Why Jews will never accept Jesus

Open Heart

Active member
You misunderstand me...Yes, the grain offerings...and yes, these offerings were not made on an altar that was not first sprinkled with blood. All the utensils of the system were first purged by the blood.
I'm not sure what your point is. The blood used to purify the utensils is not used for any atonement sacrifice. It is irrelevant to the conversation.

This is a beginning...They were not allowed to rest in Egypt. God was restoring rest...even for the slave! And rest is the reward for obedience, "So I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest..." The sabbath is an imitation of God Who rested, and that's the point.
No doubt, God resting is part of it. However, a reminder of being delivered from Egypt is just as much a part, as I showed you with scripture.

No doubt...And good people are notably good...The truth is, it worked: Jesus rose from the dead, and changed once and for all time the requisites of sin: now we must believe that atonement has been made, and we are no longer slaves to failure.

Christians and everyone else have to face this fact...some shine like the sun. All are offered the same gift.
My point is that there is no difference between Christians and those of other religions when the rubber meets the road. You have just as many good people, just as many bad people, and just as many stories of transformation. The fact that you have a story that explains it makes no difference. Other religions have their own stories as well.

I'm not sure what the false dichotomy is...Your words express the heart and soul of those who fear God and seek to please Him for the pleasure of His company. The only part of the puzzle you will miss is the transaction of the cross, and the fulfillment of the resurrection. Life was given in exchange for redemption, and that's how the system has to work.
My worldview doesn't contain the cross because the cross is unnecessary. Things work just as well without it.

Glad to have you back!
 

Open Heart

Active member
An animal died in Eden so that God could make the coverings for Adam and Eve. This is a foreshadow of the atonement. Jesus died so are sins can be covered. The example in Eden is followed throughout the Old Testament typology relating to Jesus' death.
It is not a sacrifice.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
I'm not sure what your point is. The blood used to purify the utensils is not used for any atonement sacrifice. It is irrelevant to the conversation.
We were discussing what you considered a misconception from Hebrews, and I'm still suggesting that it's accurate...even to the utensils used. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. You cannot sacrifice with unclean instruments.
No doubt, God resting is part of it. However, a reminder of being delivered from Egypt is just as much a part, as I showed you with scripture.
I think we're actually agreeing...rest was restored to Israel, who, in slavery in Egypt, knew no rest. You realize, I'm only trying to clarify...there is little I disagree with you on.
My point is that there is no difference between Christians and those of other religions when the rubber meets the road. You have just as many good people, just as many bad people, and just as many stories of transformation. The fact that you have a story that explains it makes no difference. Other religions have their own stories as well.
That might be...but there has only been one resurrection, that is history's defining moment...and momentous in all it's implications.
My worldview doesn't contain the cross because the cross is unnecessary. Things work just as well without it.
Some would suggest that things actually work because of it...it defines the extreme nature of a God Who is defined by Promise and Chesed love.

The resurrection is a canny reminder that the sting of death itself is limited, and God has set an end, even there.

I don't want to sound arrogant or boastful. I've read the works of great thinkers and sages, I've sat on a hillside on the West Bank, in Tubas, with one of the wisest Imams I've ever met. I've enjoyed the writings of the one called Baha'ullah...and I can point to their tombs. Only one has risen and has no tomb. That, to me, corroborates what he said, and adds value to His opinion.

Glad to have you back!
Thanks. This is bread for me. And an excellent serving.
 

Open Heart

Active member
We were discussing what you considered a misconception from Hebrews, and I'm still suggesting that it's accurate...even to the utensils used. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. You cannot sacrifice with unclean instruments.
But don't you see that it is irrelevant, since the blood for purification is not an atonement sacrifice? Our discussion revolves around blood spilt for atonement. We need to limit it to that.

I think we're actually agreeing...rest was restored to Israel, who, in slavery in Egypt, knew no rest. You realize, I'm only trying to clarify...there is little I disagree with you on.
That is always nice, agreeing! :)

That might be...but there has only been one resurrection, that is history's defining moment...and momentous in all it's implications.
Some would suggest that things actually work because of it...it defines the extreme nature of a God Who is defined by Promise and Chesed love.
However, as I stated when our conversation first began, I do not think there has been a literal resurrection -- only a figurative one.

I don't want to sound arrogant or boastful. I've read the works of great thinkers and sages, I've sat on a hillside on the West Bank, in Tubas, with one of the wisest Imams I've ever met. I've enjoyed the writings of the one called Baha'ullah...and I can point to their tombs. Only one has risen and has no tomb. That, to me, corroborates what he said, and adds value to His opinion.
So you are saying that my spirituality (and that of others) works because of Jesus sacrifice, even though I am blind to it? Well I have to say that is a cut way above the theology of most Christians, because it accommodates the reality of the depth and goodness many in other religions have. Don't get me wrong, I still see the cross as completely unnecessary. But I am surprised and pleased with this turn of events.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
The Spirit is not a person, the spirit has a person because God has designed His spirit to operate with the soul. Jesus' Spirit is God's Spirit.
We all have God's Spirit if we follow His will. Nothing special about Jesus.

God is one Spirit and He has a person, a soul, nephesh in the Hebrew. God is two without being more than one.
You've just given parts which God doesn't have.

That is what the Hebrew shows us.
You misunderstand.

Because Jesus' Spirit is God's Spirit He is one with God and is God because God is in Him and they are one.
As is anyone that follows God's will.

Therefore Jesus is "God" because of His union with God, but He is not the Father's person.
Wrong conclusion.

The Talmud says that the name Metatron which is another name for the Messiah is equivalent to LORD and he sits in the Holiest of Holies and acts as God's emissary. Sanhedrin 38b,
Metatron is only an angel here.

Hagigah 15a
The name of an angel, not God Himself.

and Avoda Zara 3b.
No mention of Messiah as Megatron. You and your sources are wrong.

You're striking out all over.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You can't just take one passage of scripture as you are doing and expect to understand it unless you co-ordinate it with the relating texts.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is very clear the New Covenant focuses on the same laws written on the hearts and minds of the houses of Israel and Judah. You're attempting to rip the verses out of context, which you've done to support your ideology in other areas and here. That's why no learned Jew will accept your crap.

Take care. We're done here.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
First, I apologize for the delay in my responses: a hectic schedule that includes a sudden return from retirement due to the death of a friend and colleague, and the wedding of my daughter...and a week of vacation with my best friend and wife precluded every effort to respond.
Don't worry about it. I've been busy myself and am reducing my time here as many of the conversations are repetitive between Christians and Jews.

I will acquiesce willingly to your superior knowledge, pointing out that your observation concerning his great influence is corroborated by his "cameo appearance" in the deliberations of the Sanhedrin that Luke brings us into in Acts 5. I will also note that tolerance was not always the order of the day for either party. Tell me if you agree that, if true, it is significant that the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians and the Hellenists all called for the crucifixion of Jesus in an historically unusual display of unity.
I don't see the Pharisees calling for Jesus's death. In fact the Pharisees warned Jesus in Luke 13:31-35.

And it is good to remember that Christian and Jew worshiped in peace in the temple for decades together, until we abandoned you and Jerusalem to the Romans, in what appeared an act of cowardice to you...but an act of foreknowledge and obedience to us.
The Nazarenes were a legitimate Jewish group within Judaism back in the 2nd temple period. Belief in a Messiah, or a specific person as Messiah is not a problem. Believing Messiah is God is a problem.

The apostate Christians who were not part of the Nazarenes did flee to Pella more so because they weren't legitimate and were trying to usurp control from James and the apostles in Jerusalem. We can see the schism because of Acts 15 and where the church is today.

To me it seems that the differences that became so cruelly irreconcilable began there.
And with Paul's apostate teachings.

I understand your point...but hasten to point out that a student of Gamaliel is going to be, first, an original thinker...able to come to his own conclusions about matters.
No. A student becomes his own thinker after he's mastered his Rabbi's teachings. It's evident Paul didn't. Irregardless, a student wouldn't abandon Torah as Paul did. That's apostasy.

I say this, because I watch Paul's response to Stephen's testimony in chapter 7, and wonder how you would react. How would Gamaliel have reacted to Stephen's challenge? Was stoning above him, in such an extreme circumstance?
I don't know that I believe this story happened, or most of the NT for that matter. If Stephen was claiming a man as God, then he probably deserved stoning.

I'm not sure it was purposeful...the writers did not take our ignorance into account. They took what was common knowledge for granted...to our detriment.
I still think they mixed things up.

Yet, I wonder if there were not times where agreement between the factions made them...less factious, and easier to confuse. It does seem that there were times that there was strong agreement.
Could be like in many cases, but definitely strong ideological differences which could not be ignored.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Thanks again for your response.I'll only state that your argument from silence here might not be your strongest...
Argument from silence isn't necessarily a poor argument when it is reasonable to assume that certain points would be the norm. In the case of Paul describing himself as a student of Gamaliel, and being a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee of Pharisees, this would be mentioned in the Talmud in either case of him being either a famous apostate or learned Pharisee. It's not, and his style is anything by Pharisiasc in its approach.

The "real" that Moses saw was passed down as a shadow. Moses alone saw the real on the Holy Mountain.
Which was no physical form as noted in Deuteronomy 4:9,12,35.

It is our belief that it does get more real that continues to make this a conversation worth having.
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.
Ok, then don't blame the Jews for his death.

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.
Very doubtful as he never learned first hand from Jesus. Mystical revelations are part of gnostism and the mystery religions. This is why he was basically astricised and an apostate. Eusebius notes how he was low in the eyes of the Nazarenes.

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.
No, if that were true then Paul's message is worthless as God would teach everyone without his help.

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.
Which is what Paul taught.

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.
Actually, your view is one of Torah abrogation as was his. So, there's no way Tanakh teaches that.

Yet the specifics iterated in Deuteronomy 28, to which I'm referring were not written until Sinai.
But the concept of blessings and curses is found in the garden.

Abraham met with three...and these were One encounter. I'm pretty sure you do not understand what happened either...Who could?
No, we understand. God uses angels, people, prophets, kings, Israel, as His representative. That's why they are referred to as God, elohim, in the Hebrew, or as anointed, with His name on them. Blessings and prophetic revelations are shown as God being present, face to face, though He is not physically there.

We're given very limited information, but enough to make this discussion valuable.
I've done this so many times that I haven't seen anything new.

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.
The image isn't physical, that's for sure. You'd have to explain where Eve got here body from then. Exodus 34:6-7 talks to what the image entails.

God calls us sons in the psalms. What limits to you apply to that claim? And why?
Sons of God are those that are obedient to His Spirit, His will, His commandments.

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.
It doesn't say a hole was dug or left.

That's where I got it from...poetic license? Maybe...Poetic, definitely. It's a powerful story of responsibility and shared stewardship.
If it makes you happy, but your points aren't in the script.

I think you're artificially limiting what love can do.
No, I just go by the text. I try to stay away from anything else.

Pretty safe assumption, since the animals were no longer in the skins, and the souls of the animals were in the blood.
Not really when God can create skins, or an animal be sheered for its fur. Again, no sacrifice is mentioned. Why add what's not there?

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.
Where does Tanakh say Moses followed a heavenly pattern? The NT might, but Tanakh doesn't.

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.
No, you're taking a literary license here.

Yes...your next response discourages me from thinking otherwise:
Only a Jew would understand that...without the death and resurrection highlighting what had been foreshadowed, no one could have understood the implications.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

It would take another thread to discuss the Jewish nature of Hebrews, to adequately allow you to object.
Not really. Whoever wrote it really pulled verses out of context and took many liberties.

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.
Isaac, Israel are the seed. Like the stars, not just an individual.

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.
Thus the Ram.

What Goy thinks like that, if he hasn't been trained to think in righteousness? And who would believe God expected human sacrifice?
That's what Abraham thought. God thought otherwise.

So Jesus could only accomplish what I'm saying from this...
And eternity was promised without the need for Jesus.

It has withstood the test of time...He made his soul a sacrifice...
No, human sacrifice is not supported in the commandments. And Ezekiel 18 shows otherwise.

Actually, you just argued in His favor...
I don't believe Jesus was sinless nor is that a requirement to be righteous. The righteous fall 7 times...

And only "alternate means" of atonement...
Which Jeremiah 31:31-34 refutes as the same laws are written on the hearts and minds. Blood is only one means of atonement. It's in the law.

Our Psalm 119...
And it speaks highly of God's law and following it.

Its adequate...
Parthenos has been shown to be ambiguous at best. Mary was married and impregnated by natural means or she was adulterous and gave birth to a mamzer. There is no way out of it.

However, no sperm was involved.
Leviticus 12:2 shows otherwise. Tazria, conceived with seed, sperm. And Mary brought sacrifices in accordance to the law as a result.

The Word was spoken, and the Word was the seed which Mary believed.
Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mention impregnation by God. It's made up.

Mary, too...but her pregnancy was from the moment she received the word.
No, Mary, if she was a good Jewess laid with her husband.

Thanks for your patience.
No problem. Just to let you know, I'm not seeing anything new in your arguments. So, if I don't respond anymore, I've just decided to move on. Nothing personal, and the post are more than 10000 characters which cause issues.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
I don't see the Pharisees calling for Jesus's death. In fact the Pharisees warned Jesus in Luke 13:31-35.
How well have you read the gospels? (I'm asking because I see you are well read, not to accuse of any missing insight.) Mark relates the plot that begins in chapter 3 because Jesus healed on the Sabbath. "5Jesus looked around at them with anger and sorrow at their hardness of heart. Then He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' So he stretched it out, and it was restored.

"6At this, the Pharisees went out and began plotting with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus."
Notice here, too, the unlikely bedfellows...when would the Pharisees have anything to do with Herodians?

The Nazarenes were a legitimate Jewish group within Judaism back in the 2nd temple period. Belief in a Messiah, or a specific person as Messiah is not a problem. Believing Messiah is God is a problem.
It would be...You would have to take the name "Emmanuel" literally, and you'd have to accept the names of the Child born unto us in Isaiah, as literal...It takes a complete shifting of thought and paradigm, and it's actually a mystery worth exploring.

I want to be bold here, and hope this will help: God is not a name. It's a title, and a designation of the degree of authority. Gods rule above kings and princes. You know this intellectually, because you know Hebrew well enough to know that when God stands in the council, He stands in the midst of the gods. He is the God of gods. This should attenuate the thought that Messiah is god. It's His Oneness with the Father that makes the thought more challenging. The testimony of His counsel makes that step more manageable.

The apostate Christians who were not part of the Nazarenes did flee to Pella more so because they weren't legitimate and were trying to usurp control from James and the apostles in Jerusalem. We can see the schism because of Acts 15 and where the church is today.
This is why it's such pleasure to discuss with you...Acts 15 is only the foreshadowing of the church's historic schismatic nature. Paul nails the issue in Acts 20 when he warns the Ephesian elders what to look for...from within their own ranks, and Jesus even magnifies the warning in His own letter to the Ephesian church in the Revelation. We're not wise to boast in any wisdom...as a Messianic movement.

It's pretty clear we need others' insights.
And with Paul's apostate teachings.
;) I have learned much from him...about your faith. My issue arises when I deviate from his teachings, and forget the basics of faith.

No. A student becomes his own thinker after he's mastered his Rabbi's teachings. It's evident Paul didn't. Irregardless, a student wouldn't abandon Torah as Paul did. That's apostasy.
I think you and I will disagree here, and that's fine: because the true issue is your first statement. All education fails because we've forgotten this principle. There are. no masterworks without the masters to work them, and we've been taught to "think on our own" before we learn to think. (I will continue to argue that it's because Paul mastered Gamaliel's brilliance that he was able to write like no man before him or since. Hence my gratitude toward you all.)
I don't know that I believe this story happened, or most of the NT for that matter. If Stephen was claiming a man as God, then he probably deserved stoning.
Thank you...I think that's all you need to see. We did not make things easy for anybody in Israel. But then, why should faith be easy?
I still think they mixed things up.
I see that...and I think they assumed we knew more than we do.
Could be like in many cases, but definitely strong ideological differences which could not be ignored.
Hmmm...Can Democrat and Republican agree on anything? ;)
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Part 1
Argument from silence isn't necessarily a poor argument when it is reasonable to assume that certain points would be the norm. In the case of Paul describing himself as a student of Gamaliel, and being a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee of Pharisees, this would be mentioned in the Talmud in either case of him being either a famous apostate or learned Pharisee. It's not, and his style is anything but Pharisaic in its approach.
I will say again, it might not be your strongest argument. (Which speaks to the strength of your arguments!) Obviously, I have to defer to your own knowledge on this one. Another thread, one day, on how Paul does not reason as a Pharisee, or apply the scripture accurately would be great to explore. Understand, though, that Paul is what he is, not only by schooling, but also because of an encounter one day on the way to wreak havoc in Damascus. That encounter with the risen Jesus had a profound impact on all the givens he'd been taught. The dead do not rise until the end, even for a Pharisee. He had heard Steven's testimony to the full, and had rejected the Nazarene reasoning from beginning to end...but was forced to change his own beliefs by the testimony of the Risen Lord. He had to rethink much of his own exegesis on the basis of stronger evidence going forth. An encounter makes a noteworthy difference.
Which was no physical form as noted in Deuteronomy 4:9,12,35.
I'm not making any other claim, but that the tabernacle was fashioned physically on what Moses saw...spiritually.
Ok, then don't blame the Jews for his death.
Why would I ever? The point of Christianity is, I blame me...or I'm not even worthy to be called His. I cling to Isaiah 58 with everything I have. I'm done pointing the finger.
Very doubtful as he never learned first hand from Jesus. Mystical revelations are part of gnostism and the mystery religions. This is why he was basically ostracized and an apostate. Eusebius notes how he was low in the eyes of the Nazarenes.
His first encounter was with the Risen Lord Himself. His description of the Last seder to the Corinthians (ch. 11) is an eyewitness view he never had, but he claims it is as the Lord taught it to him. I haven't seen any reason to doubt his credibility. You have, and that's fine.

I'm just explaining why I trust what he says.
No, if that were true then Paul's message is worthless as God would teach everyone without his help.
As it is written..."They will all be taught of God." "I will inscribe my word on their heart, and cause them to walk in my way according to my commandment." That's not Paul. That's your prophets...I will hear a voice behind me saying, "This is the way walk in it..." if ever I turn to the right or to the left. My eye will see my teacher...according to David in our psalm 32. It's throughout the promise. It's harder on us teachers in the NT. John tells us we don't need anyone to teach us, as His Holy Spirit has undertaken the task. In fact, my job, as a teacher, is to put myself out of a job.

It's an ideal job...the sooner I get that job done, the sooner I can retire...except, the world is full of folks who do not believe in a God Who is willing to teach us His ways. My task has never gotten easier.
Which is what Paul taught.
No...and I'll tell you why: Gnosticism is a secret knowledge. Paul unveils. There are no secrets hidden in his wisdom. No enchantments get you deeper. Christianity is not the Kaballa on steroids. It's just a place to dwell, and where the word in plain view grows in you.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Active member
Part II
Actually, your view is one of Torah abrogation as was his. So, there's no way Tanakh teaches that.
The Tanakh teaches something you do not want to ignore: The blessings of Abraham was ALSO unto all the nations of the world. Consider that this blessing has come on us: What would that look like? It's not abrogation, but extension. The Nazarenes, confronted with masses of Gentile converts had to struggle with exactly what you're objecting to. If you can see that, you can understand the struggle: What do you do with a Gentile who comes to you? Make him conform to an outward seal? Or teach him to subscribe to a deeper circumcision to which both Moses and Jeremiah subscribed? I hope you see that I'm not being casual or glibly disrespectful. And I'm not suggesting this is easy, neither that you are wrong. But you do seem more willing to understand.
But the concept of blessings and curses is found in the garden.
You keep talking concept. I'm talking specific lists....
No, we understand. God uses angels, people, prophets, kings, Israel, as His representative. That's why they are referred to as God, elohim, in the Hebrew, or as anointed, with His name on them. Blessings and prophetic revelations are shown as God being present, face to face, though He is not physically there.
Smiling...OK...and yet...I guess it's great to have all the answers. I will always prefer the experience of an encounter. Moses saw more than imagination pass by in the cleft of the Rock...
I've done this so many times that I haven't seen anything new.
Yet you continue...Jesus said, "The scribe instructed in the kingdom takes from the treasure of his storehouse something old and something new." I'm praying you'll see something new, just for the pleasure of the time you take in discussions like this.
The image isn't physical, that's for sure. You'd have to explain where Eve got her body from then. Exodus 34:6-7 talks to what the image entails.
Well...the "backside view" of the image. No one can look on the frontside view and live, so He has a front and a backside.
Sons of God are those that are obedient to His Spirit, His will, His commandments.
Agreed...those who take after their Father.
It doesn't say a hole was dug or left.
You're picking nits...which is fine. It's making me laugh. It says "He scooped up earth." Do me science experiment real quick. Go into your garden and scoop up enough earth to form a man-shape. What do you see where you scooped up the earth?
If it makes you happy, but your points aren't in the script.
Scoop up dirt...get back to me.
No, I just go by the text. I try to stay away from anything else.
If the text is a narrative, and you limit the narrative, you're not going by the text. "He scooped up dirt and left no hole," is actually adding to the narrative, not sticking to it.
Not really when God can create skins, or an animal be sheered for its fur. Again, no sacrifice is mentioned. Why add what's not there?
Are you seriously denying that animals died to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve? I don't think right now you're picking your.fights wisely. In my view, this is the first time in the Bible shame is covered, and the very first time an animal proxy is used for that covering. Say what you want, but you're taking away from what is so clearly written.
Where does Tanakh say Moses followed a heavenly pattern? The NT might, but Tanakh doesn't.
Exodus 25:40 "…39The lampstand and all these utensils shall be made from a talent of pure gold. 40See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." Is this the first time you've seen this? Have you never wondered?
No, you're taking a literary license here.
No, actually, I'm not. And this is one of the points we will strongly disagree on, but the pattern of the blood spattered on the door was deliberately the top, and the two sides, and the angel of death passed over.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
Of course not. Do not apologize. I just answered your question according to the clarity of your own insights.
Not really. Whoever wrote it really pulled verses out of context and took many liberties.
...Or discerned the true intent. We represent the two sides of this debate.
Isaac, Israel are the seed. Like the stars, not just an individual.
Of course...and as Israel was not yet born, Isaac being but twelve years old, Isaac could not die. That's the point.
Thus the Ram.
As you say. And Abraham foresaw the ram before the journey, and called the place YHWH Jireh.
That's what Abraham thought. God thought otherwise.
You missed my point: Please hear me. That is NOT what Abraham thought. Abraham had God's mind in this, because he KNEW otherwise, because of the promise that God cannot break.
And eternity was promised without the need for Jesus.
No...Eternity was never promised without the need for redemption. And redemption cannot come without a Price.
No, human sacrifice is not supported in the commandments. And Ezekiel 18 shows otherwise.
Isaiah says "...His Soul...". In death, says Ecclesiastes, the ruach returns to the Lord, the body to the dust, and the soul/nephesh to Sheol. The blood was required, and being sufficient, we have the resurrection.
I don't believe Jesus was sinless nor is that a requirement to be righteous. The righteous fall 7 times...
The lamb must be without blemish. You do not have to believe anything for it to be true. Jesus righteousness does not depend on your faith...yours depends on His.
Which Jeremiah 31:31-34 refutes as the same laws are written on the hearts and minds. Blood is only one means of atonement. It's in the law.
Jeremiah 31 buttresses the New Covenant...which you reject. Righteousness is a matter of the heart...from within, where the blood actually does its cleansing work. No blood functions from the outside in, that's only ever symbolic.
And it speaks highly of God's law and following it.
It's my favorite...bar none.
Parthenos has been shown to be ambiguous at best. Mary was married and impregnated by natural means or she was adulterous and gave birth to a mamzer. There is no way out of it.
I'm trying to say, "So what" politely: It's the word the LXX chose, and its an acceptable translation of your "young maiden" for virgin. You're stuck with the possibility that the translation is "virgin." We're encouraged by the fact that she was...and therefore we have better witness for a translation you can only guess at and argue over. And you're wrong about Mary, and stuck with your own surmise. I've explained to you how faith in the promise made her pregnant by promise. I
Leviticus 12:2 shows otherwise. Tazria, conceived with seed, sperm. And Mary brought sacrifices in accordance to the law as a result.
The seed was the word...No man knew her...and the sacrifices were accepted and the child was circumcised.
Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mention impregnation by God. It's made up.
No...and you're actually either being a bit harsh here, or you're denying obvious possibilities...If the word MUST be translated virgin, a virgin with child got pregnant, and the operative, powerful guide is the child's name, Immanuel. From Him all else falls into place.
No, Mary, if she was a good Jewess laid with her husband.
I tell Roman Catholics, who have been taught a perpetual virginity, this fact all the time. And she withheld herself, and Joseph from her, for the length of this extraordinary and anamalous pregnancy.

If you leave this discussion, I'm sure we'll meet again...BTW...if you've never seen the heavenly pattern, you've learned something from this, I would hope.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Active member
But don't you see that it is irrelevant, since the blood for purification is not an atonement sacrifice? Our discussion revolves around blood spilt for atonement. We need to limit it to that.
No...I don't see, because without the blood to purify there can. be no redemption. You're unnecessarily confusing the various sacrifices, and missing the means whereby all is cleansed.

That is always nice, agreeing! :)
There is hope in agreement.
However, as I stated when our conversation first began, I do not think there has been a literal resurrection -- only a figurative one.
There is a very irritating truth I discovered, and I don't know what to do about it: History actually happened without our consent. I do not think there ever was a Julius Caesar, and I certainly don't believe in murder on the senate steps, that, despite January 6.

Yet, I don't think I changed anything by that statement. History is not dependent on what I believe. Denial and unbelief only restrain me from pleasant discoveries.
So you are saying that my spirituality (and that of others) works because of Jesus sacrifice, even though I am blind to it?
Potential is a powerful force. It's the life of the seed. Adam's transgression has at last been atoned for. The serpent is slated for a fall.
Well I have to say that is a cut way above the theology of most Christians, because it accommodates the reality of the depth and goodness many in other religions have. Don't get me wrong, I still see the cross as completely unnecessary. But I am surprised and pleased with this turn of events.
If you read the second chapter of Romans, you'll see that Paul agrees with you. DO NOT read the first chapter for a while...That's where Paul confronts the sin of Sodom as Ezekiel described it, and the imminent downfall of the West. ("What was the sin of your sister Sodom? She had PRIDE (make me great again), FULLNESS OF BREAD (I overindulge), ABUNDANCE OF IDLENESS (binge on Netflix to death)...and she did NOT CARE FOR THE POOR AND THE NEEDY." If you do read it, see how sobering it is to know what form the "wrath of God" has taken.)
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Active member
Animals used for practical purposes, such as those killed to make clothing by God, are not sacrifices, as I have told Biblican many times. :)
Forgive me, but I need a higher authority than yours: How many folks do you know that God clothed with another being's skin, causing the death of the one with the purpose of covering another's shame? It happened once. Now...please try to define sacrifice without these elements. This animal's life was lost for that one's covering.

And so begins another workweek. May yours be blessed by God.
I appreciate this, and reciprocate abundance of blessings according to His Chesed love.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
How well have you read the gospels? (I'm asking because I see you are well read, not to accuse of any missing insight.) Mark relates the plot that begins in chapter 3 because Jesus healed on the Sabbath. "5Jesus looked around at them with anger and sorrow at their hardness of heart. Then He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' So he stretched it out, and it was restored.
Yep, and you should know that the Pharisees had no issues with healing or life saving on the Sabbath. That's why I know the gospel accounts are incorrect. You should read Hyyam Maccoby's Revolution in Judea.

"6At this, the Pharisees went out and began plotting with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus." Notice here, too, the unlikely bedfellows...when would the Pharisees have anything to do with Herodians?
Yep, and the gospel contradictions are very apparent.

It would be...You would have to take the name "Emmanuel" literally, and you'd have to accept the names of the Child born unto us in Isaiah, as literal...It takes a complete shifting of thought and paradigm, and it's actually a mystery worth exploring.
You'd have to apply that thinking to any Jew with a name of God in their names, like Elijah, Adonijah, Hezekiah, etc., as they would be divine too.

I want to be bold here, and hope this will help: God is not a name. It's a title, and a designation of the degree of authority. Gods rule above kings and princes.
He's known by several names.

You know this intellectually, because you know Hebrew well enough to know that when God stands in the council, He stands in the midst of the gods. He is the God of gods. This should attenuate the thought that Messiah is god.
Yes, Messiah is God as all Davidic kings are, Zechariah 12:8. So are Moses, Exodus 7:1, angels, Psalm 8:5, judges, Exodus 21:6,22:8-9. But, none are divine like the God.

It's His Oneness with the Father that makes the thought more challenging. The testimony of His counsel makes that step more manageable.
Sorry, man cannot be truly one with God. In thought and will with God, that's about it.

This is why it's such pleasure to discuss with you...Acts 15 is only the foreshadowing of the church's historic schismatic nature. Paul nails the issue in Acts 20 when he warns the Ephesian elders what to look for...from within their own ranks, and Jesus even magnifies the warning in His own letter to the Ephesian church in the Revelation. We're not wise to boast in any wisdom...as a Messianic movement.
Acts 15 shows the Jerusalem believers having the authority after Jesus died. James being a descendant of David would be the logical choice after Jesus. Paul was nicely cut-off and sent away as an apostate at the end of Acts.

It's pretty clear we need others' insights.
Which is why I read a lot.

;) I have learned much from him...about your faith. My issue arises when I deviate from his teachings, and forget the basics of faith.
Paul is not a good barometer for Judaism.

I think you and I will disagree here, and that's fine: because the true issue is your first statement. All education fails because we've forgotten this principle. There are. no masterworks without the masters to work them, and we've been taught to "think on our own" before we learn to think. (I will continue to argue that it's because Paul mastered Gamaliel's brilliance that he was able to write like no man before him or since.
Paul was far from brilliant and chastised in Acts for abrogating the law and teaching others the same. That's why the Nazarenes thought little of his epistles as Eusebius shows.

Hence my gratitude toward you all.)
Thank you...I think that's all you need to see. We did not make things easy for anybody in Israel. But then, why should faith be easy?
And Christianity still doesn't make things easy. Faith is easy. It's the actions that go with it that are tough.

I see that...and I think they assumed we knew more than we do.
You need a Jewish background to understand things better.

Hmmm...Can Democrat and Republican agree on anything? ;)
Haven't seen it.

Part 1I will say again, it might not be your strongest argument. (Which speaks to the strength of your arguments!) Obviously, I have to defer to your own knowledge on this one. Another thread, one day, on how Paul does not reason as a Pharisee, or apply the scripture accurately would be great to explore. Understand, though, that Paul is what he is, not only by schooling, but also because of an encounter one day on the way to wreak havoc in Damascus. That encounter with the risen Jesus had a profound impact on all the givens he'd been taught. The dead do not rise until the end, even for a Pharisee. He had heard Steven's testimony to the full, and had rejected the Nazarene reasoning from beginning to end...but was forced to change his own beliefs by the testimony of the Risen Lord. He had to rethink much of his own exegesis on the basis of stronger evidence going forth. An encounter makes a noteworthy difference.
I'm sorry, but Paul was a blowhard, and made up stuff. I believe he faked the Damascus encounter, and he definitely was shunned by those who knew Jesus best.

I'm not making any other claim, but that the tabernacle was fashioned physically on what Moses saw...spiritually.
You haven't shown that.

Why would I ever? The point of Christianity is, I blame me...or I'm not even worthy to be called His. I cling to Isaiah 58 with everything I have.
So, are you grated according to Isaiah 56:1-8? It ties in.

I'm done pointing the finger.
His first encounter was with the Risen Lord Himself.
This is doubtful.

His description of the Last seder to the Corinthians (ch. 11) is an eyewitness view he never had, but he claims it is as the Lord taught it to him. I haven't seen any reason to doubt his credibility. You have, and that's fine.
I don't believe Paul at all. He is the man of lawlessness.

I'm just explaining why I trust what he says.
As it is written..."They will all be taught of God." "I will inscribe my word on their heart, and cause them to walk in my way according to my commandment." That's not Paul. That's your prophets...I will hear a voice behind me saying, "This is the way walk in it..." if ever I turn to the right or to the left. My eye will see my teacher...according to David in our psalm 32. It's throughout the promise. It's harder on us teachers in the NT. John tells us we don't need anyone to teach us, as His Holy Spirit has undertaken the task. In fact, my job, as a teacher, is to put myself out of a job.
Are you trying to teach me? Somebody else used that line on me and it didn't go well for them. The spirit leads to observance, Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Paul taught contrary to all of this.

It's an ideal job...the sooner I get that job done, the sooner I can retire...except, the world is full of folks who do not believe in a God Who is willing to teach us His ways. My task has never gotten easier.
Great 👍.

No...and I'll tell you why: Gnosticism is a secret knowledge. Paul unveils.
No, Paul claims to have revelations no one else had. Most false religions claim one person had a divine revelation.

There are no secrets hidden in his wisdom. No enchantments get you deeper. Christianity is not the Kaballa on steroids. It's just a place to dwell, and where the word in plain view grows in you.
BTW, I don't follow kaballa either. Torah grows in you. It is a delight.
 
Top