Yerusalyim, here are the rest. I will answer to your rebuttal ASAP.
My answer to this pages took over 20 hours.
13) He and his disciples were dirty and unwashed. They did not wash their hands.
13. You've shown no evidence that they were any dirtier than the rest of the people of that day
.
Mark 7 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles)
>* Call it tradition, call it hygiene, it is a good idea to wash your hands, cups, pitchers, and kettles because it prevents illnesses. It also shows that they were dirtier than the rest of the people because they ate with dirty hands and kitchen utensils. Maybe they didnt wash because Jesus could always cast the demons that bring intestinal parasites and bacteria to the body? Anyway there are two points in these verses: All the Jews did not eat unless they washed first, except Jesus and his disciples. 1) This makes them dirtier than the rest of the people around them. 2) Mark was not a Jew, since he refers to them as if they were foreigners.
14) His own family thought he was crazy. This disproves any thought of them knowing he was the Messiah.
14. Again you're wrong, He wasn't meeting their expectations of what Messiah was to be. Besides only his Mother and step dad knew about his origins.
>*a) Do you think that Mary and Joseph would keep his origins secret from Jesus brothers and sisters?
b) Joseph was his father, not stepfather. Luke 2:48-49 on point 11 above, Joseph and Mary are called his parents and Joseph is called his father, not stepfather. The genealogy of Jesus is based on Joseph. Jesus was supposed to have a bloodline connecting to David. If Joseph is not his father, then Jesus has no claim to the throne of David.
If you want to go the Catholic way, call him a putative father, not stepfather.
c) What about the shepherds who went to visit him, The wise man who came from the east, Zechariahs, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, and others. Were they not people? Why didnt Mary say anything to her relatives about him not being crazy, and explain to them his true origins before they went to apprehend him?
15) Constantly called people fools, in contrast to his own command not to do so on Mat 5:22
15 Constantly called people fools? Where?
Matthew 5:22
`But I tell you this. Anyone who is angry with his brother without having a good reason, will be judged in court. Anyone who says wrong things to his brother will be judged for it in the big court. Anyone who says "You fool!" will be judged to go into hell fire.
Matthew 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Matthew 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Luke 11:40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
16) He, himself, said he was not good. (Mat. 19:17), but he called Joseph a good man. (Luke 23:50)
16. Jesus didn't say he wasn't good, he said only the Heavenly Father is good, this is one of Jesus claims to divinity. Joseph isn't called good but RIGHTEOUS, and this is imputed because of his faith.
>By saying that none is good but one, that is god, it is understood that he was not good, unless Jesus was god. Also, Jesus calls himself a good shepherd. If none is good but god, then the bible is saying in effect that Joseph was god. Anyway, Yahweh is not good he is a lying, bloodthirsty, extremist mythical god. The only difference between him and Jupiter is that Jupiter did not kill as many animals or people.
1.
Luke 23:50 Now behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man. (NKJV)
2.
Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, (NIV)
3.
And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man (NASB)
17) Said in Mark 8:35 that whosoever shall lose his life for his sake and the gospels, the same shall save it. This is ridiculous because the gospels did not exist during his own life. And as most serious bible researches will tell you, Mark, Luke, Matthew and John did not come into existence until the latter half of the 2 nd century.
17. The gospel isn't the written word, but the message that Jesus was handing down YOU are being ridiculous.
>*Dictionary Definition:Gospel: One of the four narratives of the life and death of Jesus Christ, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
If Mark meant the message that Jesus was handing down, he would have written whosoever shall lose his life for his sake and the message of Jesus Why arent Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, and other books called gospels? Dont they have the message that Jesus was handing down to me? Why were other gospels rejected by vote on the fifth century? Were the people who accepted or rejected the official set of gospels inspired by god?
What is this message? There are many things in the bible, and churches have different ideas about what the main theme of the bible is.
Why does this message need four or more writers, and out of these, three practically copied one another?
18) Orders his disciples to love their enemies in Mat. 5:44, but calls the Pharisees and other people, generation of vipers, hypocrites, fools, serpents, thieves and robbers. What demonstrations of love!
18. Sometimes love requires one to tell harsh truths.
>* Harsh truths yes, but not name-calling. People who use expletives to express themselves usually only demean themselves by their very use. That goes for Jesus too.
19) Teaches people that it is smart to defraud your employer (Luke 16:1-9)
19> The parable of the dishonest steward has to be understood in the business practices of the day. The only dishonesty on the part of the steward was squandering his masters property. When the steward has those that owe his master change their bills he is deducting the usurious charge he tacked on for his personal (the steward's) enrichment.
THe master still got all that was due him, it was the steward that would forgo what he added on only. The master commends him for this.
Luke 16: 1-9
1 Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.'
3 "The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg-- 4 I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.'
5 "So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6 " 'Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,' he replied.
"The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'
7 "Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'
" 'A thousand bushels of wheat,' he replied.
"He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'
8 "The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
>* What you say is a plausible explanation, but there are a few problems here.
a)
The previous passage does not say that the steward returned the money to the rich man
b)
It does not say that the rich man received his money back or the extra money that he had squandered, as he probably did this in the past.
c)
The way I see it, he reduced their debt, so that he would be welcomed in their houses. He was going to be fired, so he had nothing to lose. He may even have kept the money from the quick sale.
d)
I have a problem with verse 9 about using wealth to be welcomed into eternal dwellings. Sounds like televangelists asking for money for god or Catholics asking for money for indulgences.
20) He had no manners
20.He had no manners? What is your source for this?
Mat. 5:23
23 Jesus did not answer a word
Jesus was rude, Politeness requires a response.
John 2
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee
Jesus love escaped him.
Mat. 26:18
18 "As you go into the city," he told them, "you will see a certain man. Tell him, `The Teacher says, My time has come, and I will eat the Passover meal with my disciples at your house.' "
Jesus should have had better manners. You dont just invite yourself into someones home. First you receive an invitation.
Mat. 27:11
11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
John 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
John 18:37
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.
John 19: 9
9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
Jesus often replied insolently, evaded questions, and avoided answering. Instead of responding yes or no, he often refused to stand up and admit to charges.
John 20:17 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
John 20:27
27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."
Mary Magdalene went to meet him after the crucifixion. She was one of the true disciples of Jesus. In the darkness of the crucifixion she lingered near and was one of the first to arrive at the sepulcher. Defeat, disaster, disgrace could not conquer her love. And yet according to this account, the risen christ told her touch me not. Is that any way to reward the devotion of a loyal follower? Note that he asks Thomas to touch him, so that I have not yet ascended to the father denies the reason for his not allowing him to touch him. He was not interested in human contact unless it was for the propagation of faith.
Oh, well, maybe Jesus was resurrected a third time, between the Magdalene episode and the Thomas scene, since John 20:9 states: For as yet they did not know the scripture that he [Jesus] must raise again from the dead. First of all there is no scripture that says that, and if Jesus did not allow Magdalene to touch him but allowed Thomas was because he had died and risen again, making it a third time resurrection.
21) Claimed not to have come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mat. 5:17-19). Yet he ignored:
21. Your utter ignorance of the 613 Commandments that make up the Mosaic Law is quite evident here.
We will see if I am more ignorant than Jesus at the end of points a-j.
If Yahwehs law is wise and perfect, and someone changes it, then either that person is not wise or Yahwehs law needed revising because it was not wise and perfect to begin with..
The dietary laws (Mat. 15:11, Mark 7:15, 18-19)
What dietary law did Jesus violate? He simply said it wasn't the food that defiled by the evilness in the heart when one purposefully violated God's Law.
Lets see:
Matthew 15:11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'
Mark 7
15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' " 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") [Parenthesis included in NIV translation.]
Versus
Leviticus11: 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth
.
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
>* As you can see the whole chapter 11 of Leviticus is about what animals can be eaten, and which cannot. Hey, I agree with Jesus. I have eaten pork, grasshoppers, rabbits, moles, shrimp, bees, octopus, calamari, etc but would not eat any fowl that creep on all fours anyway or winged creatures that walk on all fours, as specified in verses 20 and 21 because I dont know any animal that fits a description like that. Oh, well, maybe they were talking about pegasus, dragons or unicorns.
Jesus ignored the law and advised the eating these forbidden animals in Mat. 15:11, Mark 7:15, 18-19 by telling his disciples that they could eat anything. By doing this, he not only ignored, but changed the Law. Apparently JWs never heard about these verses because they claim you cannot eat blood (I love blood sausages).
b) The laws requiring washing of hands (Mat. 15: 2-3, 20; Luke 11: 37-38)
b) Show me in the Hebrew Scritpures this law that requires the washing of hands? It's not among the 613 Commandments. Rather, the washing of hands was a requirement found in Talmud the oral tradition, NOT in the mosaic law. Not Jesus challenge to them when he speaks of their violation of an actual commandment (found in Exodus 20).
>*I said that Jesus ignored the law. I never said that it had to be the Pentateuch. He ignored the law of the land on the washing of the hands, which, by the way, makes more sense than those silly dietary laws found in Leviticus 11, even if it the washing of hands is only in the Talmud, which he apparently believed was the Law. Otherwise he could have responded: It is not in the Pentateuch.
If you read Mat.15: 1-7 you will see that in verse 3 it says He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of god because of your tradition. Then changes the subject from washing the hands to honor thy father and mother. Jesus did not say their criticism was false or deny that his followers transgressed the rules of god. Me merely said, Well, you do it too. Jesus is not denying the accusation but merely trying to put his accusers on the defensive. Jesus occasionally operated on the principle that the best defense is a good offense.
By saying the word also, he admits that he was transgressing the commandments of god.
c) The restrictions as to what cant be done on the Sabbath. (Mat. 12:1-6, 8; Mark 2:23-28; Mat 12:10-13; Luke 13:10-16; John 5:8-11). A man was killed for breaking them.
c) Read carefully the requirements of Sabbath and see that the disciples nor Jesus violated them, and that more imporatantly the Sabbath was made for MAN'S benefit, not man for the Sabbath's The disciples did not labor, but rather had a snack. The Pharisees considered it "harvesting" and called it work, yet would violate the sabbath rest in order to rescue a work animal, or worse yet, have booths constructed by gentile slaves every 1000 meters or so in order to be able to travel further than the sabbath allowed.
Luke 6:1-4 It came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that he [Jesus} went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days
>*Jesus did not deny that their interpretation of the Sabbath was wrong, but instead went on claiming that David broke the law by stealing showbread from the house of god. He did not say that the Pentateuch allowed them to do what they were doing, instead using a defense similar to a child that says, why cant I chat loudly in the classroom when little David doesnt do his homework and doesnt get punished for it?
Was it too much work for a man to pick up sticks on a Sabbath and get stoned to death for it?
In this instance, not only Jesus and his disciples violated the Sabbath by picking ears of corn (remember the man getting stoned for picking up sticks, and tell me what is the difference in picking sticks or ears of corn), but stole property as well. The ears of corn were not theirs to pick. The ears of corn were not theirs to pluck anymore than the swine of Luke 8:33 were theirs to destroy, or the showbread was Davids to eat.
d) Law requiring fasting (Mat. 9:14-15, Mark 2:18-20)
d) When were the Jews required to fast? There is only one fast mandated in God's law, Leviticus 23:27 proclaims the fast of Yom Kippur. What was being discussed was the Pharisees fasting twice a week as a sign of piety and the disciples NOT fasting when not required. Again your ignorance of the law is telling
Matthew 9: 14 One day the disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus and asked him, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples don't fast?"
15 Jesus responded, "Should the wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Someday he will be taken from them, and then they will fast.
>* I know about the atonement celebration. I do not see at all where Matthew says that this is about the two days fasting per week, especially since this was a question from Johns followers. I agree with Jesus that a forced fast, even if mandated by their god, is an only an external demonstration of grief, and grief should be felt, not shown. The point here is that he ignored the laws on fasting. This verse implies that they never fasted, so they ignored the fasting law.
Mark 2: 18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"
19 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.
>* These two verses are almost identical to Matthews above, except that it is now some people and not the disciples of John the Baptist who question Jesus. There is nothing mentioned about Yom Kippur or not. Note that Jesus does not tell them that the Pentateuch requires them only to fast on Yom Kippur, maybe because they were talking about the atonement festival, but instead he evades the question by giving them the bridegroom allegory.
Notice that he suspends fasting, only as long as he is alive, ignoring the fasting laws. He implies that they will go back to fasting once he is gone. The law did not suspend fasting.
Mark 9:29 So he said to them, his kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.
In the passage before this verse Jesus tells his disciples that the demons that cause epilepsy. are a special kind of demons. This demon was deaf and dumb, but the demon obviously was not deaf because he heard Jesus, and was not dumb because it cried out.
He also said to the father that all things are possible to him who believes. The father believed, and the demon was cast out. By this it is deduced that the disciples of Jesus did not believe because they could not cast out the demon.
He finishes by telling them that besides belief, with which with it all things are possible, they also need prayer and fast. This means that you need perfumed oil, prayer, and fast for things to work out when exorcising certain demons. (Remember Jesus instructions to use oil when fasting).
Votive candles, anyone?
Faith can move mountains if you also have heavy construction equipment.
e) Adultery laws by excusing an adulteress (See John 8:4-5, 7, 9-11 vs. Lev 20:10; Deut. 22:22)
The next part was deleted and pasted further down because it was in red font.
Edited by - faraon on 22 June 2002 20:57:9
Edited by - faraon on 22 June 2002 20:59:12
