"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:3dbf28dc.1257204 at newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
> >>>>Then you cannot say with certainty that God did indeed choose "ALL
> >>>>of mankind" if you read that in a Bible which is not 100% accurate.
>> >>>Nothing can be said with certainty. You might be a butterfly dreaming
> >>>you are "Jd" and posting on the Internet. There might be no Bible at
> >>>all, and it might be a figment of your imagination, or you might be a
> >>>figment of mine.
>> >>Uncertainty is a law of quantum mechanics devolped by Heisenberg.
> >>Scientists operate within the realm of probabilities and therefore
> >>restrict themselves from certainty.
>> >The "butterfly dreaming" thing came from some ancient Chinese
>> Heisenberg was German as were many of the guys who developed the
> laws of physics.
>> >>>If the Bible is true, then I see no basis for a claim of selective
> >>>grace. If the Bible is not true, then it may or may not matter, but I
> >>>choose to have faith anyway.
> >>Faith in something that may not be true?
> >If there were proof that it is true, then it would not be faith.
>> Faith is proof by biblical definition.
>> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
> things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
>> Luther was also German. He was more concerned with the "substance"
> of faith than that of sub-atomic particles.
>> >>Unbelief which comes by doubt and uncertainty may very well be
> >>predicated on the rejection of the existence of truth. Truth also
> >>comes via the spoken word, for if it were not so, Jesus would have
> >>to had written his thoughts down with pen and ink. Instead, he
>> >Unfortunately the spoken word that is not written cannot be testified
> >to. My understanding is that the Talmud that you anti-Semites condemn
> >started as nothing other than the remembrance of the spoken word that
> >had been passed down for centuries, finally being written down so that
> >it might not be lost in the Jewish diaspora. The Old Testament that
> >we have is those oral traditions which was written down at the time of
> >the Babylonian captivity, and after the return for the same reason.
>> That's basically irrelevant. Down through the centuries God has
> sent his men to speak His word. Lastly God sent His Son, upon whom
> they who knew the Talmud passed the death sentence...
>> "Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your
> fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds
> of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their
> sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them
> prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and
> persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from
> the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation."
> - Jesus (Luke 11:47-50)
>> When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried
> out, saying, "Crucify him, crucify him". Pilate saith unto them,
> "Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him". The Jews
> answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,
> because he made himself the Son of God". (John 19:6-7)
>> Also it's irrelevant due to the fact that not even all Jews
> themselves adhere to the Rabbinical form of Talmidism any more than
> all Christians adhere to the Popery of the Papal decrees.
>> Your view that the Talmud is a type of codification of the oral
> Torah is off by one order of magnitude in that the earliest
> document of rabbinic literature is the "Mishnah" not the Talmud.
>> Your problem is that you're uncertain when you should be certain,
> and certain when you should be uncertain.
>> >>The Hebrews in the wilderness were preached to as were the folks in
> >>Jesus' day...
>> >Yep. And some of the oldest parts of the Talmud are the record of
> >those teachings (and the rest of the Talmud is the commentary trying
> >to figure out what those teachings meant)
>> >>For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the
> >>word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
> >>them that heard it. (Hebrews 4:2)
>> >Which is why many or even most of the Talmudic interpretations might
> >not be acceptable to Christians.
>> Of course not. You may not attribute the fact that Christians would
> never pass the death sentence upon the Son of God to hindsight
> because they wouldn't have passed the death sentence upon the other
> prophets that God sent down through the centuries either. To not
> accept traditional Talmudic interpretations is no more a crime than
> denouncing Papal decrees.
lojbab's ambidextrous logic is that the jews who practiced the "traditions
of the elders" which Jesus condemned, which they later wrote as the Talmud,
were also *Israelites*.
But jews were the historic enemies of the Israelites, just as Israelites
were the historic enemies of the jews, so the only way they could be one and
the same is if you're a "liberal" who "feels stongly both ways" [read:
school prayer was banned, but it wasn't banned].
The Holy Bible was written by Israelites about Israelites, and the Talmud
was written by jews for jews. The two documents are just as different from
each other as Israelites and jews are from each other.
The Talmud claims that Jesus was an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier who
was hanged for blasphemy and is now boiling in hot excrement, which is not a
slight difference from the view of Jesus in the Holy Bible. It's IMPOSSIBLE
that the same race of people could have written both.