Clouseau

Can't switch on your computer on a sabbath, then.

Jayrok

Sure I can. Who said I was a believer in Judaism or Christianity?

If Jesus existed as written, I can see why the learned Jews rejected him as their messiah. If the new testament is true as written, then many prophecies in the old testament are false or will be false by default. If the prophecies in books like Ezekiel are correct and divinely inspired, then the new testament is false. They can't both be right because they go in opposite directions.

aa5874

Based on your statement, the death of Jesus or the sacrifice of animals was not necessary.

Abraham was justified by faith, therefore anyone could have been justified by faith. All that is necessary is faith in God.

Clouseau

Faith in the God of Abraham, that is.

'"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."' Gen 22:7-8 NIV

'The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."' John 1:29-31 NIV

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Jayrok;4541864]Why attack a religion you don't believe is true?

You haven't proved them incorrect. By your selective method you seem you have proved only a colossal bias that is not worth a moment's attention.

.

Jayrok

I didn't realize I was "attacking" any religion. I'm studying Christianity and Judaism and how they differ based on their shared sacred books.

Specifically, I'm trying to understand why or when God changed his plans and decided to go with coming to Earth himself as the end-all sacrifice for the sins of mankind. In reading the prophets, it isn't obvious where he does change his mind on how things will turn out. Maybe that's why most Jews never bought off on the Jesus thing.

Numbers 23:19 -- God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

He made lots of promises in Jeremiah and Ezekiel that haven't come to pass and according to the NT, never will.


But don't you see, they don't have to be proven incorrect by anyone. The Bible will prove one of them incorrect by default. If the New Temple area described in Revelation is correct, then the one in Ezekiel is false and will not take place. If Ezekiel's Temple description is correct and will take place, then the one in Revelation is false and will not take place.

For a liberal Christian, this might not seem much of an issue. They simply say God changed his mind. What makes us think he won't do it again and require something else? For the fundamentalist, the Bible is the infallible word of God, perfect and true. For him, this must be reconciled. But what I've found, it usually just goes ignored and waved off as the NT takes priority and cancels out or supercedes the OT. They say it was God's plan all along to send Jesus, etc.

But if this is true and it was God's plan all along, why go into great detail with his prophets on his promises for the nation of Israel and how he was going to finally reveal himself and live among them as their God and them as the luminaries to the world. How he will continue the sacrificial system for all times, even in the new Temple and City of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 33:17-18 -- For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.' "

If God knew his plans were to send Jesus as the last lamb of sacrifice, why make statements like the one above? He says the Levites will never fail to have a man stand before him to continually offer burnt offerings.

Well, this one is obviously not true. But at some point what we have is the first part of the passage above interpreted as Jesus being that guy in the line of David and the throne is a spiritual one in heaven. This is common in Christianity, but verse 18 goes ignored in Christiandom.

God goes on to say in the following verses that as long as Day and Night come at their appointed time, this covenant will always remain in effect (David's line on the throne and Priests offering sacrifices). Well day and night still come at their appointed times, so what happened?

If it was God's intent all along that Jesus is the last king and the throne of David is in heaven, why not let the Israelites in on that? Why make all these other promises that he really never intended to come to pass?


Is this really a colossal bias that warrants not a moment's attention? Or is it something the Christian should take a look at and question?

RED DAVE

From Clouseau:
So, the Old Testament provides a lamb for sacrifice, the New Testament provides a human being.

How is the New Testament a fulfillment of the Old? Human sacrifice was viewed as disgusting and abhorrent by Jews.

I love it when Christians try to tell Jews what their religion is.

RED DAVE

notasheep

Which still doesn't work. Having become a "new creation in christ", with a "new heart", a "transformed mind", and having God himself (in his Spirit form" living in them, christians keep right on sinning.
So what's God's next plan?

Chili

But it is not possible to sin if one is set free from the law whereby we are convicted of sin.

The new creation in Christ is not free from the law until the mind is transformed by way of crucifixion, subsequent ascension, assumption and finally coronation.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=notasheep;4542847]Not so.