> Midrash is not the inspired holy Word of God. Midrash is not sacred writings, but instead human commentary. Midrash has no authority, only interest.
Jesus used them. Midrash contains God's revelations as Jews lost the touch with their revelation. Midrash series include manmade commentary on Torah as well as God's explanation.
> Anybody can write anything they want. Who cares. We recognize as authoritative only the writings from God (the Old and New Testaments).
Then come up with another scripture. You are bound with God's revelation and there is no escape from Him.
> Yes, that's from a century or much more after Jesus. It's not authoritative, but only of historical interest. I really couldn't care what it says about Jesus and Mary. It has no Scriptural authority. I'm sure I could find some writings about Mohammed from 8th century Europe, about 150 years after his life, that would not be so complimentary. And about those you would say, "Those have no authority. We only follow the Qur'an and the Hadith." Same here. The Talmud has no authority to tell us anything about Jesus and Mary.
Jews have saved these Midrash notes for themselves when Christian scholars discovered Gospel and started studiying the Torah Midrash hence Talmud became part of religious teaching througout (at least in larger circles then before) in Roman Empire.
Midrash existed before they were written, putting them on paper doesn't change they weren't from God or Jesus used them.
Please share freely what has been found about Quran, God's latest revelation, 150 years after late Prophet's death.
What is placed in Talmud brought the second expulsion of Israelites from their land, first was caused by what they have placed in Torah. The second is because of their doing to Talmud.
Board index ‹ Christianity
Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part
by Conga » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:49 am
- Conga
Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part
by jimwalton » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:10 am
> Jesus used them.
Where? Reference, please.
> Then come up with another scripture. You are bound with God's revelation and there is no escape from Him.
I don't know what you mean. There is no other Scripture. God has revealed Himself in the Old and New Testaments, and those (and only those) are the authoritative writings. I am bound to them, and they are what I obey.
> Jews have saved these Midrash notes for themselves when Christian scholars discovered Gospel and started studiying the Torah Midrash hence Talmud became part of religious teaching througout (at least in larger circles then before) in Roman Empire.
You are tying things together that history does not tie, and you are saying more things that are untrue. The Jews saved Midrash notes, yes. But Christians didn't "Discover" the Gospel. They were eyewitnesses and wrote the Gospel. The Christians didn't start studying the Torah after they wrote the Gospels, they were raised to follow the Torah. The Talmud did become part of the religious teaching throughout the Roman Empire, but that has nothing to do with the Gospels.
> Midrash existed before they were written, putting them on paper doesn't change they weren't from God or Jesus used them.
You are tying things together that history doesn't tie. Yes, midrash existed before they were written, but they were always regarded (even by the Jews) as human commentary, not the word of the Lord or revelation from God.
And if you are claiming that Jesus used them, please give me a reference to give evidence of what you are saying.
> Please share freely what has been found about Quran, God's latest revelation, 150 years after late Prophet's death.
From an article (just to say it is not my work):
The earliest written Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources, written shortly after Muhammad's death in 632. In the anti-Jewish polemic "The Teaching of Jacob," a dialogue between a recent Christian convert and several Jews, one participant writes that his brother "wrote to [him] saying that a deceiving prophet has appeared amidst the Saracens". Another participant in the Doctrina replies about Muhammad: "He is deceiving. For do prophets come with sword and chariot?, …[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed". The author seems to know of Mohammad's existence and represents both Jews and Christians as viewing him in a negative light.
Knowledge of Muhammad was available in Christendom from after the early expansion of Islam and, later, the translation of a polemical work by John of Damascus, who used the phrase "false prophet" in "Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin.". According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Christian knowledge of Muhammad's life "was nearly always used abusively". Another influential source was the Epistolae Saraceni or the “Letters of a Saracen” written by an Oriental Christian and translated into Latin from Arabic. From the 9th century onwards, highly negative biographies of Muhammad were written in Latin, such as the one by Álvaro of Córdoba proclaiming him the Antichrist. Christendom also gained some knowledge of Muhammad through the Mozarabs of Spain, such as the 9th-century Eulogius of Córdoba, who was one of the Martyrs of Córdoba.
Nicetas of Byzantium wrote: In short, Muhammad was an ignorant charlatan who succeeded by imposture in seducing the ignorant barbarian Arabs into accepting a gross, blaspheming, idolatrous, demoniac religion, which is full of futile errors, intellectual enormities, doctrinal errors and moral aberrations.
Summary: Muhammad was regarded as a deceiving prophet, a violent, blasphemous charlatan, and possibly even an anti-Christ.
That's just a brief survey of some writings.
Regarding the Qur'an, early critics questioned both its morality and authenticity. The most common criticisms concern various pre-existing sources upon which the Qur'an relies, internal inconsistency, and its immoral teachings. In 746 John of Damascus (sometimes St. John of Damascus, who spent his career as secretary to the Caliph in Damascus) wrote the "Fount of Knowledge" (part 2) of which is entitled "Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin." In this work John makes extensive reference to the Quran and, in his opinion, its failure to live up to even the most basic scrutiny. He said:
> What is placed in Talmud brought the second expulsion of Israelites from their land
This is not true. The Israelites were expelled from the land because they started a rebellion on the basis of Roman taxation.
> first was caused by what they have placed in Torah.
To what are you referring?
> The second is because of their doing to Talmud.
To what are you referring?
Where? Reference, please.
> Then come up with another scripture. You are bound with God's revelation and there is no escape from Him.
I don't know what you mean. There is no other Scripture. God has revealed Himself in the Old and New Testaments, and those (and only those) are the authoritative writings. I am bound to them, and they are what I obey.
> Jews have saved these Midrash notes for themselves when Christian scholars discovered Gospel and started studiying the Torah Midrash hence Talmud became part of religious teaching througout (at least in larger circles then before) in Roman Empire.
You are tying things together that history does not tie, and you are saying more things that are untrue. The Jews saved Midrash notes, yes. But Christians didn't "Discover" the Gospel. They were eyewitnesses and wrote the Gospel. The Christians didn't start studying the Torah after they wrote the Gospels, they were raised to follow the Torah. The Talmud did become part of the religious teaching throughout the Roman Empire, but that has nothing to do with the Gospels.
> Midrash existed before they were written, putting them on paper doesn't change they weren't from God or Jesus used them.
You are tying things together that history doesn't tie. Yes, midrash existed before they were written, but they were always regarded (even by the Jews) as human commentary, not the word of the Lord or revelation from God.
And if you are claiming that Jesus used them, please give me a reference to give evidence of what you are saying.
> Please share freely what has been found about Quran, God's latest revelation, 150 years after late Prophet's death.
From an article (just to say it is not my work):
The earliest written Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources, written shortly after Muhammad's death in 632. In the anti-Jewish polemic "The Teaching of Jacob," a dialogue between a recent Christian convert and several Jews, one participant writes that his brother "wrote to [him] saying that a deceiving prophet has appeared amidst the Saracens". Another participant in the Doctrina replies about Muhammad: "He is deceiving. For do prophets come with sword and chariot?, …[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed". The author seems to know of Mohammad's existence and represents both Jews and Christians as viewing him in a negative light.
Knowledge of Muhammad was available in Christendom from after the early expansion of Islam and, later, the translation of a polemical work by John of Damascus, who used the phrase "false prophet" in "Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin.". According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Christian knowledge of Muhammad's life "was nearly always used abusively". Another influential source was the Epistolae Saraceni or the “Letters of a Saracen” written by an Oriental Christian and translated into Latin from Arabic. From the 9th century onwards, highly negative biographies of Muhammad were written in Latin, such as the one by Álvaro of Córdoba proclaiming him the Antichrist. Christendom also gained some knowledge of Muhammad through the Mozarabs of Spain, such as the 9th-century Eulogius of Córdoba, who was one of the Martyrs of Córdoba.
Nicetas of Byzantium wrote: In short, Muhammad was an ignorant charlatan who succeeded by imposture in seducing the ignorant barbarian Arabs into accepting a gross, blaspheming, idolatrous, demoniac religion, which is full of futile errors, intellectual enormities, doctrinal errors and moral aberrations.
Summary: Muhammad was regarded as a deceiving prophet, a violent, blasphemous charlatan, and possibly even an anti-Christ.
That's just a brief survey of some writings.
Regarding the Qur'an, early critics questioned both its morality and authenticity. The most common criticisms concern various pre-existing sources upon which the Qur'an relies, internal inconsistency, and its immoral teachings. In 746 John of Damascus (sometimes St. John of Damascus, who spent his career as secretary to the Caliph in Damascus) wrote the "Fount of Knowledge" (part 2) of which is entitled "Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin." In this work John makes extensive reference to the Quran and, in his opinion, its failure to live up to even the most basic scrutiny. He said:
- * The Qur'an is less than it claimed to be, since it contains material that could hardly be worthy of divine revelation.
* Muhammad was not who he claimed to be because the Qur'an provided insufficient evidence to support his prophetic role.
* When read properly, certain statements in the Qur'an support and affirm Christian beliefs.
> What is placed in Talmud brought the second expulsion of Israelites from their land
This is not true. The Israelites were expelled from the land because they started a rebellion on the basis of Roman taxation.
> first was caused by what they have placed in Torah.
To what are you referring?
> The second is because of their doing to Talmud.
To what are you referring?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part
by Conga » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:38 am
Your only proof is a word you like, but God decreed the opposite.
For a human to never written down oral Talmud collections more than 20 years in that era would be necessary, but since Gabriel who taught these notes in Gospels to Jesus, knew these verses in advance and he supported him, Gabriel the holy spirit.
https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v01-n03/the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
for a different collection:
https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/the-judeo-christian-comparing-the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
from a stricter source:
http://legacy.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/07_Instone_Brewer.pdf
Historic details are open for all, lands which converted to Islam stayed Muslim until now because they have seen what is Islam from first generation. Later generations couldn't manage themselves properly and lost the touch with God's message, hence spread of Islam had stopped.
Please post freely.
For a human to never written down oral Talmud collections more than 20 years in that era would be necessary, but since Gabriel who taught these notes in Gospels to Jesus, knew these verses in advance and he supported him, Gabriel the holy spirit.
https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v01-n03/the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
for a different collection:
https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/the-judeo-christian-comparing-the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
from a stricter source:
http://legacy.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/07_Instone_Brewer.pdf
Historic details are open for all, lands which converted to Islam stayed Muslim until now because they have seen what is Islam from first generation. Later generations couldn't manage themselves properly and lost the touch with God's message, hence spread of Islam had stopped.
Please post freely.
- Conga
Re: Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part
by jimwalton » Sun May 12, 2019 1:39 pm
I have repeatedly asked you, through one post after another, to substantiate and justify ANYTHING you are claiming, and yet I receive nothing post after post. I have repeatedly, through my posts, given you case facts and the evidence behind them, all of which go unchallenged. I have showed you over and over and given you the evidence that the things you are saying are not true. You seem to have no case of your own, no evidence to support your claims, and no rebuttal to anything I've said. And I request over and over that you explain to what you are referring, and generally no reply with any clarification. I say this to say the conversation is getting frustrating.
And then you say, "Your only proof is a word you like, but God decreed the opposite." What does this even mean? You and I have exchanged 13 posts, and you say my "only proof is a word [I] like"????? It's an outrageous assertion, and not in the least bit true.
> but since Gabriel who taught these notes in Gospels to Jesus
The idea that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit is neither a biblical teaching (the Injil) nor a Qur'anic one.
> https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v01-n03/the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
Interesting. This link says that Jesus was not quoting Midrash, since the Talmud wasn't written until several centuries later. This link claims that the Talmud was plagiarizing Jesus, exactly the opposite of the case you assumed you were making.
> https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/the-judeo-christian-comparing-the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
This post asserts that "Joshua (Jesus in Greek),... studied with the best student Pharisees of His day." These is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim. None at all.
> http://legacy.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/07_Instone_Brewer.pdf
The Talmud's rendition of Jesus's trial came centuries after the event.
Whatever point(s) you think you are making here, they are similar to your other posts in that there is no evidence to support any of your theses. You have yet, in 13 posts, to make your case.
> lands which converted to Islam stayed Muslim until now because they have seen what is Islam from first generation. Later generations couldn't manage themselves properly and lost the touch with God's message, hence spread of Islam had stopped.
What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about? Our subject matter has been Zoroastrianism (a millennium before Mohammed), Christianity (600 years before Mohammed), the Jewish concept of Messiah (700-1000 years before Mohammed), the Torah and Midrash (400 years before Mohammed), and now you're talking about the territorial land grab made by Islamic armies and the slaughter of many tens of thousands of people? The lands stayed Muslim because the Muslims killed the Kafir.
> Later generations couldn't manage themselves properly and lost the touch with God's message, hence spread of Islam had stopped.
What does this even mean? Christians still have the holy Scriptures (the Tawrat, the Zabur, the Injil, and the rest of the Bible). The spread of Islam continues to this day.
And then you say, "Your only proof is a word you like, but God decreed the opposite." What does this even mean? You and I have exchanged 13 posts, and you say my "only proof is a word [I] like"????? It's an outrageous assertion, and not in the least bit true.
> but since Gabriel who taught these notes in Gospels to Jesus
The idea that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit is neither a biblical teaching (the Injil) nor a Qur'anic one.
> https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v01-n03/the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
Interesting. This link says that Jesus was not quoting Midrash, since the Talmud wasn't written until several centuries later. This link claims that the Talmud was plagiarizing Jesus, exactly the opposite of the case you assumed you were making.
> https://stjudasmaccabaeus.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/the-judeo-christian-comparing-the-talmud-and-the-gospels/
This post asserts that "Joshua (Jesus in Greek),... studied with the best student Pharisees of His day." These is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim. None at all.
> http://legacy.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/07_Instone_Brewer.pdf
The Talmud's rendition of Jesus's trial came centuries after the event.
Whatever point(s) you think you are making here, they are similar to your other posts in that there is no evidence to support any of your theses. You have yet, in 13 posts, to make your case.
> lands which converted to Islam stayed Muslim until now because they have seen what is Islam from first generation. Later generations couldn't manage themselves properly and lost the touch with God's message, hence spread of Islam had stopped.
What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about? Our subject matter has been Zoroastrianism (a millennium before Mohammed), Christianity (600 years before Mohammed), the Jewish concept of Messiah (700-1000 years before Mohammed), the Torah and Midrash (400 years before Mohammed), and now you're talking about the territorial land grab made by Islamic armies and the slaughter of many tens of thousands of people? The lands stayed Muslim because the Muslims killed the Kafir.
> Later generations couldn't manage themselves properly and lost the touch with God's message, hence spread of Islam had stopped.
What does this even mean? Christians still have the holy Scriptures (the Tawrat, the Zabur, the Injil, and the rest of the Bible). The spread of Islam continues to this day.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sun May 12, 2019 1:39 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests