Kilgore Trout

That proves my point exactly. Jesus is the servant of Isaiah 53 because he claims he is. Exactly the circular reasoning that I just said is the basis of all christian apologetic arguments. And Hebrews "explains" what is going on. Everyone knows as long as you can explain something, you must be telling the truth.



You conveniently ignore the part about what I said about god not allowing any deviation on sacrificial rules. If Jesus' death was a sacrifice that made the Torah's laws unecessary then that means the Torah laws were in efect until then so he had to be a valid sacrifice under ther Torah laws. God only wanted certain animals for sacrifices, man is not one of those animals therefore to say he was a sacrifice goes against the Torah. I guess you figure if you ignore something long enough it will go away.

You are also always ignoring what I said about Jer 31:34 saying that when the "new covenant" comes EVERYONE will know the lord. This means everyone in the world will know the lord. They put that in as a failsafe measure to prevent people making claims like "the law is in our hearts" even when they don't even follow the law. Since not everyone in the world "knows the lord" the new covenant is not in effect yet. :banghead:

Let me get this straight...you are using something in the NT to "prove" something else in the NT. I wonder why I keep talk about apologetics being based on circular arguments? When your proofs use only the OT then maybe you will have something. If someone used the book of mormon to explain something else from the book of mormon, I don't think you are going to listen to him. All the reasoning you use is found only in the NT, so unless someone already thinks the NT is written by god, it's going to mean nothing to them.

So I guess you must think it's no longer necessary to refrain from murder, adultery etc. It makes no sense thinking that part of the Torah no longer has to be follwed but part does. Don't forget god had them kill a man for picking up firewood on the sabbath, so these things you call "letter of the law" are all important rules in god's eyes. It makes no sense to claim god doesn't care if you eat pork, but he's going to get really mad if you covet your neighbor's new car.

So appanently Islam is the new new covenant and the Mormons have the newer covenant because they have the "same god" as the Jews and they don't think they go against god either. Using your definition of Deut 13, all religions who claim to follow the same god as the Jews would earn a passing grade. Also I'd like to see where in Hebrews the author predicts something will happen and then that event comes to pass. You can't put the whole NT under one umbrella and claim because such and such book has a prediction come true the whole NT is legit. For example let's say for the sake of argument only that Jesus is a "true" prophet, that does not make Paul or the author of Hebrews "true" prophets. They have to make predictions that come true and cannot say things that go against the Torah. Neither Paul nor Hebrews passes either test. And of course Jesus does not pass the second test even if I were to believe he actually did the miracles he is purported to have done.

Thanks for giving me the example of what I said about your religion being based on fear and greed. That is the perfect example of your pie-in-the-sky greed that the Jewish religion doesn't have.

Here is a quote from Hebrews 10:28-31


28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

There is part of your fear. If The NT had legitimate arguments it wouldn't have to resort to the fear of unknown and unprovable tortures in the afterlife to make its point. So Jesus is a legitimate sacrifice and anybody who doesn't think so is insulting god and will go to hell! Hey! that's a pretty good argument.:notworthy

Opera Nut

I couldn't find the exact sermon, but I just posted this quote today in another thread in GRD so here goes:

QUOTING MYSELF:
Title: Believe the OT or the NT, logically you can't do both.

And here is a refutation of those claims from the FAQs section of www.jewsforjudaism.com.

I know we are not supposed to copy stuff from other websites, but I assume Magus55 would NOT go there and read that information because it contradicts his beliefs, so I'm posting it right here: ENDQUOTE MYSELF.


QUOTE:
Jewish Belief in Messiah

The Jewish Concept of Messiah and
the Jewish Response to Christian Claims

1) The word “Messiah” is an English rendering of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, whose translation is “Anointed”. It usually refers to a person initiated into G-d’s service by being anointed with oil. (Having oil poured on his head. Cf. Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3).

2) There are many Messiahs in the Bible. Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as “an anointed one” (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: “G-d forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the L-rd’s Messiah [Saul]...” I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6.

3) The Hebrew word “HaMashiach” (lit. the Messiah) describing a future anointed person to come does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible makes no explicit reference to the Messiah, it is unlikely that it could be considered the most important concept in the Bible. Indeed, in Jewish thought, the Messianic idea is not the most crucial. However, in Christian thought, the Messiah is paramount- a difficulty in light of its conspicuous absence from scripture.

4) Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of G-d. Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34.

5) Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.

6) Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed one as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

7) The Bible never speaks about believing in the Messiah. Because his reign will be an historically verifiable reality, self-evident to any person, it won’t require belief or faith.

8) Because no person has ever fulfilled the picture painted in the Bible of this future King, Jewish people still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

9) The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming (#5 above) don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.

10) According to Biblical tradition, Elijah the prophet will reappear before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6). In the Greek Testament, Jesus claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13). However, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he denied it (John 1:21). The Gospel of Luke 1:17 tries to get around this problem by claiming that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. However:

a] Malachi predicted that Elijah himself would return, and not just someone coming in his spirit.

b] When asked about his identity, John the Baptist didn’t claim to have come in the spirit of Elijah - he claimed no association with Elijah at all.

c] The prophesy about the return of Elijah says that he would restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. There is no evidence that John the Baptist accomplished this.

11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;

I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

If you have questions about what Judaism has said about the promised Messiah for the last three millenia or want to know how to answer the Christian claims, please check out our website: www.jewsforjudaism.org, drop us a line or give us a call. The concept of Messiah is Jewish. To find out about it go to the source.

ENDQUOTE
==========

Mike(ATL)

Kilgore, first let me say I'm trying to have a good discussion on the old and new covenant here and you keep saying things like "I guess you figure if you ignore something long enough it will go away." You also say I'm ignoring things when I clearly addressed those things in my earlier post. You seem to be much more interested in convincing others and possibly yourself than convincing me. It seems you already have me stereotyped as some kind of delusional self-assuring bible thumper. Since it seems we cannot have a civil discussion and I've already made my case I'll make my replies to what you said brief.

Not only because He said He is but he fulfilled all the prophecies about the Servant. Your case for our supposed circular logic is unsubstantiated. Hebrews explanations are not truth because they are explanations but because they are substantiated by OT prophecies the authority of Christ which is also backed by the OT.

I did not avoid that, the sacrificial laws are part of the old covenant. And come on don't waste my time, Jesus' sacrifice didn't count because he's not an animal in accordance with the Torah? By his sacrifice he established the new covenant! By your logic no new covenant (which was prophesied in the OT) could ever be established.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. As I said, the people with the law on their hearts are only those under the new covenant, "God's people." It doesn't say anywhere that everyone will have the law on their hearts.

All I was saying was Romans explains this, it doesn't prove it. Paul as an apostle of Christ (who is backed by OT prophecies) has authority. Nothing circular about that logic. How many times do I need to point out these OT prophecies fulfilled by Christ?

You're correct in a way, murder and adultery have been atoned for like every other sin. However, just as with every other sin, you would be sinning against God which would seriously impede your knowing Him. And as a follower of Christ you have no desire to do these things. The problem of, well my sin is atoned for so let's live it up, is addressed in several places in the NT. Let me know if you'd like some references. All of the mosaic law dealing with sacrifices and ritual to make yourself clean before God are no longer necessary since we have a perfect sacrifice. Therefore those things are no longer sinning against God. This is also explained in Hebrews and backed by the OT prophecies such as Daniel 9:27, Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 31.

Islam and Mormonism fail the Deut 18:22 tests. They were founded by false prophets. Jesus passes all of those tests, what test does He not pass? Hebrews and Paul never say anything contrary to God or make any false prophecies. Paul is granted a special authority as an apostle of Christ (backed by the OT). Since the author of Hebrews is anonymous if it said anything obviously wrong I would not pay any attention to the book. The book is mostly making a case for the new covenant, not presenting new information or divine commandments.

There is certainly an element of fear to the religion. We're commanded to fear God, wouldn't you? There's nothing wrong with having a reverent fear of the almighty sovereign creator of the universe who can destroy the planet with a breath. However what we do is certainly not based on fear. And greed, absolutely not. I personally think the modern church has too much of an emphasis on receiving blessings and not counting the cost. Even under that philosophy though the blessings should be to bring glory to God, not for personal gain.

Kilgore Trout

Mike(ATL) said:
First of all Paul claims he is an apostle of Christ so that proves nothing. The only "evidence" that Paul has any authority is he claims to have had a vision and that vision claimed to be Jesus. Anybody can say that. So what I said about Paul having no proof that he's not a false prophet stands.

And about Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies, well Jesus is NOT the servant of Isaiah 53. The servant refers to the nation of Israel. I am not going to get into a big argument about why Jesus is not the messiah because that is a really big subject. There have been lots of threads on this board that have refuted the claims that jesus was the messiah. If jesus "fulfills" any messianic prophecies it's only the ones that are easy. For example lots of people are a descendant of David, anybody can ride a donkey into Jerusalem etc.

Since the base of you argument revolves around all the OT prophecies that you claim point to jesus, then your whole argument falls apart because he isn't the messiah. Don't give me all those old lines like jesus fullfills 300 messianic prophecies because I've seen those "prophecies." I can refute all of them except maybe the ones that are too easy as I said above. If you are looking for honest answers I suggest you go ---here--- as a start. Otherwise I guess we can't have a civilized discussion because I am going to know that you are just ignoring the clear writings of the OT and you are just going to say that I am blind like your NT says about all of us "heathens" that don't accept your false messiah. That's another example of a great NT argument. Anybody who can actually read and understand the writings in the Hebrew bible is called "blind". If you can still think jesus is the messiah after reading the post by Opera Nut above and the site I gave then I know you are you are just accepting jesus as the messiah because he says he is, without using any good evidence.

I'd love to know what evidence you have that Mormonism and Islam fails the Deut 18:22 test but somehow the NT passes.

Mike(ATL)

OK, we'll leave the Messiah debate for other places. I've heard many "refutations" and I find them very unconvincing. Anyone can pick something here and something there and try to bend it to their viewpoint, there are certain things prophecied though that I don't understand how they can be disputed but somehow you all find a way to say it means something else. This debate is endless and proves the label of "freethinker" to absolutely be false advertising.

sharon45

Mike(ATL), you do as christians and the other religions to follow did in their "holy" works. They took what they had no real understanding of,(Judaism), added and edited it to their personal liking, then took offense when religions came along with their own take as well.

Sence you clearly don't understand the debate, but can't allow yourself to show weakness, you try to turn others' words around.

You only see and understand what you want to because of exactly the "fear and greed" that was pointed out earlier. That short but concise statement has to be overlooked by all with such beliefs as yours. This is because they don't realize something that seems so simple, yet in reality, is a complex explanation for one of the biggest reasons in the creation of religions.

Just as many many christians that I have already spoken to through the years have done, you act as a victim and give up, when no one is buying into your lies.

The one important thing that christians don't understand is, most that debate against them, understand their religious writings much more than they do. If any follower of christianity onward really understood their religions' writings, they would not be a member any longer.

The term "freethinker" can be misunderstood as well. Most religions really don't allow free thought, the right to question the religion, because that would have the religion appear as weak. The religion wants followers without a need to question the beliefs, to keep the real faults "hidden".

You are right in one fact though, this will be indeed endless until you are willing to be honest with yourself.

AquaVita

Given the current direction of this thread, I think it would be a good fit in BC&H.

rlogan

The argument I've seen the fundies come back with is that Hebrews 8 "new covenant" is "partially fulfilled".

This is in keeping with the "partially pregnant" and "partially human" principles.

the_cave

Kilgore, I don't understand where you're coming from. The dilemma is only true if you accept that the Torah really is absolutely inviolable down to the very letter, by any means whatsoever, and under a strictly literal interpretation.

Are you saying only the most devout Orthodox Jews have an authentic religious tradition?

CX

Seebs and Ifeel, can we please refrain from one line rhetorical posts?

Thanks,

CX - BC&H moderator