Posted on 03/01/2007 8:30:44 PM PST by blasater1960
Mmmmmm......
BBQ Beef and Matzos...
Now where do I find that pic of Homer Simpson drooling.....
Not sure but maybe Kinky Friedman is in on this somewhere. :)
I agree. According to OT scripture, ALL men are always sinners
Psalm 14:2The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.
to justify their belief that the death of Jesus (a man who, yes, accomplished basically nothing) had somehow "supplanted" the need to do good works and follow the law.
Paul agrees with you
Ephesians 2:8According to the Psalmist we can never do good works. According to Paul that through Christ we can do good works because of God's workmanship and preparation in advance for us. If doing good works is what you believe is central to salvation, then Hebrew scripture denies that it is possible for any man to be good. However, if you firmly believe that good works is central for your salvation then according to Christianity, the only way for any of your works to be good is for them to be done in Christ as new creatures reborn by the holy spirit.For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
John 3The New Birth
1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
Sounds good to me.
As far as the Temple sacrifice being efficacious -- or rather *not* efficacious -- that's right. They were not and "will not" be in the future. But, nonetheless they did go on and *did* happen, even if they were not efficacious. And in the like manner, they will go on, once again, in the future (and not be efficacious then, either).
The point being is that it will happen, a Temple will be there and the sacrifices will be stopped at the midpoint of the Tribulation, with what Jesus said would happen -- the "abomination of desolation".
Thanks for writing all that...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "The question is whether it bends voluntarily or involutarily. Woe be to those in the latter category."
And what happens after that is told to us in the book or Revelation, Chapter 20, for those who do so "involuntarily" (i.e., their name is not found written in the book of life).
Regards,
Star Traveler
What, I ask you, is the difference between a lamb being killed on a farm somewhere and you eating it for dinner, and a lamb being killed on the Temple Mount and you eating it with your family that night?
You are right. There is no difference, though I personally do not condone either.
HA HA HA HA HA .... a peta puff is outed .. what are you doing here?
Did you forget to take a left in Albaqorky?
shheeeee .... I'm hunting wabits.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:5-6
Who is this talking about if not the Messiah?
>>(i.e. didn't kick out the Romans, bring back the exiles, bring Jews back to Torah, etc.) was somehow the "Messiah."
After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
Daniel 9:26
Just as it was prophesied.
Nobody is saying that in the Jewish religion one doesn't pray for forgiveness. Of course, like Christians who came out of Judaism, we all pray for forgiveness, especially intentional sins, as they are the worst.
The question I was addressing was the central importance of blood sacrifice--as the Rabbi realizes in the posting here--in ancient biblical-times Judaism.
No one has ever "obeyed the law perfectly" except (according to new covenant or New Testament teaching) Jesus Himself. This is why all need grace from God.
You're right the idea about Hell as a place of burning, accepted in Christianity, is not at all clear from Judaism; almost all such images come directly from the words of Christ himself, not Judaism or Rome.
My argument is only this, in their reliance on blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, BOTH ancient Judaism, and Christianity, have a basis of grace for salvation and forgiveness, not MERELY prayer (everyone does that) or the human ability to reform or follow ethical precepts.
Read Leviticus sometime, and you'll see the facts are clear, at that time in ANCIENT Judaism, based around the Tabernacle or Temple, "according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (NT book of Hebrews 9:22)
Biblical-era Judaism and the Torah was centered around the sacrifices; I'm saying that was a good thing--I'm not libeling Judaism at all.
You're right the article is very vague. I don't think the Rabbi is talking about the paschal lamb, rather a rebuilding of the Temple. Can't the paschal lamb be sacrificed anywhere in Jerusalem?
How old are you, twelve?
You decide what is and what is not the Word of G-d? Or maybe you decide what is the Word of G-d for you and I decide what is the Word of G-d for me, and that way there is no objective religious truth at all.
Go back to your commune, Bible-hating hippie.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
My god you are thick. I have told you time and time again -- citing sources -- that blood sacrifices in ancient Judaism atoned only for unintentional sins. I have asked you to point me to a single JEWISH source that says differently. Apparently unable to find any, you instead point to a CHRISTIAN source. Guess what: the book of Hebrews isn't a Jewish source. It's a Christian source that is trying to justify the myth that blood sacrifice somehow atoned for all sins. Judaism does not, and never did require or even allow blood sacrifice as a method for atoning for intentional sins.
"The idea that the sacrifical system atoned for all sin is totally foreign to Judaism. It is a Christian myth created to justify their belief that the death of Jesus (a man who, yes, accomplished basically nothing) had somehow "supplanted" the need to do good works and follow the law."
Hmmmm, you're language is pretty offensive to Christians generally and to Jesus in particular.
The Christian understanding of ancient Judaism is really not far from yours. We understand the sacrificial system then, while central, never "atoned for all sin," (God alone can do that...) rather it foreshadowed a final sacrifice which actually would (for those who really believed it and lived a godly life). We also understand that, as the 10 Words (10 Commandments) point out, God's salvation (in that case, the physical saving of the people from Egypt) comes first, THEN out of a sense of gratitude, God's people obey Him, pray, and do acts of charity.
The reason Christians do not follow ritual parts of the Torah (sacrifices or keeping Kosher) is that the New Covenant teaches that these parts of the Torah were completed in the person and work of Jesus (hardly "nothing" accomplished, eh?). We also do not follow (though we can learn from) the civil/legal commands in the Torah intended for the ancient theocracy of Israel. So we understand the Torah laws as of 3 parts: Ritual, Civil and Moral.
Christians have always taught the Moral parts of the Torah are still required to be followed (even if always distinguishing between ritual/civil/moral is not totally clear). This is why there is an emphasis in traditional Christianity on the 10 Commandments, and its 2 roots: Love of God and Love of one's fellow man.
Reliance on the death of Jesus as the basis of forgiveness has never been taught as an excuse for moral laxness--that is libel against Christians and the Christian religion.
We simply do not believe that we EARN forgiveness before God by prayer or good works--that is understood as legalism. Good works and prayer are seen as the fruits of forgiveness, not its basis.
The penalty for some sins was death. There were four methods of execution, and if the criteria for execution (which are very stringent) can't be met then G-d carries out the sentence Himself. Then there are sins for which only G-d has the right to carry out the punishment.
However, there are other sins for which the penalty is lashes. But I doubt that the court was authorized to lash anyone for every single sinful thought a person had.
All Notzerim assume from the outset that chr*stianity is true and that the "new testament" is an addendum to the TaNa"KH. With this erroneous assumption (known in logical terms as "affirmation of the consequent") they then read the entire TaNa"KH from the perspective of Paul. But Paul was wrong and his ideas are alien to the Torah. And while we're at it, Catholics tell Protestants that "innate total depravity" is alien to Paul, and Eastern Orthodox tell Catholics that "original sin" is alien to Paul, so the Notzerim can't even agree on what Paul believed!
The Jews did not rip the "new testament" out of the Bible. Chr*stians added it. Once this is done and the reader accepts its authority from the outset the entire interpretation of the TaNa"KH is twisted into something alien.
Why do chr*stians "prove" their beliefs by quoting the "new testament" when the people they're arguing with don't even believe in the authority of the "new testament?" They seem to think its authority is "self-evident." It is NOT. You can no more "prove" the "new testament" by quoting it than you can "prove" the "holy qur'an" by quoting it.
Fundamentalist Protestantism, from which I was spawned and which I respect so highly, has spread a love and reverence for the TaNa"KH throughout the world. Unfortunately, it has adulterated it with the "new testament" the point that many people seem incapable of accepting a TaNa"KH that stands on its own rather than as a "prophecy" of another religion that was to come along later and "fulfill" it.
The most maddening and heartbreaking aspect of the unexamined intensity of their belief is that they think they can "prove" their point by merely quoting the "new testament." This assumes that the person they're arguing with accepts what the "new testament" has to say on the subject.
But there's a reason for this. In Fundamentalist Protestantism all chr*stians are adult converts (they don't baptize their babies). Even children brought up from birth to believe chr*stian dogmas must be "converted" by having the "new birth" experience. This is usually brought on by quoting "new testament" passages, which the not-yet-converted cradle Fundamentalist already believes. Hence they tend to project this onto other people, assuming that quoting the "new testament" will cause their opponents to be stricken with conviction.
And btw, this projection of one's own frame of reference onto others is something that most people do.
"Blood was needed to purify the altar of the temple."
Actually, it was to purify the kohanim.
(I should know; I am technically a kohen (genetically proven, even), albeit one in a state of considerable impuirty, as I married a gentile.)
The original passover lamb (lambs) caused the Angel of Death to pass over those households marked with the blood of the lamb.
Jesus is the passover lamb. His blood saves souls from the death of eternal separation from God.
The death of the soul is passed over due to his sacrifice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.