Note that in this thread, strong evidence was provided for God: >>637821
While it might not convince you, you should at least consider God a reasonable possibility, and that in itself will help my case here.
Before we began actually arguing the case, we first of all have to clear up if Christian theology is even compatible with the Old Testament, so I'll start there. I can't go into all the minute details, but I will with the two main things, the Trinity, and the change in stuff like Kosher.
1. The Trinity. First of all, YHWH appears as a Trinity in Genesis 18. The common rebuttal to this is that the God repeatedly says the Lord is One. Now, what does this signify, God is One? Why does God stress it repeatedly? That's really a good question, because it seems like a peculiar thing to stress. The answer is that it is foreshadowing of Christ saying, "I am my father are one." These phrases are meant to be parallel, so we know when Christ says that, he means "one" in the sense that God is One. Not something figurative, but in the sense that Christ is actually God.
2. The Law, why is it no longer in affect? Well (and even Orthodox Judaism agrees here) Jewish Law is NOT for the whole world to follow, it is a specific covenant with the Jewish people, it is like Nazarite or monastic vows. The Jews are a priestly people meant to lead the gentiles to salvation (Isaiah 49:6). All that, Orthodox Judaism concurs with, the only difference is they think that will come with the end times, but gentiles are never seen as required to follow Jewish Law, just the Noahide Law (Orthodox Christian cannot eat blood, either, just as the Noahide Law says). Christians think it came with Christ, and the new covenant was established then, which means the Jews fulfilled their function as leading the Gentiles to salvation, they were now supposed to be a role model for them within the new global covenant. So the idea that the Jewish law is superseded by a brand new global covenant makes sense here, or at least it's not out of the question.
Now, let see which Christian narrative we talking about: the primary ones are the pagan Christian narrative (Gnostic), the Pharisaic Christian narrative (Gospel of the Hebrews), and the Essenic Christian narrative (Orthodox). So of course we'll be discussing the last narrative. First thing first, the Essenic Jews considered telling the truth to be a matter of extreme importance, morally, they saw it as better to die than to lie (contrast this with someone like Odysseus). In evidence of this, let's look as Josephus first off, who says they forbade oaths, believing that it was indicting yourself if your regular yes or no were no considered trustworthy, but that if you did need to take an oath, that was it, nothing whatsoever could come between you and that oath; an example is when you were initiated into the Essenes, you had to eat only with them; and if you did something grievous, people would get kicked out, but according to Josephus, they'd often have to live on grass because they said they'd only eat with other Essenes (this of course would eventually kill them, but they were frequently taken back in after many days of privation). This scrupulousness in regard to the truth as highly important, from a moral perspective, was maintained in early Essenic Christianity. In support of this, you only have to see how denying Christ, even on pain of death, was considered absolutely wrong--no other religion is that strict, as far as I know, where you cannot pretend and say you are not be a part of it if threatened with death. Another support for the immense concern for truth is that Christians had to actively confess their sins to each other--in fact, early Christian account record that confession had to be to the whole congregation.
Truth was that important. Christ is recorded as saying when judgement day comes around, you will even have to account for every single idle word you uttered (Matthew 12:36), and I'm sure that would include lies. Finally, in support of this ethos, let us examine Paul's Epistles: he is immensely scrupulous about ensuring every word that is from him is attributed to him, and everything from Christ is attributed to Christ, he does not risk a confusion here, but offers disclaimers left and right, he is very careful about not twisting the truth. Now that we have discussed that, let's see who wrote the Gospels.
The earliest account of the authorship of the Gospels is the one given by Papias of Hierapolis, which accords with the Orthodox account. The most widely asserted alternative is the Q theory, because it is considered unlikely that the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, as they predict it. Before we address the Q theory, let me explain to you why the Gospel of John seems so different from the synoptic Gospels: it is because the synoptic Gospels are written for a wide audience, but the Gospel of John was written exclusively for intimated--all Catechumens would depart before the worship confession that Christ is God, which we now have the Nicene Creed in place of, but we nonetheless say, "The doors!" because traditionally a guard was sent to keep a look out in case anyone was coming by and to give the alarm--the Gospel of John is much more overt about Christ being God, so it is for initiated Christians.
Now, let's address the Q theory: it holds that the synoptic Gospels cover a great deal of the same material, and therefore had a common source. First of all, it is actually a mark in their *favor* that they cover the same material, insofar as reliability goes, but here it is used against them; however, I will dispute the hypothesis based on this: the Gospels phrase many things differently, and it is altogether more plausible that they are just different people telling the same story, as opposed to one source being incorporated into three. Is there any good reason to believe the alternative account by Papias? Yes, there is; first of all, the Four Gospels stand up to what they purport to be. The Gospel of John stands up to being by John, since it has personal details, most particularly Christ entrusting John with his mother; the alternative to believing this happened, would be to suggest the Gospel is not written by John, but simply lying and claiming his name. One piece of evidence used to support this is John giving a different date for the Crucifixion, but in fact John doesn't: Leviticus 23:5 says Passover starts on the 14th day of the first month, which is the day the Passover Lamb is killed--Jewish time reckoning (as well as Orthodox Liturgical reckoning) gives the evening as the *start* of a day, meaning the Mystical Supper takes place on the first day on the fist day of Passover, and so does the Crucifixion, with Christ being entombed right before the end of the day. To cement the Gospels, however, the best source it the Gospel of Luke:
it is written by the same author as Acts (in fact they were probably originally one work), who participated in Acts judging by the use of first-person plural later into the work. Now, why should we believe this author is who he indicates he is? Well, if the author were a fraud, why would attribute the work to Luke? He's attribute it to someone who had a great deal of authority, yet he didn't. Secondly, the Gospel being Luke's coincides with its more detailed account that would come from women: the other Gospels are mainly eyewitness accounts, besides that they include what the disciples would have heard from those they knew. Luke, on the other hand, would have to be an assembling of accounts, Luke goes and talks to different people about different things and weaves his Gospel out of them. So taking all this together, the Gospels are at least consistent with being authored by whom they are attributed to.
Now, let's see if it's likely they were: Saint James, the Brother of the Lord, was attested to as an historical figure in Paul's Epistles and Acts, he is the first bishop of Jerusalem, and presides over the Council of Jerusalem. Josephus (who also describes him as Christ's Brother) is the earliest source attesting to his martyrdom. So it's fairly reasonable to believe that Saint James the Just existed. Did he die for fabricated brother? Unlikely. But do the Gospels match up with what James and Paul and the Apostles thought of Christ? Judging by the Epistles of Paul, Christ's death and Resurrection where always a belief of the Orthodox Church, that was core. so it is safe to say James believed that about his brother (who appeared to him, according to Paul). Could this have all been an Essene conspiracy, a lie that Christ ever existed (even though historians seem to have no difficulty believing Pythagoras and Buddha existed)? I really don't think so, because the assertion the Gospel of Matthew defends against is not that Christ didn't exist, but that his body was stolen from his tomb by his disciples (Matthew 28:15). Furthermore, if Christ were fabricated, it seems highly unlikely that the traditional witnesses of his empty tomb would be women, who were much more lowly regarded in Jewish society than in even Roman society, and it would bizarre to Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the council, would be ascribed the honor of providing Christ with a tomb, when those were just the sort of people Christians were pitted against--it would seem more logical to vilify all members of the council, the same council that would later put Saint James the Just to death. Taken altogether, the most likely hypothesis to explain all this is that Christ was a real person and was really put to death. But...was he really Resurrected?
The explain Christ's Resurrection, three explanations are generally employed. 1. It was a myth about him that gained momentum with time. 2. It was fabricated outright. 3. It was a mass delusion.
1. This is pretty much disproved by the Resurrection by an integral belief in the earliest sources, among the core leaders of Christianity.
2. This is extremely unlikely, because Apostles had no material gain (in Paul's case, he explicitly refused any sort of material compensation, and did day labor to support himself as he ministered). They certainly had no sexual compensation. And they weren't looking to establish themselves as rulers of Israel, so they had no compensation power.
3. First off, know that we are not talking about one cult leader who is delusions and seeing things, we are talking about many Apostles (as well as hundreds of other people, according to Corinthians) who saw Christ and talked to him. This isn't just Paul or Peter being crazy and convincing other people to follow them. Second off, recall that all the Apostles were skeptical of reports Christ's Resurrection until they saw it with their own eyes (and Thomas was skeptical even then). These are very contrary to what you'd find with a cult build on a delusion, it's not built on man preaching a delusion, it's built on numerous people being convinced of something after witnessing it, and many of them highly skeptical. Thirdly, Paul was a man of great authority and probably status, who forfeited all that to become a Christian: he went from the highest status to the lowest, he even had Roman citizenship. He gave up everything and got stoned and whipped and so on. It stands to reason that his account of conversion was not fabricated, because it must have taken something pretty strong--but was he delusional?
It does not seem likely you could delude yourself out of your eyesight for three days, and then delude it back into focus when an Apostle places his hands on you (and the scales hindering his eyesight are material and visible). Fourthly, the tomb was actually empty (or else Matthew would be defending against the assertion that it wasn't, not that the body was stolen), which could only be explained either by a conspiracy on the part of the Apostles, or by Christ actually being Resurrected. But if it were a conspiracy on the part of the Apostles, surely *they* would be the ones to discover it, not women, since women were considered less than worthless as witnesses (Josephus says they are apt to lie out of hope for gain, or fear of punishment, and the Talmud says it is like asking a robber for testimony).
All this, taken together, while not proof positive of Christ, makes it quite reasonable to affirm him.
Orthodox FAQ for atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and Protestants, plus reading list and intro links: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Oh, I think it is. In this thread, you make a whole set of inferences, without ever addressing why we should accept them as true.
Even if we accepted all of your premises, you still never explain how you went from them to your infallible conclusions. I don't even need to read your walls of text, they were never valid to begin with
>its a "Christians who haven't adequately studied biblical Hebrew and somehow know better than the Jews that have been studying it for thousands of years and never thought of Yahweh as a Trinity" thread
The Trinity isnt biblical. Look into actual Jewish apologetics and these proselytizers, jews4jesus or whoever, get blown the fuck out.
From the other thread:
>In this thread it was established that there must be a predicate for scientific nothing (referred to as void in the Bible)
>It was established that philosophical nothing (absolute vacuum) as a predicate would be incoherent, so it must be another predicate.
How exactly did you establish these?
>suspend your disbelief.
>the eucharistic miracle of Sokolka which has been verified by scientists
I don't think you know what suspension of disbelief means
>Testing is pretty meaningless if you're referencing the problem of induction
Not if you assume fallibility, something you by definition can you. So yeah, it would b a problem, but only for you
No Jewish scholar ever saw their religion as trinitairan until Paul deiced to make Jesus God and Paganism added in the Gnostic ideas in the form of the Holy Spirit.
To take the Christian idea of trinity seriously you would have to believe that the the very people that wrote the Old Testament and were personally chosen by God himself were completely clueless.
According to the tradition Moses saw the face of God himself, getting closer to the deity than any one ever, yet he did not describe God as being trinitiarian.
If you've ever seen a Jew debate a Christianity theology the Jewish utterly stomp them.
Genesis 18 describes God as explicitly Trinitarian.
See the "face of God" is seeing his energies, like Hesychasm. These energies are God himself, but they aren't God's essence, and God's essence is one, but build on three existences.
>First of all, YHWH appears as a Trinity in Genesis 18.
An utter lie. "My master" is addressed to the men/angels that suddenly appear in Gen 18:2. You'll note that they interrupt God and Abraham's "conversation", and then go down to Sodom where they rescue Lot. It's not a trinity.
>Now, what does this signify, God is One? Why does God stress it repeatedly? That's really a good question, because it seems like a peculiar thing to stress.
When monotheism is a new and novel thing, no, not really.
>. So the idea that the Jewish law is superseded by a brand new global covenant makes sense here, or at least it's not out of the question.
Which then makes God a liar in verses like Deuteronomy 4:40. and the whole injunction in Deuteronomy 13:1 to neither add nor subtract from the Mosiatic Covenant precludes it being superseded by anything else.
>Jews considered telling the truth to be a matter of extreme importance, morally, they saw it as better to die than to lie (contrast this with someone like Odysseus).
Wrong again. While dishonesty is not a good thing, it is not in and of itself sinful, although almost always used in the service of sinful purposes. It is certainly not something you'd have to give up your life for rather than uphold, as you can see by episodes like Jacob, both in dealing with his father (Genesis 27:19) and in dealing with his brother (Genesis 33:14)
>Leviticus 23:5 says Passover starts on the 14th day of the first month, which is the day the Passover Lamb is killed--Jewish time reckoning (as well as Orthodox Liturgical reckoning) gives the evening as the *start* of a day, meaning the Mystical Supper takes place on the first day on the fist day of Passover, and so does the Crucifixion, with Christ being entombed right before the end of the day.
Except this is wrong; both John and the other Gospels give their accounts of the Last supper and the crucifixion in regards to the offering of the paschal lamb, not in quibbling at the passover day itself. And they still come out to different days, despite everyone agreeing that there would be one set time when the paschal lamb was offered. If the "Mystical supper" took place on the first day of passover, then the offering would have been the day before. Therefore, John 18:28 makes no sense, as no tu'mah of the priests could have made them ineligible to bring or eat the sacrifice.
Please stop being retarded.
The men/angels are God. The term Abraham uses to address them, in that particular grammatical case, is used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Testament, and only ever for God. It was the only unique way to address God.
>Which then makes God a liar in verses like Deuteronomy 4:40. and the whole injunction in Deuteronomy 13:1 to neither add nor subtract from the Mosiatic Covenant precludes it being superseded by anything else.
Neither of those say it isn't superseded, whereas God himself does (Jeremiah 31:31, Jeremiah 3:16)
>It is certainly not something you'd have to give up your life for rather than uphold,
But we're talking about the Essenes.
>The men/angels are God. The term Abraham uses to address them, in that particular grammatical case, is used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Testament, and only ever for God. It was the only unique way to address God.
Completely wrong. I would remind you of Genesis 19:2, which is addressing the same folks.
>Neither of those say it isn't superseded, whereas God himself does (Jeremiah 31:31, Jeremiah 3:16)
Oh, but Jesus is running around saying things like you can eat whatever you want, and of course the modern church doesn't expect Jewish converts to still hold to the mosiatic Covenant.
Also, I suggest you re-read your Jeremiah. 31:32, especially, what with the whole it won't actually be different, but it will be written on their inward parts, on their hearts instead of stone tablets thing.
>But we're talking about the Essenes.
Ahh, yes, point. I had misread that.
Yes, now please read my post.
Everyone, Gospels and Hebrew scriptures alike, agrees that the lamb is killed on the afternoon of the 14th, with the Passover holiday itself beginning at dusk with a feast of unleavened bread and pieces from the paschal sacrifice.
The synoptic Gospels are very clear that the Last Supper involved eating the paschal lamb. (Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17-18, Luke 22:8) John is equally clear that by the time Jesus is brought before Pilate, which is in all accounts after the last supper and in the next morning, the paschal offering had yet to be brought, hence the priests worries about possible defilement (how this is to be achieved is left unclear, did the Roman governor keep dead bodies laying around in his house?) would disqualify them for the passover, which means that yes, John is indeed asserting that the whole thing happened a day earlier than the other 3 gospels.
>Completely wrong. I would remind you of Genesis 19:2, which is addressing the same folks.
But it's not. There are only two of them and they are referred to as angels (messengers) which the three are not.
>Oh, but Jesus is running around saying things like you can eat whatever you want, and of course the modern church doesn't expect Jewish converts to still hold to the mosiatic Covenant.
That is because the Mosaic covenant is defunct, or rather gathered into the next one. The role of the Mosaic covenant was to prepare the Jews as a beacon for the world, not to make some perpetual rules they had to follow that no one else did, even after the restoration of all things. Unless you are suggesting there is something intrinsically wrong everything the Law covers, in which case you will have to explain why Israel did not have to follow it, and why you don't think Gentiles have to follow it.
>The synoptic Gospels are very clear that the Last Supper involved eating the paschal lamb.
As in *Christ*. Christ is the Paschal Lamb. If they were eating a lamb as in the animal, it would defeat the whole point, wouldn't it?
You have the word אדני in both places. Since you agree with me that the parties in Genesis 19 are in fact angels and not God, your assertion back in >>669557 that
>The men/angels are God. The term Abraham uses to address them, in that particular grammatical case, is used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Testament, and only ever for God.
>That is because the Mosaic covenant is defunct, or rather gathered into the next one.
That sounds an awful lot like adding and subtracting to me.
>The role of the Mosaic covenant was to prepare the Jews as a beacon for the world, not to make some perpetual rules they had to follow that no one else did,
So again, God is lying in Deuteronomy 4:40.
>. Unless you are suggesting there is something intrinsically wrong everything the Law covers, in which case you will have to explain why Israel did not have to follow it, and why you don't think Gentiles have to follow it.
Israel does have to follow it. The problem with Christianity is that it claims that Israel, assuming they become Christian, no longer need to follow it.
>As in *Christ*. Christ is the Paschal Lamb. If they were eating a lamb as in the animal, it would defeat the whole point, wouldn't it?
You haven't actually read the Gospels, have you? I've already provided you with the verses, and they're definitely talking along the lines of "where are we going to have that unleavened bread feast with the sheep".
By the way, maybe you can help me with something. Why do you get this tripod equation of Jesus as both a paschal lamb and a lamb as a sin offering? They're not the same offering, not even remotely close: the paschal offering more resembling a thanksgiving offering than any other. And a sin offering as a lamb is decidedly second-best, a bull is what you're supposed to offer, a lamb only being allowed if you can't afford a bull. Oh, and sin-lambs are female.
Conceded, but that doesn't change that the two angels of 19 are referred to primarily as *messengers*, and are not referred to as an actual appearance of YHWH.
>That sounds an awful lot like adding and subtracting to me.
>So again, God is lying in Deuteronomy 4:40
God does not give the statutes as permanent here. It's also you are indicating God is lying, since the Jews were keeping the old covenant when the diaspora occurred under Bar Kokhba--if the covenant wasn't fulfilled by Christ, then why would God permit the diaspora?
>The problem with Christianity is that it claims that Israel, assuming they become Christian, no longer need to follow it.
Christianity sees Israel and the Body of Christ as synonymous. It's no longer racial.
You haven't actually read the Gospels, have you? I've already provided you with the verses, and they're definitely talking along the lines of "where are we going to have that unleavened bread feast with the sheep".
It's clearly not, since the the Mystical Supper has leavened bread.
> Why do you get this tripod equation of Jesus as both a paschal lamb and a lamb as a sin offering?
Because he's both. But the juridical idea s secondary. God does not need an offering to forgive sins, he forgives them through an offering, but the main point of Christ is for God to commune with the world and thereby abolish death. Sin here is ontological, not juridical.
>And a sin offering as a lamb is decidedly second-best, a bull is what you're supposed to offer, a lamb only being allowed if you can't afford a bull. Oh, and sin-lambs are female.
This is the most Pharisaic objection I've ever seen you post. Christ technically isn't a bull or a lamb, he's a person. He's the Passover Lamb as primary, so calling him a bull too would be ridiculous, especially since he didn't act like one. Are you suggesting if Christianity were accurate, then there there would be two Christ, one for the Passover and one as a bull?
>Conceded, but that doesn't change that the two angels of 19 are referred to primarily as *messengers*, and are not referred to as an actual appearance of YHWH.
Yes, but they are addressed with אדני , same as they are a previous chapter when it's Abraham dealing with them. In fact, they're very probably the same angels, since they head over to Sodom in 18.
>God does not give the statutes as permanent here.
It kind of is talking about how you shall keep His statutes and commandments כָּל-הַיָּמִים., forever.
>When the diaspora occurred under Bar Kokhba--if the covenant wasn't fulfilled by Christ, then why would God permit the diaspora?
The same reasons under the Babylonian diaspora, or the time spent in the desert. Punishment for sins committed as for reasons. And the mere impossibility of fulfilling a commandment doesn't abrogate the commandment; as soon as it's possible to perform again, you're back on the hook.
>Christianity sees Israel and the Body of Christ as synonymous. It's no longer racial.
Even if it's no longer racial, if you agree that you cannot abrogate the Mosiatic covenant, there's going to be a subset of people who are bound by it, even if they've accepted Jesus.
>It's clearly not, since the the Mystical Supper has leavened bread.
Luke 22:7 says it's on the feast of unleavened bread, Matthew 26:17 says the same, as does Mark 14:12, all make reference to both unleavened bread and the passover offering.
>But the juridical idea s secondary. God does not need an offering to forgive sins, he forgives them through an offering,
Wrong. Go look up Hannah's story. The offering is helpful but not necessary for remission of sin, but that's because of its effect on the offeror, not on God. Repentance eases along when there's a bite, personal consequences to your actions.
>He's the Passover Lamb as primary,
But that makes no sense, given that the Passover lamb is very, very much a part of Jewishness as a nationality/ethnicity/people, a way of forging a distinct identity.
To be honest, I have trouble coming up with any theological stretch far enough that would make Christianity accurate. It involves wholesale revision of the Tanach; but if it were, I would be arguing that the conflation with Passover is unnecessary and runs counter to the message that you're trying to give, namely that the day in the sun of the people of Israel is over, and there's a brand new relationship between God and man for the entire world. Just axe all the passover imagery, and cast Jesus's crucifixion as being around passover as a coincidence, or perhaps merely a means by which it could be publicized further, since you had a lot of people in Jerusalem at the time.
The Passover is seen as the liberation of the bruised, the weak, the enslaved (Luke 4:18). Being marked as saved by Christ is seen as analogous to the marking on the door. The Jews were God's chosen people because they were the most downtrodden, that is why they were chosen to be a beacon of light for the downtrodden of the whole world.
Can't. The Passover is the foreshadowing of the crucifixion.
Jesus is literally the Lamb of God, sent to take away the sins of the world, and declared so by John the Baptist, in the spirit of Elijah.
Jesus the Lamb enters Jerusalem Nisan 10, 32 AD. He is examined by the priests and elders, who can find no spot or blemish on Him. They nevertheless conspire to kill Him, but He has prophesied that He would be killed by them on the Passover. Their conspiracy therefore is bound to not kill Him on the Passover, thus making Him a false prophet.
So Jesus spurs Judas on, at the Last Supper, to force the hand of the conspiracy by letting them know Jesus is aware of their plotting against Him, and aware of who is going to betray Him.
They therefore spring into action, call out the Roman garrison, and arrest Jesus in the Garden. Jesus makes it clear He does not have to go with them if He does not choose to, by knocking them all to the ground at the utterance of His name: "I am He."
Kangaroo and illegal court convicts, few trips to see various potentates, and Jesus is crucified on Nisan 14, the Passover, just as He said.
Look at the Egyptian passover. Blood on the top and sides of the door, by a hyssop branch, making a cross.
Look at the hyssop branch offered to the Lamb of God, bleeding on the cross.
Look at the passover lamb, slain with your hand on it to impute all of your sins into the lamb, and all of the lamb's innocence into you.
Look at Jesus, the Lamb of God, slain for the sins of the world, taking all of mankind's sins onto Himself, all men, of all time, forever. He became sin. Our sin went into Him, and His righteousness can now be imputed into us if we believe.
OT Passover is a shadow of the coming Messiah.
NT Passover is a remembrance of what Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, did for us on that tree.
He paid a debt He did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay.
He is the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords, and we owe Him all.
You are mistaken on many points.
The first of which is while the disciples had made preparations for the passover meal, they never ate it. The last supper was not the passover meal. It was just bread and wine.
The next problem you have is the same problem Pilate had; not knowing when there was a special sabbath. When Joseph went to plead to Pilate to take the body of Jesus, they had to remind Pilate that the following day was also a special sabbath day, the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Nisan 14 was Passover
Nisan 15 was the Feast of Unleavened Bread
Nisan 16 was the sabbath
Nisan 17 Jesus rose from the dead, having been in the tomb three days and three nights.
Two angels and pre-incarnate Jesus, Who is God. Those are the three men Abraham hosted.
39 `And thou hast known to-day, and hast turned [it] back unto thy heart, that Jehovah He [is] God, in the heavens above, and on the earth beneath -- there is none else;
40 and thou hast kept His statutes and His commands which I am commanding thee to-day, so that it is well to thee, and to thy sons after thee, and so that thou prolongest days on the ground which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee -- all the days.'
This does not say that they obeyed the Law perfectly, as nobody ever did. The Law found no one righteous, hence the need for animal sacrifices yearly.
Doesn't the passover feast require a FEMALE lamb?
Doesn't go give specific commandments against human sacrifice?
Isn't passover supposed to be something you do for yourself, you can't have a passover and bestow it on something else.
Jesus is God, and lay down His life for us.
All have sinned.
The wages of sin is death.
The life is in the blood.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.
Passover in the OT is a remembrance of the Jews' delivery from Egypt.
Passover in the NT is a remembrance of the world's delivery from sin.
Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the choices of Abraham, who was hardly bruised, weak, or enslaved, what with his victory over the four kings.
Not even wrong. But I would seriously implore you to look up the differences between a paschal offering and a sin offering, which are nothing alike outside of both of them being sacrifices.
>Look at the passover lamb, slain with your hand on it to impute all of your sins into the lamb, and all of the lamb's innocence into you.
That was Yom kippur, and a goat besides. The paschal offering was to establish a new nationality, to separate out the Hebrews from the Egyptians they had become so alike (and arguably, it wasn't enough, what with the constant desires to go back)
That's funny, they sure talk about eating the passover. Matthew has "Where will we eat the passover?" and Luke has Jesus specifically ordering Peter and John to prepare the passover, and 22:13 says that they prepared it.
>The next problem you have is the same problem Pilate had; not knowing when there was a special sabbath.
Maybe because no such thing existed until the Amoraim period, unless you want to take a rather poetic view of Yom Kippur; and even then, the "special" sabbaths don't have any different observance outside of a non-standard Torah reading on Saturday.
> the following day was also a special sabbath day, the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
The observance of Pesach is only incidentally related (you won't be able to eat normal bread with your friday night dinner) with the observance of Shabbat, it's a completely different celebration,
And besides, NONE of that has anything to do with the discrepancy in the Gospels. They're very clearly relating their sense of time to the offering of the paschal lamb. Synoptics say it was offered before the last supper. John puts an event after the last supper, the presentation before Pilate, at before the offering of the lamb.
>Two angels and pre-incarnate Jesus, Who is God. Those are the three men Abraham hosted.
Nope, since he gets up and "leaves" God to go talk to the angels.
>This does not say that they obeyed the Law perfectly, as nobody ever did. The Law found no one righteous, hence the need for animal sacrifices yearly.
Besides, you know, Benjamin and Amram. Not to mention that God in Deuteronomy 30:11 says it's quite possible to live perfectly by the Law, albeit difficult. And once again, not all sacrifices were for sin. There was a daily offering, the Tamid, a burnt thing. Nothing to do with sin. There were the peace offerings and the thanksgiving offerings. Nothing to do with sin. Insisting that the paschal lamb was a sin offering just demonstrates you guys have never actually read Leviticus, or understood anything.
>Doesn't the passover feast require a FEMALE lamb?
No, male, one year or under. Sin offerings are the ones that require a female lamb. The thing is, Christians implicitly assume that the "Paschal" offering of Jesus was also a sin offering, despite the two having nothing to do
>Isn't passover supposed to be something you do for yourself, you can't have a passover and bestow it on something else.
It's actually supposed to be something communal. You're supposed to get together with a bunch of your buddies and offer the lamb together, afterwards each eating a portion of it. Some of the anecdotes in the Gemara (I'd have to go digging if you want an exact page citation) seem to indicate that groups of 30-50 were about average for each lamb.
>Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the choices of Abraham, who was hardly bruised, weak, or enslaved, what with his victory over the four kings.
Abraham was Shasu, the Hebrews of Egypt were Habiru. While they were his descendants, you'll notice they had a different covenant than he did. The Habiru weren't just the descendants of Abraham (which would include the Arabs as well), they were a social class, and their numbers were bolstered by runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
The paschal lamb is the passover lamb. Jesus is the Lamb of God Abraham referenced to Isaac; that God would provide Himself a lamb for the offering. Abraham saw this day, and rejoiced. Every man of every house at Passover would sacrifice a lamb for his house, in Jerusalem.
Jesus changed Passover. Jesus fulfilled the Law. Jesus fulfilled the festivals. Jesus fulfilled all of your traditions. They are all moot. They were never good in the first place, not really. You would never know the living God by living in somewhat accord with the Old Covenant.
And you, without a high priest, without a temple, not believing in your own messiah, I'm afraid you have many strikes against you in my eyes.
Because I know, and I believe I have told you several times before, what Paul said about people like you.
Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
The scapegoat on Yom Kippur could only cover your sins for a year, not take them away. And of course, you don't even have that covered.
Jesus does not get up and leave God to go talk to the angels. I don't know where you got that from, but it's obviously bogus. The two angels travel without the third being.
Genesis 18, Abraham and Jesus talking.
Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”
And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” 33 So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.
11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
That says no such thing.
It says that the Law is right there, carved in stone, in their midst.
They don't have to guess what it is.
They don't have to scour heaven for it.
They don't have to plumb the seas for it.
It's. Right. There.
טו כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ, לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ, קָדוֹשׁ: וְלֹא-יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ.
טז לֹא-תַסְגִּיר עֶבֶד, אֶל-אֲדֹנָיו, אֲשֶׁר-יִנָּצֵל אֵלֶיךָ, מֵעִם אֲדֹנָיו.
For the Lord your God walks in the middle of your camp, to deliver you, and to give up your enemies before you, (and) therefore shall your camp be holy, that He see no abominable thing in you, and turn away from you.
You shall not deliver unto his master a slave that escaped his master and fled to you.
What? Also, the Habiru thing has been debunked for decades. The etymology only makes sense in English, which surprise, nobody spoke back then.
>Every man of every house at Passover would sacrifice a lamb for his house, in Jerusalem.
Yeah, no. Pesachim ten, everyone has to be involved in a passover sacrifice, but not every man sacrifices. Hence, you know, Jesus going to someone else's house and partaking of theirs.
>Jesus changed Passover.
And thus ignored Deuteronomy 13:1! Joy!
>Jesus fulfilled the Law. Jesus fulfilled the festivals. Jesus fulfilled all of your traditions. They are all moot.
So God is a liar! Joy!
>You would never know the living God by living in somewhat accord with the Old Covenant.
Yes, God lied to literally millions of people for thousands of years!
Sarcasm mode off.
>The scapegoat on Yom Kippur could only cover your sins for a year, not take them away. And of course, you don't even have that covered.
And yet you don't try to tie Jesus into that, but rather a festival which had nothing to do with sins at all. Good thing you have that pocket expert Paul to make an ass of himself.
>Jesus does not get up and leave God to go talk to the angels. I don't know where you got that from, but it's obviously bogus. The two angels travel without the third being.
I didn't. ABRAHAM gets up, and I get it from the plain text.
וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל
He saw them, and then ran forth to meet them from the tent door.
Thus, and this is a really really simple concept, the "men"/angels are not God, and there is nothing in Genesis to demonstrate a triune pagan deity.
>11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in h
ahahahaha, And I bet your translation of Isaiah 7:14 says "will conceive" as opposed to has conceived, what with הָרָה being a past tense verb.
Good to know that Christians can't even read the texts properly.
נִפְלֵאת from the root נפל "to fall". Because it's hard, heavy, difficult. Mysterious doesn't enter into it.
>Also, the Habiru thing has been debunked for decades
Please feel free to tell me who the people were who were enslaved in Egypt that the Bible spoke of, and what they were called at the time.
>The etymology only makes sense in English, which surprise, nobody spoke back then.
The etymology is largely irrelevant
If you want it transliterated into English, it would be "Eeev-reem"
>The plethora of attempts to relate apiru (habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking
I have. You have references to the Apiru that pre-date the general rough chronology of Abram, you have the admission that mainstream scholarly discourse disagrees with him, you have no etymology outside of "they sound similar".
v/b/p are the same letter in Egyptian, and I believe v and b are the same in Hebrew.
the "i" in Habiru is of course long.
Whether or not the first syllable has an aspirate (in Egyptian), but generally now it is phrased without it, which in fact would make it even closer of a word.
No, because the Christian covenant fulfills the Mosaic covenant. The point of the Mosaic covenant was for the Jews to lead the gentiles to the Christian covenant. The Christian covenant is the global one, the Mosaic covenant is the provisional one.
>Proof for God
Nope. Nature itself testifies to God's existence, but it is of little consequence. You can use nature and logic that you've come up with through the observation of nature, but it will never definitively say there is a God.
The lack of salvation is not an intellectual position, but a spiritual disease. Knowledge of God is attained by witnessing the Father's work in Creation, yes, but is only affirmed through the restoration bought by Christ as testified by the Holy Spirit, directly to the sinner.
Swallow the Bread Pill, read Soren, put on the armor of God, wield the sword of the Spirit, and become a Knight of Faith.
Neither am I, if you are talking about the typical concept of faith alone by most Protestants today.
The idea of "faith alone" implies that you did something to be saved. I do not believe that. I believe that God worked in your life to bring you to a point where you recognize His sovereignty and your need for salvation. The idea that you have to have faith to be saved is the belief in work-required salvation, because if you choose faith then your salvation was through your own work.
But I do not deny the importance of works. God did not save you for nothing. So just going to church every Sunday does not satisfy your purpose as a Christian. You have to live your life in a way that testifies to the redeeming power of Christ. You have to engage people. You have to maintain the spiritual and moral readiness to leap on witnessing and discipleship opportunities.
Belief in work-required salvation is unbiblical. Belief in faith without works is unchristian. Sola Fide is just belief in work-required salvation, and usually leads to a belief in faith without works.
>you should at least consider God a reasonable possibility
Been there, done that, and the evidence clearly points towards "god", and "gods" alike, being absolutely nothing more than human fabrication.
With everything we know about history, human fabrication and deceit, and the physical world of the cosmos, claiming a belief in any given "god" is just naive.
it's still like that, women are cordoned and pray seperately. their prayer is individual since they can't form a minyan, so technically they don't "participte". i though when you said treated worse by judaism you meant something much graver then that.
>The Talmud says it is better the Law be burnt than delivered to a woman.
Citation? I'm aware of Rabbi Eliezer's claim that teaching Torah to women is like teaching them frivolity, but I don't remember any blanket statement like that, and Eliezer usually loses his little halachic disputes.
also ive read a passage in the talmud where it says there are three things which are comparable to the world to come, and one of those things was teaching your daughter torah
this was during my yeshiva days
It's in the Jerusalem Talmud, which I'm afraid there isn't an English translation for (that I can find a link to, Wikipedia only gives the Hebrew ones).
>The Jerusalem Talmud (JT) notes the opinion of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the Tanna mentioned above: “Women’s wisdom is solely in the spindle.” He added, “The words of the Torah should be burned rather than entrusted to women” (JT Sotah 3:4, 19a)
You are aware that the Jerusalem Talmud is considered a significant step down from the Babylonian one in all matters except agricultural law, yes?
I also like how the article you cite immediately follows up with a dissenting opinion from Ben Azzai, and a later and far more widely cited authority in Elazar Ben Azariah.
I was sort of in the same boat you were in, but I started realizing that the concepts of God in the NT and OT were incompatible, that, coupled with the fact that judaism nor the bible can be taken seriously at face value. Judaism started within the canaanite population, the kingdoms weren't as big as the bible suggests, they were polytheistic or at the very least henotheistic for a very long time, etc. etc. I'm a Deist but like the cultural and philosophical teachings of the Tanakh. I almost became a catholic just because I was wowed by a visit to the vatican when I went to italy.
I mean, do what you want, but I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can take either belief system seriously outside of cultural practices. I think if you're an ethnic russian you should be a cultural orthodox, if youre spanish a cultural catholic, if you're a jew, be a cultural jew. those are my 2 cents. I am just very glad I have an opportunity to have this unique culture that is different from all others. this is why I get sort of mad at jews4jesus types of people because I cannot see for the life of me why anyone would consider christianity a better religious culture to subscribe to.
>the concepts of God in the NT and OT were incompatible
How are they? Consider that Proverbs 8 and 9 are see to be about Christ to Christians. Also consider how God says he abhors punishing evil doers in the OT, and would rather forgive them.
>Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
>Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
>For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
>For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
>For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
These are all from the OT
i had similar beliefs to you, and on top of that was as hardcore a philosophical skeptic as you can get. christianity has a much better case then you currently imagine it to have. give it a chance, and have an open mind
but like i said i havent made a final choice
The entire distinction between Christianity and Pharisaic Judaism is simple: Pharisaic Judaism believe prophecies can be understood before they are fulfilled, Christians believe they cannot be understood until after they are fulfilled (except for Protestants, who are constantly trying to use Revelations to predict things)
Like I said, you can do you what you want, no Sanhedrin to punish you for leaving the faith. If you genuinely believe the prophecies and stories it could be a bit different, but for a person like me that doesn't, its just hard to imagine.
I should have mentioned this first, I was raised Christian and my father, the one with any Jewish blood, is a very dedicated Christian.
I'm no stranger to the ideas and beliefs, they're nice feel-good stories but that's where it ends.
>So God is a liar! Joy!
You must be off your rocker if you think eating Kosher will have any meaning after the Restoration of all Things. The material as we know it will function completely differently, you will not still be quibbling over whether dairy was used an hour before on a frying pan before meat was cooked on it. I do not mean to be harsh on Judaism, but Jews who think the abolition of the Ark and God writing his laws on the hearts of Israel means they will just have it all memorized, are as bad as fundamentalists Christians. You will not still be circumcising your kids in kingdom come. In fact, kingdom has already come, it just is a matter of time before it sublates literally everything in the end times. The idea that these petty quibbles will still happen shows a lack of spiritual dimension, and a total carnal understanding of reality.
>Walls of text.
That thread was mostly Constantine demonstrating that he's an idiot who doesn't understand physics yet none the less has strong opinions on things he knows little about.
There is no evidence for God. Provide that or fuck yourself.
Yes, I'm off my rocker for thinking that when God says to be keeping these laws and ordinances "forever" it actually means forever.
The idea that you can separate your practice from some kind of"higher" spirituality fundamentally unconnected with how you act, especially with how you act via a bus towards divine command is ridiculous at best, and the excuse of a lazy charlatan at worst.
and by the way i took a very hardcore yeshayahu leibowitz level stance on halacha. i practiced a totally halacha centered judaism, and totally dismissed kabbalah and such. it will sound strange, and it is rather difficult to explain but i would say nietzsche was my first step toward christianity
>Yes, I'm off my rocker for thinking that when God says to be keeping these laws and ordinances "forever" it actually means forever.
God doesn't say you will keep it forever, and yes, if you think you will be keeping them after Judgement Day, and you will quibbling over legalistic nonsense more than actually knowing God and love, you are off your rocker
I actually lost my fervor for Christianity by reading through threads not unlike this on /pol/ before /his/, maybe even with the same Jewish poster. I hadnt taken any Jewish points of view seriously because I was so enamored with the possibilities of conspiracies and synagogues of Satan that non-christian Jews obviously were today. But by breaking down the various texts and analyzing it all, coupled with secular research about the foundation of Judaism and biblical archaeology and all that, I realized it wasn't a possibility for me.
Read, scrolling downward.
Do you really think you'll be arguing this like a bunch of Pharisees after sin has been abolished and Eden restored? You treat God's law like a bunch of lawyers. Again, I don't mean to be a jerk about Judaism, but if you can't even decide what constitutes a sin, then there's a major problem.
He says Israel will yours forever. Israel is Christ's Body. Or do you literally think it is a patch of land? Israel is something spiritual, the land was merely an emblem, a foretaste of it. Jews were hardly even living in Israel from the 2nd Century until the 20th, do you think God abandoned you that whole time? He didn't, it's just you have such a carnal understanding of Israel that you are blind to God's love. You have to understand what love is to truly honor God.
And again, you cannot divide spirituality away from practice. Hand waving actual doings away and saying "good enough" is for the lazy and ignorant. If you can't be bothered to really stop and think about how your day to day actions are holy or profane, how seriously are you really taking things?
You have to understand Hebrew to to truly understand Gid's word and Honor God. You clearly lack that understanding.
Alas, it's getting late and I meed to sleep. Interesting thread people. I'll get back to it if I can later.
I'll be honest, I'm not the type to be like "do what you want," I do think that if you have a Jewish background you should subscribe to Judaism because of the history, culture, and philosophy behind it all that has been influencing other religions since it was codified. I'm just saying there's no real repercussions for you to leave it. I really do wish you the best of luck, I won't be replying to this anymore (unless maybe I see it up tomorrow, /his/ moves quite slow as we all know), but I must say it was nice having a thought provoking conversation about religion that didn't devolve into shitflinging, on 4chan. I did come out aggressively I suppose (christcucks BTFO) but I think this thread proves that belittling Christianity wasn't my real goal.
>The idea that you can separate your practice from some kind of"higher" spirituality fundamentally unconnected with how you act
This of course an erroneous idea. But do you see Christian monks bicvkering over how their vows will work? They'd be ashamed to do such a thing. Do you see Orthodox Christians quibbling about whether or a pan used to cook meat, can be used to cook on fast days? They would equally ashamed.
Forgive me if I sound unloving or excessively righteous. If I do, then please rebuke me for it.
>If you can't be bothered to really stop and think about how your day to day actions are holy or profane, how seriously are you really taking things?
If you can't figure out which things are holy or profane, there's a problem. Of course we thinik about what's holy and what's profane, that is why we go to Confession, but lawyering and bickering is really wrong, at least from a Christian perspective. God's laws are not arbitrary or nebulous, they are clear cut, and they serve a purpose. And no, carnal things like circumcision have no place in kingdom come, it won't be remotely comparable to how things are now.
Not that guy, but why would their shame matter? If you think these are things of genuine spiritual consequence, then they are most certainly something to bicker over. If you don't consider whether these things are of spiritual consequence, are you truly taking the implications of a religious worldview seriously?
>God's laws are not arbitrary or nebulous, they are clear cut
That's why there are currently thousands of Christian denominations, each carrying their own interpretation of God's law, right?
There is not spiritual consequence in exactly 1/60 dairy compared to any ratio of more, it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You follow the spirit of the law. In fast days without meat, for instance, you do not eat meat, you don't make it any more complicated than that. If you have to ask, don't do it. You don't ask how many atoms of meat are permissible, because if you do then you miss the entire function of not eating meat on that day, which is very simple.
And what if you're wrong? What if it is the letter of the law the matters?
>there's only one Christianity if I ignore every other form of Christianity
Ok then, yes Christian laws are very clear cut and obvious in interpretation and have never resulted in people nailing shit to church doors.
>And what if you're wrong? What if it is the letter of the law the matters?
God is not a letter. Letters are only an icon of God. To say the letter matters more than the spirit is like saying the icon matters more than whom it represents, it's a form of idolatry. The letter is nothing without being a reflection of the spirit, it's dead, it is carnal. How are you any different from the Saduccees if you take the letter for all value? That is exactly what the Sadducees did.
>Ok then, yes Christian laws are very clear cut and obvious in interpretation and have never resulted in people nailing shit to church doors.
Martin Luther wanted to remove several books from the NT for disagreeing with him because he saw he was clear cut in the wrong.
Why would God bother with the letters at all if the letters were not important? Why not simply impart an intuitive understanding of the law and let us choose from there?
>Martin Luther wanted to remove several books from the NT for disagreeing with him because he saw he was clear cut in the wrong.
Actually he took them out because he thought the Catholic church was in the wrong. Do try to grow up a bit.
The letters are important, but *only* as a reflection of the spirit. Just like icons are important, but *only* as a reflection of their subject.
>Actually he took them out because he thought the Catholic church was in the wrong. Do try to grow up a bit.
He wanted to take them out for disagreeing with ideas, and no other reason. Not because he question their validity for this or that reason before, but solely for disagreeing with him
>"If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times". However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon".
>The letters are important, but *only* as a reflection of the spirit.
The letters are important because they impart information, and determining the precise wishes of God is fucking important if it's your fucking soul on the line. Jews don't question the exact nature of the law to get away with shit, they do it so they don't fuck up in interpreting God's will.
If using a pan that was used to cook meet on fast has the possibility of being a sin, shouldn't that be discussed? Or is your faith just not that important to you that you're willing to question whether or not you should use a fucking pan?
As for Luther alternatively, he didn't attack Peter because he felt it contradicted the rest in no substantial fashion. If his error were as clear cut as you say, protestantism would have never taken off and you fucking know it.
" strong evidence was provided for God"
Cool. You got that Nobel Prize for proving we are the experiment of a superbeing?
Must have missed that in the news somehow..
Why do christfags try so desperatly to appear like they are based in rationality? You aren't. If that bothers you, switch religions. Why even try to have Faith if you just want reasons?
Stop trying to muddle words like "evidence" with your sad wordgames, it just highlights how intellectualy bankrupt your whole faith thing actually is. Not helping anyone.
S you're saying God neglected to leave behind all these crucial details and they have to be argued over and over and over and over and never decisively decided? Even though your soul is on the line?
No, God was quite straightforward
you have to understand that as far as christfags go, rational arguments are basically window dressing. if all of a sudden they had no argument at all for why god exists most of them would still believe
they have already made up their minds, any arguments they present arent meant to convince anyone, they are simply to confirm what they already believe. this is why christfag arguments are riddled eith assumptions that are never made explicit
Note that the ancient Jews, like Christians, thought the text alone wasn't enough (unless you're Sadducee); it also came with a specific meaning handed down. This is what Orthodox Christianity does to, the meaning is consistent and handed down. But when you quibble over frying pans, that has absolutely nothing to do with handed down meaning. The idea is to preserve what God said and preserve the meaning (and some meaning is not clear to anyone until after it occurs, like with prophecies). You cannot go beyond what God hands down, which is Holy Tradition, encompassing Scripture, the meaning of Scripture, and other things. The job of religious leaders is preserve these things; if you have a disagreement, there is a clear cut answer to it passed down by God; if there is no clear cut answer passed down by God, then it is theologoumena, which has zero bearing on salvation or pleasing God or how to live or any of that, because God's lack of passing it down meant he thought it's either unimportant or on a need-to-know basis.
Imagine if two Nazarites were arguing over if you can brush out hair that is disconnected with your scalp, or if you can pluck out ingrown hairs. There is nothing spiritual about that. It is turning what is meant to be something spiritual, into something carnal. The *spirit* of the law is what counts, the letter is useful as an expression of the spirit. The letter is for worshiping God, if you get tied up in the letter rather than the point of the letter, it becomes a narcissistic exercise. God's rules are not iffy or confusing, if they ever appear such it is because of men making them that way in order to derive pedantic pleasure from them, which is the opposite of humility and piety.
>determining the precise wishes of God is fucking important if it's your fucking soul on the line
I didn't think Jews did the whole "you need to save your soul from divine punishment" thing.
You do know by its definition, Faith comes from God right? This means even the works you do is only because God gave you the ability to do them and changed your will such that you would do them
there is no official position on that. Jews mostly don't relate to that idea at all. Jews don't have dogmatic theological and cosmological beliefs the way Christians do. They have Law.
so? you think everyone agrees with him? he is the nost praised and at the same time one of the most neglected thinker of Judaism. Thirteen planks are not dogma in the way Christians have dogma.
Because Faith is important too. It basically serves as the driver for works.
However I do not see this Faith to be something implanted to me through mind control but of my own volition.
Every Orhodox jew will say they do. But:
1. if they didn't it would have no bearing on their Jewishness.
2. in practice, most do not agree with all of them. various beliefs like kabballah diverge from maimonidean thinking (on the oneness of god, for example) and the majority of modern orthodox would take kabbalah over Rambam any day of the week.
think about it: how is it that Sephardic, Hasidic, Ashkenazi, Yeminite, etc can all acknowledge eachother as Jewish despite differing beliefs? Because only the law is relevant. Jewish "theology" changes with the times and from group to group.
If they didn't believe in God it would have no bearing on their Jewishness. It would have bearing on their Orthodoxy, though.
I do not think any Orthodox Jew would disagree with any of them.
but what is God? If one person says "I believe in God", and another person says it, those two people could mean totally different things. In Judaism there are many, MANY definitions of God.
If you went to another man's house for passover, that man made the sacrifice that covered everyone under that roof.
And then the angel of death passed over that house, and did not kill the first born.
It's almost as though you have zero understanding of Moses and the prophets; almost as though YHWH has blinded you, and placed a veil over your heart so that you cannot understand them.
Because that's what happened.
depends what you mean by "have to", but kind of. they've just been kind of accepted, but that doesn't remove the possiblity that another great rabbi could emerge who makes his own "planks" which people would decide are better. thirteen planks are a widely accepted belief, not dogma.
>And thus ignored Deuteronomy 13:1! Joy!
Jesus is YHWH. Your Passover was a shadow of His sacrifice.
For maybe the 100th time.
Jesus fulfilled the Law of Sin and Death that you cling to, when it convicts you, and condemns you.
a festival which had nothing to do with sins at all
For maybe the 101th time, Yom Kippur never got rid of any sins. It put a covering of animal blood over them. They were still there.
Jesus came and removed the sins. All of them. Even the ones of stiff necked Jews who hate their own Messiah.
Like many prophecies, that prophecy had a short term fulfillment in the wondrous birth of a child to Isaiah, and a long term fulfillment in the Son of God being given for the world.
In your bible, does it not say that God resists the proud?
You're assuming that James is using the word "faith" as in "faith in the risen Christ Jesus". He is not.
If you place your faith in Buddha, that faith will not generate the sorts of things that faith in the risen Christ Jesus will manufacture through you.
James is saying "show me your supernatural works that only faith in the risen Christ Jesus can bring".
Also remember that James is an asshole. It helps. Oh, and a Judaizer.
Same God. OT He gives mankind the blueprint for following satan, the Law of Sin and Death.
Note that the freed Hebrews agreed that they could and would follow all of it, even before it was given to them. They were fools, and they died in the wilderness.
The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the things that are incompatible, and the New Covenant exceeds the Old in every measurable way.
Spotted the papist, adding nothing to the conversation, as usual.
Had the Jews believed the prophecies about the Messiah, they would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
They had other more pressing concerns, and murdered Him instead.
>these delusional retards arguing back and forth about whether their fairy has three faces or one
The one true god spoke to me last night and told me you're all literally wasting the only lives you're gonna get as the heretic heathen you are.
It's strange to me that any modern Jew would boast about their "Jewishness", seeing as there is no Temple, no High Priest, and no ark.
It makes most Jews being atheists more understandable.
you should word these thing as questions rather than statements. you make yourself sound rather presumptuous. the "jewish by birth" thing is more complicated than it seems in practice.
1. it's one thing to be born jewish, another thing to practice it. we have been arguing about jewish practice
2. throughout most of jewish history someone who didn't practice was not considered jewish, and was removed from the community. only with the haskalah did that change
The wicked Israelites under Manasseh, a truly evil king, worshiped Moloch in the Valley of Hinnom, slaughtering their babies in the fire there.
Pretty good description of hell, burning humans in fire along with their demon gods.
But, as you pointed out, we're talking about contemporary Judaism, not historical Judaism.
By Orthodox Jewish standards, Reform and Conservative do not practice Judaism. Are they not Jewish?
No, He said belief is a work. They asked Him what the work of God was, and He said to believe in the One Whom He sent, and that is Christ Jesus.
The people who saw and heard and believed Jesus did not do so by faith.
We do so by faith, because we did not see Him here. Faith is the ability to believe the unseen.
Jesus is YHWH.
When Jews come to this realization, that Jesus is YHWH, the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and that He really did rise from the dead, they are saved and become born again Christians.
Doesn't matter who has to obey it. Nobody can.
The Law is there to teach you that through your own efforts, you can never be like God. You can't even follow the Law that God follows trivially.
And in your despair, you then turn to the Messiah for salvation through grace by faith, and find it.
Well since Orthodox Jews pretty universally subscribe to the thirteen planks (I doubt you can find more than a handful of rabbis who do not, and if you even found that I'd be impressed), then this sort of thing about the thirteen planks being arbitrary is a bit silly. Judaism is Orthodox Judaism, yes? The rest is like Unitarianism is to Christianity.
James taught openly in the Jewish temple, with no problem from the Jews.
Because James taught to have a mikvah, and dedicate your life to keeping the Laws of Moses.
Paul brought the New Covenant to the Jews, and was beaten, stabbed, killed, and ridiculed.
Maybe consider that the so-called pillars of Christianity, Peter, James, and John, did not add one whit to Paul's faith.
Paul never met Jesus until after the resurrection, and yet Paul knows Jesus better, and the New Covenant better, than all of the disciples.
There's a reason for that. Paul, a pharisee, could easily discard all of the Law as loss.
Peter pretended to be kosher when the Jews came calling; James preached the Law in the temple, and John, well, John didn't really get the message until much later, did he.
Look, there's no reason to think that joining an earthly church is any sort of spiritual conversion.
Get saved first, and then if you want to enjoy fellowship in an orthodox church, so be it.
If you rely on that orthodox church for your salvation, you will not achieve it any more than the catholics who rely upon their church for salvation.
He did, actually. He went out of His way to demonstrate to them that He is the messiah.
The Pharisees believed that only the messiah could cast out demons from a deaf, dumb and blind man, as that man would have no way to communicate the name of the demon inhabiting him.
Jesus did it, and they instead of recognizing He is the messiah, said that God was doing the work of satan.
After that, Jesus did nothing to demonstrate to them that He is the Messiah, and began teaching in parables so that the pharisees could not understand Him.
And the universe God made is evidence of Him. So much evidence, in fact, that you are not an unbeliever, but a rebel against God. You will plead ignorance, and God will tell you that you already stand convicted, and already stand without excuse.
That is the situation we are attempting to spare you from, because it is a horrific situation being in the hands of the living God, and trying to demonstrate that you are as He is.
I don't think you understand the process.
By God's grace, He offers the gift of salvation. It is indefensible.
By your faith, you accept that gift. It is indispensable.
"By faith alone" is how you receive the gift of salvation, not salvation itself. It is meant to exclude the false teaching that "works" are somehow involved in salvation.
God does not owe us anything, much less a blanket pardon for all of our sins (but for unbelief).
Even if they didn't believe in hell, the Jews made a hell on earth. And Gehenna, the ever-burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, was another word picture for hell, the lake of fire.
The reason the Jews did not consider the afterlife very much is that the Old Covenant has nothing whatsoever to do with the afterlife, or knowing the living God. It is all flesh based, in this life, on this planet, only.
Satan told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, gain the knowledge of good and evil, and thus be like God.
That's what people were trying to do from that point forward. That's why the world is lost; we cannot use our knowledge of good and evil and be like God. We cannot even always be good, and always avoid evil. And there's far more to being like God than just doing what is impossible for us to do.
We were made to live in a loving dependent fellowship with God.
We are completely incapable of being like God on our own.
That's what Jesus told the Pharisees, and that's why they killed Him.
I did, and it was my way of completely discounting James as any sort of authority over Christianity, and of councils having any sort of authority over Christians.
If you read the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that they were a mess, and had no clue what the New Covenant really meant. It isn't until the 10th chapter until they finally realize that gentiles can be saved.
It's what happened.
It's not God telling us how perfectly everything started out.
Churches that grow too big grow like an out of control mustard seed, in that the birds of the air feel free to nest in its branches.
The birds of the air are evil spirits.
That they are free to rest in the branches is a condemnation of the outgrowth of the earthly churches.
Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both started by Constantine the pagan sun god worshiper, are merely two legs on the same idol.
The idol described by Daniel as awaiting complete destruction by Jesus.
It's the truth. I was the other guy, and now I have the righteousness of Jesus, which exceeds the righteousness of that pharisee, as is necessary in order to enter into the Kingdom of God.
That pharisee is so much more "religious" that I would ever be, that to have to exceed his righteousness on my own would be daunting, at best, and impossible at worst.
And yet, he goes to hell, while the miserable sinner goes to heaven, and is justified. And has the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to him.
And apparently believing comes with keeping commitments and trust, not doing nothing
They are very well connected words, but the "unseen" is a key distinction.
I can believe the Broncos won the Lombardi trophy because I watched the game and saw the presentation.
I can only believe by faith that Jesus walked out of that grave, because I did not see it.
And yet, Jesus walked out of that grave.
No, that would be the bible and the Holy Spirit.
For people who do not believe the bible is divinely inspired, and have never met the Holy Spirit, they rely on other men to validate them.
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
Jesus told them they were in danger of hellfire.
I feel no less compunction than that.
Believing without seeing is most blessed. But you can have faith from seeing and belief without unseeing, the terms 'belief' and "faith" are the same in the NT. So pulling, 'He said belief, not faith," is invalid. Faith and belief are both equally accurate translations in all contexts, and having one as uniform would be truer to the Greek.
Romans 12:3 [ Serve God with Spiritual Gifts ] For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
But that's akin to me saying,
For people who do not believe the 50 Shades of Grey is divinely inspired, and have never met E. L. James, they rely on other men to validate them.
Yes, "Forgive me Lord, a miserable sinner" is a prayer that justifies a man.
"Lord, thank you for making me so much better than that publican" is a prayer that condemns a man.
Says so right in the bible you seem unacquainted with.
I want to believe in God and then become a huge slut and have men violate me.
It's ok since I believe in God
But the Bible isn't written in English.
English is just a sub version of the Bible.
The Quran does this and so does the various myths across various cultures.
Can you see how ridiculous you are sounding right now?
The bible is the Word of God, and I suggest you start taking it more seriously than you take the word of the "experts" in your "church".
Actually, surrounding yourself in your church with people who do not challenge you, and who make you think you're doing something for God, is "easy mode".
Paul made the claim to be the chiefest of sinners, and as he exceeds me at every turn, I'll let his claim stand.
God told me that having my pucci pounded by cute bois is the only way to Salvation, such that I can be absolutely certain about it.
Faith is a gift from God.
Salvation is a gift from God.
I suggest you use the former to gain the latter, pronto.
It's astonishing that you can read a bible verse that says faith is a gift from God, given in different measure to each person, and come out of that with "faith is a work".
It just demonstrates that the lost cannot into the bible, I suppose.
But how do you know that the Bible you have now isn't fake?
>All evidence just is.
Meaning? Evidence for my mother is, for example, seeing her.
Evidence for god is "the universe". There's no way for you to get from the universe to a god.
>You think the universe created itself, or has always been.
I don't claim knowledge, or even belief, to either of these. Prior to the big bang our knowledge breaks down and I find these questions largely irrelevant.
>You need to catch up to modern science, first,
Really? What are you basing this off, buddy?
> and then to modern theology.
Why would I possibly waste time with this dribble?
If you had a cursory understanding of either the bible or Christianity, you would not need to ask this question.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
You are not in the body of Christ, and cannot speak for it.
Because of the tens of thousands of copies in several languages that date back to the early second century, and by knowing that the same Holy Spirit Who inspired the bible, compiled the bible, and maintains the bible, also instructs us on the bible.
Textual criticism demonstrates that the bible has been passed down to us at 99.5% intact, with the differences being spelling variants and idioms, and nothing of doctrine.
I see a woman. It's not evidence she's your mother. You say she's your mother. Still not convincing. She shows ID, your birth certificate, and your ID, pretty strong. I run a DNA test, she's your mother.
The woman I saw, was your mother, but the evidence was not clear until tested.
But the very people who possessed these Scripture can't agree on its composition.
The Church that these people belong to does not even advocate your view on Salvation. The writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and even the most 'reformed', Augustine does not take your view.
How then is your interpretation of it valid? I would rather trust the visible Church I can see that will lead me to contemplate and focus on Divine things when it is through my temporal perceptions that I can even know anything.
I can't believe how much of a fucking retard you're being right now. You see a woman that LOOKS LIKE ME, YOU FUCKING CRETINOUS VAPID CUNT. HEREDITY, LOOK INTO IT.
>You need to catch up to modern science, first,
>You need to catch up to modern science, first,
>You need to catch up to modern science, first,
This was known by cavemen. Die in a fire.
This is the Orthodox translation of the passage, which elucidates it better
>Yes, by grace you have been saved through faith, not by yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one would boast.
What are you trying to say hunnie?
>For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance for us to walk in them.
Therefore, this passage has absolute nothing to do with works not being required for salvation, it just is about salvation not being something you earn.
That most of the Cathoic Church is lost.
That most of the Eastern Orthodox Church is lost.
That the reason they are lost is that they have placed their faith in their memberships in those institutions to save them; they have placed their faith in the rites and rituals they perform in those institutions, and that those institutions are not of Jesus at all.
2 Timothy 1
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
So who isn't?
If we don't know then this God isn't really loving His Creation for He keeps the truth that'll save us hidden for us who are sick. We are left to die without knowing what the cure is.
But the author is doing stuff and acting, he isn't doing nothing.
I'm talking about literally anything, as the person failed to respond (i.e. immediately abandoned his point) to my direct challenge of not being able to get from the universe to a god.
Was anything ever proven using non-scientific evidence?
>Was anything ever proven using non-scientific evidence?
Is there a reason you avoided this question that doesn't have to do with your previous post being an attempt at a cheap semantic trick?
>If the condition (or lack thereof) the universe was predicated on weren't 14 billion years old, the universe would not be 14 billion years old. Unless that condition had agency.
>Is there a reason you avoided this question that doesn't have to do with your previous post being an attempt at a cheap semantic trick?
I avoided it because you didn't answer my question, you asked a question in return. But yes, many things were proven.
If the condition that the big bang stemmed for (or no condition at all, if that is the condition) is not 14 billion years old, then the universe would not be 14 billion years old. Unless that condition has agency and intentionally made the universe that old.
Having faith in the risen Christ Jesus confers salvation, it doesn't earn it. By confessing with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, salvation is made; and by believing He rose from the dead in your heart, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you as the Holy Spirit sets up residence.
You'll never be good enough to save.
Since you refuse to elaborate, I'll just question these claims.
>the condition (or lack thereof) the universe was predicated on
Lack of conditions would mean the universe wasn't predicated on conditions. The two choices in this dichotomy lead to different answers, you don't get to just say "either way I'm right" without substantiation.
>weren't 14 billion years old, the universe would not be 14 billion years old
1. What makes you think the universe is 14 billion years old?
2. What makes you think some condition has to have an age value assigned to it, especially when time is a property of the universe?
3. What makes you think that the age of the condition, even if it could be assigned an age value, has anything to do with the universe? The condition could've, in principle, been true for a trillion years before the "universe's beginning" you seem to be referring to.
>Unless that condition had agency.
Agency has nothing to do with age. Your post in general is a garbled and barely coherent mess, it's no surprise you're a christfag.
The saved are not lost.
The saved are those who confess with their mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in their hearts God raised Him from the dead.
The saved are those who call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.
The saved are those who believe Jesus is Who He says He is.
All of those go together, and that supernatural knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit, who lives in every saved person, as an earnest downpayment on their salvation.
To know Jesus is Lord, and to know He rose from the dead, is supernatural knowledge.
The lost cannot know these things; the saved must.
>Lack of conditions would mean the universe wasn't predicated on conditions.
Right, but if that were the case, then the universe would not be a mere 14 billion years old, since no conditions have not existed for 14 billion years.
>I avoided it because you didn't answer my question, you asked a question in return. But yes, many things were proven.
I answered the question. I said I was waiting for literally anything, so that if what the person said was stupid I could dismantle it.
>But yes, many things were proven.
Oh, really? Do go on.
>If the condition that the big bang stemmed for (or no condition at all, if that is the condition) is not 14 billion years old, then the universe would not be 14 billion years old. Unless that condition has agency and intentionally made the universe that old.
No condition is not a condition. I don't know how you can even begin to ascribe agency to "no condition". But please, do try.
> then the universe would not be 14 billion years old.
Are you saying it is?
Pretty sure you should meet Jesus before you're forced to meet Jesus.
I get that you're a troll.
I just want people to know you are not a Christian troll, and that you understand Christianity in the way blind people understand rainbows.
>Right, but if that were the case, then the universe would not be a mere 14 billion years old, since no conditions have not existed for 14 billion years.
What do you mean by "no conditions have not existed" and how do you go from that from "therefore the universe can't be a mere 14 billion years old"?
By the way, this wasn't the only objection in the post.
Presupposing that a being created the universe is not evidence for that being. This is "do your parents know you're a retard" level of argument.
God created the universe.
x ---> y
This presupposes the pre-existence of x to y.
x ----> x
You presuppose the pre-existence of the universe to explain the existence of the universe.
Logically unfit, you are. Logically unfit.
>Oh, really? Do go on.
Euclid and criminal trials, to name a couple.
>No condition is not a condition
And so if the big bang required no condition whatsoever, it would not have happened only 14 billion years ago.
>Are you saying it is?
I am saying it has an age, since if it always existed, we'd already be in heat death.
We may or may not know that from birth, but circumcision is a blood covenant between God and God, on Abraham's behalf, to possess the Holy Land, not to become a Christian.
Physical circumcision doesn't profit a man at all; spiritual circumcision of the heart is salvation.
Maybe once you're out of Logic 101, you'll run into the fact that there are three explanations for the existence of the universe.
Caused by another
I'll give you a hint. It's caused by another.
What's useless is playing word games by presupposing what you're supposed to prove. You were born retarded and the fact that your parents don't know you're retarded means that you are retarded.
>Euclid and criminal trials, to name a couple.
What do you think is non-scientific about either of them?
>And so if the big bang required no condition whatsoever, it would not have happened only 14 billion years ago.
Yes, you've said this already, I'm asking you to explain your reasoning here.
>I am saying it has an age, since if it always existed, we'd already be in heat death.
And here too. And all the other objections I've brought up. You don't seem to understand, like the other anon, that simply repeating something isn't actual evidence for your claims. If anything, it makes you look like a moron who can spout sound bites.
You do understand that there's models of cyclical universe and bubble universes and such?
Is the person doing works of his/her own volition?
But we don't even know who the Saved are when practically every Christian knows this basic things you said. But yet, all these Christians also have differing versions of Jesus.
If God also wants people to be Saved, he would've let it be known for all to see the way to Salvation, not hide it.
I love that you're calling people on the internet retarded. Just love that. People who can think circles around you, and have. People who have considered these things far longer and far deeper than you ever have.
There's a birthmark on my hand that says there is no god and you and >>673365 this guy are sub-80 IQ mongoloids.
I'm not calling him retarded just to do it, I'm presupposing his retardation as proof for it. If you think presupposition is good as proof, then he's retarded. And so are you.
Yes. We can choose to do the works or not. We are free. One of the things we are free from is the burden of the Law, of trying to do good works constantly. Nobody has ever met that burden, but for Jesus.
Jesus said that the blessed are not those who hear, but those who hear and do.
Me saying "confess with your mouth....believe in your heart" isn't good enough to save you; you have to actually confess with your mouth....and believe in your heart.
Blessed is he who hears, and does, the things of God. Not just hears, and not just "oh, I could do that if I wanted to".
These two things, confession and believing, are impossible to do without God's assistance. Impossible.
The easiest way to test if people are christians is to ask them how they became christians. It helps to know the answer ahead of time. Other than that, you can tell Christians by their love of other Christians, and you can tell Christians by the workings of the Holy Spirit, Who has His own fruit that makes itself manifest.
>we can choose
>mfw this free will nonsense only exists in the heads of religious dimwits trying to rationalize their evil and petty gods
You're not free to choose anything, you're only ever going to choose one thing and that thing will be chosen by your subconscious long before you're even aware the choice was made.
I don't claim to know the wonders of the universe, and the fact that you're samefagging only reflects poorly on you, big guy (;
So if confession and believing are impossible without God's assistance, the person isn't doing such acts of good work of his/her own volition. Even the very will to believe to begin with. It's God who predestines. What are human beings but puppets under such a deity.
Your God thus is an evil deity who had predestined most of the world to damnation.
You have free will in order to choose For Jesus, or Against Jesus.
mfw you choose Against Jesus.
You addressed your post to three people, all me. Maybe it's time to get off the internet.
It's our volition.
It's He Who makes this all possible.
Jesus is the author and finisher of everyone's salvation who is saved, and the judge of everyone who is lost.
My God is good, but because you are in open rebellion against Him, you take good for evil, and evil for good.
You are a reprobate, and need to repent.
Do you have to point out your samefaggotry as if it's something to admire?
>You have free will in order to choose For Jesus, or Against Jesus.
I don't, you don't, nobody does. Free will is an incoherent concept and even if it were coherent, it would be disproven by neurological evidence we already have.
>mfw you chose philistine thought, whether it's for shitposting or genuine purposes
>What do you think is non-scientific about either of them?
Neither of them employs scientific method.
>Yes, you've said this already, I'm asking you to explain your reasoning here.
The universe would not begin at a specific time, because the condition for it to begin would be infinitely occurring.
>You do understand that there's models of cyclical universe and bubble universes and such?
Yes, but judging by radiation, if we've gone through cycles, they weren't infinite. A hundred or so cycles is the greatest estimate for that possibility. Unless of course you're referencing the black hole idea.
>Neither of them employs scientific method.
Referencing the lack of reproducibility here? Courts deal in the purview of science overtly. I don't know what Euclid means as such.
>The universe would not begin at a specific time, because the condition for it to begin would be infinitely occurring.
There can be an arbitrary number of possibilities where a universe would begin at a specific (or non-specific) time, only once. I didn't see you rule all of them out. The causes underlying the universe need not be probabilistic, deterministic, physical, non-physical, hyper or hypodimensional, or anything else until you give evidence for one of the possibilities.
>Yes, but judging by radiation, if we've gone through cycles, they weren't infinite. A hundred or so cycles is the greatest estimate for that possibility. Unless of course you're referencing the black hole idea.
How could you possibly use radiation to measure how many big rips, heat deaths or expansion and contraction cycles there could have been?
>The universe would not begin at a specific time, because the condition for it to begin would be infinitely occurring.
And just to point this out again before I go to sleep, I'm only going along with this for the sake of the argument. You first have to prove that there's such a thing as time outside of spacetime, and that "before the universe" is a coherent concept. Far as we can tell, spacetime wasn't a thing before the big bang.