Thank you for watching! My son says thank you also! It's been a glorious day!

Tony.

Congratulations, Benny!

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
... You maintain that the soldiers would have seen the outer veil torn while being near the crucifixion on Calvary. That's a hard stretch because Calvary would not have been on the temple grounds and the veils themselves would be inside the temple's enclosed structure which itself would be surrounded by the outer courts.

I would ask that you consider it. I do believe that there's more evidence on my end. I also am willing to accept that I could be wrong. It's just my reading and it's just not a salvation issue to think one way or the other. It's just good, clean conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

The moment was significant enough that dead people came up alive from their tombs

When it comes to deferring to the gospels, what do we do with things like this? As best I can tell, based on internet research, these resurrections aren't corroborated in any other gospels, and are given only the single passing mention in Matthew.

I would go with the priority and significance of what is in question.

The priority is that we would not be talking about whether people rose up from their grave when Jesus died if we do not have the story of the resurrection. The resurrection is the central tenet of the Christian faith. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:17, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."

Earlier in the chapter, Paul said, "... I declare to you the gospel... by which also you are saved,.... For I delivered to you first of all that... Christ died for our sins.... and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day... and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present.... After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles."

That's what anybody who says they believe in Jesus has to be certain of, that Jesus indeed died and then He rose from the dead. And there's been many intellectual arguments that lead to the rational conclusion that Jesus had to have been raised from the dead to explain all the stories and events afterwards.

If you have that nailed down, then you have the option of deciding whether such a thing or anything is consistent or possible with the idea that a dead man can rise from the dead on His own accord.

For the dead rising from their graves, I would say it's not inconsistent for such an event to occur given Jesus was supposedly the Son of God who rose from the dead and He was also able to make Lazarus rise from the dead along with a dead child.

That it was only Matthew that shares that account isn't a contradiction. There are many things the four gospels are not lined up exactly. Others argue that the fact the four gospels are not perfectly lined up speaks to the accuracy of each as related by different eyewitnesses.

For other things for which I have not resolved yet perfectly, I'm fine with being ambiguous about it. I say that whatever the Bible appears to be saying is true even though it may defy my understanding. One best example for me is that the Bible insists there is only one God but the Bible also asserts that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I can accept all these while still recognizing the apparent discrepancy. Christianity has labeled the idea as the Trinity or the Triune God But those are just labels, not reconciliations of the seemingly divergent facts. And I pretty much know that no human explanation will fully resolve it in this life. I'm fine with that.

I don't think everything in the Bible must be literally factual to be valuable and beneficial. I don't believe it is a scientific exposition of the creation story, but I can't think of a better way to explain it from a faith perspective. I'm not convinced a lot of things in the Bible are necessarily literally factual, but I think the lessons those stories are trying to teach us are infinitely valuable and important to the human race. I don't think everyone should believe this way, because for all I know I could be completely wrong, and strictly speaking from a scientific and statistical pov, I imagine more than half of what I believe is probably completely false. But that is the human condition by definition, because if we had perfect knowledge we would be God by definition. There's just no way to really know one way or the other. It is what it is and everyone needs to find their path if they want or need one.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
I would ask that you consider it. I do believe that there's more evidence on my end. I also am willing to accept that I could be wrong. It's just my reading and it's just not a salvation issue to think one way or the other. It's just good, clean conversation.

I did thoughtfully consider it. That was why I was able to come up with my reasonings:

1) that it doesn’t say the centurion specifically saw the curtain being torn from top to bottom.

2) that the centurion was with Jesus at Calvary which would have been some distance from the temple.

3) and I think this is the key: that the inner and outer curtains were inside the structure of the temple which, itself, was surrounded by courts. If the outer veil was inside the temple structure, how could it be visible from outside the structure much less from a distance?

4) your stated significance of the outer veil tearing means the priesthood is no longer limited to the Levites falls short because even with Jesus not everyone can be a priest; you have to be a believer. The second part is, if only the outer veil was torn, then the inner veil remains through which the High Priest can enter only once each year on the Day of Atonement. But as Hebrews pointed out, Jesus entered the Holy of holies once for all by His own blood.

#3, as I said, is the biggest obstacle to the idea that it was the outer veil because the centurion and those with him saw it. But my reasonings indicate I did consider what you said.

A question about Judaism: Does Judaism officially condemn Jesus as a false prophet, blasphemer, and heretic?

Based on my limited research, they choose to simply ignore him. They don't acknowledge him as a prophet, like Islam does, and they don't officially rebuke him. Though they do leverage idolatry against Christians, for worshipping Him. And they apparently speculate that Jesus was an insane person.

Is there an official statement in fundamental Jewish doctrine, that officially condemns Jesus, and declares a stance?

There’s not really such a thing as evangelism in Judaism. I think it’s more likely that they live and let live. Some jews are more hardcore and will shout you down if you step on their ideals. They call Jesus “that man” as they won’t even say his name. Some get heated if you claim that Jesus is their Messiah. Some claim that a gentile that follows the Noahide laws are righteous. Others claim that gentile that follow the Torah are wasting their time because only Jews get credit from God. Some are absolutely horrible people that hide their bigotry behind religion. Some Jews are messianic and consider Jesus their Messiah. My guess is there’s no consensus.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
I would ask that you consider it. I do believe that there's more evidence on my end. I also am willing to accept that I could be wrong. It's just my reading and it's just not a salvation issue to think one way or the other. It's just good, clean conversation.

I did thoughtfully consider it. That was why I was able to come up with my reasonings:

1) that it doesn’t say the centurion specifically saw the curtain being torn from top to bottom.

2) that the centurion was with Jesus at Calvary which would have been some distance from the temple.

3) and I think this is the key: that the inner and outer curtains were inside the structure of the temple which, itself, was surrounded by courts. If the outer veil was inside the temple structure, how could it be visible from outside the structure much less from a distance?

4) your stated significance of the outer veil tearing means the priesthood is no longer limited to the Levites falls short because even with Jesus not everyone can be a priest; you have to be a believer. The second part is, if only the outer veil was torn, then the inner veil remains through which the High Priest can enter only once each year on the Day of Atonement. But as Hebrews pointed out, Jesus entered the Holy of holies once for all by His own blood.

#3, as I said, is the biggest obstacle to the idea that it was the outer veil because the centurion and those with him saw it. But my reasonings indicate I did consider what you said.

I didn’t intend to state a significace in your #4. I simply offered a consideration. Keep in mind that it is said that there’s only one position where the outer veil would be visible from outside. It seems that place was the top of Golgotha.

I don’t want you to consider my points as the only arguments for my position.

I have noticed a pattern though. My position on the outer veil is held strictly by Christians that do not believe the Mosaic law was abolished by Christ. Perhaps it’s a distrust in modern doctrine.

Mark123's reply containing quoted material of mine represents my post before an edit I made shortly after posting. After my initial post, I thought to phrase my research query differently, which did yield more informative results, which my revised post reflects.

I think a Jew that is not messianic ought to have a very strong poor opinion of Jesus. Not to would seem, to me, to be dishonest.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Mark123's reply containing quoted material of mine represents my post before an edit I made shortly after posting. After my initial post, I thought to phrase my research query differently, which did yield more informative results, which my revised post reflects.

I think a Jew that is not messianic ought to have a very strong poor opinion of Jesus. Not to would seem, to me, to be dishonest.

I took the quote out.
Many of them do have a poor opinion of Jesus. The worst that i have heard is the claim that He’s a cursed one that is boiling in excrement in hell. So there’s that. *shrug*

However, I think that most everyday Jews just don’t think about Jesus. I don’t think they care.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
However, I think that most everyday Jews just don’t think about Jesus.

That’s understandable, just as most Christians don’t think about “The God” (Allah) of Islam. But because virtually all Americans are exposed to Christian ideas and doctrines to some degree, I’m curious whether some Jews doubt the entire New Testament story, and reject or at least question whether the Jesus of the Gospels even actually existed. That is a position that some nonbelievers hold, so I’m curious how common it might be among Jews. An alternative belief might be that someone by that name might have existed, but was simply an ordinary, if charismatic, man.

Comments?

I don't think the idea that Jesus was merely a charismatic dude is sustainable. C.S. Lewis postulates that one must decide between two possibilities: Either Jesus is who He says He is, or He is a madman. No one ought to give credibility as a "moral teacher", or anything else, to am insane person.

I think the head-butting between Judaism and Christianity is more direct than any conflict Islam may have with other Abrahamic religions. If my understanding is correct, Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy, and marked a divergence in a previously shared timeline. Islam came seven centuries later, and didn't adopt the entirety of the the pre-Jesus Abrahamic history.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
… If my understanding is correct, Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy, and marked a divergence in a previously shared timeline. …

Yes, Jesus fulfilled quite literally all of the messianic prophecies. Judaism subverts this by scaring the common Jew So that they won’t read the New Testament and if they do they’ve already been poisoned against it. It’s quite literally painted as antisemetic in rabbinical Judaism. Let’s not even get into what the Babylonian Talmud says about non-Jews.

Let me be clear. I am not antisemetic. I do pray for Israel and i pray for Jewish folks. It may not be what they want me to pray (for them to realize the truth of Jesus as their messiah) but I care for them.

It wasn’t supposed to be a divergence though. Simply stated, Christianity is a sect of Judaism. I believe that modern Christianity’s putting away of the Old Testament is much like modern Judaism denying the validity of the New Testament.

There is a sect of Judaism called the Karaites that reject the Talmud and consider only the Tanakh as authoritative. I side with them in this case. They do not consider “oral law” and other additions as binding or even necessary as the Old Testament is self-explanatory.

I take the same stance against doctrinal and traditional additions in the Christian faith. I’m one of those Sola Scriptura fellows. I also believe as they do that the scriptures must be read in context of how they would have been understood at the time of their writing by the audience they were written to.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

I also believe as they do that the scriptures must be read in context of how they would have been understood at the time of their writing by the audience they were written to.

Many years ago (71 years ago, but time flies when you're having fun), I spent my freshman at a college not far from you, Hiram (Ohio). Hiram was originally a divinity school, and every student was required to take at least one course from the religion department. I chose "Philosophy of the Old Testament Prophets," which analyzed the writings of the prophets with respect to the social, political, and economic conditions that existed at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Judaism subverts this by scaring the common Jew So that they won’t read the New Testament and if they do they’ve already been poisoned against it. It’s quite literally painted as antisemetic in rabbinical Judaism.

Wasn’t the New Testament the only basis for the traditional doctrine that is still accepted by many people that Jews were “Christ killers,” and that was justification for everything from economic and social discrimination against them to the pogroms? Couldn’t that be considered to be antisemitism?

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
I didn’t intend to state a significace in your #4. I simply offered a consideration. Keep in mind that it is said that there’s only one position where the outer veil would be visible from outside. It seems that place was the top of Golgotha.

I don’t want you to consider my points as the only arguments for my position.

I have noticed a pattern though. My position on the outer veil is held strictly by Christians that do not believe the Mosaic law was abolished by Christ. Perhaps it’s a distrust in modern doctrine.

How is anyone supposed to be able to verify that there's only one position where the outer veil would be visible from outside and that one place would be on top of Golgotha? And that the curtain would tear in the one place that would be visible only from Golgotha? We have the chapters in 1 Kings 6-7 and 2 Chronicles 3-4 detailing the lay out. These passages show the temple's sacred elements, like the veils, were within protective structures and courtyards preventing them from being visible outside the temple complex.

Your points are the only arguments I have for your position. I have honestly not come across that idea and why anyone would posit it's the outer veil that was torn as opposed to the inner veil. In logical discussions, there's a rule that the person who makes the assertion has the responsibility to support the assertion; it's not on anybody else to disprove or prove the assertion.

You associate this belief with people who do not believe the Mosaic law was abolished by Christ and call it "modern doctrine." I suppose one can say that if they believe the New Testament is "modern doctrine." Do you believe that the Mosaic law was not abolished by Jesus?

If so, which parts or does the complete Mosaic law still stands? Are Christians suppose to follow the Mosaic law? Because, seriously, from a cursory reading of the new testament, much of the epistles were written to stop people from going back to thinking they had to follow the Mosaic law as the way to God's grace.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
... Do you believe that the Mosaic law was not abolished by Jesus?

If so, which parts or does the complete Mosaic law still stands? Are Christians suppose to follow the Mosaic law? Because, seriously, from a cursory reading of the new testament, much of the epistles were written to stop people from going back to thinking they had to follow the Mosaic law as the way to God's grace.

I do not believe that Jesus abolished the Mosaic law. He specifically said just that. It goes beyond a cursory reading and has nothing to do with garnering God's grace.

Similar to the Israelites in exile, we keep what is possible to keep and look forward to a day when the rest becomes available to us.

I have come across others that come to the same conclusion as I do concerning the outer veil and it does seem that they also reject the idea that the Torah law was abolished by Christ. It seems exclusive to this group and I find that very interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

I also believe as they do that the scriptures must be read in context of how they would have been understood at the time of their writing by the audience they were written to.

Many years ago (71 years ago, but time flies when you're having fun), I spent my freshman at a college not far from you, Hiram (Ohio). Hiram was originally a divinity school, and every student was required to take at least one course from the religion department. I chose "Philosophy of the Old Testament Prophets," which analyzed the writings of the prophets with respect to the social, political, and economic conditions that existed at the time.

I've had no such opportunity but it seems that would be extremely interesting.