Thanks again for your response.
The point is he's not mentioned as a student of Gamaliel, so Paul and the NT distort the facts.
I'll only state that your argument from silence here might not be your strongest. And it's still very interesting to hear that there is a list of Gamaliel's disciples.
But the real was revealed on Mt. Sinai, with the law as part of it. It doesn't get much more real than that. No pretend here.
The "real" that Moses saw was passed down as a shadow. Moses alone saw the real on the Holy Mountain. It is our belief that it does get more real that continues to make this a conversation worth having.
No doubt there were factions that wanted Jesus dead. But, he did want to die.
This is a fascinating statement...It is written, "For the joy that was set before him [Jesus] endured the cross." I'd argue that, seeing you as the fruit of his sacrifice, he was willing. He was no masochist...no one would "want" to go through what He went through, but, the return made the investment possible.His overwhelming chesed love gave him the necessary strength to endure...and understanding the necessity of endurance in order to overcome death itself.
Paul learned on his own and had his own visions. Being from Tarsus, he was influenced by hellenism and had gnostic tendencies.
Paul's testimony, except for the gnostic claims, confirm your claim...He spent time in the desert, and came back with the same knowledge that the original apostles had received first hand at the feet of Jesus. Paul embodies the promise, "They shall all be taught of God." And, "No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.” Gnosticism has always been a dangerous counterfeit of the Truth...close enough to appear true, yet false enough to destroy.
I doubt Paul had the influence of the spirit of holiness as that leads to obedience to the law and teaching likewise, Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27.
Of course you do...otherwise you'd heed him. I'm convinced otherwise, hence this forum. He defends our view better than I ever could.
Since Eden, there have been blessings and curses. That's just a fact.
Yet the specifics iterated in Deuteronomy 28, to which I'm referring were not written until Sinai.
I think you don't understand what happened.
Abraham met with three...and these were One encounter. I'm pretty sure you do not understand what happened either...Who could? We're given very limited information, but enough to make this discussion valuable.
It's not a physical image. The ability to rule like God with reason, mercy, etc.
I don't think you understand to what extent "in our image and in our likeness" goes...yet the ability and authority you speak of comes from that image. God calls us sons in the psalms. What limits to you apply to that claim? And why?
Where's the man shaped hole?
You keep asking this: Verse 7 chapter two...God formed/fashioned man from the dust of the earth...From where that dust was taken, there would have been a hole...in the middle of the garden Man was given charge over.
That's where I got it from...poetic license? Maybe...Poetic, definitely. It's a powerful story of responsibility and shared stewardship.
You can't lay down your soul for mine. Ezekiel 18 is clear on that.
I think you're artificially limiting what love can do.
There wasn't blood mentioned. You've assumed that.
Pretty safe assumption, since the animals were no longer in the skins, and the souls of the animals were in the blood.
And nothing in Tanakh supports this view.
Forgive me, and I mean this...forgive me, but everything in the Tenakh supports this view, if Moses' tabernacle was, in fact, the prophetic shadow of the Heavenly Substance Moses saw. Even the Pesach itself was foreshadowing of the death on the cross on the Day: right down to the blood on the crosspiece and the two lintels of the door of every house.
Do you have proof otherwise?
Yes...your next response discourages me from thinking otherwise:
I wouldn't have written. It's quite blasphemous in places.
Only a Jew would understand that...without the death and resurrection highlighting what had been foreshadowed, no one could have understood the implications.
It would take another thread to discuss the Jewish nature of Hebrews, to adequately allow you to object. I'd be fascinated. But for me, the clincher came when the author put Abraham's sacrificing Isaac into perspective. For the Muslim, Abraham bravely offered his his firstborn son Ishmael. Correct me if I'm wrong: For the Jew, Abraham bravely offered the son of the promise, Isaac...but for the Christian, Abraham understood that through Isaac was the seed promised. Therefore Abraham bravely believed God, knowing that God would have to raise Isaac from the dead. It is impossible for God to lie. There would be no sacrifice...but the obedience that love requires. Therefore Abraham told the servants to wait until he and Isaac returned. Therefore Abraham told Isaac, God will provide.
What Goy thinks like that, if he hasn't been trained to think in righteousness? And who would believe God expected human sacrifice?
So Jesus could never accomplish what your saying from a biological stance.
So Jesus could only accomplish what I'm saying from this stance...Our spirit/breath is made alive when we are born again...our soul/blood is refreshed and restored...our flesh is redeemed and raised to newness of life. Biological is only temporal...spiritual is eternal.
No, you're argument using Isaish 53 is weak using the asham.
It has withstood the test of time...He made his soul a sacrifice...You do not accept the argument, but I notice you are unwilling to dismiss it. I think that's wise. It gets stronger, as you will notice, when you see the degree to which it is supported.
But then Ezekiel 18 says otherwise. You are arguing against your case for Jesus being righteous. The righteous fall 7 times...
Actually, you just argued in His favor. He was "tempted in every way, like as we, yet without sin..." We all need a redeemer. He does not. He has become the advocate Micah boasts of, when he stumbles...
"7But as for me, I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation. My God will hear me. 8Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will arise; though I sit in darkness, the LORD will be my light. 9Because I have sinned against Him, I must endure the rage of the LORD, until He argues my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me into the light; I will see His righteousness.…" (I can't tell you how many times I've had to remember this promise.)
To comply with the law you must follow the law. This point is not satisfied with your argument.
Warnings were not written to satisfy arguments. There's a time where our own negligence becomes personal responsibility. That is the ultimate conclusion that comes from your first terrifying and true statement.
That doesn't mean a sacrifice isn't sufficient for an atonement. It's clearly said it is, as well as other means.
The point is, whatever the means...you have no "Once and for all." And only "alternate means" of atonement that had to replace the system handed down from Moses.
Doesn't work.
When God speaks, things materialize, come into fruition, flesh. That doesn't make His spoken word a god.
It's a pretty perfect representative of Him...and the best means we have to know Him...Our Psalm 119, the VERY long one, encourages me to think it does a good job representing Him well.
Then Parthenos isn't a good term for virgin.
It's adequate...coupled with the fact that Mary knew no man, then it's sufficient.
Which is false as she conceived via sperm, tazria, Leviticus 12:1-8. Pregnancy outside of marriage makes Jesus a mamzer.
This is a claim that has been made...However, no sperm was involved. The Word was spoken, and the Word was the seed which Mary believed. As the earth received God's Word in the beginning, the pregnancy that ensued became the Hope of Israel, and one of the greatest struggles worth debating.
Abraham didn't have a child through a virgin.
True...but he did take God at His Word. And Isaac was the fruit of years of hope inspired effort. Abraham believed the promise. Mary, too...but her pregnancy was from the moment she received the word.
Not my problem. I don't find this as a debate.
Amen.
Then we disagree.
Of course. That gives value to the discussion.
Thanks for your patience.