[JoeT777]

It's their best hook for taking people out of the Catholic church as Catholics have no explanation and little knowledge of the scriptures.

I would suggest that Catholic's have an objective view of Christ based on Scriptures and Church Tradition and thereby resist subjecting God's will and God's salvation to their own purpose.

JoeT

[ScottRC]

I would suggest that Catholic’s have an objective view of Christ based on Scriptures and Church Tradition and thereby resist subjecting God’s will and God’s salvation to their own purpose.

On the money as usual Joe.

While Mr. Wilson's statement certainly was true in years past, I do think the last 100 years or so has lead to a profound appreciation and emphasis on Biblical understanding... and this may actually be a "fruit" of the Reformation and our non-Catholic brothers and sisters wonderful devotion to the Word of God.

But unfortunately, I think a lack of education on the history of the Christian faith is a detriment to those outside the RCC... ZachZ's questions were answered more than a thousand years ago by the Ecumenical Councils... and if more Christians were educated about this part of their history, I think it would be a lot easier to explain our faith to someone who has tough questions like his.

[wildandblue]

ZachZ its blatantly apparently that you asked a question which you DO NOT TRUELY want an answer to. It seems that you get off on your self righteous and rather annoying attempts to entrap well meaning christians in a game of semantics. Therefore, Im over it.
May God give you clarity.

Duhhh this is me slapping myself in the forehead. Of course. You are the oracle with the unanswerable question. If these Christians come along and answer it, you are not. Which is why me telling you in my original response none of your answers are true led to you telling me I am not a Christian, which I couldn't quite see the reason for at the time.:rolleyes:

[wildandblue]

If you say "God the father resurrected him" then you prove that Jesus was NOT God in full because a separate God entity did the resurrecting. This violates the 'trinity.'

Answer B)

Not to mention that human sacrifice is explicitly forbidden by Torah, and the manner of death runs afoul of at least a dozen laws regarding kosher sin sacrifice: The death wasn't by kosher shecht (slaughter), the offering was not made at the Temple, the offering wasn't made by Temple priests, the body wasn't without physical blemish, etc. This makes Christianity a religion based upon an unkosher, human sacrifice.



Any Christian out there want to take a shot at it?

Look at Judges 11:29--40, Deuteronomy 23:21--23, and Leviticus 27:26--29 they all mention human sacrifices under the law. St. Paul's letter to the Romans 11:19--36 is also helpful in understanding this issue.

[ZachZ]

A question I have always wondered is why if Jews do not believe Jesus was the sacrifice then why do they not sacrifice animals any more like in the Torah and why when Jesus died did the veil tear?

I had heard about this story of the Temple curtain (actually called the parochet) before but didn't know much about it. This turns out to be because the story of its tearing only seems to appear in the Greek writings. I found no references to it in any authentic Jewish historical documents. It is not in Josephus' Antiquities. It in fact only appears in one of the so-called 'synoptic gospels'--the story about it is curiously absent from the other three.

So what do Jews believe about the significance of this story? There is none, it's another uncorroborated, made-up story in the Greek writings.

If I had to invent a meaning for it, though, here it is: God is indeed mourning the death of His first-born son: Israel (as Israel is mentioned by name as His first-born son in Exodus 4:22). God saw the impending destruction of the Temple, expulsion of His chosen people from their homeland, and the invention of a new death-mythos religion centered around an apostate man-god that will account for the apostasy and deaths of millions of His children for centuries to come.

Why wouldn't this explanation be at least as satisfactory as yours?

But again -- this is off topic.

[mountain_man]

I had heard about this story of the Temple curtain (actually called the parochet) before but didn't know much about it. This turns out to be because the story of its tearing only seems to appear in the Greek writings. I found no references to it in any authentic Jewish historical documents. It is not in Josephus' Antiquities. It in fact only appears in one of the so-called 'synoptic gospels'--the story about it is curiously absent from the other three.

So what do Jews believe about the significance of this story? There is none, it's another uncorroborated, made-up story in the Greek writings.

If I had to invent a meaning for it, though, here it is: God is indeed mourning the death of His first-born son: Israel (as Israel is mentioned by name as His first-born son in Exodus 4:22). God saw the impending destruction of the Temple, expulsion of His chosen people from their homeland, and the invention of a new death-mythos religion centered around an apostate man-god that will account for the apostasy and deaths of millions of His children for centuries to come.

Why wouldn't this explanation be at least as satisfactory as yours?

But again -- this is off topic.

Are you of strict Jewish faith and if so do you still sacrifice as required?

[JoeT777]

I had heard about this story of the Temple curtain (actually called the parochet) before but didn't know much about it. This turns out to be because the story of its tearing only seems to appear in the Greek writings. I found no references to it in any authentic Jewish historical documents. It is not in Josephus' Antiquities. It in fact only appears in one of the so-called 'synoptic gospels'--the story about it is curiously absent from the other three.

So what do Jews believe about the significance of this story? There is none, it's another uncorroborated, made-up story in the Greek writings.

If I had to invent a meaning for it, though, here it is: God is indeed mourning the death of His first-born son: Israel (as Israel is mentioned by name as His first-born son in Exodus 4:22). God saw the impending destruction of the Temple, expulsion of His chosen people from their homeland, and the invention of a new death-mythos religion centered around an apostate man-god that will account for the apostasy and deaths of millions of His children for centuries to come.

Why wouldn't this explanation be at least as satisfactory as yours?

But again -- this is off topic.

In all of Antiquities this is the only statement made of Christ; seems impressive to me that Josephus was scared to call him a man. So you should make a point that he doesn’t say “and the veil was torn”?

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, Chapter 3.

[cogs]

...ZachZ's questions were answered more than a thousand years ago by the Ecumenical Councils.... and if more Christians were educated about this part of their history, I think it would be a lot easier to explain our faith to someone who has tough questions like his.

I didn't even know they were something to study until now. One reason, is that I'm not catholic, so I only study the bible, or other ancient books.
When someone starts quoting anything other than the bible to support their view, I read it as only a curiosity, because those things are doing what we are, interpreting what the ancient books say, or contain. So catholics, or any religion, who reference their religion's 'guides to understanding', do not convince me of anything concerning my faith.

[JoeT777]

i didn't even know they were somthing to study until now. one reason, is that i'm not catholic, so i only study the bible, or other ancient books.
when someone starts quoting anything other than the bible to support their view, i read it as only a curiosity, because those things are doing what we are, interpreting what the ancient books say, or contain. so catholics, or any religion, who reference their religion's 'guides to understanding', do not convince me of anything concerning my faith.

Cogs:

Let me recommend that you read just one or two of the “Fathers” of the Catholic Church. The ones listed as “Doctor” are theological doctors. These are usually the works relied on for Church Doctrine. Their writings go back to the very dawn of Christendom – some authors were likely to have known and communicated with the Apostle John.

St. Augustine of Hippo is my favorite – the City of God.

With Augustine, probably the most important is St. John Chrysostom. The issues some have been beating me about the head and shoulders were discussed in great detail – and they are Scripturally supported. So when a Catholic gives, as an example, a citation of St. Chrysostom they assume you understand there is a complete scriptural treatise behind the statement.

And if nothing else, it will broaden the base of your knowledge.

I recommend this particular site only because many of the Scriptures cited are linked to Scripture, Book and verse.
CHURCH FATHERS: Home

JoeT

[cogs]

Lol, when I try to say thanks, it gives me this:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JoeT777 again.

But thank you. In the blue letter bible online, I read the commentaries, mostly by matthew henry 1706-1714. I suppose that's what you gave me, commentaries that go way back. Thank you.

[JoeT777]

lol, when i try to say thanks, it gives me this:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JoeT777 again.

but thank you. in the blue letter bible online, i read the commentaries, mostly by matthew henry 1706-1714. i suppose that's what you gave me, commentaries that go way back. thank you.

Well that's OK, my reputation is bad enough around here - I seem to rub against the nap somehow.

No, its not quite the same thing - its more a understanding the "roots" thing. But if that works for you, that's fine all the same. If it's the Catholic site that bothers you, there are others that carry it. Just Google it.

Thanks,

JoeT

[arcura]

ZackZ,
All three person in the trinity are of infinite and eternal attributes that includes power, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, ability, and much more.
Therefore God (the Father, or the Holy Spirit) could have raised Jesus, God the Son, from the dead.
The bible simply says that God raised Jesus from the dead not mentioning which person of the trinity did it.
From my point of view and that of the bible, that satifactorily answers your question.
:) Peace and kindness,:)
Fred (arcura)

[Peter Wilson]

"]Agreed! It still astounds me that so many people try to get around using every rationalization in the book, no matter how specious! The Tanak says: God is not a man, No likeness of God was seen, God changes not, God is ONE. Why do you disagree?

Moses saw God face to face, so some-one did see the likeness of God.

Exodus 33:11

11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.


How-ever, I was making the point that we may not necessarily look like God, but we are MADE like Him.
In Genesis, God said,

26 Then God said, "Let US make man in our likeness in our image, , and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice God said "Our" not "My", and "Us" not "Me".

Again in Genesis 11
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Again, God is talking to the Son and in agreement in the Spirit, go down as one.



You are saying the separate 'persons' of God have separate wills and it is (theoretically) possible for them to disagree with each other?

God is perfect, there is no shadow of turning, so no, it is impossible for Jesus or God the Father to disagree.
Each love to please each other and this is what they are trying to teach us.


OK which one of the three was killed on the cross? Which one did the resurrecting?

Why would you ask such an obvious question, you know who died for your sin, if you don't, then you will have to give account, standing on your own righteousness.

In John 10

14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Jesus lay down His own life in obedience to the Father, in doing this, God gave him the authority to take it up again.
Even though, ultimately, it was God's power that raised Jesus from the dead,
it was the authority over death, that Jesus, as a man, won back for mankind, the very authority that Adam forfeited to the devil.
Jesus, Himself now has the keys to death and Hades.

Revelation 1:18

18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.





I understand you believe it, but people believe all sorts of crazy, anti-biblical things.
It is clear to me that it wasn't God you were listening to when you chose to embrace these ideas.

How is it clear to you, you don't even seem to believe in God, how do you know how He reveals Himself to His people.
God is Spirit, therefore He is supernatural.
In the Old Testament, He revealed Himself in darkness and thunder and smoke and fire and various other ways.
If God actually shows up in the supernatural these days, no-one believes it.
If those that practice the occult have dreams or visions, then this is widely accepted and people chase after it.
I choose to believe God, I have seen the other side and inquired of it for years.
I even lived with a lady that was famous for her fortune telling, she read my cards one day, and told me that I would meet a girl with red hair, there would be a child, but it wouldn't be mine.
Her name would be "The dark one" and we would never be married.
I did meet a girl, called Kerry, this name means "the dark one".
She had red hair and she did have a child, she fell pregnant to some-one else while we were engaged, I was going to kill the other guy.
Twice I attempted it, the first time, an angel stopped me, the second time, God spoke to me in an audible voice and told me to "NOW,GO AND GET BAPTIZED"
Guess what, I did, and that's when I started to follow Jesus in truth.



Based on your answers, it appears that you are a polytheist. You believe in separate god-'persons' with individual wills. That makes 3 gods.

What I believe in is that there is a Father , a Son who have separate personalities, and are separate people.
They have individual wills, but they join together as one will, and this is The Spirit of God,
Though the Spirit is much more, it is the joining together of all that is in the Father with all that is in the Son, thereby making a third person, truly God and truly Jesus.
Just as you and your wife are one, (if you have a wife, that is), you both have individual wills, but after marriage, come together to have the same will and desires.
God's idea for marriage is the relationship that He shares with His Son.
And the one that His Son wants to share with us.

John 17

9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

Jesus Prays for All Believers

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me.
26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Cheers.:)

[arcura]

Peter Wilson,
Please don't use the light green color.
I can not read it.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[0rphan]

arcura, I'm so glad you said that( green) I thought my eye sight was failing for a minute there... phew!

Blessings

[arcura]

0rphan,
I'm happy that what I said may be of help for you and others who could not read that light green writing.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[ZachZ]

Look at Judges 11:29--40, Deuteronomy 23:21--23, and Leviticus 27:26--29 they all mention human sacrifices under the law.

WHAT?????

Are we reading the same bible??

First off:

You may cause a gentile to take interest, but you may not cause your brother to take interest, so that Hashem, your God, will bless you in your every undertaking on the Land to which you are coming, to possess it. When you make a vow to Hashem, your God, you shall not be late in paying it, for Hashem, your God, will demand it of you, and there will be a sin in you.

No mention of human sacrifice. Did you quote the wrong verse or something.

However, a firstborn that will become a firstling for Hashem among livestock, a man shall not consecrate it; whether it is of oxen or of the flock, it is Hashem's. If among the unclean animals, he shall redeem it according to the valuation and add a fifth to it; and if it is not redeemed it shall be sold for its valuation.

However, any segregated property that a man will segregate for the sake of Hashem (חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יַחֲרִם אִישׁ לַיהוָה--cherem asher yacharim ish l'Adonay), from anything that is his -- whether human, animal, or the field of his ancestral heritage -- may not be sold and may not be redeemed, any segregated item may be most holy to Hashem.

Any condemned person [this is speaking of a criminal sentenced with a death penalty] who has been banned from mankind(חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יָחֳרַם מִן-הָאָדָם--cherem asher yochoram min-ha'adam) shall not be redeemed; he shall be put to death.

No mention of human sacrifice.

As for Judges 11:29-40, this is God teaching the stupid Yiftach a lesson: Don't play games with God. The offering he will make is unknown to him at the time he makes it? Show me how this is accordance with the rules of sacrifice in Leviticus. The chronicles in Sofrim--especially one this indistinct--CANNOT override TORAH! If you want to find out about acceptable sacrifices, you look FIRST to TORAH, and then to Prophets. You may then read Judges with that understanding.

Even the Christian commentaries I read on this describe Yiftach as semi-pagan, for example:

Bred up as he had been, beyond the Jordan, where the Israelitish tribes, far from the tabernacle, were looser in their religious sentiments, and living latterly on the borders of a heathen country where such sacrifices were common, it is not improbable that he may have been so ignorant as to imagine that a similar immolation would be acceptable to God.

And finally, I am not even sure why I have to argue this, because this chapter clearly isn't even an example of a sin sacrifice in the first place!

Let me be VERY clear: HUMAN SACRIFICE IS CLEARLY CIRCUMSCRIBED BY JUDAISM.

St. Paul's letter to the Romans 11:19--36 is also helpful in understanding this issue.

Nothing from the Greek writings can be helpful.

[ZachZ]

I know there are some older posts I still am committed to respond to, and I apologize for not getting to them quicker, but BS"D I shall.

It is nearly Shabbos, good weekend to you.

[msrandolph]

How about the holy ghost, isn't that what landed on him when he was baptised by John the Baptist in the form of a Dove. Or the Holy spirit.

[wildandblue]

Yes the holy ghost is the third part of the triangle, sort of God's active force. Was supposed to have come on the Apostles at Pentecost and that is what is passed on to priests etc by the laying on of hands.