Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[halleyscomet]

So, all the mythology that refers to other virgins giving birth before Jesus are only myths, based on the actual event.

Do you seriously not understand that those myths were written BEFORE Jesus would have been born or are you "playing the fool" as you've admitted to doing in other threads?

You come up with statements far related from the actual thread, and then want me to respond to issues not related.

Regardless of how we got on this "Virgin Birth" tangent, you're right. We've veered off topic again. Per your request it's back to the Mitzvot we go!

Ex. 20:15 — Not to covet and scheme to acquire another's possession — Yemenite->Ex. 20:14

Do you ever covet and scheme to acquire another's possessions Paul Bethke? Please keep in mind the thread topic is your adherence to the Mitzvot, so you're going to be explicitly asked about each one. I'm not implying you're a scheming thief with this question. I'm just asking the next question from my spreadsheet.

Would it help if I joined in and answered the questions as well?

I do not covet the possessions of others or scheme to get them.

 

[Border Reiver]

The topic of this thread is your adherence to the mitzvot. However, since your answers generally bear only a slight resemblance to the questions asked of you we've asked other questions based on what you have actually written.

In short, you brought the issues up - you should actually answer the question.



Then why don't you answer the questions put to you on those topics, rather then what ever you wish had been asked?



Something that has been plagiarized has been copied without attribution. Something that was written at an earlier date cannot be copied from something written later.

To make this clearer, let's say I have a body of text first written around 60 CE, let's call it the Book. If it is pointed out that parts of the Book are very similar to other texts that were written around 500 to 1,000 years earlier, then you cannot claim that the earlier texts are plagiarized from the Book.

Rather, it is the Book that plagiarized the already existing texts.



You realize that this also includes the Yahweh mythology that you are defending with absolutely no skill?



Given that the Bible was written after many of the other texts you need to show how a earlier text is a copy of what was written later.

Then you need to actually prove what you claim is true.



Your argument that earlier texts and legends are copies of the Scriptures written centuries later is "Satan did it?"




You can stop gas lighting now. Your argument has now moved from something supported only by a single book to something supported by the fan fiction derived from that book. It's weaker than a newborn.

Try again.

What must be considered is that although the Scriptures were not the first record to be written, they are the only record of the Creator and his dealings with humanity.

People prior to this were ignorant of creation. And construed how things came into being, accrediting much to imagination, thereby creating their own deities.

Now I am not opposed to any law in the Torah, every law given is of value to get an understanding.

A person must look at all the laws and consider where they can be applied.

What you and others fail to understand is that many laws apply to the people living in Israel at a time when there were many so called cultures and practices that Yahweh hated.

As a result, laws were given to prevent the Hebrews form imitating those customs.
(Deu 12:1 These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land.
Deu 12:2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods.
Deu 12:3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.
Deu 12:4 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.

Many of the laws that are evident today supersede the structure of the Torah—
For instance hygiene, but there are many ignorant people who still do not apply the basic laws of Torah. So, there is an ongoing attempt to educate people.

The slaughtering of animals which imposes a health risk is still in practice.
So in every way people exceed the demands of Torah or are still outside the basic laws.

An attempt to contact the dead is still a custom that is still practiced with the many ritual practices involving ritual customs which are unlawful, even to the point of using body parts.

As I have stated, every law has significance.
So TODAY the first stage is to consider the marriage covenant and the food stipulation.
Other laws of the land can serve as a guide to lawful responsibility.

But when dealing with ignorant people, the Torah laws can produce a standard for living.

So, the Torah is a guide to making laws—but the very basic laws have been abolished by the world today, that being holy matrimony and justice in dealing with crime.

So again the Decalogue is the pivotal consideration for the FAITH.

You are doing it again.

You are not responding to what was written. And what you are writing is a grammatically incorrect mess.

If you actually want to try and influence people, you might try learning to communicate coherently and effectively with people.

 

[Zivan]

So simply stated, regardless of all the Google search you are doing, is that the topic is the Torah, and the Psalms and the prophets, and the New Covenant.

That is the topic everyone has been asking about, and the topic you keep hand waving.

1) There is NO mention of a "virgin birth" in tanakh.

2) Your "NT" repeats a "virgin birth" myth that was ALREADY said about other gods, BEFORE your jesus.

3) All you say is "other myths are false, my myth is correct".

4) You have given ZERO evidence for your claim. Others here have given evidence that the virgin birth myth existed BEFORE your NT plagiarized the myth.

5) Look up what "plagiarize" means. You seem confused. As always.

 

[JayUtah]

You come up with statements far related from the actual thread, and then want me to respond to issues not related.

You were perfectly happy to discuss the virgin birth when you thought you were right about it. It's a little late for you to claim irrelevance.

You SEE my sole purpose here is to declare what is written prophetically so when the time comes there will be a record for reference.

This ongoing record, such as it exists up to the present, demonstrates only that you are a failed prophet (cf. the end-times thread) and that you are no better obedient to the mitzvot than all the other cafeteria Christians (cf. this thread). When we attempt to use this record to demonstrate your errors, you essentially say it's unimportant and that only what follows will matter. This is part of the larger pattern of your arguments I mentioned yesterday, which is that you simply disregard any error you make and try to gaslight people into believing you never made it. That strategy does not work here.

So, all the mythology that refers to other virgins giving birth before Jesus are only myths, based on the actual event.

As others have noted, you may be ignorant of historical literature but the rest of the world is not. Your beliefs contradict fact, so you're trying desperately to make fact go away. This may have something to do with your inability to obtain followers.

When Satan the deceiver is brought into the equation then there is a reason that counterfeit events will be fabricated to confuse the truth—very simple.

This ranks right up there with Creationists saying Satan put old dinosaur bones in the ground to deceive the faithful. I assume you're claiming that Satan magically created all those earlier virgin-birth stories to try the faith of Christians.

You SEE, you cannot blame Satan if you lie!!

You're the one blaming Satan for your inability to reconcile your beliefs with the facts.

 

[Paul Bethke]

You are doing it again.

You are not responding to what was written. And what you are writing is a grammatically incorrect mess.

If you actually want to try and influence people, you might try learning to communicate coherently and effectively with people.

I told you that you do not understand prophecy--so to make it easy for you to understand--the Ten Commands are the basis for the faith. Nothing else is as important as the Ten Commands. A person begins with the Ten Commands and finishes with the Ten Commands.

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

This is the requirement for all peoples on earth--by these you live and by these you are judged.

So my grammar should be correct now.

 

[JayUtah]

I told you that you do not understand prophecy--

No. This is not an excuse for the irrelevance of your response. You are not going to be able to gaslight your critics into accepting that every question you cannot answer can be made to go away simply by falling back to the Ten Commandments.

So my grammar should be correct now.

How does gaslighting correct your grammar?

 

[halleyscomet]

I told you that you do not understand prophecy--so to make it easy for you to understand--the Ten Commands are the basis for the faith. Nothing else is as important as the Ten Commands. A person begins with the Ten Commands and finishes with the Ten Commands.

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

This is the requirement for all peoples on earth--by these you live and by these you are judged.

So my grammar should be correct now.

Dude, that was TOTALLY off topic.

Come on, FOCUS.

Ex. 20:15 — Not to covet and scheme to acquire another's possession — Yemenite->Ex. 20:14

Do you ever covet and scheme to acquire another's possessions, Paul Bethke? Please keep in mind the thread topic is your adherence to the Mitzvot, so you're going to be explicitly asked about each one. I'm not implying you're a scheming thief with this question. I'm just asking the next question from my spreadsheet.

 

[Paul Bethke]

That is the topic everyone has been asking about, and the topic you keep hand waving.

1) There is NO mention of a "virgin birth" in tanakh.

2) Your "NT" repeats a "virgin birth" myth that was ALREADY said about other gods, BEFORE your jesus.

3) All you say is "other myths are false, my myth is correct".

4) You have given ZERO evidence for your claim. Others here have given evidence that the virgin birth myth existed BEFORE your NT plagiarized the myth.

5) Look up what "plagiarize" means. You seem confused. As always.

There are no other gods, except the One true God who created the worlds—all other gods are the imagination of men and woman.
The commands that the Creator gave are for all people—first the Jew and then the Gentile.
But Jews are like their predecessors. Are not the Jews today like the Jews of yesterday who lost the Temples.
So a time is coming that will separate those who are holy from those who are defiled. And a time is coming when the Jews will be cleansed.
Isa_4:4 The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.

I am not confused about the condition of the Jews—the virgin giving birth is understood by the prophet to be a maiden that is still a virgin maiden—she had to be a female that was not defiled by adultery. As you know a woman’s virginity was of utmost importance.

So Jesus the Jewish Messiah came to establish the importance of the marriage covenant, and eventually rid the earth of sin.

Revelation_17:4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.

So it was feasible to understand that a maiden who was a virgin was to have a child, an impossibility in those days.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Dude, that was TOTALLY off topic.

Come on, FOCUS.

Do you ever covet and scheme to acquire another's possessions, Paul Bethke? Please keep in mind the thread topic is your adherence to the Mitzvot, so you're going to be explicitly asked about each one. I'm not implying you're a scheming thief with this question. I'm just asking the next question from my spreadsheet.

What did Jesus teach is what I teach—through the Torah we come to understand what is sin, because the Torah teaches what is sin.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

This is in line with the Ten Commands---Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

So the topic here is what laws still apply today, and these do.

 

[JayUtah]

—the virgin giving birth is understood by the prophet to be a maiden that is still a virgin maiden—

No.

The young woman spoken of in Is. 7:14 is understood by the prophet to be pregnant, which precludes her being an actual virgin. Had the technical virginity been the important concept, there's a perfectly good word in Hebrew to make that precise distinction. The technical virginity of the woman has absolutely nothing to do with the allegory Isaiah was trying to weave in this and the subsequent chapter.

...she had to be a female that was not defiled by adultery. As you know a woman’s virginity was of utmost importance.

Adultery has nothing to do with Is. 7:14. The word mistranslated as "virgin" simply means "a young woman of marriageable age." It says nothing about her virginity or marriage status. For Isaiah's purposes the woman can have been married and have conceived the son by the ordinary means. Her fertility is the only requirement. Isaiah doesn't care because it's not a real woman or a real child. It's just a poetic tool he's using to set a time frame for the prophecy he's making about the brewing political controversy of his time.

So it was feasible to understand that a maiden who was a virgin was to have a child, an impossibility in those days.

Yes, it's an impossibility, which is why we know the naive Christian interpretation of this makes zero sense in Isaiah's context. The passage attracts this attention only because it was mistranslated into Greek in Matthew's time. In the Hebrew there's nothing extraordinary about it. "A young woman conceived and bore a son and called his name 'God-Is-With-Us'." There's nothing in the Hebrew about being a virgin or being unmarried. And for Isaiah to have introduce any such "miraculous" nonsense -- or a completely offhand new prophecy at this point in his essay -- would have sprang off on a tangent completely irrelevant and distractive from the point he was trying to make. It's as distractive as throwing a random virgin-birth lecture into a discussion of the mitzvot.

The early Christian authors writing in Greek and scouring the LXX for clues to buttress the virgin-birth claim they were borrowing from earlier mythology seized on this mistranslated passage and gave it a meaning it simply does not have. Even reading in Greek you go on to read the rest of chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 8 and realize, "Oh wait, Isaiah's talking about his own times, not the distant (for him) future."

 

[JayUtah]

What did Jesus teach is what I teach—

Apparently not.

You give as the basis of your authority as a prophet the ability to read the Bible and apply it to real situations. Sadly this gives you no more authority that the billion other people who do the same thing. These people therefore have a voice equal at least to yours in what constitutes the teachings of Jesus. And while they disagree among themselves, they all agree that you do not teach what Jesus teaches. And many of your critics have pointed out in detail the difference between what you say and what Christianity says. You have a personal brand of Christianity believed in by no one else.

 

[halleyscomet]

So the topic here is what laws still apply today, and these do.

I'm not asking what the Bible says. I know that already. We've demonstrated several times over I know it far better than you. I'm asking if YOU obey those laws.

Ex. 20:15 — Not to covet and scheme to acquire another's possession — Yemenite->Ex. 20:14

Do you ever covet and scheme to acquire another's possessions, Paul Bethke? Please keep in mind the thread topic is your adherence to the Mitzvot, so you're going to be explicitly asked about each one. I'm not implying you're a scheming thief with this question. I'm just asking the next question from my spreadsheet.

 

[halleyscomet]

But Jews are like their predecessors. Are not the Jews today like the Jews of yesterday who lost the Temples.
So a time is coming that will separate those who are holy from those who are defiled. And a time is coming when the Jews will be cleansed.
Isa_4:4 The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.

Well, no ambiguity left on where you stand on THAT front.

 

[Border Reiver]

You are doing it again.

You are not responding to what was written. And what you are writing is a grammatically incorrect mess.

If you actually want to try and influence people, you might try learning to communicate coherently and effectively with people.

I told you that you do not understand prophecy--so to make it easy for you to understand--the Ten Commands are the basis for the faith. Nothing else is as important as the Ten Commands. A person begins with the Ten Commands and finishes with the Ten Commands.

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

This is the requirement for all peoples on earth--by these you live and by these you are judged.

So my grammar should be correct now.

And you are still doing it.

You are NOT responding to my post (above yours for ease of reference). You will note that I do not refer to anything that you wrote about.

I indicated that you had chosen not to respond to my earlier post in favour of ranting on about a different topic.

I also indicated that your response was full of grammatical errors and that as a result of these two factors was incoherent which made your attempts to communicate with people ineffective. I suggested that you learn how to communicate effectively.

I'm doing so again. People lose interest rapidly in what ever you have to say if you are incoherent when you say it, and also if what you are saying bears little or no relation to the rest of the conversation.

 

[LongFuzzy]

So, all the mythology that refers to other virgins giving birth before Jesus are only myths, based on the actual event.

This is a fantastic idea. I think I'll write a song. I'll call it "White Christmas". It'll go something like this: I'm dreaming of a white Christmas, Just like the ones I used to know.... Then I'm going to sue Irving Berlin's estate for plagiarizing my song. Then I'm going to write a screen play called Avatar. About big blue people defending their planet from hostile high tech people. The underdogs will win. Then I'm going to sue James Cameron for plagiarizing my screen play. And finally because 3 is a important number, I'm going to create a little cartoon mouse, name him Mickey, and sue the Disney company for plagiarizing my idea. What could go wrong?

 

[halleyscomet]

This is a fantastic idea. I think I'll write a song. I'll call it "White Christmas". It'll go something like this: I'm dreaming of a white Christmas, Just like the ones I used to know.... Then I'm going to sue Irving Berlin's estate for plagiarizing my song. Then I'm going to write a screen play called Avatar. About big blue people defending their planet from hostile high tech people. The underdogs will win. Then I'm going to sue James Cameron for plagiarizing my screen play. And finally because 3 is a important number, I'm going to create a little cartoon mouse, name him Mickey, and sue the Disney company for plagiarizing my idea. What could go wrong?

The only way you could fail was if you got a judge other than Paul Bethke.

 

[EvilBiker]

But they still eat pig.

I'm sensing an aversion to pig here - why is that? It's something I've never really understood.

What the hell is wrong with bacon???

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sensing an aversion to pig here - why is that? It's something I've never really understood.

What the hell is wrong with bacon???

Mr Bethke claims to keep to kosher dietary laws, and that this is required of Christians. He further claims variously that he keeps to all the mitzvot or that he keeps to more of them than all other Christians. He claims he is the only one who faithfully obeys them as they are meant to be obeyed today by Christians.

 

[Border Reiver]

I'm sensing an aversion to pig here - why is that? It's something I've never really understood.



What the hell is wrong with bacon???

Absolutely nothing.

In fact, several of my Jewish and Muslim soldiers have claimed that the prohibition against pork products (and Scotch for my Mohammedean Sgt) was obviously inserted into the Holy Books by some evil people to keep all the good stuff for themselves.

 

[Myriad]

I told you that you do not understand prophecy--so to make it easy for you to understand--the Ten Commands are the basis for the faith. Nothing else is as important as the Ten Commands. A person begins with the Ten Commands and finishes with the Ten Commands.

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

This is the requirement for all peoples on earth--by these you live and by these you are judged.

Which of the "Ten Commands" is "love your neighbor as yourself?" What number is it in the list of ten on Moses's tablets?

Before you answer, please take not that loving your neighbor as yourself is not the same as not coveting your neighbor's stuff. For instance, one could be totally indifferent to ones neighbor, not wanting any of their possessions but also not caring at all about their problems or their fate.

Indeed, that's the exact situation presented in Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable specifically answering the question of what it means to love your neighbor. After the unnamed traveler is robbed, stripped, and beaten, a priest and a Levite pass by without helping him. They are not violating the Tenth Commandment listed on Moses's tablets. What was there for them to covet? The traveler's nakedness? His injuries? Obviously not. Their inaction isn't due to coveting.

But, Jesus makes it clear, they were violating Jesus's admonition to love their neighbor. So, what number commandment is that? Where does that one appear on Moses's stone tablets?