MaxSteiner
2005-03-07, 11:48
quote: it is NOT common belief in Jewish Faith[QUOTE]
That wasnt your contention though was it? you were saying there was no such belief.
In addition all pointers indicate that the Zohar is influanced by verbal traditions, dating back before the arrival of Christianity, hence not being a reaction too it.
[QUOTE]Further, this adds nothing on the level of metaphysics or philosophy.
[QUOTE]
Ok, so wait, the concept of a trinity isn't a metaphysical one?
I suggest you look into!
[Quote]
Torah
Level: Basic
""Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah."
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
{Quote}
Hell of a way too use half a source dude! And the first thing that comes up on google at that, here let me add the rest of the quote, the bit you left out
"the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings. "
Therefore the Torah can be argued too include all Jewish writings, not just the few books that make up the OT.
In fact the Torah comprises 39 books I believe, including several that are only found in the Apocrytha, not in the bible.
For you too calim that the OT is all of the Torah seems a remarkably sweeping, and for that matter simply wrong, remark.
Carrying on our theme, of me being right, you being full of shit and the possibility of using the Torah as a catch all term including the Talamud, or oral tradition. Now, follow this line of thought, the Talamud is oral, and as such not generally printed.
And there are infact parts which have not seen print, and hence not been translated. Now I admit I was partially wrong for claiming that the Torah hasn't been translated, it is a rather broad statement, but the fact remains, you try finding the Toldoth Yeshu in English but you wont as:
"In 1631, a Jewish synod in Poland ordered the offending passages to be expunged, and that these teaching were to be passed on orally to young Jews by Rabbis and parents."
Siince you seem not to accept books as sources: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-toledot.htm
[QUOTE]There is a differance between spirirtually and physically, I suggest you look it up you stupid prick.
I still stand behind this, you actually seem incapable of accepting things you cant understand, and indeed lashing out at anyone who defends such points. The fact is, if you cant understand what happens at the Eucharist, you should just decline from talking about it.
quote:As too having too disprove that Jesus denied he was God, I dont, you should just read any of the Gospals.
Ok you ignorant sonava married couple, here are some quotes which prove it, and another weblink (Again since according too you, Books are not admisable sources)
"but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36)
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
"I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me." (John 5:30)
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
"Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..." (John 5:19)
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I."
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
Luke 22:42, "not my will but thine be done,"
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
John 5:30, "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me."
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
You might begin too see my point, there a whole lot more, and hell Ive provided quotes, and a website: http://www.iiie.net/Brochures/Brochure-08.html
Now what was your point again? Oh never mind.
Ok, onto your next glaring ideological hole::
I said quote:Thje fact that the Apophryca exist, or the dead scrolls exist is enough too prove thers more too chrisitanity than meets the eye you moron, take a fucking look.
You said "Stop name dropping, support your argument."
Now come with me on a rollarcoaster ride you poor stupid cunt. The deadsea scrolls being unearthed is one of the most important religious events in the last hundred years, Im not refering too anythinng within them, merly their existance, and the fact that they contain Christian works outside the contempory cannon, for instance the book of the Magdaline. Hence there is clearly more too the faith than what is presented in the bible.
The Apophryca are books of the bible which were removed because it was felt that they would only confuse the common flock of the church, once again there is more too the bible than what is presented outright.
How the fuck was any of this obscure or hard to understand???????
The
"Noone said the trinity was an unimportant idea. I said it was a stupid idea,""It is not an independant philosophical system and is not worthy of that status."
Ok now you see, youve made two mistakes the first is your seriously saying you havent read the Golden Bough, one of the most important works on the subject of comparitive religion?
And yet youve "studied for years", possibly your navel, little else I fear.
The secound is your claiming that the Trinity only exists within christianity.
Ok son, now why is this, would you care too explain away the hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, the Egyptian triad of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, or perhaps the Norse trinity of Odin, Thor and Frey, hell infact a google search on any world faith will show that they have a trinity.
Now, if you had actually read the Golden Bough you would know this, because the gist of the work is (Aside from a bit of Jingoism) all religionbs tend too be made of the same elements because they are made too fulfill the same need.
s the concept of the trinity is found in all faiths, it is clearly a seperate concept.
The fact that you are unable too explain it doesnt detract from this, and the fact that you dont know it is pretty shocking.
quote:Any more points I have too fucking hold your hand and lead you through?
Max, you are a fucking little baby. A shrill, colicy, walking temper tantrum. You DONT PROVE THINGS BY INSISTING ON THEM and calling people names. All of this spazing proves nothing. Show supporting evidence.
quote:A search of any of the points I list will prove not only that you are wrong, but you are a prick.
"If the vatican issues a rule it becomes true by all accounts" Now, If I recall, what I infact said was from a religious standpoint it became true. As the Vatican serves as the head of the church any papel bulls issued bare the authority of the head of the faith, and hence are true, from a religious stand point, moron.
"Jesus never said he was the son of god, and the bible doesnt claim this. Nor does God claim to be the father of jesus. Eve though in the very reference you posted he did"
I didnt say that you stupid gimp, I said that Jesus wasnt God, which Ive proven.
Ok, there you go. As an aside, why is it that you think posting the first link that comes up in a Google search is more relevant than a common book?
And where and what did you "study for many years" because you seem too be lacking understanding in a great deal of things.
And dont reply with "Ugh, these not weblinks, me no check, only websites matter"
If I list the name of a book, all you have too do is run a search and read the synopsis. God forbid, maybe even fucking read it!
[This message has been edited by MaxSteiner (edited 03-07-2005).]
That wasnt your contention though was it? you were saying there was no such belief.
In addition all pointers indicate that the Zohar is influanced by verbal traditions, dating back before the arrival of Christianity, hence not being a reaction too it.
[QUOTE]Further, this adds nothing on the level of metaphysics or philosophy.
[QUOTE]
Ok, so wait, the concept of a trinity isn't a metaphysical one?
I suggest you look into!
[Quote]
Torah
Level: Basic
""Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah."
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
{Quote}
Hell of a way too use half a source dude! And the first thing that comes up on google at that, here let me add the rest of the quote, the bit you left out
"the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings. "
Therefore the Torah can be argued too include all Jewish writings, not just the few books that make up the OT.
In fact the Torah comprises 39 books I believe, including several that are only found in the Apocrytha, not in the bible.
For you too calim that the OT is all of the Torah seems a remarkably sweeping, and for that matter simply wrong, remark.
Carrying on our theme, of me being right, you being full of shit and the possibility of using the Torah as a catch all term including the Talamud, or oral tradition. Now, follow this line of thought, the Talamud is oral, and as such not generally printed.
And there are infact parts which have not seen print, and hence not been translated. Now I admit I was partially wrong for claiming that the Torah hasn't been translated, it is a rather broad statement, but the fact remains, you try finding the Toldoth Yeshu in English but you wont as:
"In 1631, a Jewish synod in Poland ordered the offending passages to be expunged, and that these teaching were to be passed on orally to young Jews by Rabbis and parents."
Siince you seem not to accept books as sources: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-toledot.htm
[QUOTE]There is a differance between spirirtually and physically, I suggest you look it up you stupid prick.
I still stand behind this, you actually seem incapable of accepting things you cant understand, and indeed lashing out at anyone who defends such points. The fact is, if you cant understand what happens at the Eucharist, you should just decline from talking about it.
quote:As too having too disprove that Jesus denied he was God, I dont, you should just read any of the Gospals.
Ok you ignorant sonava married couple, here are some quotes which prove it, and another weblink (Again since according too you, Books are not admisable sources)
"but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36)
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
"I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me." (John 5:30)
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
"Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..." (John 5:19)
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I."
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
Luke 22:42, "not my will but thine be done,"
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
John 5:30, "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me."
If he was god he wouldnt have too say this
You might begin too see my point, there a whole lot more, and hell Ive provided quotes, and a website: http://www.iiie.net/Brochures/Brochure-08.html
Now what was your point again? Oh never mind.
Ok, onto your next glaring ideological hole::
I said quote:Thje fact that the Apophryca exist, or the dead scrolls exist is enough too prove thers more too chrisitanity than meets the eye you moron, take a fucking look.
You said "Stop name dropping, support your argument."
Now come with me on a rollarcoaster ride you poor stupid cunt. The deadsea scrolls being unearthed is one of the most important religious events in the last hundred years, Im not refering too anythinng within them, merly their existance, and the fact that they contain Christian works outside the contempory cannon, for instance the book of the Magdaline. Hence there is clearly more too the faith than what is presented in the bible.
The Apophryca are books of the bible which were removed because it was felt that they would only confuse the common flock of the church, once again there is more too the bible than what is presented outright.
How the fuck was any of this obscure or hard to understand???????
The
"Noone said the trinity was an unimportant idea. I said it was a stupid idea,""It is not an independant philosophical system and is not worthy of that status."
Ok now you see, youve made two mistakes the first is your seriously saying you havent read the Golden Bough, one of the most important works on the subject of comparitive religion?
And yet youve "studied for years", possibly your navel, little else I fear.
The secound is your claiming that the Trinity only exists within christianity.
Ok son, now why is this, would you care too explain away the hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, the Egyptian triad of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, or perhaps the Norse trinity of Odin, Thor and Frey, hell infact a google search on any world faith will show that they have a trinity.
Now, if you had actually read the Golden Bough you would know this, because the gist of the work is (Aside from a bit of Jingoism) all religionbs tend too be made of the same elements because they are made too fulfill the same need.
s the concept of the trinity is found in all faiths, it is clearly a seperate concept.
The fact that you are unable too explain it doesnt detract from this, and the fact that you dont know it is pretty shocking.
quote:Any more points I have too fucking hold your hand and lead you through?
Max, you are a fucking little baby. A shrill, colicy, walking temper tantrum. You DONT PROVE THINGS BY INSISTING ON THEM and calling people names. All of this spazing proves nothing. Show supporting evidence.
quote:A search of any of the points I list will prove not only that you are wrong, but you are a prick.
"If the vatican issues a rule it becomes true by all accounts" Now, If I recall, what I infact said was from a religious standpoint it became true. As the Vatican serves as the head of the church any papel bulls issued bare the authority of the head of the faith, and hence are true, from a religious stand point, moron.
"Jesus never said he was the son of god, and the bible doesnt claim this. Nor does God claim to be the father of jesus. Eve though in the very reference you posted he did"
I didnt say that you stupid gimp, I said that Jesus wasnt God, which Ive proven.
Ok, there you go. As an aside, why is it that you think posting the first link that comes up in a Google search is more relevant than a common book?
And where and what did you "study for many years" because you seem too be lacking understanding in a great deal of things.
And dont reply with "Ugh, these not weblinks, me no check, only websites matter"
If I list the name of a book, all you have too do is run a search and read the synopsis. God forbid, maybe even fucking read it!
[This message has been edited by MaxSteiner (edited 03-07-2005).]