VIDEO: The Smithsonian on the Tower of Babel

The Smithsonian on the Tower of Babel.

From the Smithsonian channel’s show Secrets S04E01, “Tower of Babel” of which it is stated:

Inside the legendary city of Babylon in modern-day Iraq lie the remains of a vast structure, which ancient records suggest was the Tower of Babel. Is it possible that this biblical stairway to heaven actually existed? Experts think it did, and thanks to satellite technology and new discoveries, they have pinpointed exactly where the legendary tower once stood, and what it looked like. Join us as we revisit the inspiration for one of the strangest stories in the Bible, and then recreate the spectacular skyscraper in all its glory.
Evidence is piling up that the Tower of Babel really existed. It’s a conclusion that’s partially borne out by an astounding discovery: an ancient brick with traces of an unusual material.

Thus, it is interesting and archeologically valuable but is, of course, dismissive of the Bible.

tower20of20babel20stone-2587542

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

VIDEO: Transhuman resurrection in Realive aka Project Lazarus movie

I found the transhuman aspects of this movie to be of interest but for the most part is it trashy and features nudity: fortunately I found that whoever posted it to YouTube censored it out.

Realive aka Project Lazarus was directed by Mateo Gil and stars Tom Hughes as Marc Jarvis, Charlotte Le Bon as Elizabeth, Oona Chaplin as Naomi, Melina Matthews as Technician, Barry Ward as West, et al.

posters2brealive2baka2bproject2blazarus2b1-4916514 posters2brealive2baka2bproject2blazarus2b2-7535793 posters2brealive2baka2bproject2blazarus2b3-5574190 posters2brealive2baka2bproject2blazarus2b4-2750527 posters2brealive2baka2bproject2blazarus2b5-8920580

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Jewish vs. Christian – Monotheism vs. Trinitarianism?

We continue, from part 1, part 2, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed. I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.

See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD

Here is the Jewish person, lorasinger’s, reply which seeks to divert attention from the issues at hand and rabbit trial into a defense of Outreach Judaism:

Outreach Judaism was organized with a view to educate their own people in the tenets of their own religion at a time when they are losing people to undercover missionaries who call themselves Messianic Jews or completed Jews but who are actually Southern Baptists – fundamentalist Christians tied to the Southern Baptist group in the USA.

What you are doing in trying to “educate” the Jews in their own book is akin to telling Shakespeare himself that Hamlet is a story of an Italian farmer rather than a Danish Prince. The Tanakh was written by Jews for Jews in their own language, and you think you can interpret it better from your mistranslated, misinterpreted and edited version. Sorry Ken, it’s a no go.

Note that they all but utterly ignored virtually everything I have stated. Thus, I replied with the following:

The problem with orgs like Outreach Judaism is not that they seek to “educate their own people in the tenets of their own religion” the problem is that they make extremely generic and misleading statements which leads personages such as yourself to merely repeat generic and misleading statements.
For example, how many times have I heard, “We Jews have always believed thus and such” and I know for a fact that the history of Jewish thought utterly contradicts the thus and such.

You are following their lead by misrepresenting the rich and diverse history of Judaism and merely repeating erroneous assertions. You also take the exclusivist and elitist view that the “Tanakh was written by Jews for Jews” even though the Gentiles were to be brought into the worship of the one true God “in their own language” which only an extreme minority of the world’s population speaks and I most certainly do not think that I can interpret it better which is why I quote to you from the JPS and give you examples from the history of Rabbinic interpretation.

Next, lorasinger seeks to get me off into another rabbit trail as she is all but done with the historical Jesus issue:

Christians DON’T worship “one true god”, Ken. They worship a triune god comprised of three entities – the trinity. Jews worship one INDIVISIBLE god with no offspring. Men gods don’t exist in Judaism.

You expect me to believe a Christian apologist over a trained rabbi well versed in his own religion. If you want to debate, then debate rabbi Tovia Singer and I doubt very much that you would win any debate with him.

Now, lorasinger is the sort of commentator who will post more than one reply per round. In other words, they will post more than one reply before you get a chance to respond which, of course, means that when you get your chance to reply you have multiple comments with which to deal. I am starting to think that this is a tactic as it is somewhat overwhelming since it leaves you to write many pages worth of replies or, that which I chose to do, focus on one or two issue, ignore rabbit trails and keep focused.

I noted this because they also posted this reply before I could get to the one above:

Re: Torah tells us that God is one even whilst employing a term which denotes a unite plurality. Which you believe works right into the Christian trinity wherein three entities are still considered to be one, right? Not so. [Here lorasinger again merely copies and pastes from Outreach Judaism this time, in a plagiaristic manner] The word Elohim (God) possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. This linguistic pattern is well known and widely used throughout the Jewish scriptures.

For example, the Hebrew word chayim, meaning “life.” Notice that this word contains the identical plural suffix “im,” as in Elohim, yet it repeatedly means “life”, in the singular, throughout the Bible.

Well, I know of no Christian in 2,000 years who bases their monotheistic trinitarianism solely on one word’s syntax.
In any regard, here is my reply:

Well friend, affirming monotheism is the very first step towards understanding and elucidating Christian theology. Any description of Christian theology will tell you that as it is as basic a tenet as basic tenets can get. I referred to you read the Torah in any version you wish and you seem to be interested in avoiding inconvenient facts.

Sadly, you are engaging exactly that about which I told you: interpretations based on Rabbinic polemics based on a Talmud based religion versus interpretations based on understanding the Torah. Do not forget that I, indeed, quoted and cited a few Rabbis well versed in their religion (whatever that may be, biblical Judaism, Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism, etc.) such as Rashi, Maimonides or the dozens I quoted in my articles you read about Isaiah 53.

In the next segment, lorasinger makes a comeback to the historical Jesus issue by referring to the supposed likeness between Jesus and mythical figures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Did Jesus exist? Michael Paulkovich and AaronRa

I have been researching the latest, of a never ending, round of pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism. Some Atheists have really taken to the utterly radical view that not only was Jesus not the son of God, God incarnate, etc. but never even existed as a person. In particular, I have been looking into Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster. In this case, I ran into an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa who is really good at appealing to the “New Atheist” movement: meaning replacing reasoned discourse with emotional reactions and generally lacking a basic knowledge of contextually relevant theology and history.

He posted an article on the Patheos site which was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.

I wrote the following comment which resulted in a long exchange with a Jew and which included some passing remarked by a few others. When dealing with such a lively comment section it is a good idea to pick the most capable replier to your comments and so I focused on the Jewish person.

I found Paulkovich’s claims fascinating as a few years ago I personally conducted research on documents written 70 AD to 200-250 AD and chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus. The number refers to the texts themselves and not to the number of times that Jesus is referenced in each text. Counting each reference would take us well beyond the 205 total. Furthermore, the number refers to the texts and not to each manuscript behind each text. Counting each manuscript would also take us well beyond the 205 total.

My evidence is here: Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations

I specifically mention my 205 texts because Michael Paulkovich specifically claims to have not found Jesus within 126 texts (and my stopping at 205 was arbitrary as I could have gone on and on and on).

michael20paulkovich-8292500
michael20paulkovich202-2452423

Now, you will find that Atheist of the radical Jesus never existed view will generally immediately back down when challenged and will rabbit trail elsewhere, such was the case with a comment replying to me by a certain MarquisDeMoo:

Jesus may well have existed as a person and I am no historian but I certainly would not take a cascade of mutually referencing religiously inspired texts as evidence. That people are gullible enough to want to believe is after all part of the atheist’s case. From an evidential perspective I would think you would need independent verification such as a diary or letter, written during the lifetime, administrative document or court record even.
Sorry too but the standard of evidence does have to be higher than that for a Roman General simply because of the importance you put on him existing and the fact that his purported life story matches that of so many others of the time. Whether someone called Jesus actually existed or not adds or subtracts nothing to the atheist case but it is critical to the Christian who has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth based on his life, after all, no Christ, no Christian.

Here is my reply:

Friend, I hope that you will consider the following.

1) You appear to have ignored my evidence and are merely replying to my comment for if you had viewed the evidence you would know that the 205 references are not all to religiously inspired texts.

2) Even if they were all religiously inspired texts that would be no grounds upon which to disregard them as doing so would be unscholarly, not how history is done and would commit the logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy (disregarding an argument due to its source alone).

3) Your other logical fallacy is known as an ad hominem which is when you take aim at the person making the argument such as those who, as per you, “are gullible.”

4) While this is an argument from silence, in both directions, the fact is that Jerusalem, Jesus’s main place of activity, was utterly destroyed in 70 AD and thus, expecting many records to survive therefrom is tantamount to expecting to find many diaries, letters, admin docs, etc. written on paper from the US embassy in Benghazi.

5) That Jesus’s life story matches that of so many others of the time is a modern day myth based not on primary source material but from pop-“scholarship” from a much, much lower level that the direct references that I present.

Also, you seem rather certain that Jesus’s life story matches that of so many others of the time and yet, I would assume that you conclude that based on religiously inspired texts that supposedly state such things.
I hope you will consider these points as I found your statements interesting enough to consider, muse upon and reply to.

MarquisDeMoo replied thusly:

I make no apology for suggesting that the religiously inspired are gullible, after all it is no more than you might accuse a Mayan who worshipped the Sun and slaughtered his daughter to appease his gods.
Necessity is the mother of invention and in its desperation to backup its fairy tale the church has 2000 years of incremental invention to try and prove the existence of the supposed son of god. A God should be able to do better. That is why I demand better proof.

Now, the last statement was key as it would allow me to have the Marquis set the table, as it where, which would essentially put them on the defense as I could then examine and dissect their demanded standard of evidence.

Here is my reply:

Friend, you seem to be condemning human sacrifice and yet, upon what premise do you do so?
Also, you seem to be demanding proof of “the existence of the supposed son of god” and 205 references to Jesus dating from 70-250 AD does not suffice. So, what would you consider “better proof”?

Well, I did not hear back from MarquisDeMoo as I tend to find that when I ask people bottom line style question they go away as they prefer having people chase them around various rabbit trails.

It is at this point that the Jewish person, lorasinger, chimed in and since I asked “what would you consider ‘better proof’?” they began with “How about…” and yet, they did not answer the question but, you guessed it, trailed off:

How about the fact that Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish world, one who by his own word, upheld Torah law and declared that it was in effect to the end of time. Torah tells us that God is one and indivisible, without offspring. Torah forbids human sacrifice. It also tells us that every person must atone for their own sins.

The moment you step into combinations of a god and mortal woman producing a sacrificial man god son who dies for mankind and is resurrected, you are taking your place right beside a half dozen similar other such stories from the pagan world. The Jesus story in the NT does not come from Judaism.

Keep this reply in mind and you will see my reply, in turn, in the next segment, Did Jesus exist? A discussion with a Jew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #MichaelPaulkovich, #Jesus, #AaronRa
Facebook: #MichaelPaulkovich, #Jesus, #AaronRa

Abortion’s Arguments: Pro-Abortionists in their own words, part 1 of 3

Here we simply present a succinct version of the stories of two women who had abortions. As retold in the article “When One Is Enough,” a woman who was pregnant with triplets and chose “get rid” of two of them by engaging in “selective reduction.”

Please note that “selective reduction” is a technical term that means that she murdered her own babies. Her story is the story of a woman who was not married but was having sex anyhow and she found that being blessed with three beautiful treasures would simply have been too inconvenient to her plans about her life and her wants and her needs and her preferences and her career. Note that according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2007 84% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women.

The editor of the article notes that she, “expressed no regret about her decision.” It is also pointed out that she is an “abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization…which has financed abortions.”

But first, consider the following which was written by someone pseudonymed redmcclain who explained Why I Escort (January 22, 2007 AD). Here, escort means ushering women into abortuaries so that they are comforted as they prepare to end their very own baby’s life.
Redmcclain turns abortion into a “women’s reproductive freedoms” issue. Of course women should have reproductive freedoms. Pro-Lifers are behind this 100% as women have the right to decide whether or not to get pregnant.
The escort complains about, get this, “large vivid signs of innocent looking babies.” Note that in her stunningly twisted mine the babies are innocent looking (not actually innocent?). She also refers to abortion as a “legal medical treatment.” Indeed, some people think that legal equals right, good, moral. Moreover, medical treatments are those which seek to save, enhance, benefit life and not to take it.

Here is the true face of the Pro-Abortion movement in its own words. This is from Amy Richards (as told to Amy Barrett), “When One Is Enough,” The New York Times, July 18, 2004 AD:

…I’m 34. My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years. I’m old enough to presume that I wasn’t going to have an easy time becoming pregnant. I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody. Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant, and we both agreed that we would have the child. I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician. The doctor had just finished telling me I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy. She turned on the sonogram machine….

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?
I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ‘Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?’ The obstetrician wasn’t an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more…

Peter asked, ‘Shouldn’t we consider having triplets?’ And I had this adverse reaction: ‘This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That’s easy for you to say, but I’d have to give up my life.’ Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn’t be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It’s not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I’m going to have to move to Staten Island. I’ll never leave my house because I’ll have to care for these children. I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don’t think that deep down I was ever considering it.

…The specialist…told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor’s perspective, it’s a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma. After I talked to the specialist, I told Peter, ‘That’s what I’m going to do.” He replied, ‘What we’re going to do.’ He respected what I was going through, but at a certain point, he felt that this was a decision we were making. I agreed.

When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can’t believe we’re about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ‘Can Peter stay?’ The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.

Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?
I had a boy, and everything is fine. But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying. Am I going to have quintuplets? I would do the same thing if I had triplets again, but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don’t know.

New York Times Editors’ Note: July 28, 2004 AD:

The Lives column in The Times Magazine on July 18 gave a first person account of the experience of Amy Richards, who had been pregnant with triplets and decided to abort two of the fetuses. Ms. Richards, who told her story to a freelance Times Magazine contributor, Amy Barrett, discussed her anxiety about having triplets, the procedure to terminate two of the pregnancies and the healthy baby she eventually delivered; she expressed no regret about her decision.
The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions. That background, which would have shed light on her mind-set, was incorporated in an early draft, but it was omitted when an editor condensed the article.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BOOKS:

Bernard Nathanson, The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind

Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers

Randy C. Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated

Scott Klusendorf, Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively

ESSAYS:
“Sacred Abortion”

Richard Dawkins – On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep

The Exorcist’s Abortion and the Satanist’s Repentance

George Tiller, Abortionist Murders, and the Richard Dawkins Correlation

Is pro-life and pro-death penalty a contradiction?

Dan
Barker – His Views On Human Dignity

The
Abortion Money Machine Rolls Out the Ads in the UK

Pro-abortionists target pro-lifers

Greg Koukl on pro-abortion “logic”

Abortion and the Intolerance of the Pseudo-Tolerant

Abortion and Homosexual Marriage – The Faulty Correlation

Sam Harris – The Dehumanizer

Jesus Did Not Exist

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-4860059

Did Jesus exist? A discussion with a Jew

We continue, from part 1, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed. I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.

See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD

The previous segment left off with an Atheist asking for better proof than my personally chronicled 205 references to Jesus within two centuries after His death and resurrection. I asked what they would consider better proof and a Jewish person replied. The reply was not an elucidation as that which would count as better proof but a rabbit trial. So now, here is my reply to the comment (which you can find within part 1):

Friend, I am afraid that you are repeating Rabbinic Judaism’s talking points which are based on Rabbinic polemics and not the Tanakh.
It could take a long time to get detailed on this but here are some bullet points:

1) Agreed and not problematic: “Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish world, one who by his own word, upheld Torah law and declared that it was in effect to the end of time.”

2) Torah tells us that God is one even whilst employing a term which denotes a unite plurality. In fact, when Maimonides [aka Rabbi Moses ben Maimon aka the Rambam] wrote his principles he quoted the Shema and changed the key term in order to force it to refer to mean that God is one and indivisible. Yet, in any case, Christian theology is premised upon the unalterable view that God is one, there is only one God: monotheism.

3) God refers to His people as his children, His offspring.

4) Torah forbids human sacrifice: not sure why you mention this but indeed, agreed. Just in case, Jesus was not a human sacrifice but a God sacrifice. That is to say that human beings did not offer Jesus to God as a human sacrifice, on an altar, etc.

5) It also tells us that every person must atone for their own sins: please consult Ezekiel 4 where Ezekiel is told by God “lie thou upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it; according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have appointed the years of their iniquity to be unto thee a number of days, even three hundred and ninety days; so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; forty days, each day for a year.”
Also consult Isaiah 53 which states that “Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; Whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed…And the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all…For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due…it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease…their iniquities he did bear…he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

6) If you really believe that there are dozens of stories from the pagan world of a god and mortal woman producing a sacrificial man, etc. please provide citations to primary source material ONLY as such claims proposed by very, very recent pop-“researchers” fall short. Moreover, that is a logically fallacious claim which discredits A by claiming that it is like B.

7) The Jesus story in the NT come from Judaism as Jesus was a Jews, His 12 Apostles were Jewish, His first 70 disciples were Jewish and they based their claims on the Jewish scripture and thus appealed to Jewish prophets.

As I will ultimately conclude, I am quite sad to have this person pegged from the onset with regards to them repeating Rabbinic Judaism’s talking points which are based on Rabbinic polemics and not the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament).
Sad because they have been misinformed and they merely repeat the misinformation. For example, they reply to Isaiah 53 by merely copying and pasting a polemicist which denotes that they are not aware of how to handle the text themselves—which is why they reach for a canned response in the first place.

The Jewish person, lorasinger, replied thusly:

True. Jesus was a Jew and would have remained so to his death – 30 years BEFORE Paul invented the man god. There was no Christianity during his lifetime or even for years afterward, as attested to by Josephus. His apostles remained practicing Jews under James – the “party of the circumcised” which indicating they remained faithful to Torah Law.
Their later followers were Ebionites who also remained faithful to Torah law. Certainly they based their claims on Jewish scripture – That was the only show in town. The gospels didn’t come along until after Paul’s writings which first made their appearance after 70 AD. Paul’s gentile followers documented whatever legend was drifting about 40-80 years after the fact.

The Christian understanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed tobe a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin. But Jews are taught that no one can die for the sins of another. In Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses tries to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of the people. To be written out of God’s book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. God’s response was “No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:”

Re: Isaiah 53. Mistranslated and misinterpretation: QUOTED FROM OUTREACH JUDAISM: Isaiah 53:8 in the Christian bible reads “…for the transgression of my people he was stricken.” Is this the correct translation from the Hebrew bible? No. The correct translation of Isaiah 53:8 (from the Hebrew bible) is: “as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted.” The correct translation is THEY, not He! This Hebrew word for “they” appears over 40 times in the Hebrew bible – always translated as “they”! There is one part of the Tanakh that many Christians use to ‘prove’ that Jesus is mentioned/referenced, it is this! The problem is that, again, they are not only mistranslating but also misinterpreting it. Isaiah 53 actually starts with Chapter 52:13. In Hebrew, the scripture portions are divided by “stumas.” A space of several letters can be found at the closing of a passage before the next passage begins. This can ***only*** be found in a Hebrew Bible. A Torah scribe has to strictly follow these rules. By reading the passage in its entirety, you learn that God is speaking to his servant and that the servant shall prosper and be exalted and be very high (Isaiah 52:13). And who is the ’suffering servant’? Christianity claims it is Jesus. But in fact, it is Israel, as clearly shown in Isaiah 41:8 & 44:1-2 & 45:4. Another example is this: Isaiah 53:10 − The Hebrew Tanakh says “And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.” But the KJV says:: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he had put him to grief: when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand”….

It’s not about Jesus.

Here is my reply:

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the article and my comments. Yet, friend, you proved my point about how you are repeating Rabbinic Judaism’s talking points which are based on Rabbinic polemics and not the Tanakh, i.e. Outreach Judaism which exists to promulgate such talking points.

That Jesus gave Himself as vicarious atonement for sin does not correlate to a human sacrifice offered to God by humans on an altar, etc.

I am sure that you know very well that several covenants are outlined within the Tanakh and that Jewish tradition is full of speculations about, for example, the Messiah ben Joseph suffering and dying for the sins of others. They also speculated about the Messiah ben David due to seeking to put together that which they saw within the Tanakh.

If you just want to copy and paste from Outreach Judaism then I will direct you to research done by myself about Isaiah 53 both the text and the many, many, many rabbis who understood that it was about the Messiah. Outreach Judaism disregards these facts because their aim is polemics: to talk Jews into believing things that are not true, they pick one out of many options and tell you “We Jews have always believed ___________ (fill in the blank).”

Consider the classic example of Rashi [Rabbi Shlomo ben Isaac or Itzhtaki] who admits to know ancient interpretive tradition but that it is better to change the ancient sage’s interpretation for the sole reason to seek to refute the minim/sectarians/Christians, “Our masters apply this passage [Psalm 21] to the Messiah; but in order to refute the Minim, it is better to apply it to David.”

Also, by the way, I quoted to you from the JPS [Jewish Publication Society].

I actually ended the comment by referring them to a very detailed study I did on Isaiah 53. In fact, I did one study which complied the interpretation of the text by very many Rabbis and Jewish scholars and another on a consideration of the text itself:
The Suffering Servant According to Isaiah
The Suffering of the Servant
These will definitively prove that Outreach Judaism’s views contradicting Jewish scholarship and the text itself. In the next segment, lorasinger will seek to defend Outreach Judaism and continue all but parroting insubstantial talking points.

The Case for Lee Strobel

Lee Strobel was a long time atheist who was an “award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune…He was a professional journalist for 14 years at The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois’ top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International.”

While he is best known for his “Case for…” book series, he has also written others such as those listed at the top of the list which follows.

Also, keep in mind the two seasons of Faith Under Fire in mind, these are in DVD format:

Faith Under Fire 1: Faith & Jesus

Faith Under Fire 2: Faith & Facts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inside the Mind of Unchurched

What Jesus Would Say

Reckless Homicide?

The Unexpected Adventure: Taking Everyday Risks to Talk with People about Jesus

God’s Outrageous Claims: Discover What They Mean for You

Surviving a Spiritual Mismatch in Marriage

Finding the Real Jesus: A Guide for Curious Christians and Skeptical Seekers

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

The Case for a Creator (Kids Edition)

The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity

The Case for Faith (Student Edition)

The Case for Faith (Visual Edition)

The Case for Faith for (Kids Edition)

The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

The Case for Christ (6 Pack)

The Case for Christ (Student Edition)

The Case for Christ (Kids Edition)

The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ

The Case for the Real Jesus (Student Edition)

The Case for Easter: Journalist Investigates the Evidence for the Resurrection

The Case for Christmas: A Journalist Investigates the Identity of the Child in the Manger

Ancient soul catchers

Thomas R. Horn makes to interesting statements regarding ancient magickal practices as follows:

…the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel made an important statement about the “magic bands” (`)…[that] were used to capture (magically imprison) the souls of men….The kesatot was a magic arm band used in connection with a container called the kiste. Wherever the kiste is inscribed on sarcophagi and on Bacchic scenes, it is depicted as a sacred vessel (a soul prison?) with a snake peering through an open lid.

Read It Before It’s Banned By The Us Government, part 19, August 18, 2009 AD

…it is depicted as a sacred vessel (a soul prison?) with a snake peering through an open lid. How the magic worked and in what way a soul was imprisoned is a mystery. Pan, the half-man/half-goat god (later relegated to devildom) is sometimes pictured as kicking the lid open and letting the snake (soul?) out. Such loose snakes are then depicted as being enslaved around the limbs, and bound in the hair, of the Bacchae women.

Mardi Gras & Carnival Goers Feel Call Of Ancient Deity?, February 20, 2007 AD

Bacchic and Bacchae refers to the Greek and Roman mythologies pertaining to Bacchus aka Dionysus. He was the god of the “grape harvest, winemaking and wine, of ritual madness and ecstasy” and so his celebrations consisted of all sorts of drunkenness and debauchery.

GOD directs Ezekiel to “set your face against the daughters of your people who are prophesying from their own inspiration” or heart. This is why a manner of discerning the messages of “prophets” is provided in texts such as Deuteronomy chapters 13 and 18. He is told the following in 13:17-23:

Prophesy against them…Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the women who sew [keceth] on all wrists and make veils for the heads of persons of every stature to hunt down [nephesh]! Will you hunt down the [nephesh] of My people, but preserve the [nephesh] of others for yourselves?…

Behold, I am against your [keceth] by which you hunt [nephesh] there as [parach] and I will tear them from your arms; and I will let [q]them go, even those [nephesh] whom you hunt as [parach]. I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the Lord. Because you disheartened the righteous with falsehood when I did not cause him grief, but have encouraged the wicked not to turn from his wicked way and preserve his life, therefore, you women will no longer see false visions or practice divination, and I will deliver My people out of your hand. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.”

So what are these keceth, nephesh and parach?

Let us consult some translations first where we find the following for Ezekiel 13:20.

For keceth the KJV, ASV, YLT, DBY, WEB and HNV have “pillows.” The NKJV, NLT and NIV have “magic charms.” The ESV, NASB and RSV have “magic bands.”

Commonly, the translations have nephesh as soul however, the NLT and NIV have “people” and the NASB has “lives” with this footnote, “Literally: souls.”

The translations have parach as birds with the NASB footnoting “Or, flying ones.”

Here are some details.

Strong’s H3704: keceth “1) band, fillet, covered amulets, false phylacteries a) used by false prophetesses in Israel to support their demonic fortune-telling schemes.” Gesenius’s Lexicon notes that it is applicable to cushions or pillows. This mean imply that they either made them in the form of a pouch-like container and/or actually a pillow upon which they slept for nighttime protection or just made it into pillow shapes in general—as a pouch is mere a small pillow. This word comes from a primitive root Strong’s H3680: kacah meaning “to cover, conceal, hide…”

Recall that the text noted that the women were sewing keceth “on all wrists” which the NASB footnotes as “Literally: all joints of the hand; M.T. reads of my hands.” They may have been like the phylacteries which were small containers worn on the forehead and arms of the Hebrews.

Strong’s H5315: nephesh is “1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man b) living being c) living being (with life in the blood) d) the man himself, self, person or individual…” It is readily discernible why, according to context, this word could literally be an immaterial soul, a material person, a life, etc.

This comes from a primitive root Strong’s H5314: naphash “1) (Niphal) to take breath, refresh oneself.”

Strong’s H6524: parach is, itself, a primitive root, “1) to bud, sprout, shoot, bloom a) (Qal) to bud, sprout, send out shoots, blossom…3) (Qal) to fly.” The reference to flight, and the context, may be why some translate as bird (interestingly, parach sounds like parakeet).

The above referenced kiste is Strong’s H3678: kicce’ “1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool…b) royal dignity, authority, power (fig.)” and comes from Strong’s H3680: kacah “1) to cover, conceal, hide.” You will note that we already encountered kacah as the root whence also came keceth.

It is because of meaning of seat of honour, throne, seat, etc. of royal dignity, authority and power that the word comes up also in Isaiah 14:13 wherein Heylel (“lucifer”) is quoted as stating that he would “raise my throne” his kicce’ “above the stars of God.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Was Jesus God when “No man hath seen God at any time”?

We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed. I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.

See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD

Twice I had asked the Jewish person lorasinger for specific citations to primary source material with regard to Jesus being like mythical figures. The only reply I received was a generic one to the effect that someone else must have the evidence. I also directed them to Genesis 18 with regards to their repeated claim that, for example, “There are no men gods in Judaism and that leaves only the pagans.” Here was lorasinger’s reply (notice that they ignore Genesis 18):

John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time
Exodus33:20: And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live

So those verses make it crystal clear that no man has seen God at any time, and that no man can see his face, and if any do they shall then die.

Here is my reply:

Friend, you are taking a very, very literalist view on this point and actually the problem is not the literalism but your interpretation that is based on fragments of thoughts (two disconnected verses alone) rather than on the greater context which is to include more of, if not all of, that which the Tanakh states on the matter.

Here are some more to consider off the top of my head (and please interact with the text rather than focusing on seeking to contradict me at all cost):

1 Kings 19 wherein Elijah is told by God, “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.’ And, behold, the LORD passed by.”

Isaiah 6 “In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up…Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts.”

Thus, there seems to be a difference between withholding God’s nature and essence as no one can do and live versus having encounters with Him as the one you ignored with Abraham. But why listen to me?

Better listen to God Himself in Exodus 33, “the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend…he [Moses] said: ‘Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.’ And He [God] said: ‘I will make all My goodness pass before thee…Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.’ And the LORD said: ‘Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by. And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen.’”

You see, wherever you got your partial quotation from Exodus 33:20 did not prepare you to deal with the fuller context as simply quoting verse 20 was insufficient and un-contextual. The ancient sages and modern Rabbis are not foolish enough to think that a text that tells us within a few verse that “the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face” and that “Thou canst not see My face…My face shall not be seen” is nonsensical or problematic. Clearly, in one sense, the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face but in another sense he did not and could not.

Here is lorasinger’s reply:

You are a Christian apologist with a heritage in Judaism which you gave up to become a pagan. You are now a Christian and argue their cause. Sorry, Ken, pagan man gods and the nonsense that goes are simply that – pagan nonsense.

Thus, they ignore the discussion at hand and decide to take personal aim at me even whilst repeating the claim about Pagan man gods and ignoring Genesis 18 wherein the one true living God Himself appears to Abraham as a man.

In the next segment I will conclude with lorasinger’s discussion with me about the question, “Who is a Jew?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.