James Cameron to unveil Jesus Christ's Coffin live Monday.

[AstroEric]

Yeah, and trust me when I say that you don't WANT to marry the girls you're chasing now. In five years you'll wonder what you saw in them in the first place.

And you'll probably answer yourself by mentioning pieces of anatomy.

[KillerBs]

Good. Ya gotta do some stupid stuff though, or you will miss out on a lot. lol.

[KillerBs]

Yeah, and trust me when I say that you don't WANT to marry the girls you're chasing now. In five years you'll wonder what you saw in them in the first place.

And you'll probably answer yourself by mentioning pieces of anatomy.

*falls out of chair*

*laughs hysterically*

*keeps laughing*

*gets up in chair, types response*

Heh, my uncle once said "I'd rather have an ugly girl who can cook and clean than a pretty one that can burn things and sweep stuff under the rug."

[big shmooz]

Ok, thats one thing I never understood. Cant someone just walk in and say their Jewish?

Why then would they be seeking to convert to Judaism if they claimed to already BE Jewish?

As far as a hoax, they would probably trip themselves up eventually. (somebody who is knowledgable enough will figure it out)

The Talmud speaks about a person who was a Gentile who pretended to be a Jew & ate of the Paschal lamb (something forbidden to non Jews). He was caught & told by the Rabbi that when he went to Jerusalem to ask for the tail to be his portion next time for it is the tastiest morsal.. The tail is something well known though to Jews that is in fact not eaten of the lamb, & so when he made that request he in fact tripped himself up & they thereby caught on to his deception & punished him.

I have actually myself sifted some claims of people who genuinely believed themselves to be Jewish who in fact were not. I discovered this & informed them of their error.

[big shmooz]

No apology necessary. The fault was mine for being so vague in my first post.

:)

[AstroEric]

Heh, my uncle once said "I'd rather have an ugly girl who can cook and clean than a pretty one that can burn things and sweep stuff under the rug."

Lucky for me, I got the whole package! (Hear that, Mrs. AstroEric?)

[Steve822]

I'm lucking in that way too, Mrs. Steve822 is a knockout who can cook and do all that Martha Stewart stuff.....minus the insider trading

[big shmooz]

hey it's all good, I love the old testament, one of my favorite bible stories is the one about Caleb, where the people are all like God should have left us in bondage and all that, and Caleb was all like suck it up Jewish folks quit feeling sorry for your selfs and let roll. any hoo, I didn't take any offense by your comments but I have to ask, why don't the Jewsih people believe in Jesus, as far as I can tell he fofilled all the profecies and I'm drawing a blank to specifics but all through the Old testament it seems to me (being Christian Bias) that his comming is predicted. I'm not trying to start anything here Religion, Baseball and hockey are my 3 favorite thing to discuss is all

It is an interesting point of view you present. Actually if you read some of my previous posts in this thread this might be better explained as to why I do not "believe in jesus".

Nevertheless, I will endeavor to give you a clearer answer than you might derive from other posts of mine.

I will now address your point ... You claim he fulfilled all prophecies. I accept that this is your belief, however I have found this to my understanding not to be so. If you look at Scripture... particularly the Books of Prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hoseah, Nachum, Ovadya, Zecharya etc... you will find Biblical prophecies regarding the Messiah. In all of these the arrival is connected with both cataclysmic events & ending with rulership of G-D & good prevailing over evil. Israel (the nation) returning to her borders by G-D redeeming His people. You find very clear & openly verifiable prophecies. Not some spiritual vaguely described idea. This theme is repeated over & over again.

What I mean to say is, that Scripture describes the arrival of the Messiah not with something that will be controversial. The entire world will see it most clearly. There will be no "deniers". This is a common theme throughout all of the books of Scripture that describe the Messiah's arrival. He will both conduct wars & then when evil is eradicated, he will be the King of Israel & rule the world. (in G-D's name)

I think one but need to take a look at the world & realize this has yet to take place.

In my eyes the better question to ask would be, how can jesus be the Messiah? What prophecies did he fulfill?

[SeanRobinson]

I could not disagree with this any more vehemently than if you were to say that murder was something G-D condones.

I hate to "break it to you" (actually I don't hate to) but you are mistaken. I don't know where you get your facts from, but that statement is witout any basis. (unless your idea of a religious scholar is one who reads comic books all day) As Darth Vader stated "I find your lack of faith disturbing". (that quote is meant to be humorous)

However in all seriousness, the people you claim to be Biblical scholars would be hard pressed to win a Biblical argument with my 10 year old niece.

You are right about one thing though, Moses didn't write it, G-D did. Moses only published it.

Um, ok. Right then. Because you haven't heard of this and the idea is offensive to you, I must be wrong. That makes sense.

I think we can agree that the Vatican is extremely reluctant to accept something that goes against its dogma--after all, it took them until something like 1990 to apologize to Galileo and that whole "the Earth is the center of the universe" thing. So for them to accept Higher (Biblical) Criticism gives it some validity, imho.

Here's a link to the description of said theory, published in a well-regarded Catholic encyclopedia. I'm pretty positive that whoever wrote this doesn't sit around writing/reading comic books all day:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm

Further, acceptance of said theory in NO WAY implies that I have some "lack of faith." I simply recognize that things are perhaps a bit more complex than they're made out to be.

[big shmooz]

Um, ok. Right then. Because you haven't heard of this and the idea is offensive to you, I must be wrong. That makes sense.

I think we can agree that the Vatican is extremely reluctant to accept something that goes against its dogma--after all, it took them until something like 1990 to apologize to Galileo and that whole "the Earth is the center of the universe" thing. So for them to accept Higher (Biblical) Criticism gives it some validity, imho.

Here's a link to the description of said theory, published in a well-regarded Catholic encyclopedia. I'm pretty positive that whoever wrote this doesn't sit around writing/reading comic books all day:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm

Further, acceptance of said theory in NO WAY implies that I have some "lack of faith." I simply recognize that things are perhaps a bit more complex than they're made out to be.

Interestingly enough I actually read the article (minus the new test area's discussed) & what I noticed in all those names of these "critics", nobody is Jewish.

I find this most interesting since I wonder how somebody not Jewish would have access to the information needed here. For instance let us use the arguement of the biblical narrative of Moses's death as there being proof Moses did not write the Bible.

Actually the Talmud discusses this issue way before those "supposed" scholars did. The Talmud states that Joshua wrote the last few verses. There is in fact another opinion that Moses himself wrote about his own death (with tears in his eyes). Why should one find this concept so unthinkable? Can't G-D dictate to Moses to write about his own death just as easily as He can dictate to Moses to write about his own birth?

Another supposed argument the site has is in regard to two different names used in referring to G-D. Actually many many names are used when referring to G-D. In fact if they were truly biblical scholars they would know that in fact none of the names used there are G-D's real name.

Rather the names are denoting attributes of G-D. I challenge any of those people to answer a most basic question... What are the attributes denoted by the 2 Names used in the creation account of Genesis? I also ask them why is one denoted in the first chapter minus the other & why in the second, are both mentioned? Also, why in the second does one attribute precede the other? I highly doubt they would even be able to understand my question, much less give me an answer.

If those people are Biblical scholars, I indeed suggest they go back to reading comic books.

I find it most interesting that this article I read in fact confirms what I earlier stated that my 10 year old niece could defeat those people in a Biblical discussion. (no matter how many times they might have a title before their given name)

I find their arguments to be most childish & lacking most basic wisdom.

In Yiddish there is an expression "a fool you do not show a half a picture". Well, they did not even see half.

Also these people do not understand that the Scripture is written in a fashion that is meant to give more information (to those worthy of obtaining it) than appears on the surface. I will give one such example. If you look in the account of creation you will find that nowhere does it speak of angels being created. Yet in fact Scripture is clear that angels exist. I ask, what day were the angels created? & how do we know this information? The answer is right in Genesis chapter 1. However the answer is only apparent to those privy to it's understanding. I challenge any of those so called Biblical scholars to answer this question. I can guarantee you that none of them know the answer. I can also guarantee you that my 10 year old niece knows the answer.

I would also like to state that the problem with your logic regarding the vatican is, that imho the vatican does not know the answers to these questions either. Hence they are stumped & forced to admit something is very wrong here.

As I said, the lack of any Jewish Rabbi's (who have the best take on this since this is a Jewish document) amongst the listed "scholars" is in fact very telling.

[SeanRobinson]

Well there again you've missed something, which I should have pointed out.

There's a nifty book entitled "Who Wrote the Bible?" (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5634748-4350500?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172826430&sr=8-1)

Interestingly enough, this particular book was not only written by a Jewish man, but he's professor of Hebrew and the Katzin Chair at UCSD. So there has in fact been that perspective.

Here's an interview with him on BeliefNet: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13986_1.html

And you're right, it's plausible that G-d could have told Moses to write of his own death. But you should also consider that, upon identifying the different authors, it's entirely possible to separate each author and come away with a unique, coherent version of each book of the Pentateuch. I've done it.

[big shmooz]

Well there again you've missed something, which I should have pointed out.

There's a nifty book entitled "Who Wrote the Bible?" (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5634748-4350500?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172826430&sr=8-1)

Interestingly enough, this particular book was not only written by a Jewish man, but he's professor of Hebrew and the Katzin Chair at UCSD. So there has in fact been that perspective.

Here's an interview with him on BeliefNet: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13986_1.html

And you're right, it's plausible that G-d could have told Moses to write of his own death. But you should also consider that, upon identifying the different authors, it's entirely possible to separate each author and come away with a unique, coherent version of each book of the Pentateuch. I've done it.

I read the interview. First of all he lied in his first statement that pious Rabbi's said that Moses did not write the first five books. This man intimates that he is in fact not a religious man.

Secondly he fails in the same area that the previous people fail. He too assumes that G-D's name is being used. He also fails to understand the between the lines that any true Biblical scholar would know. He simply copies his predecessor's viewpoints failing to deal with the actual issues that contradict his point of view.

He also seems to claim that there are duplicate stories in the Bible such as Moses in one case hitting the rock (in Rephidim) & there is nothing wrong with what he did & in another case striking the rock (In the desert of Tzin) & he is punished. The problem with this is, if he had done his research he would have realized they took place with an interval of 39 years. There is absolutely no reason to think that they are one episode. (this is but an example of gross negligence on the part of the supposed Biblical scholar)

I also read the excerpt from his book that is linked to in the article. However the main problem with all of this here is, that he fails to understand the Talmud & the Rabbinic teachings on what is said in the Scriptures which is the key to all of this. (I wonder if he ever studied the Talmud)

As I said earlier, "to the fool you do not show half a picture". He failed to read the entire picture & so he comes to a bogus conclusion. How can a person call themselves a scholar when they don't do all the research? This is my biggest issue with him & the other people you showed who have thie truly shallow outlook of what the Scriptures are teaching.

I also read up on his credentials. The katzin chair is a totally secular concept. It has nothing to do with true Biblical scholarship. It is established by the university of California San Diego. The institution that established it is not an institution of Biblical Jewish studies at all.

Actually I disagree with your conclusion that you can come away with a unique, coherent version of each book of the Pentateuch. The reason I disagree is, because you no longer have the information that it is teaching you. Such as that (reading from the excerpt using the color coding) what Moses says does not fit if one is truly a Biblical Scholar. Since Moses says according to whom the author calls J (the layperson) as follows ... 13 And Moses said to the people, "Don't be afraid. Stand still and see YHWH's salvation that He'll do for you today. For, as you've seen Egypt today, you'll never see them again, ever. 14 YHWH will fight for you, and you'll keep quiet!"

However if one scrutinizes this, Moses is answering three different groups. Now the problem with this is, in the previous verses which he says "P" (who is a later author than "J" according to Friedman's hypothesis) writes I quote "And the children of Israel cried out to YHWH.". Now if a later author actually wrote this, then what Moses responds by saying "14 YHWH will fight for you, and you'll keep quiet!" makes no sense, since it was supposedly written by an earlier writer. Basically what I am saying here is, how can one answer a question that was never asked. Yet in fact according to his hypothesis, this is exactly what happens. (the earlier author J is actually responding to P's problem.) Hence I can see even from this excerpt that his hypothesis is folly if one actually looks at Scripture with a critical eye. This is part of the reason why I KNOW the author is in fact NOT a Biblical scholar.

I personally find it odd how people can be so gullible. But then again, most people don't want to try.

I hope this explains things a bit better.

[UncleMo]

Heh, my uncle once said "I'd rather have an ugly girl who can cook and clean than a pretty one that can burn things and sweep stuff under the rug."

I never said that.

[Mrs.AstroEric]

Lucky for me, I got the whole package! (Hear that, Mrs. AstroEric?)

Yes! I hear that!

[DJEagles]

Yes! I hear that!

UncleMo, what's with the duplicate account?

[big shmooz]

Uncle MO? Don't you mean Mrs Astro? LOL just kidding.

[KillerBs]

I never said that.

You did too. You remember the 1980 family reunion?

[big shmooz]

SeanRobinson... I wanted to add one more thing to my above response.

Th Scripture writes (as I posted in a previous post earlier in this thread) a guarantee that when the male population of Israel goes up to the Temple 3 times a year (during the three festivals) that nobody will covet that person's land. If the Bible was written by human hands (as the hypothesis claims) then not only would it be a foolish document, it would have not been a lasting document. since it would have been laughed away by Israel the first time somebody coveted somebody else land during those time periods of the year.

Here is a comparitive scenario.... Imagine if I claim G-D told me to tell you & everybody else in the United States that I guarantee everybody in the United States that they will not think about turning on their computer for the next week when they leave their house this sunday. This becomes publicized to everybody in the United States.

My question is this, what do you think will happen come Sunday? My thoughts are, I would probably be laughed out of town as a lunatic.

Yet in fact the Torah made this very type of guarantee & yet still today has stood the test of time. I think this shows clearly it's Divine authorship.

[abc006]

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/in...?ml_video=83022

[AstroEric]

Th Scripture writes (as I posted in a previous post earlier in this thread) a guarantee that when the male population of Israel goes up to the Temple 3 times a year (during the three festivals) that nobody will covet that person's land.

How does this promise/guarantee fit in with the current Gaza Strip situation?

[big shmooz]

How does this promise/guarantee fit in with the current Gaza Strip situation?

As I explained, it is referring to when the Jews (Israelites) go up to the Temple each year during the festivals. As you know in 69 (some say 70) ce the Temple was destroyed by Rome. Hence there is no longer the 3 times a year pilgrimage. (till the Messiah comes & he will rebuild the Temple)

[djmakaveli]

wow so not worth 300 replies.

[SeanRobinson]

Bigshmooz, thanks for your insightful comments. While I will continue to believe in documentary/biblical/higher criticism, I do believe that you've made a decently good case against it. You're right (I don't think you outright said this but rather implied it), when I did a bit more digging, I did find that the notion was originally brought up by scholars in the Enlightenment who sought to put reason above faith by debunking divine authorship.

However, while you have poked a number of holes in the theory, it's still quite the leap to say that these several authors didn't write it, ergo Moses must have. There's a gap there that you haven't addressed. Further, you seem to be ignoring the idea that just because the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that does not mean that it was not divinely inspired, or even dictated. Do you think it's possible that the proclamations from Sinai were written down but then passed on orally? Or that the original writing was lost somewhere in the ensuing centuries, especially once the twelve tribes scattered into captivity? That perhaps the persecuted Jews in Babylon sought to lay out their faith and what separated them from their captors, so they put together what they could based on the writings and oral traditions available to them?

Or, perhaps I can explain this by referring to the NT authorship--I know you're not a Christian and not as familiar w/ the New Testament, but this does inform my perspective. We know that St. Matthew and St. Luke (and probably St. John) were not of the Twelve but were rather later students (this is based on the age of the oldest copies of their Gospels found). After all, most followers believed that Jesus would return within their lifetime, so there was no immediate need to write things down. Once this didn't happen and the Twelve and their disciples began to die out, they recognized the necessity of writing out their beliefs and what they knew. In turn, Matthew/Luke are based on an earlier source document, possibly Mark. So I think it's possible that something similar happened with the Pentateuch and other books within the OT. That is, maybe Moses did write things down originally but we didn't get the books we have today until much later.

In any case, this is probably something on which we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[big shmooz]

I would actually like to respond to your above comment, but unfortunately it will have to wait as it is almost the Sabbath here in New York & I must leave. I may be able to respond after the Sabbath ends tomorrow night. But since the holiday of Purim is tomorrow night, I can't be positive. However G-D willing I plan on responding as soon as I can. Thank you for the discussion & giving me much food for thought. I do appreciate that.

[Edam]

And now for a little levity...

http://www.godwords.org/