River

Jul 18, 2011 -- 6:30AM, river8101 wrote:

[1] People who get all their beliefs from the bible are misled.  (...)

[2] "No  one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus;  no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. (...)" www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

You declare your profile, "FAITH: Jewish", so, presumably, you should only consider the TaNaKh under the rubric "bible".

So, presumably, your first paragraph should be entirely disconnected from the second.

Presumably ...

MdS

Bunsinspace

Jul 18, 2011 -- 5:38PM, Bunsinspace wrote:

Jul 18, 2011 -- 8:47AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... presumably, your [river8181] first paragraph [post #61] should be entirely disconnected from the second.

[a] That is what paragraphs are for in English. [b] And the point is quite valid IMHO for either TeNaCh or the Christian Bible.  It is kind of REVERSED for Islam whose fundamentalists are those who adhere to the more odious of the Hadiths rather than the Qu'ran itself.  [c] That, to me, is a point in favor of Islam and if one had to choose only one book to live by it would be more the Qu'ran than either the TeNaKh or the Christian Bible -- but the existence of the odious Hadiths and their ubiquitousness spoils that option completely.

[a] I was just stating a fact, and you're confirming my point: there is a brusque "context switch" between the 1^st and the 2^nd paragraph.

[b] What "point"? And what is "kind of REVERSED for Islam"?

[c] Why would it be preferable (apart from the "odious Hadiths") to "live by ... the Qu'ran than either the TeNaKh or the Christian Bible"?

[Buns] [d] So it appears that everyone is on the same page that for Jews and Christians the fundamentalism that ignores the history and traditions of each is to be avoided as the lowest level of human intelligence. [e] And that is IMHO the narrow road that MJ attempts to navigate between fundamentalism and both traditions.

[d] If by "fundamentalism" you mean intolerance and fanaticism, I fully agree with you.

If, OTOH, you are trying to suggest that there should not be any "doctrinal bottom line", and that, ultimately, ALL is reduced to the "tradition" of the respective religions, then I believe that your understanding of religion, and, in particular, of Abrahamic religions, is very shallow and superficial indeed.

[e] Inasmuch as MJ attempts to retrieve the narrow path that indissolubly links Christianity (freed from its paganizing distortions) and Judaism (freed from the normative appeal to rabbinic literature, and from the a priori rejection of Yehoshua/Jesus as the Messiah), I am entirely in favor of their endeavor.

Mario

Jul 18, 2011 -- 8:47AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

River

Jul 18, 2011 -- 6:30AM, river8101 wrote:

[1] People who get all their beliefs from the bible are misled.  (...)

[2] "No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. (...)" www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

You declare your profile, "FAITH: Jewish", so, presumably, you should only consider the TaNaKh under the rubric "bible".

So, presumably, your first paragraph should be entirely disconnected from the second.

Presumably ...

MdS

Define the "rubric" bible.  Is that your invention?

First of all, Jews do not read the bible literally.  You should define your religion which is Catholic, from the Inquisition, the Crusades and other hundreds of wars and horrors which killed and murdered thousands for nearly two thousand years.  "thou shall not kill", (murder is more correct)  means nothing to your Catholic history, and not much to the Muslim history either as they took one territory after another as did the murderous Christians.   Forced conversions,  bibles and Qur'ans on people who believed differently.   Both took the Jewish and pagan land too, and have written tons of reasons from their bibles, qur'ans etc. which they rationalized told why it was OK to do so.   Blah!   Both religions have brought misery to many.

PS  As to my profile title.  I didn't write it that way.  I wrote "Cultural Jew" but that's how they put it in my profile, though I explained and defined it in my written profile.  They won't change that title,  nor can I, though I have written to them time and time again.  They did the same thing with my TAG.  They only put in the first few words, and left it hanging.  Belief Net has changed owners so many times, that it's always messed up.  My message board doesn't work either.  Have asked them to fix it for years, but they don't bother. Occasionally, I may get a message or part of one, but cannot answer them.   In any case, I spend most of my computer time at Facebook now, or baseball forums, which is both serious and fun and where one is allowed to speak their peace without getting deleted.  Your church has been murdering my people for centuries, therefore I see nothing of value in it.

May 31, 2013 -- 4:00PM, Ben Masada wrote:

Jews and Christians diverge nearly on everything. They not only diverge but also, in the case of Christianity, take all their nutrients so to speak from their intent to replace the Theology of Judaism. That's what has become known by Replacement Theology.  

BS"D

To use a phrase irresponsibly, "You justly nailed it!"   

Jun 4, 2013 -- 2:35PM, Ben Masada wrote:

Not just "stam" as we say in Hebrew but to prove my point that if the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology were erased from the pages of the NT, Christianity would collapse.

BS"D

I would modify your statement to read "replacement theology-based denominations of Christianity would collapse.  There exists a core infrastructure within Christianity that, like every other religion, is immune to the renderings and abuses of the ignorant, and thusly impervious to such a "collapse."