Thief on the cross - forgiven how?

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Ok. Let's see.
As I recall, Ezekiel 18 is about living an honorable life that honors YHVH.

So, let's start here.

Eze 18:5 WEB “But if a man is just, and does that which is lawful and right,

According to Habakkuk 2:4, the just shall live by faith.
By his faith, meaning believe and action. Your book of James speaks about this.

Exactly what the new testament says. Romans 3-5, and Galatians 3-4.

Doing what is lawful and right.
According to Romans 3:31, we fulfill the law by faith.
Demons believe too. How is their belief different than yours?

According to Romans 8:3-8, the law is fully fulfilled by walking in the Spirit,
Which Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27, etc., is obedience to the law.

which consists of focusing our thoughts on spiritual things.
The law and loving God through obedience to his word.

Jesus said that his words are Spirit and life, and psalm 19:1-5, it lists the things of God which are good, just, honorable, right, true, pure, etc.... . We then read in Philippians 4:8-9 that by thinking on pure, just, true, lovely, honorable, praiseworthy.... God will be with us.
When you're obedient to his law.

Yet you offer nothing to support that Matthew or the new testament for that matter isn't allowed to be written in Hebrew.
I don't care that you presented that. It's just laughable to use it as a missionary tool.

You have to assume that YHVH has never shown up in human flesh on earth.
Which He hasn't. Deut 4:8,12,35, Isaiah 40:18,25;46:5, show He has no physical form, blood, nor is a man.

It's pretty clear that he has when he came to Abraham in Genesis 18.
It's clear there were 3 angels representing Him.

He ate with him. So, as humans are the only people who can eat.... I'm comfortable that Jesus is YHVH the Son.
Then you're comfortable with the embarrassment of your god sleeping and dedicating himself, 1 Kings 18:27. That's a powerful god, not!

Another collection of reasons I believe that Jesus is YHVH the Son is that there's no other name whereby we must be saved.
God the Father already has the name, and is stated in the NT as having saved Jesus. Jesus will bow his knees.

And considering that YHVH is the only Savior, according to Isaiah 43:10-11, Hosea 13:4, and never changes- Malachi 3:6, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, .... this list goes on for quite a long time...
Actually. Jesus is not the same having taking on 2 natures, being born, beaten, died, etc. Hebrews 5:7.

In John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-19, Ephesians 3:9, Hebrews 1:2-4, and elsewhere.... Jesus created everything that exists.
Nothing that does exist could exist without him.
This is laughable.

This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself...

It's curious because Elohim created us in the beginning, and YHVH spoke the cosmos into existence in Psalm 33.
In Hebrews 1, everything is sustained by the word of his power.
Reminds me of psalm 33.
Yeah, except Jesus was formed in a womb, and acknowledges another as YHWH God.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You haven't actually demonstrated that you're right about this.
Yachid is ordinal one.
Echad is a community of one.
Community is multiple parties.
One family
One people
One God.
Multiple members.
I have. I gave you a sample of verses. I even gave you verses on yachid. You didn't bother studying the Hebrew roots, did you?


What does echad mean above, SteveB?

I also challenged you to find a plural usage of "bad" used for God alone, but to date you've stayed silent. Why is that SteveB?

And yet you have nothing to corroborate your opinions....
No, you just haven't looked at what you've been given. 44 years, right?
 
Last edited:

Open Heart

Well-known member
As Matthew was a Hebrew, the history that I've read is that it was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.
Perhaps. But NO Hebrew manuscript of Matthew exists anymore. What you quoted in your post was not some original manuscript, but a translation from the Greek.

Let's face it. The only ancient manuscripts you guys have of Matthew are Greek ones.

What surprised me is that you quoted in Hebrew extensively, even though this is an English speaking forum. Why would you do that?
You're indeed entitled to your own opinions. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that demonstrates that.
You've repeatedly failed to do this, and @Jewjitzu hasn't come to your deliverance.



But you've never actually provided me with any evidence that corroborates your beliefs.
I've gone over it in detail in the opening post for why Jews will never accept Jesus. I refer you to that post.
Quite frankly I'm surprised.
It's my understanding that the entire collection of the mishna, midrash, and other commentaries exist, dating back to Babylon, up through to at least Maimonides.
I'd have thought you would have studied these extensively by now.
They are after all the only support for your beliefs.
I am not a Talmud head. I spent most of my life as a Christian. Even during the teaching years when I was converting to Judaism and after, I didn't go into the Talmud. It's not that women can't study the Talmud, but it is not our purview. The emphasis in my studies was keeping a kosher home, a shomer Shabbat home, a hospitable home. I know some Talmud, of course. I'm just saying that it has not been the subject of extensive study by me.

And it's not necessary for me to have done so to soundly defeat you in this debate. The problems with the New Testament have nothing to do with the Talmud. They have everything to do with their poor presentation of prophecy (even to the point of making one up), going contrary to the teaching of God in the Torah, and encouraging people to worship a mere man. That's quite enough.

Anyhow, I suggest, if you want the details, to go read that opening post. I'm not going to repeat everything I've already said.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
NeoJudaism? You're confused with what you and Paul practice.
No...When the temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost, you had to invent. You had nothing left of the religious practices that Moses had instructed you in. You either had to sacrifice on every high hill or under every green tree...or you had to create a system for remission of sin that no longer required anything at all, beyond repetition of words and incantations. Neojudaism. New and far more convenient. Not the practice nor the traditions of your fathers. Even Abraham sacrificed.

I said this before. I really don't care what you think. One who worships a created man should keep silent.
Funny I agree with that. If the Word was not with the Father in the beginning, He would not be worshipped. And, for what its worth, since you insist on reiterating your own, the disdain is becoming mutual. I'm not really impressed by redundant pontificating that pays no attention at all to the counterpoint.

Israel has been around since the 2nd temple and before, Jeremiah 33:17-26.
I'm thinking Israel has been around since Rebecka gave birth...and you did miss the point entirely.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Wow, you can't handle prophecy? It's clear the 3rd temple and sacrifices come back with Messiah prince offering sacrifices for himself.
What's clear is you have no idea. I'm sure you're looking forward to the return of twelve distinguishable tribes...and the redistribution of land according to Ezekiel's design. All the way from Dan to Gad. I could convince myself you even foresee that day and truly believe it. I rather think your own claim to acceptance is your willingness to subjectively uphold your choice of traditions, some of which even date back almost as much as two thousand years..

Marred lamb? That would be Jesus who was beaten up, or was he the goat?
Do you really think being obtuse helps establish your credibility? It only serves to make you look desperate. Just saying. Marred lamb would be what you are sacrificing now...that you have substituted for a lamb without blemish.

As for your question, which is interesting despite your own lack of interest in the answer...Jesus is depicted as both the lamb without blemish, and the scapegoat taken outside the city...where he was crucified, as Caiaphas prophesied, one for the sake of a nation.

Never said otherwise that murder doesn't pollute the land.
Something we agree on...and which actually predicts what is about to happen. Never in the history of the world has more innocent blood been shed more callously, due to pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness and a total disregard for the poor and the needy.
Actually, we found Jesus' tomb. So much for his resurrection.
Actually...you've been egregiously duped!

What a miracle: When the entire Jewish religion was being rocked with claims to a resurrection, your folks were able to hide a family tomb within a sabbath day's journey...and continue to fill the place as one by one, Jesus disciples died.

We're so much smarter today than they were, when an entire empire was being persuaded to the truth by signs, wonders and repeated miracles...without once raising a sword against that empire, yet with the constant threat of the sword to each disciple.

This argument is the silliest of your repertoire.

Aaah, there were several animals that could be offered, besides doves, and flour cakes, etc.
Yes...each had it's purpose...each did not always offer an alternative. Where blood was to be shed, it was never "...or a loaf of bread will be fine..." And all that, notwithstanding, you've abrogated the entire system today, and blamed Paul for abrogation! Jesus made the system obsolete, but not unnecessary. He is the only new system. As you said...the Prince will be the system.


In what way? Don't you teach one blood sacrifice does it all though Torah says nothing of this?
How is what I teach relevant to your claims? What does it matter what I teach, when you've abrogated the entire system without a substitute.


Your words are rejected.
And the responsibility is now yours. I've done Ezekiel's watchman thing. I'm not responsible...your blood's now on your hands.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
We refer to the People of Israel, also known as Hebrews and Jews. No one was talking politics. The context was clear.
If the context were clear, I would not have asked. Jewjitzu's response does not agree with yours...

...and I presume that you are including yourself in the definition. Am I right?
 

tbeachhead

Active member
I certainly don't. I didn't argue for that. I was saying that the standard Christian understanding (and I am not a Christian) is that Jesus' death ended the Sinai covenant, but that it was in full force before that.
You have heard strange teaching...Jesus' death fulfilled the Mosaic covenant, and perfected the sacrifice once and for all. Rejecting His sacrifice, there is no possible way the Law of Leviticus can be abrogated. You still are without excuse or hope...bot for the hope you've invented to replace the requirements you cannot fulfill.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
It's a little disconcerting how you make assertions, and avoid responding to my answers.

I'd like your response to this, where you said:
Actually, quite funny given that you have no support in Torah for human sacrifice as a means of atonement.
And I said, "Really? Shall we talk about Achan and his whole family, then? Or ignore it altogether? Want to talk about Uzzah? Or shall we talk about the plague on Israel because of Saul's sin against the Gibeonites that was mitigated by sacrificing seven of his descendants? Hmm?"

To which you responded:
Actually, we found Jesus' tomb. So much for his resurrection.
Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? What does that have to do with the examples of human sacrifice in Torah...very clear...and which I pointed out?

The requisite lamb of the sacrifice was always, only, and every a temporary substitute...a proxy for the Pure and Spotless...whose unblemished death was able to make full and complete atonement to which the resurrection gives full and complete testimony...Jesus IS the FIRSTBORN of many brethren.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
No...When the temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost, you had to invent.
Not really. It was not the first time the Temple had been destroyed. What do you think Jews did in Babylon? Do you not realize that Daniel's prayers three times a day were substitutes for the sacrifices?
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
If the context were clear, I would not have asked. Jewjitzu's response does not agree with yours...

...and I presume that you are including yourself in the definition. Am I right?
Jewjitzu and I both agree with Jewish law -- a Jew is one born of a Jewish mom or who has had a lawful conversion.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
You have heard strange teaching...Jesus' death fulfilled the Mosaic covenant, and perfected the sacrifice once and for all. Rejecting His sacrifice, there is no possible way the Law of Leviticus can be abrogated. You still are without excuse or hope...bot for the hope you've invented to replace the requirements you cannot fulfill.
It is NOT my teaching. It is the teaching of standard mainstream Christianity, a fact that you seemed to miss. I however, am not a Christian of any sort, standard or otherwise. I have moved on. I am a Jew, observing the Jewish covenant.

Jews keep our covenant all the time. God says it is easy to keep it. Who are you to contradict God?

What do you think Daniel did in Babylon? Do you think he was lost because he had no temple? No. Hosea teaches us that "the words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." Daniel prayed three times a day -- each prayer was said at the time of one of the three daily sacrifices.

This does not "abrogate" the commandment for sacrifice. It is still a good commandment. But we cannot keep it if there is no temple. Someday the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will resume.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
No...When the temple was destroyed and the Ark of the Covenant lost, you had to invent.
Invent? No. Try reading Deut 17:8-13. The trinity is an invention.

You had nothing left of the religious practices that Moses had instructed you in. You either had to sacrifice on every high hill or under every green tree...or you had to create a system for remission of sin that no longer required anything at all, beyond repetition of words and incantations. Neojudaism. New and far more convenient. Not the practice nor the traditions of your fathers. Even Abraham sacrificed.
See above. We didn't invent the pagan Christian system you adhere to.

Funny I agree with that. If the Word was not with the Father in the beginning, He would not be worshipped.
And he wasn't. Your word worships my God.

And, for what its worth, since you insist on reiterating your own, the disdain is becoming mutual. I'm not really impressed by redundant pontificating that pays no attention at all to the counterpoint.
Ok.

I'm thinking Israel has been around since Rebecka gave birth...and you did miss the point entirely.
And your point is wrong.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
What's clear is you have no idea. I'm sure you're looking forward to the return of twelve distinguishable tribes...and the redistribution of land according to Ezekiel's design. All the way from Dan to Gad. I could convince myself you even foresee that day and truly believe it. I rather think your own claim to acceptance is your willingness to subjectively uphold your choice of traditions, some of which even date back almost as much as two thousand years..
Again, the prophecies say all these will return. Your point is meaningless.

Do you really think being obtuse helps establish your credibility? It only serves to make you look desperate. Just saying. Marred lamb would be what you are sacrificing now...that you have substituted for a lamb without blemish.
No, that would have been Jesus. Not only beaten, but with sins as well, like all men.

As for your question, which is interesting despite your own lack of interest in the answer...Jesus is depicted as both the lamb without blemish, and the scapegoat taken outside the city...where he was crucified, as Caiaphas prophesied, one for the sake of a nation.
See above.

Something we agree on...and which actually predicts what is about to happen. Never in the history of the world has more innocent blood been shed more callously, due to pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness and a total disregard for the poor and the needy.
Actually...you've been egregiously duped!
See above.

What a miracle: When the entire Jewish religion was being rocked with claims to a resurrection, your folks were able to hide a family tomb within a sabbath day's journey...and continue to fill the place as one by one, Jesus disciples died.
And Jesus died and was buried too. In Talpiot.

We're so much smarter today than they were, when an entire empire was being persuaded to the truth by signs, wonders and repeated miracles...without once raising a sword against that empire, yet with the constant threat of the sword to each disciple.
I'm teary eyed.

This argument is the silliest of your repertoire.
Am I'm supposed to care what you think? I don't.

Yes...each had it's purpose...each did not always offer an alternative. Where blood was to be shed, it was never "...or a loaf of bread will be fine..." And all that, notwithstanding, you've abrogated the entire system today, and blamed Paul for abrogation! Jesus made the system obsolete, but not unnecessary. He is the only new system. As you said...the Prince will be the system.
The only abrogation is what Christianity has become.

How is what I teach relevant to your claims? What does it matter what I teach, when you've abrogated the entire system without a substitute.
See above.

And the responsibility is now yours. I've done Ezekiel's watchman thing. I'm not responsible...your blood's now on your hands.
I never said I cared about your words, nor needed your help.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It's a little disconcerting how you make assertions, and avoid responding to my answers.
Let's see.

I'd like your response to this, where you said:
Ok.

And I said, "Really? Shall we talk about Achan and his whole family, then? Or ignore it altogether? Want to talk about Uzzah? Or shall we talk about the plague on Israel because of Saul's sin against the Gibeonites that was mitigated by sacrificing seven of his descendants? Hmm?"
Ugh, I said in Torah. Where is the commandment calling out the need or requirement for a human sacrifice for atonement?

To which you responded:
Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? What does that have to do with the examples of human sacrifice in Torah...very clear...and which I pointed out?
See above.

The requisite lamb of the sacrifice was always, only, and every a temporary substitute...a proxy for the Pure and Spotless...whose unblemished death was able to make full and complete atonement to which the resurrection gives full and complete testimony...Jesus IS the FIRSTBORN of many brethren.
And Ezkiel 37-45 proves differently.
 
Top