I am seeing in your responses, the same things that I was taught in church. My studies have shown me, not that the Bible or God are wrong, but how the church interpreted the scriptures is totally in error. All part of the foretold apostasy.
You do realize that Judaism does not hold with the idea that the messiah is going to die for anyone's sin, right? And that God hates human sacrifice?
see,
Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27,
Deuteronomy 24:16,
Jeremiah 31:29-30,
Deuteronomy 12:30-31,
Jeremiah 19:4-6, Psalm 106:37-38.
Understanding the mechanics of the "ransom" that Jesus paid for the human race is important here. All the animal sacrifices that were part of God's law, gave Israel a temporary forgiveness of their sins. Each week sacrifices had to be made and blood was an important part of those sacrifices. Why?
The apostle Paul tells us why...
"....according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place." Blood symbolized life, but the blood of these animals did not cover the human life lost for Adam's children. Temporary sacrifices served a purpose....but only until Messiah came.
There was a superior, permanent sacrifice coming....as Paul explains....
"He [Jesus] entered into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time, and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us." (Hebrews 9:21; 22)
All your cited scripture pertains to fathers and sons, where the sins of the fathers mean that their children are not held accountable....UNLESS....they follow in the footsteps of their father and sin in the same way that he did. Likewise in reverse....the fathers were not held responsible for the sins of the sons...UNLESS....the sons were reflecting the way their fathers had taught them. Each person has choices about their own behavior.
No one is excused because they are following a bad example.
“Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, 7 showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7)
And
if Jesus's sacrifice is necessary for us to communicate with God, that makes God a liar, because he sets up the forgiveness of an entire city in
Jonah 3 without any blood being shed at all, and says in Deuteronomy that if you seek him with your whole heart and soul you will find him, no Jesus required. This idea is mirrored in
Job 33:26, Psalm 34:14, Psalm 34:18, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17,
Hosea 14:2 all of which state sacrifice is unnecessary and unwanted.
Jesus' sacrifice has nothing to do with our communication with God. He is the appointed "mediator", which means that he has always been the "go between" for us to communicate with God...even before his earthly mission. How else could pre-Christian men and women have communicated with their God?
Forgiveness is dependent upon repentance, which God demonstrated with Nineveh. But the repentance has to be ongoing. Even after its reprieve when Jonah was sent to preach its judgment and destruction, it thereafter relapsed into its former ways and was later destroyed.
But morally, all that aside, accepting someone else dying for your mistakes is repugnant.
Again, you have to understand the law of God regarding "redemption". Someone sold into slavery by a parent who had incurred a debt was a way for that parent to remain out of debt and to support his remaining family members. The son or daughter "sold" to pay the debt (placed into service not the cruel slavery of the nations) could be redeemed by the parent at a later date or some other benefactor who paid for their release. The debt was cancelled and the servant walked free.
To illustrate it another way.....if someone is standing condemned before a firing squad for something that wasn't their fault....and a loving friend steps in front of them to take the bullet instead of them, giving his life for theirs....that is what Jesus did.
God's law demanded "a life for a life" and the perfect, sinless life that Adam lost for his children was paid by the only other human on earth who had the a life of equivalent value.... 'a sinless life for a sinless life'.
Mark 9:3,
Matthew 10:28,
Luke 12:5. Unquenchable fire and destruction of the soul? What pagan religion supposedly had this? Seriously, I'm wondering where you think the idea of hell derived from, because I can't think of a single pagan religion that has hell.
Oh dear. Pagan religions are noted for teaching red-hot hells. The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Persians, Grecians and Hindus taught flaming hells. The Buddhists teach a hell wherein people cook and sizzle in blazing kettles. But what Jesus said about "Gehenna" is nothing to do with that.
"Gehenna" is erroneously translated as "Hell" in many Bibles. When Jesus referred to "Gehenna", it was well understood by first century Jews. You may remember that Jeremiah condemned the Israelites for sacrificing their children in the fire to a false god. These sacrifices were performed in the Valley of Hinnom.If God condemned them for doing that, why would he do it himself?
Jesus said....
"if your right hand is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to land in Ge·henʹna."
Gehenna was a place for "bodies" not souls. The Valley of Hinnom was turned into Jerusalem's rubbish dump where the fires were kept burning day and night to consume the refuse. What the flames missed, the maggots finished off. The carcasses of dead animals and the bodies of executed criminals were also cast into the flames for disposal.
For a human body to be cast into Gehenna meant that the person was not worthy of a decent burial and hence had no memorial tomb with their name and family lineage inscribed. To a Jew, this meant not being remembered by God in the resurrection of the dead. Since the ancient Jews had no teaching of an immortal soul, the only way to regain life under Messiah's Kingdom was by resurrection.....a reinstating of one's former life, right here on earth as Jesus demonstrated with his friend Lazarus. (John 11:11-14) Where did Jesus say that Lazarus was? He said he was "sleeping". He also said that he would call all of the dead from their graves when he ruled as King. (John 5:28-29)
As I said, even if it was cultural at the time, by not speaking out against it, by indeed, actually saying "just don't beat them too badly," Jesus is saying slavery is okay. As he is supposed to be God on earth, this means he thinks slavery is okay, especially as God does not change.
Again, an overview of where humans were in the stream of time back then will help to put things into perspective.
The Jews were a very oppressed people when Jesus walked the earth. He made no attempt to rectify the plight of his own people who were under pagan Roman domination at the time. The Jewish Zealots were plotting against the Roman government but Jesus did not make any attempt to rectify the situation. Do you know why?
He spoke of "the appointed times of the nations" and said that they had to be "fulfilled". In Luke 21:20-24 he prophesied about Jerusalem and said that Jerusalem (the symbolic place of God's worship) was going to be trampled on until that period came to its completion. Do you know what period he was talking about? If you did, you would understand why he did nothing to alter the situation under which the Jews were chafing.....including the slavery.
I think you misunderstand. My family supports me, it's everyone else, society outside of my family, that does not. Given that we explicitly see elsewhere in the NT that entire households had to be baptized, that doesn't hold much water.
In a small number of cases entire households were baptized, but usually it was individuals who presented themselves for baptism. Do you know what baptism is for?
Did you read the verses? Specifically
Matthew 15:22-27? First he just gives the woman the cold shoulder, then he calls her a dog. That's hateful. Same in
Mark 7:25-28. It's disgusting behaviour.
Its "disgusting" only if you misunderstand the words and the culture.
This is a prime example of misinterpretation. Recognizing that Jesus was sent exclusively to "the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" meant that Jews were his primary focus. The Greek woman with whom he had that conversation demonstrated great faith as Jesus acknowledged. It was not yet time for Gentiles to receive a witness.
Under the Mosaic Law, dogs were deemed to be unclean animals. (
Leviticus 11:27) But did Jesus mean to insult this Greek woman and other non-Jews?
Not at all. Jesus’ point, as he explained to his disciples, was that his priority at that time was to help the Jews. So he illustrated the point, saying to the Greek woman:
“It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs.” (
Matthew 15:21-26; Mark 7:26) Among the Greeks and Romans, the dog was often a beloved pet that lived in its owner’s house and played with the children. So the expression “little dogs” might have called to mind a warm, endearing picture. The Greek woman picked up on Jesus’ words and replied:
“Yes, Lord, but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.” Jesus commended her faith and healed the woman’s daughter. (
Matthew 15:27-28) She was not insulted but knew what he meant.
When you look for faults, you will find them. But a deeper study will reveal the truth.
More later....
