Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Shalmo The Dishonest Debater

While I still had atheist and agnostic leanings, I've had my share of dishonest debate opponents in this blog. Now that I believe in Christianity, I've gotten a new dishonest debate partner in Shalmo.

Shalmo's first post on the subject seems to suggest merely that Jesus died for original sin and that alone. (Feb 19 7:15 pm in comments over here on this thread) This of course, is factually incorrect, as I've pointed out on that thread.

Then Shalmo talks to me about empathy with the Jews while Shalmo himself is anti-Israel. (same thread as before).

After that, Shalmo blows Sermon on the Mount waaaaay outta proportion and confuses the whole saved-by-faith-or-works thing in Christianity. over here

Wait, the joke continues.

Shalmo brings up the issue of inheritance with regard to the Israelite monarchy and eventually the messiah himself.

Bottom line is, the prophecies simply promise that the messiah will be a descendant of King David. The prophicies don't promise that the messiah will be the direct heir to the throne should the throne actually still exist, and to suggest that is simply an assumption not based on the Bible.

Now, let's grant for the moment that inheritance is an issue. Shalmo's whole argument is to be like a five year old and hold his hands to his ears and cry waaaaaaaaaah I'm not listening whenever facts are brought up that contradict his assertions.

Shalmo says and repeats again (in this thread), "In Judaism, Islam, and every singe semetic faith title gets passed down by biological father." OK so, never mind the Zelophehad incident. Never mind that traditional Judaism is passed down maternally. Never mind that if being ashkenaz or sephardic can't be passed down paternally, it's passed down maternally ........... waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah I can't hear you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just wish that Shalmo would look up answers to his issues with Christianity himself instead of harassing me with his issues.

The biggest joke of all is that Shalmo suggested humanistic judaism to me, which of course, supports abortion (on an institutional level, there can of course be individual pro-lifers in that movement). If you support killing innocent fetuses for personal convenience, don't call yourself humanistic.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps he was just shocked at the Christianity thing? Perhaps he was just trying to bring a bit of balance to the debate. After all there does seem to be a discrepancy between Christianity and what Jesus actually said.
And is not it possible that Moral Judaism is what Jesus himself was trying to get at??
And I understand your frustration with reform and so called humanistic Judaism but reform Jews were highly influenced by post modern philosophy and all kinds of crazy political movements. Perhaps a bit balance is what is needed here

SJ said...

Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy the law but to fufill it."

No more Torah law because where it's been pointing to has came to pass as opposed to someone simply just taking an axe to the Torah law.

Anonymous said...

It is more likely that Jesus meant he fulfilled the law meaning he kept the commandments. That would include the commandment not to add or subtract from the law. And it would include commandments in which the torah states that they are forever.
While I can understand why Christians don't keep the commandments-- (It is after all the religon they were born into), it is hard for me to see why a Jew would understand the words of Jesus in that way.

SJ said...

Earth to Noone, I believe in the New Testament now along with the Old, and that's what Paul says that Jesus meant.

Garnel Ironheart said...

Paul invented the whole thing and you know it.

At any rate, you just figured out now that Shalmo invents stuff up as he goes along? I learned that a LONG time again after I took the pains to respond point by point to a series of accusations he made against the integrity of the Torah only to have him repeat his original accusations, ignore all my rebuttals and then announce that this proved there were no such rebuttals.

So now I use him as a practice for my ad hominem attack skill development. Try it, it's quite satisfying.

SJ said...

Ok Garnel, everyone in the New Testament were all imaginary and Paul is an evil genius who he alone got the whole Christian world to convert in the first place. I admit it. XD

And don't worry Garnel, Shalmo's crap isn't going to work on this blog. XD

Anonymous said...

Paul was sincere but so were james and the others that knew jesus. It seems likely paul was for the gentiles.

SJ said...

Paul and the Jews:

Romans 1-2: "1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

Romans 11:1-2: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, ..."

Anonymous said...

Paul was the one for bitul hamizvot not James or the entire Jerusalem church.
And even Paul is possible to understand in the light of halacha. He was simply saying that gentiles don't need to convert which is why he particularly mentioned the brit milah.
But hey if you want to follow Paul that is fine with me but I think he was not really representing
Jesus accurately.
but some people seem to be able to connect with god through that system so who am i to complain?

Shalmo said...

SJ inheritance is always patrilineal in semetic religions and as I tried explaining to you matrilineal descent only was invented with the so-called Oral Torah which you reject.

Look at the geneologies in our jewish scripures. Do you see anyone tracing matrilineal descent? How are Jews supposed to know who their messiah is? When his geneology to David checks out.

No where do the messianic prophecies mention a virgin birth (isaiah 7:14 has to do with Ahad wife who already was pregnant, hence the past tense of the almah is pregnant is used). So if the messiah was to come from a female line then the Tanakh should support that. The writer should have said since the messiah is virgin both, his mother's line will be used. But as I said, female successorship does not exist in semetic religions

I say it again the Zelophad story does not count. It had to do with property, not with messianic inheritance. If such was the case with the messiah, then there should be something in the Tanakh that accomodates this by saying due to virgin birth female inheritance will count.

And yes there is a significant variance between Jesus, Peter and James who teach a religion of both faith and works and Paul who teaches a religion of faith alone. Attempts to reconcile the opposing messages of Paul and James are as ad-hoc as things get

Many of these issues you are bringing up have been addressed ad nasuem a billion times over.

You don't have to believe me. You can go research the refutations to all the missionary arguments yourself: http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

SJ said...

There you go again Shalmo ignoring my points.





SJ said...

And I'm glad you brought up Isaiah 7:14 so that you can get the smothering of a lifetime.

The word alma means maiden, a young unmarried woman, which as per Deuteronomy, pre-marital sex is disallowed, so it can mean virgin also.


Anonymous said...

Inheritance of the right to be a king is by father to son as far as I remember from the Rambam. That is a good point for SJ.

SJ said...

To be blunt, the anti-Jesus apologetics from orthodox jews really are crap. It's from the same damn people who brought you no cooking an animal in its mothers milk = no cheeseburgers.

Talk about having very little reasoning, but tons of self confidence.