Total posts: 3,179
-->
@b9_ntt
More to come. I am not done with your post.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
Are you claiming that God does not exist?No. I claim that I do not believe in a god. I also claim that I don’t know for certain whether there exists a god or not. So I am an atheist agnostic (or agnostic atheist).
The thing about not knowing for sure is that there is ignorance there on your part. What is evident to some is not apparent to everyone, even though the grounds of evidence, the proofs, are logical and make sense of things that cannot otherwise be made sense of. To not believe in God, even though He exists, is 1) a choice, 2) a fool's paradise, if you don't mind me saying so. (^8
The reason I say a fool's paradise is that you constantly borrow from the Christian framework to make sense of things in life. While you deny, deny, deny, you also confirm, confirm, confirm. The irony.
And here you go, claiming that you, as an atheist, have a stance which excludes God as a likely explanation. Thus, if you examine life and existence at all, you look for answers in a manner that uses everything but God as the likely explanation. [emphasis mine - b9_ntt]No, I exclude everything supernatural, and also natural answers that make no sense or have no evidence to support them.
There are only a few possibilities,
1) We and the universe were created (supernatural/Being, intangible/non-physical/mindful and intentional),
2) it is uncreated and was always there (natural/physical/tangible, mindless and unintentional),
3) it had a beginning in nothing (natural/self-creation),
or
4) it is illusion.
Which of these four positions is/are reasonable?
2) Science definitely points to a universe that had a beginning. That means (if true) that it did not always exist. That brings to mind the scenario I mentioned before; that is, what caused the beginning since it would have to be something outside itself, something outside the box or the closed system we call the universe. Something that is closed cannot derive something from outside itself or it would rely on something else (open system)?
If you exclude the supernatural, something outside of nature, all that remains is the natural or illusion. Your confirmation bias prevents you from seeing things in any other way than through the natural or illusion. You admit that you exclude EVERYTHING supernatural (confirmation bias).
YOU: "No, I exclude everything supernatural..."
Maybe you did not mean quite everything???
Thus, everything you look at, you look at through this form of BELIEF, naturalism, and yes, you can weed out the explanations that do not appear valid or has no evidence to support them, but I contend that if you go back to beginnings, you will find that even the SYSTEM of naturalism has nothing to support it, nothing that can make sense of it, nothing to ground itself in.
For instance, the uniformity of nature - why? Why, in a mindless universe or a universe not governed by a mind, do things remain constant and in such a manner that we find or discover intricate laws that govern the universe, like the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, the laws of logic, etc.? These things are orderly (and reasonable). Why would you expect that from a mindless, random, chaotic beginning that has NO INTENT OR PURPOSE? You would not. It is like rolling dice. Unless the dice are "fixed," (i.e., intentionality and purpose behind them that CAUSES a fixed result), anything can happen. You try rolling six a million times in a row without fixing the dice. Yet this is what you want me to believe about natural laws. Notice, too, that something is "doing" the rolling. It doesn't just "happen." For the atheist, the universe happens for no reason, intentionality, purpose, or MEANING.
And we express these laws in a manner that derives from something that is not physical or tangible. How? For instance, grab hold of the concept "1." Go on, touch the number 1. Taste it; what does "1" taste like? And these concepts don't hold true just because you can think of them. They are independent of your or any other human mind, yet without "MIND," they are incomprehensible and have no reason to be here. Yet here you are, finding all kinds of reasons for things that should not have any reason or rationale for them. The universe is a vast set of equations and mathematics. Mathematics requires a mind to comprehend. In an illogical, unreasoning universe, why must two plus two equal for, yet in this universe or any other, it must, or it is a contradiction. Everything has its own identity from the laws of logic (another intangible, non-physical that I challenge you to derive and explain from nature). A thing cannot be what it is and something entirely different at the same time (A=A or Green is Green, "good" is good. Green is not red, yellow, blue, or black. Something that is good cannot at the same time and in the same relationship be bad). A "things" IDENTITY makes it what it is, not something else. And the law of contradiction, likewise, states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.
These things and so many more just do not make sense from within an atheist's framework (naturalism). Instead, when he/she wants to make sense of things, they borrow from the Christian framework while denying its existence and ridiculing it at the same time - what a contradiction and inconsistent way to view reality.
3) Then you have the added problem of self-creation. Nothing creating something? How can "nothing" create? What is nothing? Nothing creating is a complete contradiction in terms and must logically be rejected, or it is self-defeating. Something would have to exist before it could create anything else. Thus, the universe we live in had to have something outside itself to create it, if it had a beginning. Or are you saying something existed before the universe, or the universe is eternal? Self-creation is a logical impossibility.
4) If you say it is all an illusion, try crossing the street in front of that speeding bus by denying it exists. If your body is an illusion, along with everything else, take that illusionary hammer and bring it down upon your illusionary hand with massive force. This system of thought is so inconsistent with how you live. As a matter of fact, you can't live within such a system of thought without doing yourself violent harm.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I'm Afraid I Can't Do That, Dave.
???
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
atheism is a belief and a belief system) that employs so many other vehicles in looking at the world and universe while stating there is no proof or very little for belief in a God.No! Atheism is a specific non-belief. You can’t extrapolate a system from that.
Rubbish, atheism is a system of belief. Atheists try to answer the same ultimate questions any worldview answers; who am I, why am I here, what does it matter, what happens to me when I die? In denying or ignoring God, you come up with answers to these ultimate questions, usually based on philosophical naturalism.
the answers for life's ultimate questions are sorted out outside of God as an explanation.I don’t claim that there are answers to life’s ultimate questions.
That is more than likely because 1) you have not examined them sufficiently, or 2) you just don't care enough to ask these meaningful questions and figure out if there are answers to them that make sense.
Atheists choose to look at the world/universe by denying or ignoring that it is created by God or gods, so philosophical naturalism is usually the main vehicle, so to speak, used to examine the universe and everything in it.Yes, and that is my stance also.
Are you claiming that God does not exist? And here you go, claiming that you, as an atheist, have a stance which excludes God as a likely explanation. Thus, if you examine life and existence at all, you look for answers in a manner that uses everything but God as the likely explanation.
to be consistent, everything has to be (or is) explained or originate from within the universe/multiverse, not outside it,Correct. Nothing wrong with that.
If the universe had a beginning, which is the consensus from the current popular scientific viewpoint, what caused nothing to exist, or did something exist before the universe, thus outside it? If something existed before the universe, then something caused the universe; it did not cause itself (which, btw, is a contradiction because you stated that everything that exists is within the box you call the universe. So you are saying self-creation). If I don't exist, how can I create myself? If the universe is all there is, or was, or ever will be (per Carl Sagan), and it had a beginning, what did it create itself with? There was nothing if, as you say, the universe is all there is, and it is a self-contained system (everything comes from within the box that is the universe). Do you know what nothing is???
All you can do is tell me that you like your way of looking at things more than you like mine.That is correct. I don’t claim to have the last words regarding morality, however, I prefer my way to yours because it is based on the physical world. There is no need for a supernatural world. Adding a supernatural world and supernatural beings greatly complicates your world view without providing any visible benefits.
Yes, there is. You are saying that morality is physical because you do not need something beyond nature ("super" natural). First of all, morality is not a physical, tangible thing. How do you touch "good"? What does "good" taste like? And how do you measure something that is not physical? In the physical world, we have standards for weights and measurements that anyone can reference and know how long, big, wide, or heavy something is. Morality is a mind issue, just like numbers are. The universe is not mindful. So which mind did you use to come up with the "good," and how do you know that someone is the be-all and end-all for what good is? Is it Hitler? Is his good the "good"? Everything is relative unless you have an ultimate, objective, universal, unchanging standard. That begs the question of why I should trust or believe your thoughts are any better than Hitler's if you cannot point to what is NECESSARY for morality. You are not. So, your task is to show why I should trust you if there is no unchanging standard??? You, as a subjective being, think you know better, so I ask for your proof. What is your "best" that you base the "good" upon??? Do you have a best? Please show it to me.
This thinking is what wars are fought over (one says it is right, the other wrong, and who is to say other than by might).I beg your pardon? Christians have fought many wars with other Christians over differing theologies. Christians also fought Muslims. Muslims fight everyone, including other Muslims. Yes, atheistic regimes have also fought wars. That’s what humans do: they find some excuse to impose their will over others. That tendency is not exclusive to atheists.
What is done "in the name of Christianity" does not always agree with God's word. So what is your point? That human beings kill each other in horrible, evil ways? Precisely what the Bible conveys in its writings.
Atheism, which came into prominence in the 20th century, is responsible for more deaths than any other belief system in the 20th century - some conservative estimates say over 100 million. Who knows what will happen in this century because Xi is gearing up for a world war? He wants to win at all costs.
Christianity has what is necessary (an ultimate, objective, unchanging authority that has revealed Himself)Really? How do you explain the Hundred Years War? The Albigensian Crusade? Popes armies against their political opponents? The thousands of clerical pedophiles? What good is your morality if so many of your leaders and co-believers disregard it?
I explain it as human beings living life by ignoring God and not seeking His counsel.
What is good about my morality is not that so many ignore it and do their own thing, as per your list above, but that I have what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality. You do NOT. And I have something you do not, given that God exists - I have justice. Those who do wrong are accountable. In an atheistic universe, there is no accountability. And why are you so upset about these things happening that you don't like if, ultimately, there is no justice? You are being inconsistent again (a glaring defect of atheism, for they are the first to point the finger at others but can't give a flying flute as to why any of this "injustice" matters in the big picture). On the one hand, you say, "This is bad," then when you ask why it or anything else ultimately matters, you say it does not. So you live life inconsistently. WHY??? It does not matter if your way of thinking were to be true. Hear that - it does not matter, so why are you trying to make it matter? Who cares if your way of thinking is true - no ultimate justice.
The world, the universe, just is. It is not mindful of you; it does not care about you. It is just physical.Correct.
Then why are you living like it does matter? Your criticism above shows you think it does matter. You are living from within my belief system, at the same time denying it. Talk about contradiction.
Your very short time here means nothing in the big picture because, from an atheistic perspective, meaning is only something human beings interject and construct into this short time frame that does not matter. Nothing matters. Yet here you are, on a debate platform, acting as if some things do matter, that it matters what we believe.Yes, for a very simple reason. As a human, I have a personal life in which many things matter a lot to me. Also, because I have the luxury of thinking about things besides survival, I can contemplate the big picture.
What "big picture." You mean your "worldview" includes more than just disbelief in God. It includes a whole explanation and beliefs like crazy on WHY things SHOULD be the way you LIKE them. And they all exclude God. Per your very first statement, you have a whole philosophy about life while denying you do. Again, inconsistency.
YOU: "No! Atheism is a specific non-belief. You can’t extrapolate a system from that."
I have a personal view and a cosmic view. Cosmically speaking, I don’t matter and neither do humanity or Earth. But from a personal view my needs do matter to me. I try to stay alive and live as comfortably as possible. That’s built-in to my human nature. I couldn’t escape it even if I wanted to. This is not inconsistent. It’s just part of the human condition.
Why SHOULD your personal view matter to anyone but you? I can point out hundreds of thousands of injustices every day, but atheists just state "good" and "evil" are just personal feelings and "preferences" that don't ultimately matter.
The "human condition" is built on the theory of evolution, that only the strong survive, or that which survives and adapts, is stronger than that which does not. Thus, people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao can use social Darwinism as a means to dehumanize and sub-humanize whole ethnic groups in their populations.
Who are you ultimately accountable to?I am accountable to my conscience, to the laws of the place where I live, and the mores of my community. Those are “right” for my place and time. I am fine with not believing that there is some “ultimate” authority whose standards I must live up to.
Why is your conscience something that is true or should matter? If it doesn't, why are you acting like it does? Big deal if this is all there is, and there is no ultimate accountability. Why are you trying to live a "good" life? Lots steal and kill and get away with it. What makes you any "better" than them? Nothing unless you can show me there is a standard that should apply to all that is above all. You keep claiming that you think what you believe is "good" if I understand you correctly.
Another belief is that you find societies work better if we don't lie, cheat, steal, and kill. I agree, but what are your reasons for believing thisIt seems obvious to me. Societies work better when there is less crime, when people can go about their daily lives without thinking that everyone is out to get them, when relationships can be built on trust, and more can be accomplished through cooperation than conflict.
Yes, it works "better" if there is a standard that we can compare it to, that is better. If not, do what you want as long as you can get away with it from those who control you and what you do. In some countries, they kill those who oppose them or suppress the population to the point that their freedoms are very limited and there is no opposition to what they do (Kim Jong-Un, for example).
The great thing about America is that the founders recognized a power greater than human power that created human being unique and special with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What happens if a significant segment of society or the majority believes it is right and just to kill . . . the innocent unborn human being in the millions?What happens is what you see happening in the US right now. Lots of conflict and people moving to places where the authorities are more to their liking.
So what is right in such cases? Do you have an answer? Is it right to kill innocent human beings (the unborn) or wrong? How can it both be right and wrong at the same time? That is logically contradictory, something that the atheist position thrives on while lecturing those who dare to point out to them that the Emperor has no clothes.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Stupid people are more likely than eggheads to believe in God, a controversial new study claims.In a move that is bound to offend millions of churchgoers, a British psychologist says he has found a link between having a high IQ and being an atheist.The discovery helps explain why university academics are less likely to be religious than almost anyone else, he says.
Isn't that always the way when it is the view you support, to decry, lampoon, name-call, and ridicule the ones you're against? You seem to generalize all Christians into this group of stupid imbeciles, so you can brag and boast that you identify with this most elite, more intelligent, and more coherent position. I challenge that atheism is of a higher IQ just because you can showcase a person like Richard Dawkins here and then say, see, he believes it, and so should you. Who is he that I should believe him? He is a fallible human who specializes in a narrow field of study and does not have the answer to life's ultimate questions. If this is the guru you are trusting, my thoughts are, good luck to you.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle.No, it is not. It is a personal statement about belief in a god. That's it. Atheists' lifestyles vary just like theists. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, how does that affect your worldview and lifestyle?
A personal statement that is a belief (yes, atheism is a belief and a belief system) that employs so many other vehicles in looking at the world and universe while stating there is no proof or very little for belief in a God.
A personal statement about belief in God, yes (i.e., I am an atheist), that requires funnelling every thought through the perspective that God does not exist (or that there is no good reason or evidence for God), thus the answers for life's ultimate questions are sorted out outside of God as an explanation. Thus, it is a worldview, a comprehensive view of the world/universe. Atheists choose to look at the world/universe by denying or ignoring that it is created by God or gods, so philosophical naturalism is usually the main vehicle, so to speak, used to examine the universe and everything in it. It is a closed system of thought (everything comes from within that system - the universe); to be consistent, everything has to be (or is) explained or originate from within the universe/multiverse, not outside it, like Carl Sagan's philosophical viewpoint of the universe as all there is, was, or ever will be.
The atheist lives as if no God exists.Well, yeah. We just go about our lives without that belief. Not a big deal to us.
Maybe not a big deal to you, but consider what you have to believe if you deny an absolute Being who created the universe and everything in it and who has revealed to us right from wrong. So let's briefly consider just this one aspect, for now, morality. How do you explain the "good" if there is no best or if "best" is relative/subjective to an individual or group human viewpoint? What makes his, their view right? Remember, objective is different from subjective. Hitler (in his own subjective thought) believed that killing Jews was right because he viewed them as sub-human. Just because I can say it is good to allow a woman to kill the innocent unborn human being inside her does not necessarily make it right UNLESS there is an ultimate measure or STANDARD. It just all boils down to preferences (likes and dislikes). Some people love their neighbours; others like eating them - what is your preference? Thus, as an atheist, show me your way of looking at things is any "better" than mine and that your ultimate authority can be trusted and true, valid, and trustworthy. I don't believe you can do that. All you can do is tell me that you like your way of looking at things more than you like mine. Big deal, as you say. This thinking is what wars are fought over (one says it is right, the other wrong, and who is to say other than by might). So, can you determine right from wrong without BORROWING from a system of thought (Christianity) that has SUFFICIENT MEANS to justify itself; Christianity has what is necessary (an ultimate, objective, unchanging authority that has revealed Himself)? I don't believe you can, and I welcome you to try. I believe you will find, if you are being honest with yourself, that you can't live CONSISTENTLY from within your denial of God and what that necessarily curtails.
And that is just one aspect of morality. Another is how you get an ought from an is. The world, the universe, just is. It is not mindful of you; it does not care about you. It is just physical.
An ought is what should be the case. It is non-physical and intangible. Only sentient, rational, mindful beings can determine what ought to be the case. The universe, the earth, does not care if you kill your neighbour. It cannot determine the best outcome or the best way for you to live. Since you are subjective and a relative being, you need an ultimate source and one that has revealed itself to humanity for you to determine the right or what ought to be done. Other than that, your opinions are no "better" than anyone else's.
My last point, and I could add a whole bunch more, is, why, if everything is relative and subjective (i.e., no absolute, ultimate, objective, UNCHANGING standard), is there any ultimate meaning in the universe? It just is. It doesn't care. Why do you? Your very short time here means nothing in the big picture because, from an atheistic perspective, meaning is only something human beings interject and construct into this short timeframe that does not matter. Nothing matters. Yet here you are, on a debate platform, acting as if some things do matter, that it matters what we believe. Thus, once again, you are being inconsistent if you live like things ultimately do matter, that murdering 6 million Jews and 11-12 million undesirables does matter and that you, as a person, are appalled and disgusted at what Hitler did. If there is no ultimate standard, nothing that ultimately holds us accountable, 1) there is no such thing as justice, 2) human life is unimportant, 3) human values are made up and contrived, and in the big picture, nothing matters.
An atheist is a person who is their own godNow you are getting way off base. Do you think that if I don't believe in an external god, then I must be claiming to be my own god? That's incorrect. I'm saying I don't believe in any god.
Who are you ultimately accountable to? Who determines right and wrong in your eyes, in your perspective? Is it you, or do you have a higher authority, and what makes that authority right or true to the actual case? Because you say so? Or do you, as an atheist, view some other human authority as higher than your own, determining what you do and how you live?
God said you should not kill; you shall not commit adultery, you shall not lie, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour, you shall not steal. Honour your father and mother that your days on this earth may be long. Which ones of these do you believe are right, if any, and who determines they are right? Your subjective opinion or that of someone else?
I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.Here's how it works. Humans evolved in societies which work better when people don't lie, cheat, steal and kill. A small percentage of people do those things, but most of us do not. That's because it works better for us. We get along with our neighbors that way. That doesn't require a god-given morality.
So, you are telling me this is how it works. That is a belief that arises from an atheistic worldview - macroevolution. Are you sure of that?
Another belief is that you find societies work better if we don't lie, cheat, steal, and kill. I agree, but what are your reasons for believing this, because you like this idea, or because it is actually RIGHT, and to not do these things? Again, provide me with your ultimate source for FEELING the way you do and believing this is TRUE.
What happens if a significant percentage believe it is right to take from others whatever you need? Does that then become the right? What happens if a significant segment of society or the majority believes it is right and just to kill innocent Jews in the millions, or innocent Caucasians, or the innocent unborn human being in the millions? Does that then make it right, or is there a higher court of appeal other than human feelings, and if so, what authority or appeal does the atheist use? Please answer that.
And, as I mentioned earlier, what does any of this really matter is there is no ultimate justice, no judgment for what you do, whether you feel that something is right or wrong. Let me answer that; it does not matter in the least if all you are is a biological bag of atoms, some reacting one way, others another, as determined by external biological forces that randomly work with NO purpose or REASON.
If there is no God, as you BELIEVE, then there is no reason or purpose to the universe, no reason to believe that things will continue to work the same way they have in the past (uniformity of nature or natural laws which presuppose a lawgiver) in the future. Without reasoning being, why do you expect things to continue to happen in a uniform and PREDICTABLE manner??? Yet, they do.
And I suggest you don't get carried too far away by Amoranemix and his posts if they at all influence you. Find out if he can justify and make sense of his belief system before you invest in it wholeheartedly. See how he masquerades behind his emperor's clothes. Try and find places where he can make ultimate sense of anything. I don't think you will be able to, but if you do, pass on such findings of his system of thought to me and we can test that too. He is another person crying wolf in the wilderness without sufficient justification.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Same old junk from Brother Thomas, I see. Not worth the effort of a response, IMO.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hi PGA2.) nice to see you - and a brilliant response AGAIN. Too bad Brother Thomas doesn't have the skills to match it with you. His only tool is - foolishness.
Nice to hear from you, too, TradeSecret!
I try not to ad hominem but I got feed up with his constant attacks against our characters rather than the issues or his Scriptural twisting.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #4: “By one MAN (not woman) sin entered the world, and death through sin.”Wrong again Bible fool, whereas it was EVE that had sin enter the world: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:13)In front of the membership, what part of the passage above that shows you to be the continued Bible fool upon this topic, didn’t you understand? Huh?
Adam was formed first, not Eve. You spent a whole Post (1559) arguing against her as Adams helpmate, and another arguing against Scripture, saying that it was Eve who brought sin into the world whereas Scripture attributes it to Adam since he represented humanity before God, just as Christ also represents humanity before God.
Where does Scripture say that "by one woman sin entered the world?" It does not. It says "By one MAN, sin entered the world." Adam, in Christology, is a type of Christ. He represents humanity for the fact that he was created first, not the woman. There is an antithesis between Christ and Adam, one being the first Adam, the other being the Second or Last Adam, one causing sin and unrighteousness before God, the other sinless and pure before God, one human causing the curse, the other redeeming humanity from the curse, one breaking fellowship with God, the other restoring it.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
So also it is written: “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit.
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
Adam was created firsts. He represent the rest of us before God. Through him it would be determined how humans interacted with God. And, just as Eve was cursed for her transgression, so was Adam.
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
With [h]hard labor you shall eat from it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
Yet you shall eat the [i]plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”
20 Now the man named his wife [j]Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take fruit also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
The curse came because of Adam. It took another Man, Jesus, to restore humanity (all who will believe the truth, not a lie) to a right relationship with God in the spiritual Eden, the heavenly country by removing the curse, by living a righteous life before God that no other human can live. Hence, our need for a Savior.
***
Post 1560
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #4: “By one MAN (not woman) sin entered the world, and death through sin.”Wrong again Bible fool, whereas it was EVE that had sin enter the world: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:13)
Notice YOUR underlined words that are contrary to Scripture. Here they are again...it was EVE that had sin enter the world
The passage teaches that Adam was not deceived. It was Eve. Adam knew he was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, per God's instruction. Eve was deceived by Satan, Adam was not. Even though he knew, he ate.
Post 1561
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #5: “1 Timothy 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.”HELLO? What has your verse above got to do with the following passage by Jesus’ inspired words showing that it was EVE that transgressed in bringing forth Original Sin shown herewith: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (1 Timothy 2:13-15)Remember PGA2.0, Jesus as God proved that Eve was the cause of Original Sin whereas He punished her with pain in childbearing, and where she was to be ruled over by Adam! get it?
What you do here is what you always do. You take an explicit, clear verse of Scripture that has specific meaning, and you twist it and start talking of something else. You say that Eve was the cause of original sin whereas Scripture does not attribute the blame for humanities fallen condition upon her, but upon Adam.
Very plainly Scripture teaches sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned—
***
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Hi Brother D for Dumbo Thomas, you silly twit. I have given your hundreds of ad hominem attacks a response. Happy?
First off, where have you addressed a single verse of mine with any seriousness???
Screw what the equally bible stupid theologians to you may think, it is what Jesus as God in His inspired words of the Bible think, understood? What part of this passage don’t you understand in relation to your bible ignorant quote above?”Of the woman came the BEGINNING of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)Get it Bible fool PGA2.0? Huh? Maybe?
Bible ignorant quote???
How about you?
Are you quoting from the Bible?
In your Post 1557, what Bible translation are you working from, Dopey? There are only 12 chapters in Ecclesiastes.
Read my Post 1556, again for your answer. I quoted many biblical verses that prove my points.
***
Post 1558
Yes, the hell bound woman is subordinate to the man, “not in a sense,” like you erroneously stated, but at all times, read your bible for a change, BIBLE FOOL!
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Equal, no better or worse, just different roles.
“Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7).
So what, generally speaking the woman is weaker, physically, than a man. They are joint heirs with the man. Did you notice that from the same verse? How does that make them inferior? They have a different biblical role from the man.
“The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing.” (Proverbs 9:13)
Wisdoms feast and follies funeral (Google). Folly represents an abstraction when a thing (folly or wisdom) is represented by a person (a woman), in this case folly not having the virtues of someone wise and in submission to God. The chapter uses personification for wisdom and folly, an anthropomorphic metaphor.
Eccles. 7:26 And I discovered as more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her.
Speaking of a specific type of woman, not every woman.
“It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)
"It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)
You try living with her, oh Brother, if you think a quarrelsome woman is virtuous.
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
Instructions for Believers
8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger and dispute. 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, [g]modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was [i]deceived and [j]became a wrongdoer. 15 But [k]women will be [l]preserved through [m]childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.
8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger and dispute. 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, [g]modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was [i]deceived and [j]became a wrongdoer. 15 But [k]women will be [l]preserved through [m]childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.
Instruction for the church believers of the 1st century; a different time and culture.
"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
As in all the churches of the [m]saints, 34 the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is [n]improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God first went out? Or has it come to you only?
Again, speaking to churches during the 1st century when the culture was completely different than it is today.
***
Post 1559
Oh yes, more selective Bible quotes that only give a twisted understanding of Scripture. Who is the stupid one here?
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOUTE #3: “The woman was created as a helpmate for the man.”WRONG!!! Our brutal serial killer Jesus as God created Adam with a PENIS with its reproductive properties and then for a "help mate" for Adam, Jesus as God created animals next, not Eve, you bible dunce!“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”PGA2.0, your Bible stupidity is going off the charts! LOL!
Brother Thomas, sir, are you out tilling your grounds with your dumb ass again? Put the dunce cap on your ass. Or is he a smart (presumptuous) ass.
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [p]suitable for him.” 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for [q]Adam there was not found a helper [r]suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the Lord God [s]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“At last this is bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
Notice that no helper was suitable for him until the Lord God fashioned the woman out of Adam's rib.
Notice the equality in Eden:
26 Then God said, “[ai]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and [aj]let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [ak]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [al]surface of all the earth, and every tree [am]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that [an]moves on the earth [ao]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
***
Post 1560
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #4: “By one MAN (not woman) sin entered the world, and death through sin.”Wrong again Bible fool, whereas it was EVE that had sin enter the world: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:13)In front of the membership, what part of the passage above that shows you to be the continued Bible fool upon this topic, didn’t you understand? Huh?
Obviously, you paid no attention to biblical teaching, Brother Dumbo!
Adam was held responsible since he was formed before Eve. They both transgressed, Adam willingly taking of the fruit.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
To the ungodly "Preterist" PGA2.0,YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE AGAIN: "For instance, Genesis 2-3 describes the fall of humanity under Adam."WTF? We can see that you are still as Bible stupid as Miss Tradesecret! LOL! The fall of humanity was because of Eve, and NOT Adam you Bible inept fool! Here, let me easily "school you once again" with the following passages that explicitly show EVE was the cause of the Original Sin! Understood?!”Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:3)"For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (1 Timothy 2:13-15)To prove again that Eve was the cause of Original Sin, Jesus as God punished her for her transgression in this manner: "To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)Now, wipe the egg from your face just like the last times you visited this prestigious Religion Forum where you were easily made the Bible fool which gave this Forum a bad name, and Christianity as well!YOUR HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE: "I don't have time to respond you your many, many allegations."But, you turn into another pseudo-christian hypocrite in your overrated and lengthy gibberish post #1552 in taking said time that you said you didn't have in the first place to address Amoranemix! DUH! LOL!PGA2.0, listen up, if you are going to stay around this forum again, then expect to be corrected again and again when I Bible Slap you Silly®️ just like before, remember? Sure you do!NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS AS BIBLE IGNORANT AS PGA2.0 WILL BE ...?
I don't often respond to your posts (consider this an exception) because usually they are all twisted theology and ad hominem attacks, but let me set the record straight.
It was Adam God created first. It was Adam that God made the head, or as some theologians have stated, the federal head of humanity. We have a connection and antithesis between Adam and Christ. The one MAN brought sin and the curse into the world. The other brought life and redemption.
But the free gift [of God] is not like the trespass [because the gift of grace overwhelms the fall of man]. For if many died by one man’s trespass [Adam’s sin], much more [abundantly] did God’s grace and the gift [that comes] by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to [benefit] the many.
But God’s free gift is not at all to be compared to the trespass [His grace is out of all proportion to the fall of man]. For if many died through one man’s falling away (his lapse, his offense), much more profusely did God’s grace and the free gift [that comes] through the undeserved favor of the one Man Jesus Christ abound and overflow to and for [the benefit of] many.
But the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.
But God’s free gift is not like Adam’s sin. Many people died because of the sin of that one man. But the grace from God was much greater; many people received God’s gift of life by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
God’s free gift is not like the sin of Adam. Many people died because of the sin of this one man, Adam. But the loving-favor of God came to many people also. This gift came also by one Man Jesus Christ, God’s Son.
But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.
So, just as one man brought sin into the world, and death through sin, another Man brings life and reconciliation into the world by living a perfect life before God on behalf of all who will trust and believe on Him.
Eve was a helpmate, and in subordination to the man in that he was created first, thus the roles between men and women are different even though they are both equally valuable, their function is different.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
To the ungodly "Preterist" PGA2.0,YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE AGAIN: "For instance, Genesis 2-3 describes the fall of humanity under Adam."WTF? We can see that you are still as Bible stupid as Miss Tradesecret! LOL! The fall of humanity was because of Eve, and NOT Adam you Bible inept fool! Here, let me easily "school you once again" with the following passages that explicitly show EVE was the cause of the Original Sin! Understood?!”Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:3)"For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (1 Timothy 2:13-15)To prove again that Eve was the cause of Original Sin, Jesus as God punished her for her transgression in this manner: "To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)Now, wipe the egg from your face just like the last times you visited this prestigious Religion Forum where you were easily made the Bible fool which gave this Forum a bad name, and Christianity as well!YOUR HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE: "I don't have time to respond you your many, many allegations."But, you turn into another pseudo-christian hypocrite in your overrated and lengthy gibberish post #1552 in taking said time that you said you didn't have in the first place to address Amoranemix! DUH! LOL!PGA2.0, listen up, if you are going to stay around this forum again, then expect to be corrected again and again when I Bible Slap you Silly®️ just like before, remember? Sure you do!NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS AS BIBLE IGNORANT AS PGA2.0 WILL BE ...?
I don't usually respond to your twisted theology and ad hominem attacks, but I will make an exception so that others can see that you once again misrepresent the truth of Scripture.
The fall of humanity is attributed to Adam, because, as many theologians point out, he was the federal head, the representative before God of humanity. Adam brought sin and the curse into the human condition, Jesus Christ (the Second Adam) brought life and redemption. Also, God created the woman from the man, therefore the woman is subordinate to the man in a sense, not better, but they have different roles. The woman was created as a helpmate for the man. She was created with a different function from the man, she can give birth. She is also weaker physically than the man, generally speaking.
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
For as the woman originated from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
If you don't understand the order of things in Scripture (and you don't) you are going to butcher it (and you do).
By one MAN (not woman) sin entered the world, and death through sin. That is because the MAN was the federal head or the representative for the rest of humanity before God. God placed the responsibility on Adam. It was the choice HE made that created the rift between God and humanity. Adam brought the curse. Adam sinned. It was the Second Adam who brought life and ended the curse for all who would believe and trust in Him.
But the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.
But the free gift [of God] is not like the trespass [because the gift of grace overwhelms the fall of man]. For if many died by one man’s trespass [Adam’s sin], much more [abundantly] did God’s grace and the gift [that comes] by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to [benefit] the many.
But God’s free gift is not at all to be compared to the trespass [His grace is out of all proportion to the fall of man]. For if many died through one man’s falling away (his lapse, his offense), much more profusely did God’s grace and the free gift [that comes] through the undeserved favor of the one Man Jesus Christ abound and overflow to and for [the benefit of] many.
But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
God’s free gift is not like the sin of Adam. Many people died because of the sin of this one man, Adam. But the loving-favor of God came to many people also. This gift came also by one Man Jesus Christ, God’s Son.
But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
So also it is written: “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit.
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
Romans 5:12-21 (NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— 13 for [a]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not [b]counted against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the [c]violation committed by Adam, who is a [d]type of Him who was to come.
15 But [e]the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one offense, [f]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many offenses, [g]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then, as through one offense [h]the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness [i]the result was justification of life to all mankind. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 [j]The Law came in so that the offense would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
15 But [e]the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one offense, [f]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many offenses, [g]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then, as through one offense [h]the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness [i]the result was justification of life to all mankind. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 [j]The Law came in so that the offense would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 1131 to ludofl3x[a] The argument was, which is the more simple explanation. But since you raise the assertion that the biblical God is [not] demonstrable, I totally disagree. The evidence is reasonable for His existence.[ . . . ]Fact: The Bible describes our condition and why humanity is in the current situation, why evil exists, and the solution.[671]Fact: The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies that are reasonable to believe were written before the event they describe.[672][ . . . ]Fact: Many eternal writings from the time period also speak of this Messiah figure and confirm the biblical accounts.[673]These are just a few of the many facts that confirm the biblical narrative and a belief in God.[674] I could get into a lot more depth and show the intricately connected and unified nature of every biblical writing. I could show you from history the reasonableness of these writings happening before the events prophecies. I have contended many times that the evidence for is far more reasonable than the evidence against, and if you want to get into it, I am willing. So, don't tell me there is no evidence, or it is reasonable to believe this God is mythical or magical.[675][b] Which is more simple...God spoke, and it was so. He said, "Let there be light, and it was so"[676]..., or somehow nothing came into existence via a Big Bang for no reason that resulted in the complexity and diversity of the universe as it evolved from the simple to the complex, also for no reason?What is more simple, God created us as reasoning beings made in His image and likeness with the ability to reason and love, or...non-living inorganic chemical matter mixed forming molecular bonds and more and more complex molecular structures, eventually acquired consciousness (how we don't know), thus, becoming living organisms in a most basic form - one-celled organisms with complex engineered systems that move, feed, expel wastes, reproduce, and eventually die. From these common ancestors, transitions took place over billions of years of evolution through mutations and genetic engineering partly governed or influenced by the environment. The most adaptable survived, and the weak were eliminated. These mutating organisms became more and more complex, eventually resulting in us humans. [677][671] That is not a fact, for facts are undisputed.
But it is a fact. You are deceiving others by your claims. What you are saying is disingenuous. You are saying that what I stated is not a fact of what the Bible reveals.
1) The Bible describes our condition,
2) Why humanity is in the current situation,
3) Why evil exists, and,
4) The solution.
1) 2) 3) For instance, Genesis 2-3 describes the fall of humanity under Adam. Romans 1:18 onwards:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [m]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [o]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [p]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [q]falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [r]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations [s]with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing [t]shameful acts and receiving in [u]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [v]to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [w]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them
2:11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned [j]without the Law will also perish [k]without the Law, and all who have sinned [l]under the Law will be judged [m]by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers [n]of the Law who are [o]righteous before God, but the doers [p]of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having [s]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.
12 For all who have sinned [j]without the Law will also perish [k]without the Law, and all who have sinned [l]under the Law will be judged [m]by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers [n]of the Law who are [o]righteous before God, but the doers [p]of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having [s]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.
4) The solution: Repent and trust; believe in the One who can save.
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.”
Exclusive, which truth is, not inclusive. One name given for the solution to humanities sin.
[672] That is not a fact either. 'Reasonable to believe' also differs from true.
Again, it is reasonable to believe, and your saying otherwise does not change the claim or make it the case. You need proof and reasonable evidence. Is it reasonable to believe that the universe, humanity, morality etc., is a product of chance as opposed to a Master Mind? No, there is nothing reasonable about such an assumption. Reason is a product of mindfulness. Is it reasonable to believe that unintentionality can cause anything, let alone anything logical, continually repeatable, and consistent? You think so.
What Jerusalem prophesied to be destroyed, the Jewish people judged and uprooted in large manner from the land of Israel, and the Jewish covenant prophesied to end, and the coming of the Messiah? Yes, they were.
Is it reasonable to believe this was foretold before the actual events took place. Yes, again this is reasonable. You have books that date to before the events took place and hundreds, if not thousands of prophecies concerning Jerusalem, Israel, and the covenant God made with them.
[673] Even that is not a fact. They merely confirms some aspects of some biblical accounts.I am confident you omitted many facts that do not suit your agenda.
Again, you offer no rebuttal, just your assertions.
[674] No. These claims, even if true, would not confirm the biblical narrative. Also, the belief in God is not disputed. Hence, its confirmation is irrelevant.
They would give good reason to believe it, and they do. Many of the things spoken in the biblical words are confirmed by internal as well as external evidences. There is no denying that and I don't have time to list sources now.
[675] A problem is that you have proven yourself to be unreliable. You invent and and deceive. You may be a Bible expert, but there are Bible experts who do not believe in God and have not proven themselves to be an unreliable source. So why believe you i.s.o. of some other Bible expert ?
Again, this is your claim. You attack me rather than the arguments. I don't have time to respond you your many, many allegations.
[676] Again, it may be reasonable to believe that, given God's existence, him saying something would be simple. But God is complicated and him speaking would require God. Morever, according to you and the Bible, God's speach set in motion events through a mechanism that is so complicated that so far no one has been able to explain it.The simplicity of an event is not determined by the amount of information required to describe the resulting state, but by the amount of information required to describe the explanation, or in other words, the mininal length of the explanation. Thus for for example, the many worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics results in a more complicated universe than the Kopenhagen interpretation, but relies on fewer assumptions, and is therefore a little simpler.
There is both simplicity and complexity, simple enough for a child to understand and complex enough to rattle the most intelligent human minds. God makes a fool of them.
[677] The former is probably much more complicated, but we cannot be sure, as so far no one has been able to provide a coherent god-hypothesis. Referring back to my previous remark, all these mechanisms do not rely on additional assumptions. They rely on the fundamental laws of nature and evidence. Moreover, many god-hypotheses are possible (once we have the first one, which we still don't). Hence, there would still be no good reason to believe the creator of the universe is the god of the Bible.
Again, the "fundamental laws of nature" beg the question of why they are and why they are consistently so with no intentionality or agency behind them. For you, the just are or they don't have any reasonable explanation. You assume so much that is unreasonable while you try to reason. Instead of proving such laws (you drop them as a bombshell) you sidestep giving answers. Your sole aim is an attack on the credibility of the Bible. What about the credibility of your belief system? WHY should I trust it? Because you think so? Who are you to claim what is and what is not. You are just as fallible as I am. What "good reason" do I have to believe you and your godless hypotheses are possible? Why should I trust your fallible mind is a better or a more reasonable explanation? Because you build on a starting presupposition that there is no God, then you try to disprove Him?
21 For even though they knew God, they did not [o]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [p]crawling creatures.
Your idols are not so different from the idols of these earlier people, just more sophisticated.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The end of the age happened in AD 70, just like Jesus told His disciples it would. Read the rest of the chapter. It applies to THE DISCIPLES and THAT GENERATION. Anything else is reading into Scripture something it does NOT say.What is the issue you have with these verses?Jesus openly confessed he was clueless. “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father.”
Speaking in His human capacity, not His godhood. But notice very carefully that Jesus said the day or hour they would not know but when the time is at the door they would.
Matthew 24:32-39 NASB
32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: as soon as its branch has become tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so you too, when you see all these things, [b]recognize that [c]He is near, right at the [d]door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 For [e]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [f]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 For [e]the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not [f]understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
So, from these verses you can gather lots of information.
1. Who are the subjects of the passage? Have you a clue? Who does "you" refer to in context??? Can you answer that?
2. What are "all these things" Jesus is referring to?
3. Jesus says that "this generation" will not pass until all these things have taken place. Which generation is He speaking about? (Hint: it can only be one)
4. Just like in the days of Noah speaks of judgment. Judgment on who, in context?
Now remember the context of Matthew 24:3 (see below). Jesus was speaking to His DISCIPLES about the end of the age. Age of what? What age did His disciples live in? It was the age of temple worship and the OT economy where everything revolved around God's relationship with OT Israel. Show me differently.
Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father.
Notice, what follows from verse 3 of Matthew 24:
4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one [a]misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the [b]Christ,’ and they will [c]mislead many people. 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [d]fall away, and they will [e]betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and [f]mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, [g]most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [h]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Perilous Times
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[i]let the [j]reader understand— 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 [k]Whoever is on the [l]housetop must not go down to get things out of his house. 18 And [m]whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 Moreover, pray that [n]when you flee, it will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no [o]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [p]elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the [q]Christ,’ or ‘He is over here,’ do not believe him. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and will provide great [r]signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the [s]elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man [t]be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the [u]vultures will gather.
The Glorious Return
29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [d]fall away, and they will [e]betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and [f]mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, [g]most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [h]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Perilous Times
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[i]let the [j]reader understand— 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 [k]Whoever is on the [l]housetop must not go down to get things out of his house. 18 And [m]whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 Moreover, pray that [n]when you flee, it will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no [o]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [p]elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the [q]Christ,’ or ‘He is over here,’ do not believe him. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and will provide great [r]signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the [s]elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man [t]be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the [u]vultures will gather.
The Glorious Return
29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Show me how these verses can apply to any other generation other than the 1st century one Jesus came to and show me the "you" is generic rather than audience SPECIFIC, from the text (remember, we want to understand who the relevant or primary audience is that Jesus is speaking to, not us the secondary audience). We want to understand the timeline also. What does that imply to you, our generation or a 1st century generation? Pay also to the verb tense, whether past, present, or future.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Atheism is more reasonable than Theism.Harikrish argued his case well.From the Scriptures and the actions and words of Jesus we can conclude Jesus was an Atheist.
You are really counter to what the Bible tells us in every way. Jesus kept referring to His Father who He called God. You are misrepresenting the truth of what is said.
But He answered and said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’”
Matthew 4:10
Then Jesus *said to him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”
Then Jesus *said to him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”
But I say to you, take no oath at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
Matthew 6:30
But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
I can give you perhaps hundreds of examples. What you are saying is BS.
Atheist definition: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Jesus mocked the religious leaders of his time. He called them vipers and scums just like Atheist mocked the believers today.Matthew 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
So what. That does not mean He did not believe in God. He was disguised with their worship (or lack of) of God.
Jesus called his body a temple and drove people out of the real temple of worship.John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
What does that prove?
Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.Jesus claimed he had all authority over his alien Kingdom and earth. Yet he stood idly by as the Romans destroyed the holy city and sanctuary.
So what. He and the Father are one. He is God just as the Father and Holy Spirit are God.
He believed anybody who ate his flesh and drank his blood would have eternal life. Who needs a God if Jewish meat is kosher and gets you eternal life in the hereafter.
The OT reveals God just as the NT does. What is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT.
John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.Jesus said he was from an alien world.John 8:23 I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."Jesus was despised like most atheists were during his time. He comforted them.Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
You are really stretching things, twisting Scripture, and trying to make it apply to your pet theory or teaching. No where can you show Jesus is teaching thtere is no God.
Jesus on the cross mocked the God of the Bible.Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
No, He did not. He became a Man at the incarnation. Thus, the Man Jesus, fulfilling everything God required of a man by becoming a man, was asking why God had forsaken Him.
Were those last words of Jesus that motivated the Pope to declare Jesus was a failure of the cross?
So what? The Pope was wrong if he is teaching such a doctrine but I doubt that is what he is teaching.
Pope declared:"And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and not produce fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross."
It may have appeared to end in failure for those who do not understand what Jesus came to do, for those who do not believe. What is the rest of the context? Anyone can take a sentence out of context and claim the person is saying something that the person is not meaning and explains further.
Jesus called God his father throughout his life. By doing this he reduced God to a rapist and the cause of his illegitimate bastard status.
No, He did not. Again, you speak of things you know virtually nothing about. You are ignorant of Scripture.
He even blamed God for his alcoholism like God willed him to drink the water he turned into alcohol.Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."He was not directing people to God, he was forcing believers to chose between family or him.Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.35 For I have come to turn ""a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"36 a man"s enemies will be the members of his own household."[c]37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.But if Jesus was an atheist as scriptures suggests who went against the religious leaders of his time by denouncing their beliefs. Then why do Christians worship an atheist Jesus?By worshipping the atheist Jesus they believe they are turning him into God by their exhaltation.
No Scripture suggests Jesus was an atheist. What carp.
If the Pope did not remind Christians that Jesus was a failure of the cross we would be swamped by Christians on DDO. But we find DDO is full of happy atheists who take delight in the fact that Jesus was an atheist......Harikrish.See link.
Not interested in your link.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Because it is not me I am trusting in. Bertrand Russel relied on his little old finite self.1 Corinthians 1:19New American Standard Bible19 For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”Russel was confounded because wisdom comes from a greater source than himself.So you don’t even trust yourself. And you don’t trust Bertrand Russel
What good is a subjective opinion? I trust in a greater source that you have issues with. You need an objective source or objective verification for your views to be objective. Where does Russel get his from? He does not. It is only his subjective authority he works on, or the subjective authority of some other relative, subjective person. Why should I trust that source?
“Russel was confounded because wisdom comes from a greater source than himself. ”But you trust a source that goes about destroying wisdom of the wise and confounding the understanding of those who have understanding.
God destroys the "wisdom" (really folly) of those who think they have the answers when they don't, but He gives wisdom to the simple in heart. He destroys it by showing them that they really do not have the answers, even though they preach to others and ridicule those who they think are beneath their social and intellectual standards. Russel admitted "the intelligent" (which he includes himself as part of) were doubtful. Why would you want to believe anything someone who is not sure tells you???? Does that make sense to you?
"the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
If his thinking is what you want to put your trust in or quote, so be it.
1 Corinthians 1:19New American Standard Bible19 For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”Look what that source did to Jesus.
So what?
It fulfilled prophecy and completed the means of salvation. God knew it would happen. Someone paying for the sins of all those who believe satisfied God's wrath and appeased His justice. That Someone could voluntarily pay the penalty for sin (which is death - separation from God) and also live a perfect life while on earth, (something no other human has ever demonstrated they can do), to restore us (those who believe) to Eden (the heavenly realm, not the earthly realm, which is only a picture of something greater, just like the whole physical OT is a picture of something greater, the spiritual truth).
Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father.Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”
The end of the age happened in AD 70, just like Jesus told His disciples it would. Read the rest of the chapter. It applies to THE DISCIPLES and THAT GENERATION. Anything else is reading into Scripture something it does NOT say.
What is the issue you have with these verses?
God forsook Jesus when He paid for the sins of humanity for all those who would believe.
So what is the issue you have with the verse?
Created:
-->
@Shila
How can you be so cocksure?Wait: ““The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russel.”
Oh, the arrogance of it all. Russel was arrogant. How can you be so cocksure that he was right?
Created:
-->
@Shila
--> @Shila--> @AmoranemixI feel like You have been working on this response post for close to four month now..But you got it out.
Nice post man.How can you be so sure?“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand RusselYes, the intelligent meaning Bertrand Russel.How can you be so cocksure?Wait: ““The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russel.”
Because it is not me I am trusting in. Bertrand Russel relied on his little old finite self.
1 Corinthians 1:19
New American Standard Bible
19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”
Russel was confounded because wisdom comes from a greater source than himself.
Created:
-->
@Shila
--> @AmoranemixI feel like You have been working on this response post for close to four month now..But you got it out.Nice post man.How can you be so sure?“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russel
Yes, the intelligent meaning Bertrand Russel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Old Covenant was about to disappear. The two covenants existed side-by-side up until AD 70 (40 years, one generation) until everything was accomplished and fulfilled.The new covenant and world order to come is described in Revelation.
Still to come to the first century church. Show me otherwise. Revelation speaks to a Jewish audience. It is John's accounting of the Olivet Discourse.
What world order are you speaking of, the transition between the old and new covenants?
That was accomplished in AD 70.
You never addressed one, not even one, of the verses of Scripture I supplied. Instead, I got you reading into Scripture something it does not teach or say. What world order are you speaking of???
A New Heaven and a New EarthRevelation 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”.Nothing has changed since Jesus was crucified. Even our calendar continues to mark the days with little interruption. Even the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—to be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur areqq still with us.
Nothing has changed???
Where are the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant? Where is the Levitical priesthood? Where is the blood atonement for the sins of Israel? Where is the temple and temple worship? Where are the feast days sacrifices? Remember that Jesus said not ONE iota of the law or prophets will change/be abolished until ALL is accomplished. So, where are these things? Why are they not being followed today? Address Matthew 5:17-18.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Justification by Faith.The teaching of justification by faith is what separates biblical Christianity from all other belief systems. In every religion, and in some branches of what is called “Christianity,” man is working his way to God. Only in true, biblical Christianity is man saved as a result of grace through faith. Only when we get back to the Bible do we see that justification is by faith, apart from works.Once a person is justified, there is nothing else he needs in order to gain entrance into heaven. Since justification comes by faith in Christ, based on His work on our behalf, our own works are disqualified as a means of salvation (Romans 3:28). There exist vast religious systems with complex theologies that teach the false doctrine of justification by works. But they are teaching “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6–7).This might explain why there is little change in a person who converts to Christianity. Everything from there on can be justified by faith.Extremely well put!So you accept you are the same person you were before your conversion, except the same past actions are now justifiable by faith.
No, not the same. We are born again. It is now God, in Christ Jesus, who has done the work, not me. My faith rests upon Jesus and what He accomplished, not on anything I can or have done. And the Holy Spirit changes my disposition towards God. God creates in me a new spirit, a spirit of renewal and trust in Him. What I could not do on my own I see as accomplished in Christ Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
For the most part, these are Jews writing about the coming of their Messiah and each writing contains warnings of impending judgment, yet none, not one of an already fulfilled prophecies about the most significant event in their Jewish history with God, the destruction of the temple and city as warned by the OT prophets and teachers, as well as all of them." p. 13There is a good reason why none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the Holy Temple in 70AD, they were all written after 70AD.Here is the biblical evidence.Jesus spoke about the destruction of the temple. 30AD just before his death.The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End TimesMatthew 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
Who is the "you" Jesus is addressing, the relevant audience?
Hint: It is His disciples. They are the ones who come up to Him and ask Him when these things will be. And who is the "you" in verse 4 and the rest of Matthew 24?
But when asked when that was going to happen, he did not know.Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
When will this happen? Jesus tells THEM.
Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one [c]misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the [d]Christ,’ and they will [e]mislead many people. 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [f]fall away, and they will [g]betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and [h]mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, [i]most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [j]world as a testimony to all the nations,
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [f]fall away, and they will [g]betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and [h]mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, [i]most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [j]world as a testimony to all the nations,
What will be the sign of Jesus' coming? Jesus tells THEM.
13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [j]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
The Gospel was preached to all nations, the NT tells us that multiple times.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the world.
But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? On the contrary: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.”
which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth;
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.
Which last days? Last days of what?
For so the Lord has commanded us, ‘I have appointed You as a light to the Gentiles, That You may bring salvation to the end of the earth.’”
When will the age end? What age is Jesus referring to?
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some [f]were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 [g]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [h]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [i]always, to the end of the age.”
Whatever age Jesus was speaking of (Hint: the OT age) He included the eleven disciples in that age. You can't get around that fact without mutilating the NT teaching. Go ahead and try if you want. I suggest you look up "this age" and "this generation" and see what generation it refers to. What makes you thing the time frame can be ignored and placed in another era and with another people that were not the primary audience of address? We are the secondary audience of address, not the relevant audience that Jesus was referring to when He said "you."
The disciples of Jesus were waiting for Jesus’s prophecy about the destruction of the temple to happen. But it did not happen during their time and therefore they never spoke about it.
Yes, it did. There is a vast amount of evidence that confirms it did, both biblical and external.
It was decades after the death of Jesus that people put the Gospels together. The Gospels were written in Greek for a Roman audience. It had to skip the nasty things the Romans did to the Jews. After all the new converts to the Roman Catholic Church were Greek citizens. Christianity had displaced Judaism the religion that Jesus and his disciples followed. Finally, the Romans brought salvation to the Gentiles.
Hebrews, speaking to Jewish Christians about the superiority of Jesus Christ over the Old Covenant worship and sacrifice places the end of that covenant shortly after the time of writing, when an OT temple and ritual system of worship, with its priesthood and animal sacrifice where STILL in existence.
Hebrews 8:13
New American Standard Bible
The Old Covenant was about to disappear. The two covenants existed side-by-side up until AD 70 (40 years, one generation) until everything was accomplished and fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18
New American Standard Bible
17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!
The heaven and earth spoken of was the OT system of worship, the heavens and earth the Jews lived under, the OT economy as the only heavens and earth they knew. The law was completely fulfilled in AD 70. After that there is no more OT temple, priesthood or animal sacrifices and feast days since it is all fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Lord of all.
Thanks for the reply. Have not been on the forum much lately but hope to have some time Sunday to reply to your post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Shila
Justification by Faith.The teaching of justification by faith is what separates biblical Christianity from all other belief systems. In every religion, and in some branches of what is called “Christianity,” man is working his way to God. Only in true, biblical Christianity is man saved as a result of grace through faith. Only when we get back to the Bible do we see that justification is by faith, apart from works.Once a person is justified, there is nothing else he needs in order to gain entrance into heaven. Since justification comes by faith in Christ, based on His work on our behalf, our own works are disqualified as a means of salvation (Romans 3:28). There exist vast religious systems with complex theologies that teach the false doctrine of justification by works. But they are teaching “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6–7).This might explain why there is little change in a person who converts to Christianity. Everything from there on can be justified by faith.
Extremely well put!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Throughout my entire formative educational experiences.I was never once formally "indoctrinated" with evolutionary data.And I doubt that the USA was any different.On the other hand GOD tales were a regular bore.And I also doubt that the USA was any different.I think that you were telling paranoid porkies.
Again, you failed to address my concerns. Obviously, I'm not going to get any explanations to my OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Not in the majority of education systems in the USA, which was my point. Evolutionary teachingMore precisely, is the assumption that evolution as a process is a purely materialistic function. That is, without the aid of a Creator. Evolution as a process is a product of reality, but the atheistic ideology that follows and represents it is a load of codswallop. It's not really a battle between Theism and evolution as a process, but Theism vs atheism or more precisely materialism.
Yes, without theistic evolution all that is left is a materialistic, mechanical process, IMO. And since the atheist is a denier of deity that is all such a person is left with, material naturalism. Everything eventual has to be broken down into physicalism, aka, materialism. There are a lot of logical problems with that approach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And theism doesn't get drummed into heads?And atheism can be as rhetorical as you want it to be.But atheism generally means, not adhering to popular religious ideology.
Not in the majority of education systems in the USA, which was my point. Evolutionary teaching, on the other hand, is indoctrinated from an early age throughout the school systems and institutes of higher learning.
When it comes to the point of conclusion we are all as ignorant as one another.
Again, not my point. It was making sense of life's ultimate questions.
And for sure, GOD is just a label for our ignorance.
Says you. And why SHOULD I believe you, again?
And fantasy always has been an insubstantial but entertaining substitute.As ever.....GOD principle sound.....But not a floaty about bloke.
Complete and utter avoidance of my post. It just proves to me that the atheistic system of thought has nothing to offer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@zedvictor4
@Lunar108
GOD is a theory.But like all creation theories GOD falls at the first hurdle.Something from nothing.
That is not the Christian belief. Someone necessary ALWAYS exists, no beginning, no end, unlike the universe and the many theories of origin.
BOOM!But what went boom.
That is a question for those who believe the universe is all there is. And what is the agency to make it go boom? And why would you look for reason in an unreasoning universe? You seem to put the cart before the horse way too often, IMO. But you find all kinds of reasons. Why should you if there is ultimately no reasoning agency behind anything???
As usual, time is your magic ingredient!!! Things just happen - no reason (as you give multiple reasons). MAGIC!!!
As usual, silence from the atheist "knowers" on such ultimate questions. Not even a cricket. Or would you like to speculate and surprise me? Without God you can't make ultimate sense of the universe or why we are here. God is necessary to make sense of it because I'm betting you can't.
Eternal existence is an easy answer.But a magic bloke?
Or magical "time." Once upon a time, a long, long time ago. With time they magically think anything is possible. Meanwhile, from the atheist perspective, no one was around to observe the universe beginning and no one is able to repeat the process. Thus, they build all kinds of speculative models. And the greatest scientists are still nothing more than fallible, ignorant, impotent, powerless, speculators of what is and why it is. We only see and understand in part, not every link and every infinitesimal thing about anything. And what of the agency for the Big Bang or whatever theory they propose???
Are you proposing something always existed? If so, what was the agency that made it do what it did? Again, you a reasoning human being may come up with some kind of reason, yet how do you know it is true? Truth is the mainstay of science, not scientism, and that is what you are dealing with in beginnings.
The same goes for macro-evolution and the missing links. The prevailing opinion is we all originate from a common ancestor, rather than being created each to its own kind, yet we never see the links along the way. We just speculate about them and infer them because of similarity. You don't see them happening. Again, time is the magic ingredient, the fairy dust in the atheists bag of goodies.
Because a human being and an ape share 98% (or whatever) genetic make up/DNA structure we assume therefore that the one must have evolved from the other while dismissing that God just created us similar in so many ways to share a common/similar environment. And the prevailing scientific opinion gets drummed into our heads through the educational system. Thomas Kuhn wrote about our theories in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and their paradigm shifts. When the anomalies build up scientists jettison one theory for another until yet again the anomalies build up. What we thought we knew one hundred years ago has changed yet again.
Speaking of fanciful religions, Atheism is a fanciful magic religion were the atheist plays god declaring what is and what has been. At least the Christian has an ultimate source for his reason and being that can make sense of it, a necessary omniscient Being apart from him. You are not necessary for me to be or for me to form opinions and a knowledge base. Show me a human being who is necessary. I can make sense of my existence for I have what is necessary to do so. You do not. From ultimate eternal Being comes contingent beings! From an ultimate, omniscient, logical reasoning Mind comes other contingent reasoning minds! Reason comes from the reasoning God and He has revealed, thus (providing His existence and revelation) we have what is necessary for certainty. Logic is only possible with beings. Without logic we could not make sense of anything. Without Him, the ultimate Being, make sense of anything ultimately. You have to keep falling back on Him to make sense of things. "It just happens" does not make sense of anything. It is a tautology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thank you so much!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Thank you, they are welcome. I am still processing and adjusting to life without her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Thanks! No, my wife died. She had been battling COPD for about fifteen years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The Sabbath Day“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
Two different covenants.
The Permanence of Earth“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
The elements speak of the elements of the Old Covenant. Their world and worldview were burnt up with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Seeing God“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
Are you understanding this solely in a physical way? God manifested Himself (His Spirit) and became incarnate in the form of the Son. He also manifested Himself in the OT in the form of an angel. In the physical sense, seeing Jesus was seeing God, via His character and nature. Seeing, besides physical sight, can also mean mental understanding or spiritual understanding. You can see God apart from a physical way (actual sight) since you can't see Spirit. The eyes of your understanding being one of those. Jesus said that you must be born again spiritually to see God.
IMO, your understanding of theology sucks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
When you peel back the veneer, there is no real justification for the worldview that makes sense. (I.e., the logical consistency is missing)
Created:
-->
@rosends
Sure there is.No, there isn’t but it makes sense that you would claim that there is. It just signals a few more things that you don’t understand. I did pick one of those “biographies” at random to read and found it laughable. It had the kinds of errors that a 5 year old who actually knew anything about Judaism would not make. But hey, you believe what you want to believe. I look forward to your list of Muslim popes next.
Nope, you cannot deny the evidence of Scripture without harming the text that speaks of an individual, not national Israel. You are the one who reads Israel into the text.
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.No, you are speaking of people who have little real knowledge of Judaism but you believe their claims because you know even less.
No, I am not. I am speaking of renown Jewish scholars, such as Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides/Rambam). Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus was a Jew, p15-25, lists and documents via quotes several rabbis from early times forward:
1. Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel.
2. Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel .
3. Simon ben Yochai.
4. Rabbi Nahman.
5. Rabbi Eleazar ben Kalir.
6. Yepheth ben Ali.
7. Benjamin of Nehawend.
8. Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan.
9. Rabbi Moshe Kohen.
10. Rabbi Saadyeh Ibn Danan.
11. Rabbi Moshe El-Sheikh.
12. Rabbi Eiiyyah de Vidas.
13. Rabbi Naphtali ben Altschuler.
Thus, the tradition Jewish view of earlier days views Isaiah 52-53 as speaking of the Messiah (Mashiach ben Yosef), not national Israel.
It is how he describes himself as pointed out in the article.Yes, and this is exactly my point. He is describing himself as someone who does not have any real or deep understanding of traditional Judaism and follows a group that rejects most of what traditional Judaism teaches and you trot him out as a Jewish expert because, as I said, you know even less.
No, the deep understanding of traditional Judaism recognizes an individual Messiah who would save His people and atone for their iniquity. The earliest Targums, per Fruchtenbaum, p 15-16, speak of an individual, per the quote from Rabbi Don Yitschak Abarbanel on Jonathan ben Uzziel belief from the 1st century A.D.
"But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it [of Isaiah 53] in the Thargum of the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their Midrashim."
Again, I recognize this is based on your prejudice.As your statement is based on yours. The difference is, I am being explicit in my label and you are trying to be generic.
Not only on mine but on many other learned men, many of them Jews as well as the text itself, without the filters you place on the text.
And there is sufficient evidence for the belief.Which is what a Flat-Earther would say. Fine.
Again, the flat earth is a different subject entirely. You are trying to use an analogy that does not fit.
And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.So he wore a collar and carried rosary beads and went to a Christian seminary, right? Or do you understand the word “priest” differently? You are taking an English word which is a translation of a technical Hebrew word and conflating all the understandings together as if the text in English presents you with a contemporarily relevant word. This is why I stick with the Hebrew, and in the context of the entire text. Yitro was referred to by the same technical word – do you see him as a priest also?
Nope. I have shown that Malchizedek is a priest recorded in the OT, the Jewish Scriptures, not a Catholic priest of which I see very little Scriptural relevance to the Bible. The point is that Y'shua was a priest in the tradition of Malchizedek, not of the Aaronic priesthood. The reason is that with a change of covenant comes a change of priesthood.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 74, Part 1:
As I pointed out in my last post, the Septuagint allegedly had a panel of 72 Hebrews from the twelve tribes who would understand what words to use in translating. I also pointed out the problems you have with your Hebrew texts.Yes, allegedly. Jewish tradition teaches that it wasn’t 72 (among other differences in understanding the story) https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/septuagint-1.8035 and it was only the 5 books of Moses. Greek translations of anything after that were not part of the story. For more, read here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/34220/1362
Of course, you and they would make such a claim. The two web addresses require more time to flush out. It is my first time back in a week or so.
Judaism is not the Hebrew Scriptures. From your posts I gather your opinion is that if a person doesn't speak Hebrew they can't understand the Scriptures, and you modern Jews are the only ones who understand what God has said, and to that you can find hundreds of different opinions by rabbis down through the years and ages.Judaism is a religion. Scriptures are not a religion so I don’t see the real innovation in your first claim. Next, you can gather what you want. The texts were given to the Jews in a language of the Jews and in a socio-religious context inhabited by the Jews. Shakespeare scholars analyze Shakespeare and have a better understanding of it than optometrists who are not Shakespeare scholars. Go figure.
Many messianic rabbisNo such thing.
Sure there is.
a leading expert in Messianic Judaic theologyYou mean “an expert in Christianity.” Call it what it is.
Nope. I'm speaking of Jews who were practicing Judaism who believe in the Messiah Y'shua/Jesus. Thus, they have a wealth of experience in Judaism and recognize what the Scriptures teach.
Their founder, a once Reform Jew, Moishe (Martin) Rosen had such a conviction that he rejected Judaism for Christianity.A reform Jew? If only you knew what you just bragged about. Sigh.
It is how he describes himself as pointed out in the article.
The Gospels are ScriptureNo, at best they are Christian scripture. At their worst they are also Christian scripture.
Again, I recognize this is based on your prejudice.
Again, many others (including Jews) think as I do, so it is not just me.Many people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive and tomatoes are vegetables (and some of them have gardens!). So? Groups can be wrong.
And there is sufficient evidence for the belief.
Jesus, as a priest in the order of MelchizedekNo such thing in Judaism.
Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 14
18And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.
יחוּמַלְכִּי־צֶ֨דֶק֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שָׁלֵ֔ם הוֹצִ֖יא לֶ֣חֶם וָיָ֑יִן וְה֥וּא כֹהֵ֖ן לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְיֽוֹן:
יחוּמַלְכִּי־צֶ֨דֶק֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שָׁלֵ֔ם הוֹצִ֖יא לֶ֣חֶם וָיָ֑יִן וְה֥וּא כֹהֵ֖ן לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְיֽוֹן:
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 68, Part 2:
You have offered no evidence to usas you have offered none to me. You don't read the texts I read and don't understand them but you claim to represent their ideas. If I were to give them to you in a translation, they would lose much of their meaning (and open them up to someone's misstatements). So why should I translate them? If you would prefer Aramaic, I am prepared to give 2 or three Aramaic versions, but each one includes interpretation, as any translation would. If anyone wants explanation, then I would be happy to explain to someone who is actually open to learning, and isn't operating with the agenda of disproving my entire religion.
I have offered much evidence. You fail to see it as such because of your bias. I did not just provide my own take but I listed and quoted sources that supports my views as reasonable evidence.
As for not understanding the text, that is your assumption. I have good translations that are highly capable of explaining what is said, and I have Hebrew and Greek language experts that have translated the original language, of which (until 1914) even the Jews enlarge did not have. Not only this, your charges have a latent insinuation that God cannot communicate with anyone by those who speak Hebrew. That is elitism on your part, yet you also say that God will save Gentiles to, per the Jewish Scriptures, of which I also pointed out.
Then you use another tactic by implying two things, 1) that I am not willing to consider what you say, 2) that I am incapable of learning, basically that I am ignorant of your "higher understanding." I would also like to mention that you are on a thread in which not many speak of read Hebrew, thus why do you think you are teaching anyone anything when you can't provide evidence that they would understand? As I reminded you of earlier in the metaphor, "Take the hay down from the loft so that the cattle can feed from it." It is no good up there. If you can't make your thoughts evident to others so they are capable of understanding you have basically said nothing - empty noise.
they are justified before God not on the bases of what they have done but on the merit of Another.No, still grammatically wrong.
So you assert without proof whereas I presented my case and you did not address it with counter-evidence.
He reasoned that God was able to raise the dead and that God would restore Isaac to life.Do you have any proof of that? I don't see it in the text. Abraham was rewarded for what he did, not for what his great grandson will do.
I do, I have Scripture and I have Abraham's example with confirms this in the Jewish segment of Scripture. He listened to God and was ready to sacrifice his son.
1And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."
אוַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְהָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים נִסָּ֖ה אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔יו אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי:
2And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
בוַיֹּ֡אמֶר קַח־נָ֠א אֶת־בִּנְךָ֨ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֤ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַ֨בְתָּ֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֔ק וְלֶ֨ךְ־לְךָ֔ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּֽרִיָּ֑ה וְהַֽעֲלֵ֤הוּ שָׁם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה עַ֚ל אַחַ֣ד הֶֽהָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ:
6And Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering, and he placed [it] upon his son Isaac, and he took into his hand the fire and the knife, and they both went together.
ווַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֲצֵ֣י הָֽעֹלָ֗ה וַיָּ֨שֶׂם֙ עַל־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֣ח בְּיָד֔וֹ אֶת־הָאֵ֖שׁ וְאֶת־הַמַּֽאֲכֶ֑לֶת וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו:
7And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
זוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יִצְחָ֜ק אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֤ם אָבִיו֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אָבִ֔י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֶּ֣נִּי בְנִ֑י וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֤ה הָאֵשׁ֙ וְהָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאַיֵּ֥ה הַשֶּׂ֖ה לְעֹלָֽה:
8And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together.
חוַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֱלֹהִ֞ים יִרְאֶה־לּ֥וֹ הַשֶּׂ֛ה לְעֹלָ֖ה בְּנִ֑י וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו:
9And they came to the place of which God had spoken to him, and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and he bound Isaac his son and placed him on the altar upon the wood.
טוַיָּבֹ֗אוּ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽמַר־ל֣וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֒ וַיִּ֨בֶן שָׁ֤ם אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וַיַּֽעֲרֹ֖ךְ אֶת־הָֽעֵצִ֑ים וַיַּֽעֲקֹד֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיָּ֤שֶׂם אֹתוֹ֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ מִמַּ֖עַל לָֽעֵצִֽים:
10And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife, to slaughter his son.
יוַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־הַמַּֽאֲכֶ֑לֶת לִשְׁחֹ֖ט אֶת־בְּנֽוֹ:
11And an angel of God called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
יאוַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֜יו מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהֹוָה֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֣ם | אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי:
12And he said, "Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him, for now I know that you are a God fearing man, and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from Me."
יבוַיֹּ֗אמֶר אַל־תִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָֽדְךָ֙ אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וְאַל־תַּ֥עַשׂ ל֖וֹ מְא֑וּמָה כִּ֣י | עַתָּ֣ה יָדַ֗עְתִּי כִּֽי־יְרֵ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אַ֔תָּה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֛כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֖ מִמֶּֽנִּי:
13And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
יגוַיִּשָּׂ֨א אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ וְהִנֵּה־אַ֔יִל אַחַ֕ר נֶֽאֱחַ֥ז בַּסְּבַ֖ךְ בְּקַרְנָ֑יו וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ אַבְרָהָם֙ וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־הָאַ֔יִל וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֥הוּ לְעֹלָ֖ה תַּ֥חַת בְּנֽוֹ:
14And Abraham named that place, The Lord will see, as it is said to this day: On the mountain, the Lord will be seen.
ידוַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יְהֹוָ֣ה | יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵֽאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה יֵֽרָאֶֽה:
He also was looking for a country that was not his own, a heavenly country.He was not looking for a country. He was led to a land, a physical place (Gen 12:1).
Mere speculation on your part.
Hebrews 11:8-19
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
The Faith of Abraham
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old—and Sarah herself was barren—because he considered him faithful who had promised.[a] 12 Therefore from one person, and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, “as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.”
13 All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, 14 for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
13 All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, 14 for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
So, it is not based on speculation on my part, but on evidence from Jews who said they were inspired and directed by God in what they said, and their writings and their lives are confirmation God was with them however much you dislike such thinking.
Created:
-->
@rosends
What does Harry Potter have to do with any of this? It does not, in any way, address the biblical narrative.He is as fictional as any of the characters you cite and his text is as fictional as your gospels. So your claim that citing him is parallel to my claim about the text you cite.
Again, more assertion without a lick of proof. The evidence for Jesus as a literal human being and Messiah is great, such as the Gospels and epistles that claim eyewitness accounts, early church fathers (including Clement Of Rome and Ignatius), Josephus, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances of Jesus, the martyrdom of the believers, the quick spread of Christianity on the belief of the resurrection, secular historic sources from the period, such as Tacitus in AD 64, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, archaeological sources such as the Nazareth Inscription/Decree. Gary Habermas has identified "about a half-dozen “Minimal
Historical Facts,” that he "reduced from the original twelve."
Gary Habermas identifies seventeen documents from eleven different works of extra-biblical material, including mentioning the Talmud, of which "the oldest manuscript in Hebrew of the entire Talmud" containing unflattering references to Jesus, which is to be expected.
Your comparison is unfounded, especially since we know only Harry Potter is a fiction. The rest is speculation on your part that does not correspond to the historical evidence.
Tosefta is a traditionNo, it isn't and Jesus wouldn't have said so either. Just because you don't understand doesn't change anything. And saying you don't read Hebrew should remind you that you shouldn't then be making arguments about a Hebrew text that you can't read.
The old, "you don't read Hebrew" and "you don't read Hebrew" line of defence has already been addressed.
They were written down by Jews claiming to speak from God.You say this and quote from the text called "Hebrews" which is unrelated to Judaism? Thanks for the laugh. Do you accept the Book of Mormon? It was written by a Christian claiming to speak from God.
While it is perhaps not related to Judaism, it is related to the Jewish Scripture.
No, the book of Mormon is not a Christian writing and the claims from it are dubious to say the least. Many people claim to speak from God and the evidence does not support the claim, including those of Joseph Smith.
asked if you were rich enough God required the best offering for the identified class, the priesthood. Thus the sacrifice of an animal is not offered by your class. Where do you find that practiced today? You don't. Thus, you are not living according to the Law of Moses that required your finest offering.Having enough money made anyone eligible to buy a mammal. Having less limited someone to buying a bird. Having less led to ground flour. All were the best for the sin offering that the individual could afford. So, point one, this shows that blood is not necessary to effect atonement. Next, as I have stated, any sacrifice requires certain environmental variables be met and when they aren't, the text provides alternate means, even for the very limited number and type of sins that sacrifice can atone for.
It was necessary according to the Jewish Scriptures for all those who could afford such an offering because presenting ones best is what God requires and as such it is not being practiced today or after AD 70. All the feast day observances are no longer in place. The five offerings are not been observed as stipulated by the Law of Moses, and I have shown you this from the Jewish Scriptures repeatedly. You continue to contradict the Word of God.
I never said God wanted human sacrifices for the voluntary sacrifice of His Son was sufficient for all time. No other sacrifice could ever meet His righteous requirement, just the one and only.So if his "son" was human, then he wanted and accepted human sacrifice. If his son wasn't human then it was no sacrifice at all. Also, his son was not of any of the types of animals (or flour!) that is listed as acceptable for a sin sacrifice. And, of course, this meant that any sacrifices offered right then and there in the desert when God gave the commandments were not good enough and God set the people in the desert up for failure. That's not a Jewish view of God and his relationship with the people.
You are ad libbing. I said God never wanted human SACRIFICES (plural), yet with Adam's sin and disobedience came a fracture between God and humanity. It was a man who ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was a man who broke the fellowship of Eden with God. Thus, a man needed to restore that fellowship. The Mosaic Covenant shows that their sacrificial system was not adequate to restore humanity. It was only as good as their next sin. If an animal could take away sin then there would be no more need for such a sacrifice, yet the Law of Moses stipulated it (Leviticus 17). It only pointed to the time in which that restoration would happen through types, patterns, and shadows of the greater sanctuary. A righteous man was needed to restore what was broken. A man caused the problem and a man needed to fix it.
Next, God became incarnate (in human form). His Son had two natures, that of God and that of man. He lived completely within the capacity of His human nature while on earth since He came to fulfill all righteousness require by God of humanity. Thus, His sacrifice was sufficient to quench God's justice, for in the Son His justice has been satiated.
Even with Abraham, God did not want Abraham to sacrifice his son, for He was testing Abraham on his obedience, and even Abraham understood that if God wanted Him to sacrifice his son that God was capable of resurrecting him. God NEVER intended Abraham to sacrifice his son, only as a lesson of the greater sacrifice He would make later in history. The lesson from Abraham is that of obedience and foreshadowing the provision of God.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.
Third, in every type of animal sacrifice or offering the idea of substitution or representation and fulfilling righteousness is present in the sacrifice. It is not the sinner who dies, but the animal representing the sins of the sinner. Thus, the priest lays hand on the animal, identifying with it, and the animal had to be without blemish. And, as I pointed out before with a couple of examples, the Burnt Offering and the Passover meal and feast, they all symbolized of gave typology of a greater truth, the antitype in each case being God. As I said, with the Passover, there are so many similarities that it would take even me, in my limited knowledge, hours to document to you. With the lamb sacrificed at the Passover was the principle that the angel of death passed over the people because of God's provision. The same is true in the New Covenant. Because of Jesus' death provision is made by God to meet the needs of the people, so that they can be righteous before their God.
Finally, with your last point, about the sacrifices not being good enough, to an extent this is true, for they only provided covering for sin until the better and more righteous sacrifice could be made, a human one that addressed the cause of the first sin and how it effected humanity. They were never able to remove sin and restore an eternal peace and presences with God. Whether or not it is Judaism's view is another subject.
It offers no proof for those who don't.And yet you are of those who insist on things even when they can't read and understand that which they are denying. That text says explicitly that there is no one who saves people other than God. I had said, " I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile."
I have told you a number of times now, my views are shared by many former rabbis and Jews (many of those who speak and write Hebrew).
You askedWhich laws and texts?so I answered by citing a text. Deal with it. Oh, and by the way, I find this all incredibly amusing.
You failed to communicate with me and the majority on this thread. You are dealing with English speaking people largely and you need to accommodate them in your answers, otherwise you have said nothing that anyone can understand.
I offered you both Hebrew and English recognizing that you speak and read both languages.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Where did I say that the Torah laws were binding forever. I've never hung my argument on what you claim. You are putting words in my mouth, just making it up.You never did – the Torah, itself did. That’s the point! If you want to rely on the words of the “scripture” then you shouldn’t be denying the claim the text makes about being eternal.
They are only binding in Jesus Christ, the eternal Savior, who met everyone of them on behalf of those who believe. The Torah finds fulfillment in Jesus Christ. With the change of covenant comes a change in law. The Law is fully met in Jesus Christ.
With the change of priesthood comes a change in laws. Thus, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the covenant God made with Moses is still in effect?Yes.
Then you are not living up to it, as stipulated and agreed upon, nor can you.
the old covenant or Mosaic covenant system can no longer be followed as stipulated or required and agreed to.According to how YOU understand it.
According to Scripture (Leviticus 17, for instance), as mentioned in one of my last two posts.
What? So, any prophecy about the future means nothing?No, I never said that. I said that not every prophecy is about the future, nor is it intrinsic to prophecy to be about the future, so looking at prophecies which might not be about the future and deciding that they are because you misunderstand what prophecy is would be an error.
I never said every prophecy in the Bible is about the future, so please don't charge me with that belief. My belief is all unfulfilled prophecy applies to the 1st-century and the span up to AD 70.
As if yours is unlimited and authoritative. You pretend to speak as if what you say is binding. I'm not impressed. Instead, I continually bring you to God's Word. What does it say?I have brought you God’s word repeatedly. You keep saying “I don’t know Hebrew” and yet you ask for God’s word? My understanding is neither unlimited nor authoritative, but Judaism’s views of its own texts should be authoritative.
Again, you seem to believe that only those who speak Hebrew can understand God's words. That would logically mean that God would be incapable of speaking or communicating to anyone other than those willing to learn Hebrew.
Your Scripture speaks of a specific person.Many specific people.
Again, overall you do not recognize this truth that it points to one Person in the people, places, and events contained. Pity.
Is this just a game to you?Yup. Well, not "just" but largely.
I realize that. You are mostly playing games.
Is that your purpose in life, or on this thread, to make the important issues a game?On this thread? No, my purpose is to point out how little you know and to help others who read this to see that your assertions are made through a particular lens, one which is not as informed about Judaism as you think, so that others might be inspired to learn more before they glom on to your claims. The fact that it is also fun is icing on the cake.
And my purpose is to point out that you do not understand what God is conveying in your Scriptures, just like the Jews of old, for the most part, missed out on His blessings.
Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of me.Not without your help.
Don't be too quick to judge me. Time will tell.
do you care about truth and conveying it?Sure. That’s what I’m doing. Does that mean it can’t be fun?
You certainly believe you are.
If so, present why what you believe is God's teachings from Scripture on the issues we are discussing.I have but you call them assertions and interpretations.
You seldom exegete a verse of Scripture.
Do you not think Gentiles are worthy?Of what?
Of God's mercy and grace?
So you say, without anything other than your assertion.Actually, I quoted the relevant biblical text, twice.
Quoting and explaining are two different things. It begs why your interpretation is true.
Why do you think that an addition to the Mishnah or the Talmud itself is on par with God's Word?If you ask that, then you don’t understand what Jews believe about text. Thanks for cementing that fact. Just looking up a word in Google doesn’t tell you anything about context I guess.
You suggest your oral traditions are on par with the written Word.
Yes, I don't know Hebrew, so you think that bars me from knowing God. You seem to think that what God said cannot be known by anyone other than those who speak Hebrew and are Jews. It is kind of like Muslims saying that only those who speak Arabic can understand the Qur'an and what it means. You seem to think that God cannot make Himself clear to anyone but a stiff-necked people who continually ignored or misinterpreted His message by adding to it a number of traditions.Have you ever read Shakespeare in any language other than English? I have. Do you think someone who only reads Shakespeare in another language (or even an updated English version) really “gets” everything that Shakespeare put in there? I can assure you, he doesn’t.
And do you think that your reasoning, centuries removed, understands the culture of those times and the meanings of the text? Do you think tradition built up by rabbis trumps God's word? And your premise is misleading, for it assumes that every word of an author like Shakespeare can be understood by others if they understand the English of his times, rather than the author's intention --> that would be Shakespeare meaning, which even some during his time failed to grasp. Then you make another assumption that Jesus/Y'shua, a Jew, is not capable of interpreting Scripture for the very reason that you deny who He claims to be. You deny that though Him Gentiles and Jews can know God in a more intimate way than through a legalistic, wooden ritual system of worship that could never get close to God, and go through the veil into the holy of holies, the inner sanctuary.
But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts;
What you do is put words there that either come from your mind or some other rabbis mind, without Scriptural reference or proof of interpretation other than by the Talmud or Mishnah. So you continually bring forth what seems to me as your idea of a greater authority than God's word itself.See, again – if you don’t like it or understand it, you decide that it is something external. If that’s your method then so be it.
The exact same can be said of you regarding the Gospels, written mostly by Jews, claiming inspiration from God.
Finally, you seem to think that there is nothing equivalent to the Hebrew words, so that anyone who is not Jewish and cannot speak Hebrew cannot know God.I don’t recall saying that. I do believe that anyone who has not studied Hebrew should not be making arguments predicated on an understanding of Hebrew and Hebrew grammar and anyone who has not studied Judaism should not be making assertions about Judaism and its understanding of its own texts.
Again, you assume all my arguments are mine alone, and you do not believe there is a suitable translation so that the words of God cannot be understood by anyone other than those versed in Hebrew, a language only relearned in 1914. Again, I remind you that the Septuagint had an alleged panel of 72 Jews from the twelve tribes.
are you saying that the Hebrew words below do not correspond to the English translation so that we Gentiles cannot know what is being said?That’s certainly true by the way (though it isn’t about “Gentiles” – a Jew who can’t study text in Hebrew is missing out also; this is why we teach it).
So then, you propose God is incapable of conveying His word and meaning to anyone other than those who have studied Hebrew.
You seem to think that God, who made humanity in His image and likeness, has no compassion for the Gentiles at all, ever. But what do those verses above say?That’s your interpretation I guess. Judaism teaches the exact opposite.
It is what you seem to be conveying and I KNOW it is not what Scripture teaches. You seem to think that those who cannot understand Hebrew are not favoured by God in understanding Him. Let me remind you of what you wrote:
"That’s certainly true by the way (though it isn’t about “Gentiles” – a Jew who can’t study text in Hebrew is missing out also; this is why we teach it)."
You forget that the NT is built on the backs of Jews, and the chief of which is Y'shua. You forget than many Jews have come to a scriptural understanding of Jesus as the Messiah.
What about Jeremiah 31? Will He not establish a new covenant with the house of Jacob and Israel that includes the nations of the earth?You misunderstand and quote the verse incompletely. Do you know what the content of that renewed covenant will be? Do you know the part of the verse which explains how it will be different and how the same?
God will put His laws in the hearts of believers (Jews and Gentiles) and they will KNOW Him. Do you really believe you have come into God's rest? Do you think Israel has found her resting place in the physical land? Do you not realize that those who rest, rest from their works, that instead, it is God who works in us? Do you realize that God's rebuilding is a spiritual rebuilding and the picture presented is of the heavenly country, of being in God's presence? Do you know who the remnant of Israel are? Do you not know that His word has gone out to the nations?
9Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock.
טשִׁמְע֚וּ דְבַר־יְהֹוָה֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם וְהַגִּ֥ידוּ בָֽאִיִּ֖ים מִמֶּרְחָ֑ק וְאִמְר֗וּ מְזָרֵ֚ה יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יְקַבְּצֶ֔נּוּ וּשְׁמָר֖וֹ כְּרֹעֶ֥ה עֶדְרֽוֹ:
טשִׁמְע֚וּ דְבַר־יְהֹוָה֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם וְהַגִּ֥ידוּ בָֽאִיִּ֖ים מִמֶּרְחָ֑ק וְאִמְר֗וּ מְזָרֵ֚ה יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יְקַבְּצֶ֔נּוּ וּשְׁמָר֖וֹ כְּרֹעֶ֥ה עֶדְרֽוֹ:
Do you know what the new wine is, the wine of the New Covenant? Did not Rachel weep for her children during the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Did not the Lord create a new thing upon the earth? How long will you hide, you backsliding daughter? Did God not demolish, destroy and afflict His people in order to build them up in a new way? Do you not know that the new covenant is not like the old covenant that God established with Israel when He lead them out of Egypt in which they constantly broke? He has put His laws within their hearts and minds so that they would know Him, so that Israel's neighbour does not need to be taught on how to know God for they shall know Him, from the smallest to the greatest. Do you not know that God would reject the seed or descendants of Israel for what they did, that the new Israel of God is a spiritual house of Jews and Gentiles?
So, could you afford a bull, goat, or lamb, according to your position, such as that of a ruler, or rabbi, the latter being an anointed class?An anointed class? A rabbi? No…and this isn’t about what I could afford. This is about what the text lays out as a suitable sin sacrifice for those who cannot afford a mammal or bird.
Yet for those who could, where is it offered today???
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 60, continued:
Exactly what are you referring to? What do you classify as the all?Let me ask you a question – the Hebrew text requires that all Jewish men place “totafot” on their head. Do you know what totafot are? How is it that I do? The text explicitly states that animals are to be slaughtered according to the laws that God taught. Can you show me where those laws are taught? I know where – do you?
It is the word we translate as phylacteries, basically a little black box with four compartments reminding Jews of God's presence during the Exodus, and containing a scroll or short section of the law within each compartment.
9And it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes, in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand the Lord took you out of Egypt.
טוְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל־יָֽדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּֽהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הוֹצִֽאֲךָ֥ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם:
16And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and for ornaments between your eyes, for with a mighty hand did the Lord take us out of Egypt.
טזוְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הֽוֹצִיאָ֥נוּ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם:
I already pointed out where animals are to be sacrificed/slaughtered within the Law with the offerings and feast days of the Lord and in a specific passage (Leviticus 17).
So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.”
And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
Well, it remains to be seem which one of us is ignorant as to the truth.About the pronunciation of a Hebrew word? You don’t read Hebrew and insist that I am wrong in how a word is pronounced.
In reference to what?
It would be fine if you just stuck to the texts of the law and Jewish texts but you import all kinds of rabbinic interpretation to them.Since you don’t know the Jewish texts, how can you claim anything about the nature of what I bring up?
I know the Jewish texts as translated into English via the Greek by scholars, and Hebrew by Jewish scholars. You seem to think that God cannot convey information of Scripture through any other language but your own language (you limit God), which I might add was reconstructed in 1914 after centuries of disuse. You were not part of the culture of ancient times and a lot of what was taught would be far more clear to those than you. Not only that, I continually mention that because of Israel's hard heart and rebellion and adultery/idolatry, they were not blessed by God in their understanding and lifestyle.
Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 29
9Stop and wonder; they became blind and they blinded. They were intoxicated but not from wine; they reeled but not from strong wine.
טהִתְמַהְמְה֣וּ וּתְמָ֔הוּ הִשְׁתַּֽעַשְׁע֖וּ וָשֹׁ֑עוּ שָֽׁכְר֣וּ וְלֹא־יַ֔יִן נָע֖וּ וְלֹ֥א שֵׁכָֽר:
10For the Lord has poured upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and He has closed your eyes; the prophets and your heads who stargaze, He has covered.
יכִּֽי־נָסַ֨ךְ עֲלֵיכֶ֚ם יְהֹוָה֙ ר֣וּחַ תַּרְדֵּמָ֔ה וַיְעַצֵּ֖ם אֶת־עֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם אֶת־הַנְּבִיאִ֛ים וְאֶת־רָֽאשֵׁיכֶ֥ם הַֽחֹזִ֖ים כִּסָּֽה:
11And the vision of everything has been to you like the words of a sealed book, which they give to one who can read, saying, "Now read this," and he shall say, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
יאוַתְּהִ֨י לָכֶ֜ם חָז֣וּת הַכֹּ֗ל כְּדִבְרֵי֘ הַסֵּ֣פֶר הֶֽחָתוּם֒ אֲשֶׁר־יִתְּנ֣וּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־יוֹדֵ֥עַ סֵ֛פֶר (כתיב הסֵ֛פֶר) לֵאמֹ֖ר קְרָ֣א נָא־זֶ֑ה וְאָמַר֙ לֹ֣א אוּכַ֔ל כִּ֥י חָת֖וּם הֽוּא:
12And if the book is given to one who cannot read, saying, "Now read this," he shall say, "I cannot read."
יבוְנִתַּ֣ן הַסֵּ֗פֶר עַל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע סֵ֛פֶר לֵאמֹ֖ר קְרָ֣א נָא־זֶ֑ה וְאָמַ֕ר לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְתִּי סֵֽפֶר:
13And the Lord said: "Because this people has come near; with their mouth and with their lips they honor Me, but their heart they draw far away from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of people, which has been taught.
יגוַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲדֹנָ֗י יַעַן כִּ֚י נִגַּשׁ֙ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה בְּפִ֚יו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו֙ כִּבְּד֔וּנִי וְלִבּ֖וֹ רִחַ֣ק מִמֶּ֑נִּי וַתְּהִ֚י יִרְאָתָם֙ אֹתִ֔י מִצְוַ֥ת אֲנָשִׁ֖ים מְלֻמָּדָֽה:
14Therefore, I will continue to perform obscurity to this people, obscurity upon obscurity, and the wisdom of his wise men shall be lost, and the understanding of his geniuses shall be hidden.
ידלָכֵ֗ן הִנְנִ֥י יוֹסִ֛ף לְהַפְלִ֥יא אֶת־הָעָם־הַזֶּ֖ה הַפְלֵ֣א וָפֶ֑לֶא וְאָֽבְדָה֙ חָכְמַ֣ת חֲכָמָ֔יו וּבִינַ֥ת נְבֹנָ֖יו תִּסְתַּתָּֽר:
15Woe to those who think deeply to hide counsel from the Lord, and their deeds are in the dark. And they said, "Who sees us and who knows us?"
טוה֛וֹי הַמַּֽעֲמִיקִ֥ים מֵֽיהֹוָ֖ה לַסְתִּ֣ר עֵצָ֑ה וְהָיָ֚ה בְמַחְשָׁךְ֙ מַ֣עֲשֵׂיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י רֹאֵ֖נוּ וּמִ֥י יֹֽדְעֵֽנוּ:
This is said of your own people and shows their lack of understanding and openness to their God.
And why do you keep bringing up the Qur'an? I already told you I do not accept it as valid, although I do your Jewish Scriptural texts, the Torah and Tanakh.The same way you deny the validity of the Quran, I deny the validity of the gospels. You might say “but that’s different” and any Muslim on the planet would say “um…no, it isn’t.” And, again, since you don’t know what Jewish scriptures are, you can’t say you accept them as valid. You accept the texts and versions you personally think fit into your worldview. Anything else, you relegate to assertions or interpretations.
The Jewish Scriptures are Genesis to Malachi in our Bibles, in yours, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings --> the Tanakh.
You accept the passages that fit into your worldview, which you consider beyond reproach. The rest you relegate to assertion and superstition. You don't seem to realize how many different interpretations of passages by your own rabbis throughout the centuries.
you claim my Messianic notion is flawed while I claim that you, as a Jew, fail to recognize your own Messiah because of your religious bias and indoctrination.Because the text names many messiahs and explains their job and yet you claim something totally non-textual about what the messiah is and does. And then, oh look…to support your assertion you quote from another of your books of fiction.
The two messiahs recognized by some of your own rabbis of old were Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David, both applying to Jesus, as does in some respect every type of messianic or savior figure in the OT, including Moses, David, Joshua and the rest.
Created:
-->
@rosends
The sin offering was a life taken in place of the sinner. Do you understand that?No, because it wasn’t the case unless flour is alive and replaces a life.
Flour was a provision by God for those who were too poor to offer a blood offering, and on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, an animal sacrifice was necessary to cleanse the alter and to atone for the sins of the people.
why should I believe Judaism over the Scriptures?No one cares if you believe anything in particular, but you should not be asserting that you know Jewish scripture better than Jews when you deny what Jewish scripture IS. You are a Christian. Super to you. But that doesn’t confer on you any understanding of Judaism and you like to start from the position of “because I am a Christian everything Judaism thinks it knows about its own texts is wrong because my texts tell me so.”
Let me say it again, Judaism is not the Jewish Scriptures. What the Law of Moses stipulated, was required by God, and the people agreed to cannot be followed after AD 70.
As I said before, the Jewish Scriptures are largely an account of a stiff-necked, rebellious people who were constantly going astray and disobeying what was required by them under the Mosaic Covenant. I could provide passage after passage that supports my position, and also of God's constant warning of impending judgment and a new covenant that would also be open to the whole world.
You use Judaism to justify the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures to justify Judaism.No, Jews use the scriptures to help shape what Judaism is. You use the gospels to justify the validity of the gospels.
No, Jews bypass the Scriptures with their traditions because after AD 70 they cannot be followed as agreed to. Why is that? It is because God was displeased with His covenant people. He took a new bride, made up of BELIEVING Jews and Gentiles, in AD 70 (after divorcing the old because of marital unfaithfulness).
You do not recognize what the Jews did to meet the Law of Moses is works based. It is based on what you as the individual and Levite do, not solely on what God does.This is another incredibly Christian statement and ignores most of what Judaism is. That’s fine, I guess. If you want to reduce your understanding of anything about Judaism to a set of sacrificial laws about which you know very little, then so be it.
Vayikra - Leviticus - Chapter 17
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing the Lord has commanded, saying:
בדַּבֵּ֨ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֗יו וְאֶל֙ כָּל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָֹ֖ה לֵאמֹֽר:
3Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp,
גאִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁחַ֜ט שׁ֥וֹר אוֹ־כֶ֛שֶׂב אוֹ־עֵ֖ז בַּמַּֽחֲנֶ֑ה א֚וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִשְׁחָ֔ט מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה:
4but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people;
דוְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֘ לֹ֣א הֱבִיאוֹ֒ לְהַקְרִ֤יב קָרְבָּן֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לִפְנֵ֖י מִשְׁכַּ֣ן יְהוָֹ֑ה דָּ֣ם יֵֽחָשֵׁ֞ב לָאִ֤ישׁ הַהוּא֙ דָּ֣ם שָׁפָ֔ךְ וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמּֽוֹ:
5in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen, and slaughter them as peace offerings to the Lord.
הלְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבִ֜יאוּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶם֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֵ֣ם זֹֽבְחִים֘ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הַשָּׂדֶה֒ וֶֽהֱבִיאֻ֣ם לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה אֶל־פֶּ֛תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְזָ֨בְח֜וּ זִבְחֵ֧י שְׁלָמִ֛ים לַֽיהוָֹ֖ה אוֹתָֽם:
6And the kohen shall dash the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall cause the fat to go up in smoke, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.
ווְזָרַ֨ק הַכֹּהֵ֤ן אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־מִזְבַּ֣ח יְהֹוָ֔ה פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַחֵ֔לֶב לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהוָֹֽה:
7And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations.
זוְלֹֽא־יִזְבְּח֥וּ עוֹד֙ אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶ֔ם לַשְּׂעִירִ֕ם אֲשֶׁ֛ר הֵ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַֽחֲרֵיהֶ֑ם חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֛ם תִּֽהְיֶה־זֹּ֥את לָהֶ֖ם לְדֹֽרֹתָֽם:
11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.
יאכִּי־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר֘ בַּדָּ֣ם הִוא֒ וַֽאֲנִ֞י נְתַתִּ֤יו לָכֶם֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־הַדָּ֥ם ה֖וּא בַּנֶּ֥פֶשׁ יְכַפֵּֽר:
What do you not understand about this???
The fact is they did until that system was abolished by God.The system was never abolished by God. You don’t seem to want to understand this. It was given to be practiced at a certain time, at a certain place and under certain conditions. If that scenario was unavailable, other means were given. Additionally, this was only for a small section of sins – other methods were given for other sins, from the get-go.
Yes, it was. It met its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, Y'shua, Mashiach, or as the Jew Matthew said, "God is with us."
Judaism adds a lot to ScriptureYou mean like the gospels? No, that’s you. Jesus was a failed leader who misinterpreted and misapplied text while copying other ideas from Jewish scripture. That is, if anyone sees the gospels as accurate and authoritative. Which Jews don’t.
Nope, the Gospel's are Scripture. Nope He did not fail. You do not recognize Mashiach ben Yosef.
Of course you don't recognize the Gospels, they are foolishness to you because of what you have been taught.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
New American Standard Bible
The Wisdom of God
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who [a]are perishing, but to us who [b]are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God [c]was pleased through the foolishness of the [d]message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for [e]signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach [f]Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than mankind, and the weakness of God is stronger than mankind.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Please provide a translation. I provided your texts, both the English and Hebraic sides of them for your benefit. I already told you, I do not speak or read Hebrew.And yet you want to make arguments that require an understanding of Hebrew.
As I pointed out in my last post, the Septuagint allegedly had a panel of 72 Hebrews from the twelve tribes who would understand what words to use in translating. I also pointed out the problems you have with your Hebrew texts.
You continually refer to the Talmud and Mishnah, plus the oral law. We, as Christians, go on what is written in the Hebrew Bible. If you want to prove something to me then show/convince me via those Scriptures.That’s great – you have just admitted that what you think of as “Jewish scriptures” and what Jews think of as “Jewish scriptures” are 2 different things, so any argument you make about Judaism which is based in YOUR version of what scriptures are is going to be wrong according to Judaism. But instead of saying “Judaism is operating under a completely different understanding of its own scripture so my assumptions about it might be wrong” you stick with “my assumptions are right and Judaism is wrong in what it says and understands and I can prove it by sticking with MY texts which Judaism rejects.”
Judaism is not the Hebrew Scriptures. From your posts I gather your opinion is that if a person doesn't speak Hebrew they can't understand the Scriptures, and you modern Jews are the only ones who understand what God has said, and to that you can find hundreds of different opinions by rabbis down through the years and ages.
Many messianic rabbis recognize what I understand and you don't about Jesus Christ and the resurrection. I pointed you to one Jew in particular, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "a leading expert in Messianic Judaic theology." There are many rabbis who became messianic believers in Jesus Christ. I would put their knowledge of Jewish Scripture against yours any time. I worked with Jews for Jesus in Toronto on one of their campaigns in the 1990s thanks to Karol Joseph! Their founder, a once Reform Jew, Moishe (Martin) Rosen had such a conviction that he rejected Judaism for Christianity.
The Mishnah and Talmud were written centuries after the fall of Jerusalem.Not exactly. Nice try, though.
Evidence? What is the earliest copy you have?
yet I distrust your understanding of the Scriptures based on all the external sources you bring to the table. You do not live under the OT system as mandated by Scripture any more.There’s your problem again. You distrust a Jew’s understanding of Jewish scripture and you insist that you know what was mandated by scripture when you are using a different conception of what scripture is.
Not completely true, I do not distrust all Jewish understanding of the Jewish Scriptures.
it is not a different religious construct from your Scriptures, I believe you just don't recognize it because of all the addition stuff you being to ScriptureYou mean the way you bring additional stuff like the gospels to “scripture”?
The Gospels are Scripture. They expand on the Jewish Scriptures and have mostly Jewish authors who are inspired by God, the same God of the Jewish Scriptures.
I see your Scripture as CLEAR on meaningYou mean when you decide you get to define what is my scripture and what it means.
Again, many others (including Jews) think as I do, so it is not just me.
I have a notion of a perfect sacrifice based on ... the sacrifice was to be without blemish or spot.So no scourge marks, offered on the altar and via the specific method of slaughter taught in Jewish law, performed by a priest? By the rules of sacrifice, Jesus could not have been one, not just because he was a human, but because the entire process doesn’t conform to the “scripture” you want to claim to follow.
[a] Jesus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, offered Himself to God. He surrendered Himself to God that we who believe might have life to the fullest. His resurrection is proof God was pleased with His sacrifice. As a type of the OT sacrifice and offering, He was scourged and a crown of thorns was placed on His head. Nails were driven through His hands and feet, and a spear was driven through His body (pierced for our transgressions). He was also sacrificed outside the camp, in this instance outside the city gates, some believe on the northward side. His substitutionary offering for the people carried their iniquity, just like the bull or goat or lamb, it was in place of the sinner. Not only this, the alter He presented Himself before was not just a copy of the heavenly one (as with the Mosaic system of worship and sacrifice) but the very one itself, as explained in Hebrews.
As C.W.Slemming points out (see Chapter 1, The Burnt Offering) that Christ is seen in shadow or type in each of the five offerings. I'll discuss the burnt offering using some of his points and some of mine.
Burnt offering - Jesus' skin was flayed or cut to pieces by the whip. His appearance was marred by the blood from the crown of thorns. It was an entire sacrifice like the burnt offering in that He offered Himself completely to His Father, with His will, His body, His mind, for the purpose of God. The OT or Jewish Bible presents a picture of the true reality, the heavenly one, in which the burnt offering signified a consecration of self, a complete offering of oneself. The OT or Jewish Scriptures shadow all points to Jesus Christ - everything (not by coincidence but design). The fire represents judgment.
Let me take another offering, borrowing from Slemming and ad libbing. The Meal offering is a picture of Christ and the fruit of His offering (His gift) since we are in a thread about the the resurrection. One aspect of the Meal Offering was the first grain or first fruits of what was to come. As C.W. Slemming said,
"...Christ is seen as the corn of wheat which fell to the ground and died that He might bring forth much fruit. He was also the corn of wheat which went through the crushing mill of Gethsemane and the fierce oven of Calvary to become the Bread of Life." p.35.
14When you bring a meal offering of the first grains to the Lord, you shall bring your first grain meal offering [from barley], as soon as it ripens, parched over the fire, kernels full in their husks, [ground into] coarse meal.
ידוְאִם־תַּקְרִ֛יב מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרִ֖ים לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה אָבִ֞יב קָל֤וּי בָּאֵשׁ֙ גֶּ֣רֶשׂ כַּרְמֶ֔ל תַּקְרִ֕יב אֵ֖ת מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרֶֽיךָ:
ידוְאִם־תַּקְרִ֛יב מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרִ֖ים לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה אָבִ֞יב קָל֤וּי בָּאֵשׁ֙ גֶּ֣רֶשׂ כַּרְמֶ֔ל תַּקְרִ֕יב אֵ֖ת מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרֶֽיךָ:
Take also the Passover as a picture of resurrection and escape from or deliverance from sin and bondage, the passing of death in Egypt to life in God's Promised Land. Israel leaves the land of bondage and death, the earthly land, and with the exodus journeys to the land of abundance, the land of milk and honey. This is a typology or a picture of the heavenly country (the antitype of the physical reality or type) or the spiritual truth of our life with God found in Jesus Christ.
Continuing with our theme of scourging, the people of God, Israel, are told to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and smear the blood on the door posts and lintel. The blood of Jesus, a Lamb without spot or blemish is applied to the beam and top of the cross by His nailed hands and blooded head from the crown of thorns (the crown mocking His claim as king of the Jews). With the blood smeared on the door posts and lintel judgment is avoided by the people of God for the angel of death passes over them.
The bitter herbs is also a picture or symbolic pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ. During the Last Supper (a picture of the Passover meal), again taking place during Passover, the elements of the meal are present, but on the cross He was made to taste of a bitter drink and He noted that His task was a bitter cup to swallow and asked His Father if He would take it away, nevertheless He obeyed God the Father's will.
I could go on and on about the word pictures contained in the OT or Jewish Scriptures that are symbols or types of Jesus Christ contained in the whole journey to the Promised Land. The similarities are so great it would take hours and hours to document even some of them. For instance, Moses said of Him:
Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 18
15A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him.
טונָבִ֨יא מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ מֵֽאַחֶ֨יךָ֙ כָּמֹ֔נִי יָקִ֥ים לְךָ֖ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ אֵלָ֖יו תִּשְׁמָעֽוּן:
18I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.
יחנָבִ֨יא אָקִ֥ים לָהֶ֛ם מִקֶּ֥רֶב אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם כָּמ֑וֹךָ וְנָֽתַתִּ֤י דְבָרַי֙ בְּפִ֔יו וְדִבֶּ֣ר אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲצַוֶּֽנּוּ:
19And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.
יטוְהָיָ֗ה הָאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יִשְׁמַע֙ אֶל־דְּבָרַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְדַבֵּ֖ר בִּשְׁמִ֑י אָֽנֹכִ֖י אֶדְר֥שׁ מֵֽעִמּֽוֹ:
Yet, many Jews failed and fail to listen to Him. Just as Moses was chosen of God to take the people of Israel out of bondage and to the Promised Land, so too Jesus was the Mediator between God and man, the Second Moses, taking His people (Jews and Gentiles) on the second exodus, out of spiritual bondage in the spiritual Egypt into the greater Promised Land, the heavenly country with the New Jerusalem and new Mount Sinai. Jesus takes for Himself TWELVE disciples, just as God took the twelve tribes. And the journey is again forty years. Just as that one generation in Moses' time displeased God and were not permitted to enter the Promised Land but died in the wilderness, so too the same happened to all those who would not believe the message of their Messiah, the second and greater Moses. From His crucifixion to the judgment and destruction of the Temple and religious system there was forty years (AD 30- AD 70). So, time and time again, the parallels are all there. My understanding is that you just miss them because of your religious indoctrination.
17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did. 18 But the things which God previously announced by the mouths of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”
The period of restoration was AD 70.
On the Passover see also this excellent article:
Created:
-->
@rosends
OK - so you might want to ask Uri about that claim. It isn't one that I made, just one from his article that you don't agree with.It is nice, though, that you can concedeYes, many were appalled by you, [Israel], God's peopleYou realize, I hope, that the "you" in Hebrew...is in the singular.
"You" is is permissible of speaking of the one nation, Isaiah's people. "Him" is speaking of an individual Person. "You" can be used in such a way as to include many people. To use "Him" that way is personification, something the text does not suggest and something that Jesus, as "Him" fulfills as recorded in the NT and supported by extra-biblical writings of history.
You do realize that "you" is different from "him" don't you?
And you just conceded the use of the singular for the nation, a grammatical point which you had trouble with earlier.
No problem conceding that, whether one wants to view/understand it as "my people" or the nation of Israel makes no difference. They can be used interchangeably.
[a] If you want to work with translations, you might as well be using "As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men."
[a] As if you don't.
The Septuagint was a scholarly translation (alleged 72 scholars - 6 from each tribe, into Greek from the Hebrew). The problem I have is not that the Jews have copies of the original Scripture, it is the dating and transmission of these copies and how they were obtained. Are you sure your translations are exact copies of the originals? How were the Scriptures affected by the captivity? Was the original destroyed with the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians? Do you kn ow for sure? Was Ezra working on copies?
Many ancient Jewish and Christian literary sources like 2 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, Irenaeus, Clement and the Samaritan Chronicle Adler, identify Ezra as producing a new set of Bible manuscripts. Samaritan Chronicle Adler (1900 AD) says that Ezra got his copy of the Paleo-Hebrew Torah from the Samaritans by deceit and he then deliberately made anti-Samaritan changes to the text.
“Whereupon Ezra used deceit to obtain an ancient torn Torah from a man who was one of the community of the children of Israel who were Keepers of the Truth… Ezra altered many things in the text of the Holy Torah out of hatred for the community of the children of Israel who are Keepers of the Truth (Samaritans), … adding some things and subtracting many others … many errors were made by him in the book of the Torah” (Samaritan Chronicle Adler, 1900 AD)
If Ezra did acquire his copy of the Torah from the Samaritans, it explains why he wrongly assumed that they had made textual changes regarding the location of Joshua’s Altar and Ezra then felt justified in “restoring” the original reading. However, the Samaritan storyline has two major flaws. First, If Nebuchadnezzar burned all the scripture scrolls, where did Ezra get the rest of the books from Joshua down to the prophets since the Samaritans deliberately avoided them? Second, if the copy was damaged, torn and missing sections of text it is unlikely Ezra would use it. Further, the fact that the MT and the SP are very close in text overall with no large lacunas of missing text, is evidence that Ezra had a complete and undamaged Torah to work from. If the Samaritans freely and openly supplied Ezra with the first five books of Moses (Torah) he would have been grateful and accepted their initial offer to help build the Jerusalem temple. The Samaritan Chronicle Adler correctly identifies Ezra as being involved in some significant way based upon some ancient Samaritan tradition but the details may have been lost over time.
Since all the Paleo-Hebrew manuscripts were in the hands of Ezra and his 13 assistant translators in a single location, in a general population that could not speak Hebrew, it was almost certain that the minor changes would ever be noticed. With the blatant change of the location of Joshua’s alter from Mt. Gerizim to Mt. Ebal, the other three changes were irrelevant and unnecessary. But Ezra was seriously irked by the Samaritans and he felt the changes in the Bible text were for the greater good in establishing Jerusalem as God’s holy mountain.
“Whereupon Ezra used deceit to obtain an ancient torn Torah from a man who was one of the community of the children of Israel who were Keepers of the Truth… Ezra altered many things in the text of the Holy Torah out of hatred for the community of the children of Israel who are Keepers of the Truth (Samaritans), … adding some things and subtracting many others … many errors were made by him in the book of the Torah” (Samaritan Chronicle Adler, 1900 AD)
If Ezra did acquire his copy of the Torah from the Samaritans, it explains why he wrongly assumed that they had made textual changes regarding the location of Joshua’s Altar and Ezra then felt justified in “restoring” the original reading. However, the Samaritan storyline has two major flaws. First, If Nebuchadnezzar burned all the scripture scrolls, where did Ezra get the rest of the books from Joshua down to the prophets since the Samaritans deliberately avoided them? Second, if the copy was damaged, torn and missing sections of text it is unlikely Ezra would use it. Further, the fact that the MT and the SP are very close in text overall with no large lacunas of missing text, is evidence that Ezra had a complete and undamaged Torah to work from. If the Samaritans freely and openly supplied Ezra with the first five books of Moses (Torah) he would have been grateful and accepted their initial offer to help build the Jerusalem temple. The Samaritan Chronicle Adler correctly identifies Ezra as being involved in some significant way based upon some ancient Samaritan tradition but the details may have been lost over time.
Since all the Paleo-Hebrew manuscripts were in the hands of Ezra and his 13 assistant translators in a single location, in a general population that could not speak Hebrew, it was almost certain that the minor changes would ever be noticed. With the blatant change of the location of Joshua’s alter from Mt. Gerizim to Mt. Ebal, the other three changes were irrelevant and unnecessary. But Ezra was seriously irked by the Samaritans and he felt the changes in the Bible text were for the greater good in establishing Jerusalem as God’s holy mountain.
***
The Quattuordecim is born: In 458 BC Ezra makes the long trip from Babylon to Jerusalem and begins work translating the Paleo-Hebrew scriptures into the Hebrew script that will be used by Jesus and in the modern state of Israel today. The translation process for all the extant books of the law and prophets is a monumental task and is not completed until the official unveiling in 445 BC.
I raise these points to show that there is uncertainty as to who has it correct, the Septuagint or your Hebrew Scriptures, and that your claims of transmission errors or questionable Scripture are pointing right back to you. Thus, as Christians we accept that Jesus knew better than you do when He used the Septuagint as acceptable Scripture.
Furthermore, Hebrew was largely a dead language around 300BC.
3. Hebrew as an oral/spoken language was extinct by 100 AD:
a. Hebrew went extinct as a working language outside Judea (diaspora) around 300 BC.
b. Hebrew went extinct as a working language inside Judea around 200 BC.
c. The only Jews who spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ were the Temple elites (high priests and the Sadducees) who were wiped out in 70 AD.
d. Hebrew became a dead language in 100 AD.
4. The only exception were the Masoretes who were a tiny commune of "Aramaic Hebrew" scribes living in Zippori near Nazareth and Tiberias on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee.
a. The Zippori “Masoretes” were wiped out by 400 AD
b. The Masoretes living at Tiberias continued till about 950 AD
c. Between 600 - 900 AD, the Masoretes invented "Masoretic Vowelled Hebrew".
d. Jews today reintroduced Masoretic (Vowelled) Hebrew after 1915 AD, ending a 1700 year period of extinction. (see below)
a. Hebrew went extinct as a working language outside Judea (diaspora) around 300 BC.
b. Hebrew went extinct as a working language inside Judea around 200 BC.
c. The only Jews who spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ were the Temple elites (high priests and the Sadducees) who were wiped out in 70 AD.
d. Hebrew became a dead language in 100 AD.
4. The only exception were the Masoretes who were a tiny commune of "Aramaic Hebrew" scribes living in Zippori near Nazareth and Tiberias on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee.
a. The Zippori “Masoretes” were wiped out by 400 AD
b. The Masoretes living at Tiberias continued till about 950 AD
c. Between 600 - 900 AD, the Masoretes invented "Masoretic Vowelled Hebrew".
d. Jews today reintroduced Masoretic (Vowelled) Hebrew after 1915 AD, ending a 1700 year period of extinction. (see below)
AND
3. These mass language conversions prepared God’s people providentially for the good news of Jesus Christ and conversion to Christianity.
a. In 587 BC a single Temple housed a copy of the inspired Tanakh in Hebrew.
b. God foresaw that at the time of the coming of the Messiah in 30 AD, that Hebrew would be extinct.
c. God providentially put the Septuagint in every one of the thousands of synagogues 150 years before the birth of Christ, each of which had a full immersion baptistry (Mikveh) ready to create Christians!!!
a. In 587 BC a single Temple housed a copy of the inspired Tanakh in Hebrew.
b. God foresaw that at the time of the coming of the Messiah in 30 AD, that Hebrew would be extinct.
c. God providentially put the Septuagint in every one of the thousands of synagogues 150 years before the birth of Christ, each of which had a full immersion baptistry (Mikveh) ready to create Christians!!!
***
The Septuagint, Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls and the pre-Masoretic text
After the death of Ezra in 445 BC, 163 years would pass until in 282 BC a copy was made of Ezra’s “autograph copy” of the Quattuordecim (XIV) Torah (pre-Masoretic text) and sent to Alexandria where it was translated into Greek and the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew copies of the Quattuordecim (XIV) the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) were essentially identical except for the few places Ezra had changed the Bible text to counter Samaritan theology regarding the dispute between Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem as the place God’s name was to reside. What we find remarkable, is that the Samaritan Pentateuch of today is closer to the Septuagint in many places than the modern Masoretic text of 1008 AD. The same is true of the Dead Sea scrolls which frequently validate the Paleo-Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). For example, the Hebrew (not Samaritan) Dead Sea Scroll 4Q33 Deuteronomyf (100 BC) reads that Joshua’s Altar was built on Mt. Gerizim. Evidently the Jews at Qumran had access to other ancient manuscripts outside the family of Ezra’s Quattuordecim (XIV) and retained the original reading.
After the death of Ezra in 445 BC, 163 years would pass until in 282 BC a copy was made of Ezra’s “autograph copy” of the Quattuordecim (XIV) Torah (pre-Masoretic text) and sent to Alexandria where it was translated into Greek and the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew copies of the Quattuordecim (XIV) the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) were essentially identical except for the few places Ezra had changed the Bible text to counter Samaritan theology regarding the dispute between Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem as the place God’s name was to reside. What we find remarkable, is that the Samaritan Pentateuch of today is closer to the Septuagint in many places than the modern Masoretic text of 1008 AD. The same is true of the Dead Sea scrolls which frequently validate the Paleo-Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). For example, the Hebrew (not Samaritan) Dead Sea Scroll 4Q33 Deuteronomyf (100 BC) reads that Joshua’s Altar was built on Mt. Gerizim. Evidently the Jews at Qumran had access to other ancient manuscripts outside the family of Ezra’s Quattuordecim (XIV) and retained the original reading.
***
Concerning the Septuagint chronology it is believed that the Jews changed the Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11 "for anti-Christian theological reasons." The article goes on to list the evidence for such claims.
Here is an article that shows the "Chronological historical accounts of the translation of the Torah in 282 BC."
Created:
-->
@rosends
Where do they do this?I haven't checked all of Uri's claims -- I can get you his email if you would like and you can ask him. I did do a quick look see about Isaiah and pretty quickly found the NASB's text "Just as many were appalled at you, My people, So His appearance was marred beyond that of a man, And His form beyond the sons of mankind."So there are certainly examples.
Just as many were appalled at you, My people, So His appearance was marred beyond that of a man, And His form beyond the sons of mankind.
Yes, many were appalled by you, [Israel], God's people, so HIS appearance was marred beyond that of a man. Many were appalled that Israel rejected Him by handing Him, an innocent man, over to the Roman's, putting Him to disgrace upon a Roman cross and piercing His side and marring His face with a crown of thorns, as well as Him receiving 40 lashes. He took the penalty of many and by His stripes many were/are healed.
What you do is associate "my people" with Him. They are not the same. My people =/= Him. Isaiah 53 goes on to describe this man's afflictions in greater detail. Yes, He was a MAN of great pain and sorrow that His people [Israel] rejected Him and subjected Him to such a death. Yet He bore the iniquity of many.
Isaiah 53:2-4
New American Standard Bible
2 For He grew up before Him like a tender [a]shoot,
And like a root out of dry ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we would look at Him,
Nor an appearance that we would take pleasure in Him.
3 He was despised and abandoned by men,
A man of [b]great pain and familiar with sickness;
And like one from whom people hide their faces,
He was despised, and we had no regard for Him.
4 However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore,
And our pains that He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.
***
Isaiah 53:2-
New Revised Standard Version
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering[a] and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces[b]
he was despised, and we held him of no account.
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
***
Yeshayah 53:2-4
Orthodox Jewish Bible
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a Shoresh (Root, Shoresh Yishai, Moshiach, Yeshayah 11:10, Sanhedrin93b) out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire [Chaggai 2:7] him.
3 He is despised and chadal ishim (rejected by men); a man of sorrows, and acquainted with suffering; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our sufferings, and nasah (carried [Vayikra 16:22; Yeshayah 53:12)] our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, [i.e., like a leper is stricken] smitten of G-d, and afflicted [see verse 8 below].
3 He is despised and chadal ishim (rejected by men); a man of sorrows, and acquainted with suffering; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our sufferings, and nasah (carried [Vayikra 16:22; Yeshayah 53:12)] our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, [i.e., like a leper is stricken] smitten of G-d, and afflicted [see verse 8 below].
5 But he was pierced [Yeshayah 51:9; Zecharyah 12:10 Sukkah 52a, Tehillim 22:17 Targum Hashivim] for our transgressions, he was bruised mei’avonoteinu (for our iniquities); the musar (chastisement) (that brought us shalom [Yeshayah 54:10] was upon him [Moshiach]; and at the cost of his (Moshiach’s) chaburah (stripes, lacerations) we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.
***
Isaiah 53:2-4
New International Version
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
***
Isaiah 53:2-4
New Catholic Bible
2 He grew up before him like a sapling,
like a shoot in arid ground.
He had no beauty or majesty
that would cause us to look at him;
nothing in his appearance would attract us to him.
3 He was despised and shunned by others,
a man of sorrows who was no stranger to suffering.
We loathed him and regarded him as of no account,
as one from whom men avert their gaze.
4 Although it was our afflictions that he bore,
our sufferings that he endured,
we thought of him as stricken,
as struck down by God and afflicted.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 49, Part 3:
“Go ahead. If you don't want to do it here, create a thread. None of the NT means anything without the resurrection, per the Apostle Paul. He said if it did not happen, our faith was in vain. Jesus was the sacrifice that God resurrected from death. Israel of God is not a physical nation but those who do the will of God. His will is to believe in His Son who has met His righteous requirement. The New Israel of God worships God as He requires, in spirit and in truth. “Just like in Harry Potter! Isn’t self-serving fiction incredible? I mean, just look at this paragraph of assertions you have made, all based on the fairy tales you rely on as self-justified.
False analogy. What does Harry Potter have to do with any of this? It does not, in any way, address the biblical narrative.
“Opinions are nothing but assertions without proof. You are backing nothing up, just asserting it, over and over.”Remember that tosefta I quoted that you can’t read? Yeah. Anything you don’t like is an assertion and anything you claim must be true. Got it.
Again, I don't read Hebrew so it is up to you to make your meanings clear. I provided the Hebrew script for your purposes, not mine. Tosefta is a tradition, the very point Jesus makes to those who twisted Scripture.
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
“The eternal covenant has met fulfillment on behalf of believers in Jesus. The Old Covenant does not exist as Israel of old agreed to it.”That is, in your words, “an assertion.” You prove it with a text which has no value so it remains unproven. The text says that the covenant is eternal but you don’t like that part so you rely on the sequel which says “no, it changed because we say so.”
I express teachings that are not my own. They were written down by Jews claiming to speak from God.
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Benediction
Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, that is, Jesus our Lord,
Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, that is, Jesus our Lord,
All your claims here, let me just reiterate something from your (and mine) Scriptures:
17He who pleads his case first seems just, but his neighbor comes and searches him out.
יזצַדִּ֣יק הַרִאשׁ֣וֹן בְּרִיב֑וֹ יּבָֽא־וּבָֽא־רֵ֜עֵ֗הוּ וַחֲקָרֽוֹ:
“All along I have been saying that you cannot meet God righteous requirements in the Law of Moses for sin, AS PRESCRIBED. Thus, you cannot justify yourself before God according to His laws.”But your claim was about God’s condoning immoral behavior with no consequences. And, back to the same point – you don’t even understand how the text says to meet the requirements (there’s that verse you don’t know and Lev 5:11 which you deny exists).
Nope, I conceded your point but also asked if you were rich enough God required the best offering for the identified class, the priesthood. Thus the sacrifice of an animal is not offered by your class. Where do you find that practiced today? You don't. Thus, you are not living according to the Law of Moses that required your finest offering.
“He does not want YOUR human sacrifices”So your vision of God is one who wants certain human sacrifice. Gross.
Nope. You are reading into my correspondence something I never suggested. I never said God wanted human sacrifices for the voluntary sacrifice of His Son was sufficient for all time. No other sacrifice could ever meet His righteous requirement, just the one and only.
“Which laws and texts?”אָֽנֹכִ֥י אָֽנֹכִ֖י דַ וְאֵ֥ין מִבַּלְעָדַ֖י מוֹשִֽׁיעַ
Right there, black letter support.
Again, I do not find this amusing. It is a failure to communicate to anyone but those who read Hebrew. It offers no proof for those who don't.
“The Suffering Servant is consistently presented as an individual and not as a plurality or collective noun,”Your essential argument is about singular vs. plural in the reference to a nation as a collective? One look at בּרכת כּהנים proves your thesis untenable. Of course, this would require you understand Hebrew which you have admitted you don’t. So, what…you write responses which hinge on Hebrew grammar when you admit you don’t know Hebrew? That’s a bit intellectually dishonest. I’m not surprised, of course…
Although I don't read or speak Hebrew I rely on the knowledge of those who do, and that there is sufficient equivalency or else no one could understand God but the Jews and God would be limited in His ability to communicate to others than Jews (heaven forbid).
“Not the law, those who try and keep it. They never worshiped as required by law. The law is righteous but the very fact is that Israel could never, never, never live up to the Law.”So God set people up to be failures. Even though he says explicitly that this isn’t the case. OK.
כִּ֚י הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לֹא־נִפְלֵ֥את הִוא֙ מִמְּךָ֔ וְלֹ֥א רְחֹקָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲלֶה־לָּ֤נוּ הַשָּׁמַ֙יְמָה֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
וְלֹא־מֵעֵ֥בֶר לַיָּ֖ם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲבׇר־לָ֜נוּ אֶל־עֵ֤בֶר הַיָּם֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
כִּֽי־קָר֥וֹב אֵלֶ֛יךָ הַדָּבָ֖ר מְאֹ֑ד בְּפִ֥יךָ וּבִֽלְבָבְךָ֖ לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ׃
I mean, how can it be any more clear? Oh, wait – you can’t read Hebrew so this must not exist.
He showed their inadequacy through their example. That can be shown over and over again. God was displeased with them.
And your reply means nothing to me nor probably the majority reading this. You have offered no evidence to us. I remember a pastor once saying that if you want to communicate effectively make sure you take the hay down from the loft so the cattle can graze on it, metaphorically speaking of course.
“Those OT Jews who had faith in God were justified by the sacrifice that was to be given later.”People are not justified and one cannot get the benefit of something that hasn’t happened.
Yes, they are justified before God not on the bases of what they have done but on the merit of Another.
Yes, they can be justified - by faith, and upon something that has not yet happened. Abraham believed God and his belief was credited to him as righteous. He reasoned that God was able to raise the dead and that God would restore Isaac to life. He also was looking for a country that was not his own, a heavenly country.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 49, Part 2:
“Yes, I'm sure you can, and I invite you to do so, according to the way you understand Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel. I will then show you why your interpretation does not work. I'm letting you know - go ahead.”Books have been written on this. I’ll refer you to 2 websites because it is faster than showing you verses in Hebrew and grammar you can’t understand. https://uriyosef.wordpress.com/2020/03/19/who-is-the-suffering-servant-in-isaiah-53-part-i-the-jewish-interpretation-valid-or-not-2/
https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12._The_Suffering_Servant
There are plenty of others.I will get back to you on this section, as soon as I have considered it and a suitable response.
I investigated and could not find evidence of some of the references in the article.
The article said:
It is interesting to note that not all Christians subscribe to this view on "Isaiah 53".
Several prominent Christian sources agree with the common Jewish perspective that
the suffering servant in the Fourth Servant Song is a reference to collective Israel,
the Jewish people. For example, Christian bibles, such as the New Revised
Standard Version Bible (NRSV), The New Jerusalem Bible, and The Oxford Study
Bible, identify Israel as the suffering servant of "Isaiah 53".
Where do they do this??? Here are the first two references, the NRSV, and the New Jerusalem Bible on Isaiah 53:
***
Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, a Messianic Jew, while agreeing on the Four Servant theme of Isaiah, has a different take on what the servant passages portray from your take, as do numerous other messianic Jewish believers in Jesus. Thus, I find justification from sources other than the plain meaning of Jewish text of Isaiah 53. Dr. Fruchtenbaum explains that some rabbis saw a portrayal of two Messiahs, the suffering and dying Messiah "termed Mashiach ben Yosef or Messiah, the Son of Joseph" and then the second Messiah following the first, "termed Mashiach ben David or Messiah, the Son of David." (see 00:16:05) Furthermore, in his book, titled "Jesus was a Jew," on Isaiah 53, he states that until the 1100s, no rabbis thought of that passage as speaking of Israel but of speaking of the Messiah, the suffering servant, who would come before the conquering Messiah. Jesus fits both these messianic figures.
***
Dr. Fruchtenbaum's identification of the four suffering servant passages speak of the same suffering servant - Jesus:
- Isaiah 42:1-4 --> "the ministry of the Servant at His First Coming" and relates to how Jesus fulfilled that aspect.
- Isaiah 49:1-13 -> i. the rejected servant, ii. once rejected, He becomes "a light to the Gentiles," iii—the final regathering and restoration of Israel.
- Isaiah 50:4-9 - Messiah's suffering just before death.
- Isaiah 52:13-53:12 --> i. suffering of the servant, ii. death of the servant.
***
Your link focused on "the Scientific Method," but its key observations were logically flawed in identifying the servant according to a Judaic narrative. Therefore, the link's identity is not necessarily true, for there are other logical scenarios that it does not well represent. Table III.B-1 shows how the servant can change within the context of one book. The book of Isaiah alone names five different servants of the Lord, and the passage in question does not identify the servant by name. Instead, it calls the servant by the singular pronoun 'he/him." Not only this, many rabbis have questioned the pronoun reference to Israel and have instead linked it with the Messiah.
The descriptions of Isaiah 53 tie in precisely with the NT Messiah and what we know of Him. Time after time, the servant of the Lord is seen as a suffering servant as Jesus was in His crucifixion and death (and His first coming). The passage describes method and purpose of His life and especially death in detail, as laid out further in the NT.
Scientific Method - Observation Stage (per your link):
If you take the first three verses of Isaiah 53 in the Jewish Scriptures, how do you reconcile what is said with Israel? Here they are:
1Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? אמִ֥י הֶֽאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻֽעָתֵ֑נוּ וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהֹוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה:
2And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? בוַיַּ֨עַל כַּיּוֹנֵ֜ק לְפָנָ֗יו וְכַשֹּׁ֙רֶשׁ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ צִיָּ֔ה לֹא־תֹ֥אַר ל֖וֹ וְלֹ֣א הָדָ֑ר וְנִרְאֵ֥הוּ וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה וְנֶֽחְמְדֵֽהוּ:
3Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised, and we held him of no account.
So you say "he" refers to Israel, but then who does "we" refer to, Israel also? For instance, let's replace the two pronouns with Israel in just verse 2 and se how his makes sense:
2And [Israel] came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, [Israel] had neither form nor comeliness; and [Israel] saw [Israel] that [Israel] had no appearance. Now shall [Israel] desire [Israel]?
Is it logical to say the "he" and "we" refer to the same person or entity? No, it is not.
Does the "man" in verse 3 mean an actual man, or does this also represent Israel through personification? Who is the man hiding his face from? Is "he" not representative of Israel? Is Israel hiding from Israel?
***
Take one more example:
8From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. חמֵעֹ֚צֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט֙ לֻקָּ֔ח וְאֶת־דּוֹר֖וֹ מִ֣י יְשׂוֹחֵ֑חַ כִּ֚י נִגְזַר֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ חַיִּ֔ים מִפֶּ֥שַׁע עַמִּ֖י נֶ֥גַע לָֽמוֹ:
9And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. טוַיִּתֵּ֚ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְר֔וֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו עַל לֹֽא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו:
Has Israel committed no violence? Was no deceit found in his/her (which is it) mouth? Why the distinction between "his" and "her?" Does not God in other Scripture compare Israel to His wife?
For he [Israel] was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people [Israel?](which people?), a plague befell them.
As you can see, the verses do not make sense if you substitute the pronoun "he" with Israel?
***
I want you to address if your concept of Isaiah 53 is consistent with the early teachings of Judaism and the teachings of the early rabbis? I don't believe it is, but I am willing to look at your proof.
I read the plain exegetical meaning of Isaiah 53, expressing an individual, not a nation, as Dr. Fruchtenbaum points out, and I reiterate. Your interpretation is read into the text, as nowhere in these particular passages is Israel called by name, as it is in other passages.
1) i. He, Him, His pronouns speak of a singular, particular person in the text, the suffering servant.
ii. My, we, us, they, and them, all speak of Isaiah and his audience, Israel.
He (the individual servant) suffers for me, us, and our (Isaiah and the people). "We" is a different meaning from "him" and is the purpose of using the contrasting pronouns.
2) As a singular, innocent, willingly, silent person, he suffers on behalf of others who are guilty.
Conclusion: What you do, as a Jew, is read into the text something it does not say.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Pointing out that you are a bully and have personal vendettas is not being a victim. It is calling you out as a bully and personal.The fact is - you have been well and truly beaten up over a long period - and the only way you feel you can score a point is by attacking people. I can't recall the last time you actually persuasively refuted an argument. Against anyone.
I agree with you, TradeSecret!
Is that personal? Probably, I suppose I have been watching you too long.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 49, Part 1:
“[a] The Hebrew Scriptures teach that as I pointed out with numerous verses that call them stiff-necked or disobedient. “
And that the torah laws, written and oral are eternal and binding and do not change. You sure you want to go with that?
Where did I say that the Torah laws were binding forever. I've never hung my argument on what you claim. You are putting words in my mouth, just making it up.
With the change of priesthood comes a change in laws. Thus, here is a question for you. Do you believe that the covenant God made with Moses is still in effect?
That is my point, the old covenant or Mosaic covenant system can no longer be followed as stipulated or required and agreed to. The point is that throughout the OT/Tanakh, the prophets and teachings continually refer to this covenant people as stiff-necked, rebellious people. God kept warning them if they did not repent of their sins of idolatry and adultery judgement would be brought upon them according to the curses of Deuteronomy 28.
“[b] I don't follow your point. The words of the prophets are the words of those who spoke the message of God, the message about what was to come. “Only sometimes. Sometimes they spoke of what was important to impart, or what already came and what might or might not come. The essential aspect of prophecy in Judaism is the source of the insight, not the future focus of it.
What? So, any prophecy about the future means nothing?
Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 46
9Remember the first things of old, that I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me.
טזִכְר֥וּ רִֽאשֹׁנ֖וֹת מֵֽעוֹלָ֑ם כִּ֣י אָֽנֹכִ֥י אֵל֙ וְאֵ֣ין ע֔וֹד אֱלֹהִ֖ים וְאֶ֥פֶס כָּמֽוֹנִי:
טזִכְר֥וּ רִֽאשֹׁנ֖וֹת מֵֽעוֹלָ֑ם כִּ֣י אָֽנֹכִ֥י אֵל֙ וְאֵ֣ין ע֔וֹד אֱלֹהִ֖ים וְאֶ֥פֶס כָּמֽוֹנִי:
10[I] tell the end from the beginning, and from before, what was not done; [I] say, 'My counsel shall stand, and all My desire I will do.'
ימַגִּ֚יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַֽחֲרִ֔ית וּמִקֶּ֖דֶם אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־נַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ אֹמֵר֙ עֲצָתִ֣י תָק֔וּם וְכָל־חֶפְצִ֖י אֶֽעֱשֶֽׂה:
“The shoe fits the other way too, as evidenced by your very Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is not a question of me telling you but your very Scriptures telling you.”Just your limited view of text.
As if yours is unlimited and authoritative. You pretend to speak as if what you say is binding. I'm not impressed. Instead, I continually bring you to God's Word. What does it say?
“I have been arguing just that - the Jews did not understand the text or whom their Messiah was, or is. “So there you have it. Jews got texts and had a relationship with God for a whole bunch of years, built 2 temples and thrived, but you say that Jews didn’t understand a central idea of Judaism. You realize, I hope, that there were many “messiahs” before Jesus was even born, right? And somehow, Jews recognized them just fine.
Your Scripture speaks of a specific person.
“Again, stop playing games and just list what you want to say. “But this is so much more fun. You keep insisting stuff about Judaism but aren’t even familiar with a central verse that defines much of Jewish practice. This proves my point, again and again, that you speak from ignorance but instead of admitting you don’t know, you forge ahead.
Is this just a game to you? Is that your purpose in life, or on this thread, to make the important issues a game? Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of me. Is that your intent, or do you care about truth and conveying it? If so, present why what you believe is God's teachings from Scripture on the issues we are discussing. Do you not think Gentiles are worthy?
“The whole point of the Messiah was that Israel could never live up to the "rules" laid down in the Law.”Maybe that’s a Christian idea of what a messiah is. That isn’t what is found in Jewish text and law.
So you say, without anything other than your assertion.
“The Messiah was the deliverer of Israel, appointed and anointed by God. “Not exactly, no. Nice try, though.
I noticed that you didn’t discuss the tosefta I quoted. Why is that? Oh…you don’t know Hebrew and yet you keep making claims that are against Hebrew scripture and law. You want things in words you understand but when I put them there you say “that’s an assertion, bring proof.” The Hebrew IS THE PROOF. Your ignorance can’t stop that fact.
Why do you think that an addition to the Mishnah or the Talmud itself is on par with God's Word?
Yes, I don't know Hebrew, so you think that bars me from knowing God. You seem to think that what God said cannot be known by anyone other than those who speak Hebrew and are Jews. It is kind of like Muslims saying that only those who speak Arabic can understand the Qur'an and what it means. You seem to think that God cannot make Himself clear to anyone but a stiff-necked people who continually ignored or misinterpreted His message by adding to it a number of traditions.
What you do is put words there that either come from your mind or some other rabbis mind, without Scriptural reference or proof of interpretation other than by the Talmud or Mishnah. So you continually bring forth what seems to me as your idea of a greater authority than God's word itself.
Finally, you seem to think that there is nothing equivalent to the Hebrew words, so that anyone who is not Jewish and cannot speak Hebrew cannot know God. Is that the case from your very Scriptures? For instance, are you saying that the Hebrew words below do not correspond to the English translation so that we Gentiles cannot know what is being said?
Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 42
6I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations.
ואֲנִ֧י יְהֹוָ֛ה קְרָאתִ֥יךָ בְצֶ֖דֶק וְאַחְזֵ֣ק בְּיָדֶ֑ךָ וְאֶצָּרְךָ֗ וְאֶתֶּנְךָ֛ לִבְרִ֥ית עָ֖ם לְא֥וֹר גּוֹיִֽם:
Yeshayahu - Isaiah - Chapter 49
6And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."
ווַיֹּ֗אמֶר נָקֵ֨ל מִֽהְיֽוֹתְךָ֥ לִי֙ עֶ֔בֶד לְהָקִים֙ אֶת־שִׁבְטֵ֣י יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וּנְצוּרֵ֥י (כתיב וּנְציּרֵ֥י) יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְהָשִׁ֑יב וּנְתַתִּ֙יךָ֙ לְא֣וֹר גּוֹיִ֔ם לִֽהְי֥וֹת יְשֽׁוּעָתִ֖י עַד־קְצֵ֥ה הָאָֽרֶץ:
You seem to think that God, who made humanity in His image and likeness, has no compassion for the Gentiles at all, ever. But what do those verses above say?
What about Jeremiah 31? Will He not establish a new covenant with the house of Jacob and Israel that includes the nations of the earth?
“Not the sin offering. It was different from the burnt offering, peace offering, trespass offering, or meal offering. It was a bull, goat, or lamb, depending on who sinned.”So you are saying that a flour offering didn’t expiate sin? Have you even read Lev 5:11?
That is true!!!
So, could you afford a bull, goat, or lamb, according to your position, such as that of a ruler, or rabbi, the latter being an anointed class? If so, why would you present a lesser offering? Is your God not worthy of the greater (heaven forbid)?
“Yes, I'm sure you can, and I invite you to do so, according to the way you understand Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel. I will then show you why your interpretation does not work. I'm letting you know - go ahead.”Books have been written on this. I’ll refer you to 2 websites because it is faster than showing you verses in Hebrew and grammar you can’t understand. https://uriyosef.wordpress.com/2020/03/19/who-is-the-suffering-servant-in-isaiah-53-part-i-the-jewish-interpretation-valid-or-not-2/
https://www.drazin.com/index07b1.html?12._The_Suffering_Servant
There are plenty of others.
I will get back to you on this section, as soon as I have considered it and a suitable response.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 48:
“that is a claim you make, but you have no documented genealogies to prove this. Your new priesthood do not follow the mandates of the Hebrew Bible in many respects.”So you don’t understand חזקת כּהונה? That’s OK. What your underlying claim is, is that the essence of the entire religion is flawed and you know better than thousands of years of study, understanding and belief. And you say all this with no knowledge of Judaism. Amazing.
Please provide a translation. I provided your texts, both the English and Hebraic sides of them for your benefit. I already told you, I do not speak or read Hebrew.
And I do not believe the entire religion is flawed. How ridiculous. My faith, in part, is built on what we call the OT, your Scriptures. What I believe is the traditions and understandings/interpretations of the Rabbis are flawed. You continually refer to the Talmud and Mishnah, plus the oral law. We, as Christians, go on what is written in the Hebrew Bible. If you want to prove something to me then show/convince me via those Scriptures. The Mishnah and Talmud were written centuries after the fall of Jerusalem. Why should I consider them authorities??? Do you giv them the same worth as God's Word? It is easy for someone to claim authority just because they are Jewish, or as TradeSecret pointed out, the Jewishness of the 1st-century is different from the Jewishness after that or even today. While I recognize the claim that you are living under Judaism, and perhaps you are an authority on Judaism, yet I distrust your understanding of the Scriptures based on all the external sources you bring to the table. You do not live under the OT system as mandated by Scripture any more.
“Do you really think you can meet the righteous standards of God on your own merit? Is your faith satisfactory to God outside your acceptance of His perfect offering for your sins?”See, that’s Christian theology imposing itself, and Christian verbiage trying to apply itself to a different religious construct. You have this weird notion of “perfect offering for your sins” and think that, because your vision of Christianity embraces it, any other religion is wrong, even when it comes to the essential construct of those other religions. You’re wrong, but your arrogance about your position blinds you, so you see in Judaism not what Judaism IS, but what you have decided it is in order to justify your conclusions.
My point, it is not a different religious construct from your Scriptures, I believe you just don't recognize it because of all the addition stuff you being to Scripture. I will acknowledge that both Judaism and Christianity have buzz words or verbiage that needs further explaining to those on the outside of each belief. I gave you many verses from your Scriptures plus my logic on why I believe what I do. I see your Scripture as CLEAR on meaning. I have a notion of a perfect sacrifice based on 1) the holiness and purity of God, and 2) the sacrifice was to be without blemish or spot. But furthermore, the sacrifices represented the people. The sin offering was a life taken in place of the sinner. Do you understand that? Do you understand the significance of the Levite laying hands on the animal before either sacrificing its life or letting it go into the wilderness, as was the case of the scapegoat? Do you understand that there was a substitution present?
You accuse me of being arrogant because I fight for the truth of your Scriptures, but you are just as arrogant in your claims by assertion, and why should I believe Judaism over the Scriptures? The arrogance of such a position I find appalling.
You use Judaism to justify the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures to justify Judaism.
“The difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT is the 1st is a covenant of works in which you try and meet God's holy and righteous stand on your own merit. The 2nd is a covenant of grace, not by works, so that no one can boast before God of what they have done but instead rely on a perfect righteousness that is obtained by His grace and mercy to us.”This statement is so steeped in Christianity that it is unintelligible to a Jew. You don’t know “Hebrew scriptures” you invent and demand this “covenant of _____” idea and then talk of “boasting before God.” All alien to Judaism.
You do not recognize what the Jews did to meet the Law of Moses is works based. It is based on what you as the individual and Levite do, not solely on what God does. If what was done (the sacrificial offerings) could make you perfect in standing before God the Jews would not have to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people year in and year out. The fact is they did until that system was abolished by God. It disappeared. It is no longer practiced as agreed to by Israel, as per Exodus 24:3, 7.
3So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do."
גוַיָּבֹ֣א משֶׁ֗ה וַיְסַפֵּ֤ר לָעָם֙ אֵ֚ת כָּל־דִּבְרֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וְאֵ֖ת כָּל־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֑ים וַיַּ֨עַן כָּל־הָעָ֜ם ק֤וֹל אֶחָד֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶֽׂה:
7And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear."
זוַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע:
“What makes you think you have the original autographs? You don't. They were destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem for they were kept in the Holy Place - the temple. Why do you think you have something other than the traditions of men with these oral traditions? And, what makes you think your copies are from the autographs when the Septuagint as well as the Hebrew texts, sometimes quoted by Jesus, show acceptance by Jesus. Jesus accepted the Septuagint as a reliable translation as shown by His quoting from it, and as I pointed out, it can be traced back further than any of your texts, except for a brief quote.”So you are back to “Jews don’t have the actual text so Judaism is wrong. Jesus accepted a particular translation, so Jesus must be right.” Jesus also referred to the Jewish oral law as authoritative. I guess you have to accept that it is right also.
Nope, I'm back to the point that Judaism adds a lot to Scripture. I point to Jesus as accepting the Septuagint in addition to the Torah and Tanakh/Tanach, because He saw them equally valid. I'm to the point that your Scriptures can be translated into other languages and made sense of. I am to the point that Jesus is a greater authority than your religious leaders, although you don't see that.
“Sure, go ahead, but why should I believe you or your Rabbis in the areas they do not agree with Scripture?”Since you don’t agree with what Judaism considers “scripture” why would anyone care about what you would or would not believe?
Exactly what are you referring to? What do you classify as the all?
“I documented that it is accepted, and that it is a name. I never professed to be an authority on reading or speaking Hebrew. I go on what others have documented.”So you can’t understand that what you copied and pasted is wrong on its face. You are relying on a black letter error but can’t understand that because you are happy in your ignorance. So noted.
Well, it remains to be seem which one of us is ignorant as to the truth.
“And I showcase that my assertions are justified by the Jewish Scriptures themselves.”No, by your vision of what you think of as “Jewish scriptures.” Since you don’t understand actual Jewish scriptures, your assertions are wrong.
Jewish or Judaic?
“You fail to recognize the authority. They have an authority that one day you will answer to. As for the Qur'an, it contradicts the teaching of the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Scriptures. The NT does not. What the NT does is provides the fulfillment of the OT or Hebrew Scriptures. You just don't recognize that because you do not recognize your Messiah and you heap a load of interpretations onto the text of Scripture, per Jesus.”I see the gospels as useless and contradictory to Jewish text and law, the way you see the Quran and I have no concern that in some future moment I will have to "answer" for this in anything but the best way. You fail to see these problems because you only see Jewish text through those very same gospels. The failure is yours. You start with an invented messianic notion and work backwards to justify this flawed vision.
It would be fine if you just stuck to the texts of the law and Jewish texts but you import all kinds of rabbinic interpretation to them. And why do you keep bringing up the Qur'an? I already told you I do not accept it as valid, although I do your Jewish Scriptural texts, the Torah and Tanakh. Furthermore, you claim my Messianic notion is flawed while I claim that you, as a Jew, fail to recognize your own Messiah because of your religious bias and indoctrination.
Matthew 15:13-15
New American Standard Bible
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 14 Leave them alone; they are blind guides [a]of blind people. And if a person who is blind guides another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is no historical account of it being disputed, and it was not just one man that witnessed His resurrection. Peter, John, James, and other NT writers speak of witnessing the resurrected Christ.Actually, (not that it is needed) there is historical dispute of the resurrection of Jesus - Plutarch.If you reread, I'm speaking of during the time of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus,I understand what you mean, but you're attempting to sidestep the criticism by massively begging the question. The Gospels weren't written at the time of Jesus (or within decades of his death) and they are not eyewitness accounts.
No, you are side-stepping now while claiming the opposite. When the NT was written has a massive impact on the resurrection. It is the difference between an after the fact or a before the fact prophecy. Paul based the hope of Christianity on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although you have rejected the message and evidence millions throughout history have lovingly received it and believed it and placed faith in Jesus Christ.
I am not begging the question. I have had this discussion many times before in different threads and have supplied reasonable EVIDENCE that the Gospel's and each of the epistles, as well as Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. For instance,
1) There is not one instance of the mention of an already destroyed city or temple in any NT writing. This is significant, as John A.T. Robertson has pointed out in his masterful book, Redating the NT.
"ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be
the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it
the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past
fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be
written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for
Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.
For the most part, these are Jews writing about the coming of their Messiah and each writing contains warnings of impending judgment, yet none, not one of an already fulfilled prophecies about the most significant event in their Jewish history with God, the destruction of the temple and city as warned by the OT prophets and teachers, as well as all of them." p. 13
The book is chocked full of evidence for an early writing of the entire NT. Other writers, that I have pointed out to you and others have also built upon that point of the evidence for the early writings of the NT, like Kenneth Gentry, FF Bruce, James Stuart Russell. They documented it. Have you read any other them or are you looking at the information only from liberal 19th century German higher criticism?
2) Throughout the NT there is a constant note of an already standing temple and city, not one that is destroyed. The Apostles visit an existing temple and Jerusalem and make note of the rituals of the OT system of worship that could not be said after AD 70.
3) These NT writers speak of noble things, of the worth of honesty and truth all the time while...what... lying? It does not make sense. They also go to their deaths, for the most part, preaching the resurrection of their Messiah and the resurrection of the dead while suffering horrible deaths.
4) The whole of the NT is said to be a revelation from God, something that you take lightly and brush off. The uniqueness of Scripture (OT and NT) is how unified it is in all its messaging and themes. Jesus made note that all of Scripture speaks of Him, and the NT authors go into the typology and shadows that make this point most convincing, for those who have studied the issue. Not only this, what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT, as can be noted time and again. To Him every knee will bow, yet that is applied exclusively to God in the OT.
So, my view is far more reasonable and logical that yours. I invite you to compare the evidences for both sides on this issue. Will you even address my four points?
Plutarch was not born until 26 years after the resurrection. He is not an eyewitness to the events of AD 30 or thereabouts.If we are discounting non eyewitness views, then we are likely discounting most, if not all, of the NT. Also, Plutarch was born in 46 AD, not 56 AD.
Sorry, 16 years later - correct, but when did he start researching and writing?
Nope. Most of the NT is written by eyewitnesses of Jesus and His resurrection. They include Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and James. The other writers, from early church father accounts were disciples and companions of Peter and Paul. You make the point that the writings did not come with the names of the Apostles on them and I countered that when these writers wrote to the churches the churches that received the writings would know who they came from and would pass that significant information on to others when they copied the manuscripts and sent them on to other churches. This would be true of the Gospels also.
Nope, the Gospels contain accounts that some authors expand on and others contract, their different styles telling different aspects of the same event, and these "purported events" are logically reconcilable.This does not address legendary accretion. The Christology in the earliest gospel is low but by the time we get to the last gospel Jesus is not just given authority by Yahweh - he is God (since the beginning of time). This is what legendary accretion looks like, my friend.
The gospels and epistles were written within a short period of time after the resurrection of Jesus, under the GUIDANCE of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised that He would help them the Helper to recall as well as guide them into the truth. The legendary status is a useful fiction by those who oppose the Bible as the Word of God. It takes faith to believe, either way, yet the evidence supports the biblical accounts as from God. I make a big deal of prophecy for this reason. You say "this generation" does not mean this generation and "this age" does not mean this age. You ignore the audience of address and make it seem like the secondary audience is the main audience concerning prophecy. You do an injustice to the text and to history, sadly, to make your points.
On top of that, you can use the Bible for claim or evidence, but not both. Pick one or the other. I'm not impressed by Biblical 'clevidence'...and I don't know why you are.And you can use many historical writing written way after the fact to make claims also, which is what you are doing. I'm not impressed by these accounts, and I don't know why you should be other than you suffer from 21st-century bias and the prevailing secular thought on the subject. So why should I trust your opinion, over 2,000 years removed from the accounts of the Bible?I'm pointing out using a source X to support the claim of source X is logically invalid. Your response does not address this.
Source X (say the Gospel of Matthew) is backed by Source Y and Z (the other Synoptic gospels), as well as other sources too. The whole of the NT builds upon the themes of Jesus' Olivet Discourse, as well as Paul's writings. That last statement can be well documented. The NT is further built upon the OT Scripture and its fulfillment (the time is near).
Created:
-->
@rosends
Post 38:
Please go ahead with those verses.Well, I could quote Jesus' saying to follow the Pharisees in what they teach, or I could point out Romans 11. But that’s not the point of this thread.
Go ahead. If you don't want to do it here, create a thread. None of the NT means anything without the resurrection, per the Apostle Paul. He said if it did not happen, our faith was in vain. Jesus was the sacrifice that God resurrected from death. Israel of God is not a physical nation but those who do the will of God. His will is to believe in His Son who has met His righteous requirement. The New Israel of God worships God as He requires, in spirit and in truth.
Again, just another assertion. They is nothing to go on about. You did not refute anything. You make no points, just give your opinion to date.Well, actually, I’m giving you the opinion of Jewish law. Are you an expert in Jewish law? I’d love to show you lots of sources.
Opinions are nothing but assertions without proof. You are backing nothing up, just asserting it, over and over.
We are speaking of the Old Covenant. Jews no longer live under the Old Covenant for they cannot find forgiveness for their sins without meeting the requirements of God.Yes, Jews live under the existing and eternal covenant but we understand it better than you do.
The eternal covenant has met fulfillment on behalf of believers in Jesus. The Old Covenant does not exist as Israel of old agreed to it.
Besides this, God never condoned immoral behavior and especially not with zero punishment. He would not be just if He did so.Never said he did. That’s another strawman.
It is not a strawman. All along I have been saying that you cannot meet God righteous requirements in the Law of Moses for sin, AS PRESCRIBED. Thus, you cannot justify yourself before God according to His laws.
He set up a covering for sin until the better offering could be made, a human life offered freely without blemish or spot, completely righteous and holy before God.God doesn’t want human sacrifice. If that’s what you are hanging your hat on then good luck…
I agree with you, He does not want YOUR human sacrifices. They are like filthy rags to Him. The Son is the provision God has given and nothing else is sufficient.
My works or merit will not meet God's righteous standards. What makes you think yours will?Jewish law and texts tell me so. So I don’t need a “savior” except for God who will save me from the current exile.
Which laws and texts?
Now, the problem with sacrifices is that they had to be continually offered for every new sin.No…remember, most sins are not covered by sacrifices. That’s textual.(as I laid out in Isaiah 53).So you really DO need a primer on Isaiah 53 I guess. Here is one resource. I have lots of others https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/topics/isaiah-53/
And I refute it here: Jews for Judaism | Isaiah 53 Explained
"The Suffering Servant is consistently presented as an individual and not as a plurality or collective noun, like a people group. Verse 8 says, “For the transgressions of My people He was stricken”. What people was Isaiah part of? The people of Israel, of course. So “my people” refers to the people of Israel. Therefore Israel cannot be the Suffering Servant of the Lord. If the people of Israel was the Servant of the Lord here, who would be “my people”?
8From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.
חמֵעֹ֚צֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט֙ לֻקָּ֔ח וְאֶת־דּוֹר֖וֹ מִ֣י יְשׂוֹחֵ֑חַ כִּ֚י נִגְזַר֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ חַיִּ֔ים מִפֶּ֥שַׁע עַמִּ֖י נֶ֥גַע לָֽמוֹ:
Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement covered Israel's sins for the entire yearSin exists. In the future, even in messianic times, sin will exist, as will sacrifices and atonement processes. Sin is atoned for. Trying to create a distinction between “covered” and “removed” or something like that is totally alien to Judaism.
To Judaism but not to all Jews. So what?
Your OT system of worship is weak in that it does not meet God's righteous requirement for it does not do away with sin or unrighteousness.Ah, I see. God gave a deficient and incomplete system and then demanded people live by it. That’s your idea of God, I guess. Sneaky of him.
Not the law, those who try and keep it. They never worshiped as required by law. The law is righteous but the very fact is that Israel could never, never, never live up to the Law.
The purpose of the Law of Moses was one of a school teacher to lead us to the Messiah.And doom all people who lived until Jesus’ birth to eternal punishment for following the incomplete legal system that was demanded of them. Interesting.
Nope. Those OT Jews who had faith in God were justified by the sacrifice that was to be given later.
Note that passage - "ALMOST ALL THINGS ARE CLEANSED WITH BLOOD, ACCORDING TO THE LAW."Note that that passage comes from the gospels and is not anything with any value in Judaism. Did you want to quote from the Mahabharata also?
Leviticus 17 is, as I have provided before, which ties into the NT passage.
Created:
-->
@rosends
If you sinned unintentionally, you needed a sacrifice to atone for that sin.A small group of sins was, indeed, covered by sacrifice, but that sacrifice could be of flour. So was that replaced by the sacrifice of the Pillsbury Dough Boy?
Not the sin offering. It was different from the burnt offering, peace offering, trespass offering, or meal offering. It was a bull, goat, or lamb, depending on who sinned.
Nevertheless, it is required.At a certain time, at a certain place, in a certain state. And if those criteria aren’t met, then there is another approach. That’s Jewish law.
The covenant law states:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’
11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.
יאכִּי־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר֘ בַּדָּ֣ם הִוא֒ וַֽאֲנִ֞י נְתַתִּ֤יו לָכֶם֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־הַדָּ֥ם ה֖וּא בַּנֶּ֥פֶשׁ יְכַפֵּֽר:
A sacrifice was needed.
Again, you make these broad statements without a shred of evidence so that nothing can be discussed further.Ok. Tosefta of Yoma, 4:7עבר על מצות לא תעשה ועשה תשוב' תשובה תולה ויום הכפורים מכפר שנ' כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם וגוStart discussing
I already stated, I do not speak or read Hebrew. Put it in words I understand.
Thus, they are not meeting the requirements of God, nor can they. That is the reason a better sacrifice was always planned by God.Then you don’t understand all the requirements.
So you assert. Assertions abound.
Are you referring to such verses as Hosea 6:6Nope. Swing and a miss.
Quit playing games.
Yes, God does, but how do you think you meet that requirement? Hence, the need for the Saviour, the Messiah! Please pay very close attention to the underlined below:Isaiah 53? Oh boy…you need some really basic help. I can send you to websites that explain Isaiah 53, verse by verse and idea by idea to help you understand why your theologically driven view of it is completely wrong. Just let me know. I mean, this is really simple and basic stuff. I thought you were a bit more aware than that.
Yes, I'm sure you can, and I invite you to do so, according to the way you understand Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel. I will then show you why your interpretation does not work. I'm letting you know - go ahead.
Created: