Jews Rejected God's Offer

Actually, the LAW is the Torah, which is the 5 books of Moses. Psalms is not part of that.

Yes, those are claims by Christians. But, those books are not the Jewish scripture, so they don't relate to any offer that God has given the Jews.

However, the thread is that the Jews rejected the offer from God. You have to show from the Jewish scriptures that.Trying to 'warn' Purpledawn and Arachnophilia is irrelavent.

Since PAUL never met Jesus in person, how can JESUS have comanded him to preach anything?

Quite so.John never saw Jesus in person. He claims he had a vision. Many people claim to have a vision. Seeing a bright light like that is often due to
heat stroke, or delusions.So, John cliamed he had some visions, heard some voices, and saw a big light.That is not meeting Jesus. I will note that he people whome he argued with, that were alledgely the apostles of Jesus, and supposedly knew him in the flesh never left Judaism. Paul did.

When I see people who claim visions from god,I suspect either delusion or con men.That is in this day,or back then.What Paul claims is irrelavent to any offers that the Jews supposedly got from God.And it is relavent that the appostles that supposedly KNEW Jesus in the flesh stayed faithful Jews, while Paul went after the Gentiles, but only after seeing a 'vision'.This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-04-2004 09:56 AM

Well, that is what John says.However, JOHN says he was bapitised by the holy ghost, (I.E. not flesh).Why would the Jews accept paganisitc concepts from someone?? That doesn't seem to be an offer from God for the jews at all.And, looking at what you posted from acts SUPPORTS my view. John never met Jesus in the flesh. He saw visions.

You are right.The writer of the gospel of John never met Jesus in person either. That
gospel was written very late in the first century at the earliest.The standard time frame given for the Gospel of John is between 90 and 120 C.E.

Yes, that is my contention.And, of course, my scholarly sources are NOT atheistic. From
Gospel of JohnRobert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

​

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status. and Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919) Many more sources too.Unless you are going to claim that the late Father Raymond Edward Brown was an athiest, you really should stop with the attacks, and
actually LOOK at what the legitiment scholars say.

When it comes to looking at scholarship and truth, I would trust a Raymond Brown , who had a TH.D and taught in a major Catholic university
over someone whose books showed a lot of poor scholarship, bad logic, and extremely biased research (such as Josh McDowell). I don't know the
other two.The biggest critism I have about many (not all) of the apologists is that they start out with a specific viewpoint, and reject or misinterpret the information that is available to fit their predeterminted viewpoint.When it specficially comes to such works as John, they start with the
concept it was written BY John, and will not look at the historical or internal evidence. For example, the gospel of Luke specifically says
within it that the author of Luke was taking it from other sources, yet I have seen people claim that the Gospel of Luke was writen BY the apostle Luke.IMO, you need something more than just faith, and the reliance on some
hick authors to be able to make a valid evaluation about things.And, you know, I think you are looking at the Gnositic stuff in the wrong light. Yes, the Gnositic stuff is not of your belief, and I
certainly would not want to try to get anybody to actually believe it,
but it is certainly interesting in it's own right from a historical
point of view.. on the ways that different groups religious beliefs
developed,and trying to understand why some of those survived,and others did not.The part I don't like about innerancy, is that the contortions that people have to go through to try to explain obvious contradiction, both religious and historical. For example, I have yet to find one
person who believed in Inerrency that could explain the contradiction
of the date of Jesus's birth between Matthew and Luke. They mention
historical events that make their accounts mutually exclusive.

Well, I will just write a brief synopsis.According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the King. Herod is supposedly to order all the kids born in
that timeframe to be killed (Oh. btw, the Gospel of Matthew is the only source
for this accustation, no other source for this story exists). Herod the King died in 4 B.C.E.According to Luke, Jesus was born during the census that happened when
Quintarsis first became govenor of Syria. Judeah first became part of the providence of Syria in the same year. That year was 6. C.E. Before that time, Juddah was supposedly an independant kingdon, and Rome did not have the authority to conduct a census.So, which year was Jesus born? During the reign of Herod the king< or when Judah had a census when it first became part of the providence of Syria? There is a 10 year historical gap in there.This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-11-2004 10:27 AMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 12-11-2004 10:30 AM

Well, the basic one is to say that Quintiliuswas actuallygovenor to Syria twice, (Based on a tablet that mentioned a mentioned someone that MIGHT fit into a govenor of syria, but whose name has been destroyed.).However, there is no evidence that Quintilius was actually govenor of Syria twice, nor would the Roman empire have the authority to ask for a census in Judah before 6 C.E. So, as I said, I have seen no apologist 'explaination' that makes any kind of sense. It is enough that many latch on to the non-explaination to save their face for them.Why , they even bring out the idea of someone coin that alledgedly has
information in micro-engraving on the coins edge to 'prove' that. However, there are no pictures of the coin, just the person who alledgely found it's hand drawing of it!A summery of the various attmempts can be found at the Christian appologist web site by Glenn Morton at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.htmlI found the explainations extremely bad, and ignoring basic facts.