Christian Voice Rides Again (more Christian Bashing)

[exnihilo]

OK, Paul, in brief, my problem with the statement that there is no difference between Biblical Judaism and Biblical Christianity is this:

Jews take the Tanakh as a starting point, and the Torah in particular, and then apply it to every day life, discuss it, debate it, and generally approach it with an open-minded, questioning, and scholarly attitude. Much of which will be found in the Talmud, the Mishnah and in general Rabbinical teaching.

Christians take the Old Testament and scour it for ways to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in Isaiah. In general, they tend to ignore the bits they deem inconvenient and harp on about the bits that suit their own prejudices. Whereas the New is often used as little more than a stick with which to beat people, which is utterly contrary to the intent.

There is plenty more I could say on this, but won't as I expect to be 'shot down' with some New Testament quotations to demonstrate that I should ignore the Old or reject my faith and allow Jesus in instead - which just isn't going to work because, as Rob has pointed out, to accept the authority of your quotations I would need to recognise the authority of the quotes text, I don't. So, it becomes circular.

[Paul]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 07:11, 28th Jan 2005:
OK, Paul, in brief, my problem with the statement that there is no difference between Biblical Judaism and Biblical Christianity is this:

....


I take note of your comments. It confirms the approach I was planning to take.

Initially, I will be looking at how God deals with sin, and what changed after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I would then want to look at the nature of God in the Tanakh, particularly the 'echad' of the Torah as opposed to the 'yachid' of Maimonides.

I believe that these two areas will reveal the difference between Biblical Judaism before Jesus Christ and Biblical Judaism after Jesus Christ. This differed in the main from the Judaism practised by most Jews at the time of Christ and also how it differs from the Rabbinical Judaism of today.

[Paul]

Note: Talmud Quotations will be from the Rodkinson Translation available on line at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm and The Babylonian Talmud
edited by Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, available on line at http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/

This post relates to Biblical Judaism and will look at how God views and deals with sin. It will demonstrate that there is a difference between the time before Jesus Christ and the time after Jesus Christ. It is because of this difference that there is now no difference between Biblical Judaism and biblical Christianity.

I know it is a LONG post, but I believe it will be worth studying to the end. And yes. It contains quotes from both the Bible and the Talmud (English Translations).

The first mention we have of sin in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 3. This chapter tells of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command not to eat “of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden” (verse 3).

What happened when they sinned?

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” – Genesis 3:6-7

"They knew that they were naked” – They were ashamed and sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness. This is typical of man’s reaction to sin. He covers it up – either being knowingly committing the sin, but in secret – or by redefing the sin so that he can commit it openly without it being seen as seen.

How did God deal with this?
By providing a ‘type’ of how he viewed sin and what is required to restore a relationship with Him.

First there was the punishment – the curses – separation from God, being cast out of Eden (“But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” – Isaiah 59:2) – and death entered the world, as God had promised in Genesis 3:3:

“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” – Genesis 3:14-19

And the way back? God provided the remedy:

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” – Genesis 3:19

God covered their nakedness by sacrificing animals in order to clothe them. This demonstrated the serious way in which God views sin. It demonstrated that “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” – Hebrews 9:22.

The Talmud agrees:
R. Johanan says: In the same verse it is written, "For the blood it is that maketh an atonement for the soul." – Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom10.htm

This is why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected – for Abel’s was the sacrifice of a lamb, whose life was provided by God, whereas Cain’s was the product of his labour:

“And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” – Genesis 4:2b-5a

Abel’s offering followed the type set by God, whereas Cain’s did not.
God reinforced this type when he asked Abraham to sacrifice his only legitimate son – Isaac – and then provided the ram for the sacrifice Himself.

The point of all this sacrifice was to show the dire nature of sin – any sin – and what was required for it to be dealt with.

But there is more!

Before Jesus Christ came, sin was only “covered” – but not taken away. This is demonstrated by the Day of Atonement – “Yom Kippur” – the “Day of Covering”. The basic meaning of the root “k-p-r” is “to cover” as in the head covering worn by Jewish men, the kippa.

The blood of animals could not take away sin. This could only be done by the sinless sacrifice of the Redeemer provided by God himself. This was the price required to redeem that which was lost.

Job was familiar with this Redeemer.

“For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:” – Job 19:25

King David also knew this Redeemer, and knew him to be God himself:

“Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.” – Psalm 19:14

One day the whole world will know this Redeemer, but what a terrible day that will be:

“And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.” – Isaiah 49:26

Up to the time of Christ, the faithful departed could not enter into the presence of God, for their sin was only covered – but not taken away, so their souls were in “Sheol” (or Abraham’s Bosom, or Paradise as the New Testament would have it) separated from the unfaithful by a great gulf. Please read the account of this place in Luke 16:19-31 http://www.kingjamesbible.com/B42C016.htm

John the Baptist clearly recognised the reality of this when he saw Jesus Christ and compared him to the Passover Lamb:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.” – John 1:29-30

Notice that John also was aware of Jesus Christ’s pre-existence, and thus his divinity.

On the day he died, he said to the repentant thief on the cross, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” – Luke 23:43.

But after his ascension to heaven there would be a difference to where the souls of the faithful would go after death. Those faithful who had already died were taken up into heaven with him:

“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” – Ephesians 4:8

And now when the faithful die, they go directly to be with him:

“We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” – II Corinthians 5:8

So now there is no need for sacrifice any more – no need for the Temple and its priests.

The Talmud bears this out, that when Christ was crucified, forty years before the destruction of the Temple, a number of miraculous events stopped occurring – and in particular, the changing of the crimson thread from the scape-goat to white:

“The rabbis taught: Formerly the tongue of crimson wool used to be tied to the door of the porch, outside (that all should see).” - Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah

“R. Ishmael says: Why, they had another sign. A tongue of crimson wool used to be tied to the gate of the Temple, and as the he-goat had reached the desert, the wool used to become [by miracle] white; as it is said: "Though your sins be scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall become like wool" [Isaiah i. 18].” – Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom11.htm

“The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves” – Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah 39b http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” – Hebrews 9:14

So there is a difference between Biblical Judaism before Christ, and Biblical Judaism after Christ – namely, being freed from the sacrificial law (but not from the moral law).

One last point – This event happened at exactly the time expected. There are a number of biblical prophecies concerning this which can be read here http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/r ... keptic.htm , but there are also references in the Talmud.

“The Rabbis also saw that the Passover lamb was hidden in the temple for four days before it was sacrificed. They saw the Messiah referred to as "the Sun of Righteousness" and linked it to the sun's creation on the fourth day. From these foreshadows, they believed the Messiah would come after four thousand years from Adam.” – Quoted from http://www.ehope.com/6000.html ( I am sorry, but I can not find a talmudic reference to this on-line – perhaps you can provide it, exnihilo!)

"The Tanna debe Eliyyahu taught, "The world is to exist six thousand years; the first two thousand years are to be void. The next two thousand years are the period of the Torah, and the following two thousand years are the period of the Messiah. Through our many sins a number of these days have already passed, [and the Messiah is not yet.]" - Avodah Zarah 9a, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Edition - http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_9.html

But the Messiah did come!!!

“And when he” [that is Jesus the Messiah] “was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” – Luke 19:41-44

[exnihilo]

I stand corrected, you can quote from other sources than the New Testament. Thanks. But you have, if you don't mind my saying so, aq cheek in quoting the Talmud at me.

Finally, YOU QUOTE FROM A MESSIAH I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE - what part of that is so bloody hard for you to grasp????

[Paul]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 17:26, 28th Jan 2005:
But you have, if you don't mind my saying so, aq cheek in quoting the Talmud at me.

Finally, YOU QUOTE FROM A MESSIAH I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE - what part of that is so bloody hard for you to grasp????



I thought I was doing what you had recommended in an earlier post, namely start with the Torah (Genesis)"and then apply it to every day life, discuss it, debate it, and generally approach it with an open-minded, questioning, and scholarly attitude."

Being open-minded would also include looking at the claim that Jesus was/is the Messiah. Surely it is open-minded to at least examine the claim, and not simply reject it out of hand.

My next post would start with Genesis 1:1 if that is agreeable, and largely remain in the Tanakh.

[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[laura]

Well i'm going to throw my tuppence worth in seeing as everybody else has! What exinhilo wrote about Christian interpretation of the Old and New Testament served only to insult which is a shame because he sounds fairly educated and certainly seems to have a sound knowledge of his own faith.

What is with the whole 'make no reference the the Bible' thing? Is the basis of this thread - which, forgive me for assuming it was for everybody's opinion - to only allow people to post under the terms they don't quote from the very core of their faith which you are calling into question?

To answer the original point of this thread, despite digressing somewhat, everybody is free to their own opinion and if certain Christians felt offended by the Jerry Springer Opera then, of course, they are well within their rights to complain. However, this harrassment of BBC employees is utterly disgusting and they are not promoting Christianity whatsoever.

Hope that makes sense and please note it is not meant to offend anybody or call anyone's reasons for their faith into question. Everybody's faith is what they feel is right to them and therefore no one that hasn't researched it has the right to slag it just because they decided it wasn't right for them.

[Just Asking]

"Abortion = Deliberate Killing = Murder" is a quote taken from the home page of : http://www.uklifeleague.com/

Do you agree?

If yes, why?

If not, Why not?

Warning: The above web-site contains graphic images (but not on the home page)!

[exnihilo]

1) To All: READ some of what I have said.

2) Paul: discuss your flase Messiah or drop out of the debate? I'll drop out, thanks.

3) Laura: behave.

[Paul]

[s]Unregisted User laura wrote on 09:07, 28th Jan 2005:
Well i'm going to throw my tuppence worth in seeing as everybody else has!

Hi Laura, I, at least, appreciate your 'tuppence worth' - Don't undervalue yourself! - and find nothing wrong with your behaviour!


[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[Paul]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 21:02, 28th Jan 2005:

2) Paul: discuss your flase Messiah or drop out of the debate? I'll drop out, thanks.



Exnihilo, you refuse to debate my “false Messiah”.

Well, I challenge you to prove that your God is not false. How do you explain the following passage where the angel of the LORD is called God:

“Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” – Exodus 3:1-6

Or this one, where God is both on earth and in heaven at the same time:

“And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. …
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;” – Genesis 18:20-21 & 19:24.

Do we not here have a plural God (and this is just two out of many instances that could be brought from the Tanakh and from Jewish literature of antiquity – especially the Targums and Zohar.



[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[Dr Strangelust]

[s]Unregisted User Just Asking wrote on 11:05, 28th Jan 2005:[i]
"Abortion = Deliberate Killing = Murder"

"Abortion = Deliberate Killing = Murder"

Well, deliberate killing only equals murder if the victim and killer are both human. The question, therefore, is whether a foetis should be considered a human. Is a group of cells the size of a pin-head a human? A tiny growth with no eyes, no heart and no brain? It is a potential human certainly but so is every egg and sperm.

The question of where to draw the line is a difficult one because nature does not work that way. I would dissagree with the view that a fertilised egg is a human although I understand how one of a religious bent could see this point as as the moment when a soul is created.

[exnihilo]

[s]Paul wrote on 18:18, 28th Jan 2005:
Being open-minded would also include looking at the claim that Jesus was/is the Messiah. Surely it is open-minded to at least examine the claim, and not simply reject it out of hand.


Why would you assume I reject it out of hand? For me to do so would be as bad as to accept it without question. I reject it on the basis of my knowledge and understanding, not as an article of faith. However, faith enters into the equation, I do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God, I do not believe him to be the Messiah foretold in Isaiah. You will say he fulfils that prophecy, I will say that the evidence for that comes solely and exclusively from people in whose interest it was to demonstrate that. That is no evidence at all.

As to your quotations about the plurality of God, what tosh and what a skewed reading of the Torah for that matter. The facetious response is God being in two places simultaneously is hardly a great feat for an omnipotent being, nor should you judge him by the standards of humans. He is wholly other than we, another reason why the idea that an itinerant rabbi somehow personified God is entirely laughable. A more correct response would be to refer you to the fact that God has emissaries to do His bidding which have, at times, been confused with God Himself (need I tell you the stories of Metatron?) by ignorant men.

Don't believe everything you read, and, in the words of Thomas Aquinas: beware the man of only one book.

[Paul]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 16:27, 29th Jan 2005:
[s]Paul wrote on 18:18, 28th Jan 2005:[i]
Being open-minded would also include looking at the claim that Jesus was/is the Messiah. Surely it is open-minded to at least examine the claim, and not simply reject it out of hand.


Why would you assume I reject it out of hand? For me to do so would be as bad as to accept it without question. I reject it on the basis of my knowledge and understanding, not as an article of faith
[/i]

In that case I would suggest that your knowledge is wanting.

As far as I understand it, Judaism is still expecting the Messiah. The Tanakh gives us some clear guidelines as the time of his coming.

For example, the prophet Daniel was taken captive to Babylon in 605BCE when Nebuchadnezzar subdued Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon’s Temple. In the first year of the reign of Darius, Daniel was visited by the angel Gabriel, who told him the following:

“And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” – Daniel 9:22-27

From this we see that:
[nl]
[li]There would be a command to rebuild the Temple and the city wall
[li]The Messiah would come
[li]The city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary would be destroyed
[/nl]

From this we know that the Messiah would not come before the Temple and city wall were rebuilt. (1)

We know that the Temple and city wall were rebuilt under Nehemiah 444 – 425BCE.

After the Messiah came, the rebuilt Temple and the city would be destroyed. (3) We know that this happened in 70CE and then more thoroughly in 140CE.

According to Daniel, the Messiah had to come between these two events.

If the Messiah did not come, then Daniel was a false prophet, and if Daniel was a false prophet, then what else is to be trusted in the Tanakh?

So how can you believe that, if the Messiah did not come when predicted, Judaism is still a valid faith?

But we know that the Messiah came exactly when predicted (2)– which was 483 prophetic years (60 x 7 weeks of 360-day years = 173,880 days) after the command to rebuild the Temple.

[s]exnihilo wrote on 16:27, 29th Jan 2005:
Don't believe everything you read, and, in the words of Thomas Aquinas: [i]beware the man of only one book.
[/i]

Just as a matter of interest, I have done a quick count of books to either side of me and in easy reach as I type – they amount to some 300 – in a number of languages and on such varied subjects as the Bible (surprise!), theology, computing, law, economics, astronomy and astro-physics, history, accounting, carpentry, joinery, mathematics and statistics, management, travel, cookery, Israel and more. And in the bookshelves behind me there are as many again, which include the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, Krishna, two different editions of the New World Translation, books on German Jews, the Holocaust, Yiddish, etc. And there are more bookshelves downstairs.

Having said all that, I would agree with Thomas Aquinas in a particular way. The man whose life, whose eyes and ears, God has opened to his Holy Bible (all 66 books), is formidable. Did you see that!!! One book – the Holy Bible – 66 books – the Holy Bible – Remind you of the Triune God?

And then there is, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:” – [ two people] – “and they shall be one” – [echad!] – “flesh.” – Genesis 1:24


[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[macgamer]

I've noticed that there are so many long religious posts on the main sinner message board.

I propose a dedicated message board for religious banter and arguments, to help eliminate threads of 200 or more posts in length.

This will provide for more specialised discussion rather than very long rambling arguments that stray from the original topic.

Why doesn't someone suggest it to the Sinner moderators!

[exnihilo]

The Bible as metaphor for the Trinity? Behave yourself. I've read over your post and it seems to say, in a nutshell, Christ is the Messiah, you are wrong to think otherwise. Well, sorry, but I do think otherwise, and so do a great many other people. I do NOT accept man as God, and you can quote as much of the Bible as you like, Christ will NEVER be my God.

[Livia]

Paul, given your evident interest in finding meaning in books, may I enquire if you have ever read "The Moonstone" by Wilkie Collins? It's a marvellous book - contrived, predictable and in places utterly illogical but at the same time a thumping great detective story. I ask because of the unique (for it's day)style in which it is written. The story is told chronologically but from the perspective of different characters throughout, so as to compare the differing opinions and reactions of the various protagonists to the events (and also allow for a broad-ranging story).

In particular, I would draw your attention to Miss Drusilla Clack, a busy-body of a spinster with a penchant for "Christian Evangelical Interference" and the deplorable habit of lying biblical and moral tracts around for people to find and, she hopes, study in depth to find their spiritual meaning. Did I mention that this character from a serialized Victorian melodrama was considered a figure of fun and ridicule even 150 years ago? (I should clairfy that her faith was not the laughing point, just her abstruse belief in her ability to convert the "vacuous moral decay" around her)

You may well have a responsibility to evangelise, but try to bear in mind that some people aren't ignorant of the facts you present, they have simply reached a different conclusion. Far be it from my humble self to make the claim, but I doubt very much you are privy to information the rest of us are not - again, not to suggest you are in any way credulous, but consider that lack of Christian faith does not preclude one from possessing the skills necessary to appreciate make a determination on these matters.

[Paul]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 11:06, 30th Jan 2005:
I've read over your post and it seems to say, in a nutshell, Christ is the Messiah, you are wrong to think otherwise. Well, sorry, but I do think otherwise, and so do a great many other people. I do NOT accept man as God, and you can quote as much of the Bible as you like, Christ will NEVER be my God.



The main point of the post was to demonstrate that the Tanakh gave a window of time in which the Messiah had to come.

You say "I do NOT accept man as God". All right, let's ask this question.

Do you accept [url] man as Messiah?

The Talmud quite plainly equates 'Messiah' to 'Son of David'.

It also speaks of Solomon as the son of David. Plainly, Solomon was a man, though not the Messiah. The point is, the Messiah has to have King David in his family tree - and he has to be a man!

So, which man, living within the required window of time, fits the picture?

If you can not find anyone, then the prophecy was not fulfilled! But then the Tanakh is unreliable!


[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[Paul]

[s]Unregisted User Livia wrote on 17:14, 29th Jan 2005:
Paul, given your evident interest in finding meaning in books, may I enquire if you have ever read "The Moonstone" by Wilkie Collins?

No - although my wife has. If I can find a copy, I will read it.


[s]Unregisted User Livia wrote on 17:14, 29th Jan 2005:
In particular, I would draw your attention to Miss Drusilla Clack, a busy-body of a spinster with a penchant for "Christian Evangelical Interference" and the deplorable habit of lying biblical and moral tracts around for people to find and, she hopes, study in depth to find their spiritual meaning. Did I mention that this character from a serialized Victorian melodrama was considered a figure of fun and ridicule even 150 years ago? (I should clairfy that her faith was not the laughing point, just her abstruse belief in her ability to convert the "vacuous moral decay" around her)

I accept the ridicule as a small price to pay for being obedient to Christ's command to preach the Gospel to every creature. The following is the commission which Paul gave to Timothy:

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." - II Timothy 4:1-4

That time has come !!!


[s]Unregisted User Livia wrote on 17:14, 29th Jan 2005:
You may well have a responsibility to evangelise, but try to bear in mind that some people aren't ignorant of the facts you present, they have simply reached a different conclusion.

I agree that it is true of SOME people that they are in possession of the facts, but my experience is that MANY are ignorant of them - relying on fables and urban myths which they have heard about Christianity.



[s]Unregisted User Livia wrote on 17:14, 29th Jan 2005:
Far be it from my humble self to make the claim, but I doubt very much you are privy to information the rest of us are not - again, not to suggest you are in any way credulous, but consider that lack of Christian faith does not preclude one from possessing the skills necessary to appreciate make a determination on these matters.


"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." - Hebrews 11:6

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." - Proverbs 3:5


[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[Manic23]

[s]Paul wrote on 16:56, 28th Jan 2005:
Note: Talmud Quotations will be from the Rodkinson Translation available on line at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm and The Babylonian Talmud
edited by Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, available on line at http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/

This post relates to Biblical Judaism and will look at how God views and deals with sin. It will demonstrate that there is a difference between the time before Jesus Christ and the time after Jesus Christ. It is because of this difference that there is now no difference between Biblical Judaism and biblical Christianity.

I know it is a LONG post, but I believe it will be worth studying to the end. And yes. It contains quotes from both the Bible and the Talmud (English Translations).

The first mention we have of sin in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 3. This chapter tells of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command not to eat “of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden” (verse 3).

What happened when they sinned?

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” – Genesis 3:6-7

"They knew that they were naked” – They were ashamed and sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness. This is typical of man’s reaction to sin. He covers it up – either being knowingly committing the sin, but in secret – or by redefing the sin so that he can commit it openly without it being seen as seen.

How did God deal with this?
By providing a ‘type’ of how he viewed sin and what is required to restore a relationship with Him.

First there was the punishment – the curses – separation from God, being cast out of Eden (“But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” – Isaiah 59:2) – and death entered the world, as God had promised in Genesis 3:3:

“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” – Genesis 3:14-19

And the way back? God provided the remedy:

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” – Genesis 3:19

God covered their nakedness by sacrificing animals in order to clothe them. This demonstrated the serious way in which God views sin. It demonstrated that “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” – Hebrews 9:22.

The Talmud agrees:
R. Johanan says: In the same verse it is written, "For the blood it is that maketh an atonement for the soul." – Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom10.htm

This is why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected – for Abel’s was the sacrifice of a lamb, whose life was provided by God, whereas Cain’s was the product of his labour:

“And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” – Genesis 4:2b-5a

Abel’s offering followed the type set by God, whereas Cain’s did not.
God reinforced this type when he asked Abraham to sacrifice his only legitimate son – Isaac – and then provided the ram for the sacrifice Himself.

The point of all this sacrifice was to show the dire nature of sin – any sin – and what was required for it to be dealt with.

But there is more!

Before Jesus Christ came, sin was only “covered” – but not taken away. This is demonstrated by the Day of Atonement – “Yom Kippur” – the “Day of Covering”. The basic meaning of the root “k-p-r” is “to cover” as in the head covering worn by Jewish men, the kippa.

The blood of animals could not take away sin. This could only be done by the sinless sacrifice of the Redeemer provided by God himself. This was the price required to redeem that which was lost.

Job was familiar with this Redeemer.

“For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:” – Job 19:25

King David also knew this Redeemer, and knew him to be God himself:

“Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.” – Psalm 19:14

One day the whole world will know this Redeemer, but what a terrible day that will be:

“And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.” – Isaiah 49:26

Up to the time of Christ, the faithful departed could not enter into the presence of God, for their sin was only covered – but not taken away, so their souls were in “Sheol” (or Abraham’s Bosom, or Paradise as the New Testament would have it) separated from the unfaithful by a great gulf. Please read the account of this place in Luke 16:19-31 http://www.kingjamesbible.com/B42C016.htm

John the Baptist clearly recognised the reality of this when he saw Jesus Christ and compared him to the Passover Lamb:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.” – John 1:29-30

Notice that John also was aware of Jesus Christ’s pre-existence, and thus his divinity.

On the day he died, he said to the repentant thief on the cross, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” – Luke 23:43.

But after his ascension to heaven there would be a difference to where the souls of the faithful would go after death. Those faithful who had already died were taken up into heaven with him:

“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” – Ephesians 4:8

And now when the faithful die, they go directly to be with him:

“We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” – II Corinthians 5:8

So now there is no need for sacrifice any more – no need for the Temple and its priests.

The Talmud bears this out, that when Christ was crucified, forty years before the destruction of the Temple, a number of miraculous events stopped occurring – and in particular, the changing of the crimson thread from the scape-goat to white:

“The rabbis taught: Formerly the tongue of crimson wool used to be tied to the door of the porch, outside (that all should see).” - Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah

“R. Ishmael says: Why, they had another sign. A tongue of crimson wool used to be tied to the gate of the Temple, and as the he-goat had reached the desert, the wool used to become [by miracle] white; as it is said: "Though your sins be scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall become like wool" [Isaiah i. 18].” – Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom11.htm

“The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves” – Babylonian Talmud – Tractate Yomah 39b http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” – Hebrews 9:14

So there is a difference between Biblical Judaism before Christ, and Biblical Judaism after Christ – namely, being freed from the sacrificial law (but not from the moral law).

One last point – This event happened at exactly the time expected. There are a number of biblical prophecies concerning this which can be read here http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/r ... keptic.htm , but there are also references in the Talmud.

“The Rabbis also saw that the Passover lamb was hidden in the temple for four days before it was sacrificed. They saw the Messiah referred to as "the Sun of Righteousness" and linked it to the sun's creation on the fourth day. From these foreshadows, they believed the Messiah would come after four thousand years from Adam.” – Quoted from http://www.ehope.com/6000.html ( I am sorry, but I can not find a talmudic reference to this on-line – perhaps you can provide it, exnihilo!)

"The Tanna debe Eliyyahu taught, "The world is to exist six thousand years; the first two thousand years are to be void. The next two thousand years are the period of the Torah, and the following two thousand years are the period of the Messiah. Through our many sins a number of these days have already passed, [and the Messiah is not yet.]" - Avodah Zarah 9a, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Edition - http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_9.html

But the Messiah did come!!!

“And when he” [that is Jesus the Messiah] “was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” – Luke 19:41-44


I have nothing to add to this debate, I just wanted to make a reeeeaallllly long post.

Incidently, Paul: You wouldn't happen to be the reincarnation of Martin Luther/Huldrych Zwingli, would you?

Oh, and I'm a practising Catholic by the way. Am I going to burn in the firey lake?

[exnihilo]

Only if there's room once all the atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, practitioners of various aboriginal religions across the globe, homosexuals, adulterers, theives, murderers, and generally bed eggs are thrown in.