OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think what he was trying to say is; we should make an effect to reconcile with those who offend us. The measure of mercy we show is what we may hope to recieve from God. Only God himself can forgive sins but we can by our choice show mercy and compassion to our fellow brothers and sisters in this world.:)

I can surely live with that. However, it does open a host of problematic issues. For example, an atheist is just as likely to be merciful. For another example, what about the "militant Christian" who cloaks himself in righteousness all the while showing no mercy towards.. say gays. Running these problems to their conclusion, it seems to me, leaves me with a question I posed many pages ago.... why be a Christian at all? I happen to agree with this position - that G-d doesn't much care if you're a Jew, or a Muslim or a Christian or, really, even an Atheist. The reality of their being a G-d is that no one can hope to avoid Him. Either this G-d loves, or he does not. I believe he does. Sophomoric example, but a good one I think - I do not withhold love from my children for being wrong about me, nor do I think G-d does when I am wrong about Him.

Conversely, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the hidden premise in your statement is belief in Jesus as the "way" Which, I think, brings us straight back to square one as it relates to issues of the "correctness" of any faith, ultimately ending again in the same remarks I made which you quoted.

In any event, nice to have you in the conversation.

 

[muffler dragon]

I've been taught that the Sadducees and Pharisees both get a bit of a "bad rap" in NT study. As I understand it, Jesus was directing his ire toward particular groups of these fellows who were behaving in unsound ways, rather than condemning the entire body of either Sadducees or Pharisees.

Oftentimes, there is either little-to-no distinction or a misunderstanding of the distinctions.

I used the term only to illustrate a point, since so far as I know there aren't any modern-day Pharisees to be offended by my comments!

Actually, this is incorrect. The "modern-day Pharisees" would be the Orthodox.

Study of the Essenes, the Copts, and other splinter groups of both Judaism and Christianity is interesting, but not really my cup of tea. Much as the very detailed theological discussions you and Bleed S&G were having earlier in the thread -- my theology has been formed by looking at the Bible holistically, and not putting too much study into individual verses (or words, or even sentences!). I'm not saying such study is a bad thing (quite the opposite, since the scholarship of others is essential to my own scriptural understanding), but it isn't for me.

I can appreciate "gleaning". For me, it was difficult to not delve.

 

[muffler dragon]

At the risk of sounding glib.... I would reconcile it in one of two ways

1 - Jesus is the master of the obvious
and/or
2 - Jesus' followers weren't able to make even the most simple deductive conclusions.

Man who thinks he knows the Judgment of G-d has done little more than elevated himself to purport to be G-d. As I've hinted before, the whole idea that a person like myself is in need of saving is precisely this same thing. Who are you to save me? Who are you to tell me what G-d thinks of me? Why shouldn't I tell you you need to be saved? Why shouldn't I tell you what G-d expects of you?

And, seriously, if I told you that I was praying for you to see the light in the same manner I see it... wouldn't you just laugh that off as ridiculous? If I told you that I was praying for your salvation wouldn't you just say to me, "by this creature you call your G-d? No thanks."

Roger Waters said it best - "What G-d wants, G-d gets. G-d help us all."


Bgrad, I don't mean to single you out in saying this stuff. Just your post provoked my thought.

*Stop the flashbacks!!!

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler have you ever had any exposure to Micheal Rood?
Michael Rood Ministries

A number of moons ago I did. It's been some time since I've read the name or anything about him.

Upon a quick glance, I was able to come upon a few reminders:

1) He claims to be Karaite (which is problematic). Nehemiah Gordon was a person that I always found interesting. I guess he just overshadowed Rood for me.
2) I couldn't find anything regarding education or a yeshiva.

Anything about him you would like to share or point out?

 

[stowfan]

A number of moons ago I did. It's been some time since I've read the name or anything about him.

Upon a quick glance, I was able to come upon a few reminders:

1) He claims to be Karaite (which is problematic). Nehemiah Gordon was a person that I always found interesting. I guess he just overshadowed Rood for me.
2) I couldn't find anything regarding education or a yeshiva.

Anything about him you would like to share or point out?

Karaite Declaration of Faith

Rood believes Jesus is the Christ. He also presents Christianity as a branch of Judaism. This is something I hold to be true and something the western church seems to have long ago forgotten.

To me a great example of this is Easter. No need to read a 46 page essay just look the word up in the dictionary. As a youth I often wondered why the holiday fell on different dates each year.

 

[muffler dragon]

Karaite Declaration of Faith

Rood believes Jesus is the Christ. He also presents Christianity as a branch of Judaism. This is something I hold to be true and something the western church seems to have long ago forgotten.

To me a great example of this is Easter. No need to read a 46 page essay just look the word up in the dictionary. As a youth I often wondered why the holiday fell on different dates each year.

I'm not sure what Michael Rood or what you've written above has to do with Isaiah 53. Am I mistaken about something?

The 46-page essay by Uri Yosef is an investigation into whether Jesus is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Furthermore, when discussing Hebrew, it's much more than word-for-word translations. The context and grammar have a huge impact on the actual meaning of words.

 

[stowfan]

I wasn't taking a swipe at the essay on Jesus not being the suffering servent, I was simply pointing out a quick look at the dictionary will expose Easter as a white washed pagan holiday in one paragraph. That being said, Rood using Jewish text makes a compelling case that Jesus is the Christ. The debate on this matter has gone on for more than 2,000 years and I believe will continue until the end of time.

 

[AKAK]

I was simply pointing out a quick look at the dictionary will expose Easter as a white washed pagan holiday in one paragraph.

This reminds me of the time one of my neices got a present from her Dad's Aunt...

It was a cute little talking animatronic (sp?) easter bunny with glasses that reads from a bible and tells you the "True story of Easter"-- and how Easter is really about Jesus dying for our sins... not about other things... like... well Easter Bunnies.

Apparently the "aunt" who bought this had to get a rain check to get one as they couldn't keep them in stock at the Wal Mart in WVa she frequents.

Back to your regularly scheduled discussions.

 

[muffler dragon]

I wasn't taking a swipe at the essay on Jesus not being the suffering servent, I was simply pointing out a quick look at the dictionary will expose Easter as a white washed pagan holiday in one paragraph.

Got'cha. I guess that was a discussion that I wasn't involved in previously.

That being said, Rood using Jewish text makes a compelling case that Jesus is the Christ. The debate on this matter has gone on for more than 2,000 years and I believe will continue until the end of time.

That's a valid point. I'm sure that the debate will continue as long as Christians believe Jesus is coming back.
Just for curiosity sake, do you have any idea if Rood can speak/read Hebrew?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Was reading that link Muffler provided above about how Isreal is the "Suffering Servant" Found this - his second part, where the same author establishes that Jesus could not be the suffering servant both in Jewish texts as well as on the terms of its own philosophy (For example, Isaiah 52:13 which discusses the "servant" compared with Christian theology that Jesus is G-d (how can G-d Himself be his own servant?) Furthermore, the case is made that the text is not Messianic. Interesting read, I thought.

I found the following particularly instructive:

A further search of the New Testament for indications that Jesus prospered,
or acquired wisdom, yields the following passage:

Luke 2:52(KJV)
– And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Once again, one must question whether this can be an attribute of G-d. After all, the Hebrew Bible teaches that G-d does not change (Mal 3:6), yet here
the New Testament clearly states that Jesus was "growing up", i.e., changing. Secondly, since G-d is omniscient, i.e., all-knowing, how was it possible for Jesus to learn more if he were this omniscient G-d?

 

[Gatorubet]

Was reading that link Muffler provided above about how Israel is the "Suffering Servant" Found this - his second part, where the same author establishes that Jesus could not be the suffering servant both in Jewish texts as well as on the terms of its own philosophy (For example, Isaiah 52:13 which discusses the "servant" compared with Christian theology that Jesus is G-d (how can G-d Himself be his own servant?) Furthermore, the case is made that the text is not Messianic. Interesting read, I thought.

I found the following particularly instructive:

The link was interesting, but also interesting to note that the "scientific method" employed used similar leaps (or gaps) of logic in interpretation proving or disproving points.

Still, very fascinating stuff that should make anyone continue to question and explore. What is key to me is this: you cannot use the New Testament to interpret the meaning of what the Old Testament says about Messianic prophesy. You have to - at minimum - at least have some alignment with Jewish understanding of the Messiah. He was a Jew fulfilling God's promise to his people. Now, it is true that God can and will change his mind on some pretty important stuff. Killing off everyone in city unless X number of righteous men are found. Destroying his entire creation, flooding the world, etc.

So I guess he can change his mind, and whatever he told the Old Hebrew guys is old hat. But for Christians to hold with every-word-is-true puts them in hot water come interpretation time for Messianic purposes.

Good stuff.

 

[stowfan]

Muffler

I have a personel belief that I should be firm in my faith yet always respectful of the faith of others. I hold fast to God's promise to Abraham that He will bless those who bless Abrahams decedents and curse those who curse them. I'm pointing this out as I don't want you to take the following to be ment in an offensive manner as it's not.

I have never before encountered anyone who claimed to be a Noachide. Via the internet I looked into getting at least a brief overview. Here is a link to what I came up with on the Noachide view of Chritianity.
Why Not Christianity?

Without reading the Noachide view of Christian holidays I can tell you there is a 99% percent chance I agree with them. What I did find worth commenting on the section on "who was Jesus." Several times it's brought up how Jesus clashed with the Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) and there for had to be a false prophet.

At the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin and the High Priest were appointed by the Romans. Ten % of all he Jewish wealth was to go to the temple, ten % of that to the high priest. You "played ball" with the romans or you wouldn't have those jobs.

Three hundred years before Jesus the same situation existed with the Greek overlords. A chap name Judas Macabee took the temple by force to resolve the situation. Today he is still hailed as a hero, and Jesus is a false prophet
for having many of the same problems.

 

[muffler dragon]

Personal Vicarious Atonement

I've seen a number of posts about the "saving" work of the cross and things of that sort. And I do realize quite well just how much of a pillar this doctrine is in Christianity. I wanted to peruse the idea with the Christian posters in this subforum to see if an argument can be made from Scripture that Personal Vicarious Atonement actually is acceptable in the Jewish Bible. The reason I leave it at the Jewish Bible is that one would think the concept would be universal/consistent throughout.

A few points I would like to make before the Scriptures:

1) The discussion is about Personal; not National. Thus, let's not confuse the two since very few (if any) of us are Jews.
2) Vicarious is defined as:

1 a: serving instead of someone or something else b: that has been delegated <vicarious authority>
2: performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another or to the benefit or advantage of another : substitutionary<a vicarious sacrifice>

Here are a few Scripture verses that, I believe, show no need for personal vicarious atonement.

Genesis 4
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?

7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

Deuteronomy 24
16. Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.


Ezekiel 18
4. Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die.

5. So a man who is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,

6. And does not eat [offerings of meals] on the mountains, and does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; neither defiles his fellow man's wife nor approaches a woman in her period of separation,

7. And wrongs no man; what has been pledged for a debt he returns; [he] has committed no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry, and clothes the naked with garments,

8. Does not lend on interest, nor does he take any increase on a loan, keeps his hand back from wrong, executes true judgment between man and man,

9. Has walked in My statutes, and has kept My ordinances to deal truly-he is a righteous man; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.

10. If he beget a profligate son, a shedder of blood, and he commits upon his brother any of these [crimes].

11. And he does not do all these [good deeds], but has even eaten [offerings of a meal] to the mountains and defiled his fellow man's wife;

12. Wronged the poor and the needy, committed robberies, did not return pledges, lifted up his eyes to the idols, committed abomination;

13. Gave out on interest, accepted increase on loans -shall he then live? He shall not live! He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood falls back on himself!

14. And behold, if he beget a son, who sees all the sins of his father which he has done, and sees and does not do likewise;

15. He did not eat on the mountains and did not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, did not defile his fellow man's wife,

16. Wronged no man; did not retain any pledge, and committed no robbery; his bread he gave to the hungry and the naked he covered with clothes;

17. From the poor he kept his hand back, interest and increase he did not take; My ordinances he kept, in My laws did he walk-he shall not die for the sins of his father, he shall surely live.

18. [But] his father, because he illegally suppressed, committed robbery against his brother and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.

19. Yet you say, "Why does the son not bear with the sin of the father?" But the son has practiced justice and righteousness, he has kept all My laws and he carries them out; he shall surely live.

20. The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

21. And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22. All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live.

23. Do I desire the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Is it not rather in his repenting of his ways that he may live?

24. And when the righteous repents of his righteousness and does wrong and does like all the abominations that the wicked man did, shall he live? All his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered; in his treachery that he has perpetrated and in his sin that he has sinned, in them shall he die.

25. Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right!' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is it My way that is not right? Is it not rather your ways that are not right?

26. When a righteous man repents of his righteousness and does wrong and dies on that account; for the wrong that he has done he should die.

27. And when a wicked man repents of his wickedness that he has done, and does justice and righteousness, he will keep his soul alive.

28. He will see and repent of all his transgressions that he has committed-he shall surely live; he shall not die.

29. And yet the house of Israel say, 'The way of the Lord is not right!' Is it My ways that are not right, O house of Israel? Is it not rather your ways that are not right?

30. Therefore, every man according to his ways I will judge you, O house of Israel, says the Lord God: repent and cause others to repent of all your transgressions, and it will not be a stumbling block of iniquity for you.

31. Cast away from yourselves all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, and why should you die, O house of Israel!

32. For I do not desire the death of him who dies, says the Lord God: so turn away and live!"

Psalm 49
8. -a brother cannot redeem a man, he cannot give his ransom to God.




The verses above come from:

1) Torah before Sinai.
2) Torah at/after Sinai.
3) The Prophets.
4) The Writings.

Consistently throughout the Tanakh, G-d has established the primacy of personal responsibility for one's actions as well as has shown what each individual can do in order to be forgiven. There is not one mention of a mediator for an individual nor any other form of Personal Vicarious atonement.

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler

I have a personel belief that I should be firm in my faith yet always respectful of the faith of others. I hold fast to God's promise to Abraham that He will bless those who bless Abrahams decedents and curse those who curse them. I'm pointing this out as I don't want you to take the following to be ment in an offensive manner as it's not.

Stow:

FTR, you've been extremely respectful and courteous in your statements to me thus far. Truth be told, there has only been one occurrence during my attendance in this forum when I was felt excessively offended. I tell you this so that you can feel like discoursing with me without concern or presenting a disclaimer. I appreciate the sentiment. I just want you to know that I have pretty thick skin.

I have never before encountered anyone who claimed to be a Noachide. Via the internet I looked into getting at least a brief overview. Here is a link to what I came up with on the Noachide view of Chritianity.
Why Not Christianity?

I should clarify that I am not affiliated with any Noachide groups per se. The sole resource that I recommend to others for education and insight is AskNoah - The Seven Laws of Noah. I am not evangelistic in my beliefs, and they don't extend beyond my personal family circle.

Without reading the Noachide view of Christian holidays I can tell you there is a 99% percent chance I agree with them. What I did find worth commenting on the section on "who was Jesus." Several times it's brought up how Jesus clashed with the Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) and there for had to be a false prophet.

At the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin and the High Priest were appointed by the Romans. Ten % of all he Jewish wealth was to go to the temple, ten % of that to the high priest. You "played ball" with the romans or you wouldn't have those jobs.

Three hundred years before Jesus the same situation existed with the Greek overlords. A chap name Judas Macabee took the temple by force to resolve the situation. Today he is still hailed as a hero, and Jesus is a false prophet
for having many of the same problems.

I agree with this thought. Truth be told, the investigation into the Pharisee and Sadducee delineations is a major strike (for me) against the legitimacy of the Christian gospels and Pauline epistles.

 

[stowfan]

Could you please explain your last ststement?