus and he was crucified by the Romans and I have said why I feel this is reliable.
Whether or no, all I require in terms of the topic is some reason to suppose that the refusal of sacrifices event recorded in the Talmud can be fixed to the supposed date of Jesus' mission. If not, then my contention that it relates rather to the impending destruction of the Temple is valid.
I at least do feel confident that there was a Jesus and he was crucified by the Romans and I have said why I feel this is reliable.
Whether or no, all I require in terms of the topic is some reason to suppose that the refusal of sacrifices event recorded in the Talmud can be fixed to the supposed date of Jesus' mission. If not, then my contention that it relates rather to the impending destruction of the Temple is valid.
As far as I know from what little research I've done, it happened that way. I just question reasons. Assuming Jesus did not sacrifice to save humankind, there must be another reason for the strange events at the temple. I don't believe the Lord abandoned Jews or changed his relationship. Because Jesus was murdered by Romans, Jews can't be blamed. I think it was a matter of replacing Jewish sacrifices with a more direct relationship with the Lord God (Jesus).
Well, , I have my own view on what happened at the temple and why the crucifixion was a direct result of it, but that is not relevant to topic, which is about the Talmudic story of the refusal of sacrifices and the discussion on whether it relates to the crucifixion or the temple destruction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Talmuds were, I believe, written after the Jewish war (Jamnia talmud and Babylonian talmud) Just how do you date this event, since I recall that the priest is not one who appears in the list anyway, to 40 years before the destruction fo the temple? Is it not that your Christian Bias is telling you that it must date to 30 AD?
