Jesus is the only way to salvation??

[(Q)]

As I have mentioned before, stoning was unknown before the 18th century and the heaviest punishment given for apostasy was a fine.

"Stoning was a popular biblical use of stones (Ex 8:26; 17:4; Lev 20:2, 27; 24:14-23; Num 14:10; 15:35; Deu 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:21-24; Josh 7:25-26; 1 Ki 5:15; 6:7, 18, 36; 12:18; 2 Ki 21:10-13; 2 Chr 10:18; 24:21; Lam 3:53; Ezek 16:40; 23:47; Mat 23:37; Mk 12:4; Lk 13:34; 20:6; John 8:7, 59; 10:31-33; 11:8; Acts 14:5). This was the official method of execution prescribed by the Law of Moses. Famous victims of stoning include Achan, Naboth, Stephen, and Paul (Josh 7:25; 1 Ki 21:13-16; Acts 7:59; 14:19; 2 Cor 11:25). The Israelites also threatened to stone Moses, Joshua, and Jesus. Indeed, our Lord called Jerusalem "the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her" (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34)."

http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/legend01/stone.htm

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm talking about the Muslim world. The British were in the habit, at the time of eviscerating their victims and hanging bits of them around the counties. As a warning.

 

[(Q)]

I'm talking about the Muslim world. The British were in the habit, at the time of eviscerating their victims and hanging bits of them around the counties. As a warning.

Quick! Avert your eyes from Sam's fabrications and look at what the British have done!

 

[Myles]

As a non-member of a non-club, what are you defending here? Your non-beliefs?

You can't or won't understand. I'm not defending reason because I see no need to do so. I'm simply expressing a view on theism.

I have no wish to discuss this any further woith you.

 

[CheskiChips]

I'm talking about the Muslim world. The British were in the habit, at the time of eviscerating their victims and hanging bits of them around the counties. As a warning.

Sam either say you strongly believe in the punishments or don't...

I openly say I would have liked to have something similar to the Sanhedrin, and people might disagree with it and call it archaic. But I believe it and won't waiver for others. If you believe stoning is an acceptible punishment for certain laws then agree with it!


Although to go on a side topic here (even though all of this was side topic). The Islamic definition of stoning is just insane and cruel, it's NOT the original definition of stoning.

Stoning used to be:
You would take a man to a tall cliff and you would push him off, then throw a stone on his chest from the cliff. It had to be possible that the cliffs fall could kill him, and it had to be likely the stone would kill him. FURTHER: If someone commited an act it needed 2 witnesses, those are the two witnesses that had to carry out the acts. If they wouldn't carry out the act, then the man walked free.

 

[S.A.M.]

Source? From what I remember, Jesus said he who was without sin could throw the first stone. No cliff tops involved. My personal opinions are irrelevant.

 

[CheskiChips]

Source? From what I remember, Jesus said he who was without sin could throw the first stone. No cliff tops involved. My personal opinions are irrelevant.

Sources:
-Rashi, in his Commentaries (Vol. 1, pp.105-106) (Silberman Ed. 5733)
-Vayirka 24-14b
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 5.1-4
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 5.5
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1-4
-Mishnah 7.4

*Sanhedrin mishnah was before jesus' time by atleast 700 years.
And ask any Orthodox Rabbi in the world...:bugeye:


That's actually an argument for why we don't believe in jesus. I personally don't believe he even existed. The things written in the books he's part of don't make any sense with any of the other books written. His definition of stoning is not is not accurate, and his definitions of many things is just plain wrong..

 

[S.A.M.]

I thought the Romans destroyed the Jewish books which were [much] later reconstructed from memory? How do you know they were accurate?

 

[CheskiChips]

I thought the Romans destroyed the Jewish books which were [much] later reconstructed from memory? How do you know they were accurate?

There's a story in Tractate Gittin discussing this. When they seiged Jerusalem one rabbi got out of the city and spoke to the sieging general. He cured the general of an illness, and the general provided him a favor. One of those favors was 'Please don't seige the following lands.' It was granted. What the general didn't know is one of the cities spared was that where all of the great Rabbi's and Scholars lived. In this city and a few others all books survived. Not every city was destroyed, only the most heavily populated.

This is also irrelivant, as much of the books could be written through memory. The average sofer today and write the entire Torah with 100% accuracy. There's also the story of groups of people in Germany during the NAZI regime who were able to write down entire tractates with 100% accuracy after their books had been burned.

 

[S.A.M.]

Does this story have an historical basis? What were the names of the lands?

 

[czaja]

open minds

I was an atheist once-very evangelistic about it, too.
I had an open mind, I would have said.
It would have been a lie; my mind was closed to religion.
It still is, that is to organized religion.
But I am completely open to God, who is soooo amazing, I have found.
We think we are so smart, we think we should be God.
Pure arrogance.
J

 

[CheskiChips]

Does this story have an historical basis? What were the names of the lands?

I don't recall the specifics, I personally don't own Gittin. But if you search in a talmud library or ask a more definitive source I am sure you'll find your answers.

The general discussed in Gittin is the same one that took over the throne as recorded by Roman documentation. Although I think he's called nero-Caesar or meaning proxy of Caesar. Also Titus included. The documentation is identical, accept Jewish documentation gives more depth into the situation.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't recall the specifics, I personally don't own Gittin. But if you search in a talmud library or ask a more definitive source I am sure you'll find your answers.

The general discussed in Gittin is the same one that took over the throne as recorded by Roman documentation. Although I think he's called nero-Caesar or meaning proxy of Caesar. Also Titus included. The documentation is identical, accept Jewish documentation gives more depth into the situation.

I was talking about Antiochus. This guy:

Far more destructive was the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV, who in 168 BC ordered Jewish 'books of the law' found in Jerusalem to be 'rent in pieces' and burned (1 Maccabees 1:56).

To strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to Hellenize the Jews by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god.[2] This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree.

(According to the Books of the Maccabees) ...upon seizing Jerusalem his soldiers entered the Jewish Temple and slaughtered a pig, then tried to force Jewish men to eat the pig meat (which is impure by Jewish law). The men refused and the soldiers cut off the men's hands, feet, and tongues, then scalped the men and burned them alive on the altar of the Lord.

It would seem odd that Jews kept their books other than in the temple.

 

[CheskiChips]

As far as I know he only seiged Jerusalem, and Judaea. Many of the kingdoms still existed. It also wasn't a long exile. There were young children who lived through the entire exile and saw the rebuilding of the temple. It even discusses them crying upon seeing the new Temple because of it's less grandeur.

Still none of this really is evidence that books were destroyed. Yes the Temple was, and desecrated, but the actual books were intact in the majority of communities, and all of Israel (which at the time was not the same thing as Judaea). The other 10 tribes there's not much value put in.

 

[S.A.M.]

Quite possible. There were three seiges on Jerusalem as I recall, but Antiiochus is the only one I know who has gone on record as saying that the books of law in Jerusalem should be destroyed. I just wondered how successful he had been. And I know about the ancient Israel, it was apparently comprised of several foreign migrant communities which probably adopted the name of an existing large tribe. They did not even all speak the same language, according to anthropologists.

http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=118446&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201

 

[greenberg]

Please stay on topic.

Is Jesus the only way to salvation?

 

[CheskiChips]

Quite possible. There were three seiges on Jerusalem as I recall, but Antiiochus is the only one I know who has gone on record as saying that the books of law in Jerusalem should be destroyed. I just wondered how successful he had been. And I know about the ancient Israel, it was apparently comprised of several foreign migrant communities which probably adopted the name of an existing large tribe. They did not even all speak the same language, according to anthropologists.

http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=118446&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201

I've read your link.

I've heard this argument before, it's really not based on anything. The way they decipher languages of nations is through pottery and engravings. Which were things Jews didn't do. Proto-Phoenician isn't much like Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls dispute the language difference and also prove that the language was clearly in use during the time they discuss. How could it be that after leaving Egypt that they didn't all speak the same language?

Well they don't believe that they left Egypt and marched around the desert, and that the nation was founded as an uprising internally, mostly because they can't find evidence. But what evidence do you expect to find judging by the way they lived in the desert? How could it be that they didn't speak the same language after living together for 40 years? The distribution of land is described in Bamidbar.

Anthropologists are continuously wrong about datings, it's a pseudo-science and it shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

The success of destroying the books isn't discussed much. As a new king of Syria, there wasn't exactly much organization. There's even stories of Jewish communities living in caves with their books for the duration of the exile.

Theologically they should all be semitic languages ANYWAYS, since they all came from Shem. Non-semitic languages did exist, and were derivative of Ham and were seen in Sumer, AND Bavyl. These languages were later eliminated by the presence of Persian influence which was also of Shem. The inconsistency of Semitic languages is more than likely the integration of ham and shem rather than the degradation of shem. As Hebrew today (as a language) still contains all of the letters.

Finally the construction of 'Jews' occurred at Sinai, not before this. Moses himself was not a Jew, neither was Abraham, etc etc. When it says Abraham of Hebrew it means Abrham of the city (later known as) Hebron.

 

[greenberg]

Seems like something was lost in translation there.

Are you willing to risk eternity in hell for this stance that something was lost in translation?

 

[CheskiChips]

Please stay on topic.

Is Jesus the only way to salvation?

greenberg, if you actually read what I wrote you would realize I as proving 'No.'

His teachings were intended to fix Jewish law, but the book was as if he had no comprehension of the law. He came for Jews, not non-Jews (His claim not mine). His total lack of comprehension of the law proves that he was not a viable source. OR that the book its self was conscripted. It's been written that it was a propaganda book written by Roman scholars in order to incite nationalism.

 

[greenberg]

Based on my experience here, atheists are slaves to empiricism. Empiricism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.

Similar could be said of some forms of theism -
Some theists are slaves to religious elitism. Religious elitism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.

But again - who would be willing to stake eternity in hell on such a view?