The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[Ben Avraham]

If Jesus was a Jew, why doesn't Judaism accept his message? The book of Hebrews says he was a high priest of the Order of Melkizedek. This means he was a Nazarite from the womb, like the prophet Samson. The Nazarites (the prophets) were opposed to sacrificial atonement, hence Jesus' quoting of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7.

We do! We do accept his message! You Christians are the ones who do not accept his message. Jesus' message was according to his gospel which was the Tanach. His message is not according to the NT which is the gospel of Paul. Jesus' message was entirely according to
the Law and the Prophets. (Mat. 5:17-19 and Luke 16:29-31) The NT, the gospel of Paul, Jesus never even dreamed it would ever rise. I hope you agree with me on that.

 

[Ben Avraham]

• Nonsense, and more nonsense. Ben you are obsessed with hellenists. Better look at the archaeolical evidence of how the big guns of the Jewish faith lived in Judea, including members of the sanhedrin, There you will find hellenists. Please PROVE your allegations that part of ANY Gospel was forged by a hellenist. Your OPINION in one hand, and dog droppings in the other are of equal value

All you have to do is to use of Logic and try to understand the obviousness that loyal Jews would not write against their own Faith. Hellenism was the modern definition from the time of Alexander to the Greek Mythology of older times. Paul was a Hellenist Jew from birth the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple from the city of Tarsus in the Cilicia. Although Hellenism was amoral, Paul would have been allowed to keep his Jewish identity but, from the time he founded an anti-Jewish religion aka Christianity, he ceased being a Jew. Since then, besides his own Letters to the churches, his disciples from among the learned ones wrote the NT. Now, by comparing my knowledge of the NT to dog droppings, you have only implied that the
teachings of Jesus about the Law were not less than dog droppings too. Why? Because he used to teach no differently from what I teach today if you read Mat. 5:17-19 and Luke 16:29-31. Now, how do you feel about hurting our heart feelings?

 

[Ben Avraham]

You see though, I don't complain about your belief system, I support it. You condemn mine with non factual, non historical unproven personal opinion's, violating your own rule of proper evidence.

There is a big difference between my method and yours. I am not the one who copies the NT to consolidate the Tanach but you who vandalize the Tanach in the search of Biblical credibility for the NT.

 

[shmogie]

Wrong, you are confused. I rarely, if ever, quote the OT. You have made the statements ; specifically, " the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but by later hellenized Jews under Paul's influence " " Paul was a hellenized Jew". I say total nonsense, I say you pulled this nonsense out of thin air, I say, where is your evidence ?

 

[shmogie]

All you have to do is to use of Logic and try to understand the obviousness that loyal Jews would not write against their own Faith. Hellenism was the modern definition from the time of Alexander to the Greek Mythology of older times. Paul was a Hellenist Jew from birth the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple from the city of Tarsus in the Cilicia. Although Hellenism was amoral, Paul would have been allowed to keep his Jewish identity but, from the time he founded an anti-Jewish religion aka Christianity, he ceased being a Jew. Since then, besides his own Letters to the churches, his disciples from among the learned ones wrote the NT. Now, by comparing my knowledge of the NT to dog droppings, you have only implied that the
teachings of Jesus about the Law were not less than dog droppings too. Why? Because he used to teach no differently from what I teach today if you read Mat. 5:17-19 and Luke 16:29-31. Now, how do you feel about hurting our heart feelings?

Interesting, your OPINIONS are dog dropping's without evidence. Where is your EVIDENCE that Paul was a hellenist ?Your "logic" is just your method of thinking, nothing more. So, your method of thinking leads you to make statements as facts, facts without evidence, based upon the convolutions of your mind, dog droppings. Actually, Paul was the ultimate Jew, a Jew not captured by religious arrogance and parochialism, a Jew who knew that the Messiah had come for the world, a Jew totally in harmony with God., Your statement re the law show's your inability to grasp the fundamentals of Christianity. re the law........ Christ made it absolutely clear that Judaism and it's followers did not and could not keep the law. He also called a Gentile Roman Centurion who did not and could not keep the law as having greater faith than any man in Judea. He said, " you shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will set you free". You choose to carry the burden of the law, it is your choice. You choose to work your way into God;s good graces, that is your choice. You choose not to be free, that is your choice. You are of the people that God has declared favored and blessed, I haven't a clue how he will ultimately deal with you after you have rejected the Messiah, but I do know he keeps his promises, to you, to me, to all. Hmmmm, I have hurt your heart feelings ??? By pointing out your the lack of evidence for your bizarre conclusions ?

 

[MountainPine]

We do! We do accept his message! You Christians are the ones who do not accept his message. Jesus' message was according to his gospel which was the Tanach. His message is not according to the NT which is the gospel of Paul. Jesus' message was entirely according to the Law and the Prophets. (Mat. 5:17-19 and Luke 16:29-31) The NT, the gospel of Paul, Jesus never even dreamed it would ever rise. I hope you agree with me on that.

Last time I checked, Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but believe the Messiah has yet to come. Some Jews don't even believe he existed. Messianic Judaism only encompasses a small number of Jews. Besides, the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus (known as Toldoth Yeshu therein) is "in hell sitting in a cauldron of boiling excrement" and that his mother was "a whore who slept with carpenters."

Paul did not contradict Moses, the Prophets, or Jesus. His writings are actually in keeping with them. One thing that you and other anti-Paulists don't consider is that Paul's letter's were written to Gentiles, not to Israelites. The Gentiles were not bound to the Law of Moses, but his message was not to break Yahweh's commands, but to obey them in Spirit—to understand and apply the spiritual message of the Torah rather than going through the motions of it. For example, the law "You shall not kill" would apply to all beings, not just humans. So the spiritual meaning of that command is "don't kill anything that lives" and don't kill animals for food. As Yahushua pointed out that Moses permitted divorce, but in the beginning it wasn't so; the same logic says that although Moses permitted certain "clean" animals to be eaten, it wasn't so in the beginning (Genesis 1:29). This is one example of many to understand what Paul meant when he said the Torah can only be kept by living in the Spirit, but condemns those living by the flesh.

Scriptural evidence that Paul kept the Torah:

Paul always kept the Sabbath (Acts of the Apostles 17:2, Acts of the Apostles 18:4)
Paul kept the Feasts (Acts of the Apostles 20:6, Acts of the Apostles 20:16)
Paul instructed us to keep the Feasts (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)
Paul believed all of the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 24:14)
Paul stated that we establish the Torah (Romans 3:31)
Paul taught from the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 28:23)
Paul obeyed the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 21:24, Romans 7:25)
Paul took delight in the Torah (Romans 7:22)
Paul said the Torah is holy (Romans 7:12)
Paul said the Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14)
Paul said not to judge anyone observing the Torah (Colossians 2:16-17)
Paul said that doers of the Torah are justified (Romans 2:13)
Paul said teachers who break the Torah dishonor Yahweh and blaspheme His name (Romans 2:21-24)
Paul said we learn what sin is from the Torah (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7)
Paul taught that being under grace is not a license to break the Torah (Romans 6:15)

 

[shmogie]

If Jesus was a Jew, why doesn't Judaism accept his message? The book of Hebrews says he was a high priest of the Order of Melkizedek. This means he was a Nazarite from the womb, like the prophet Samson. The Nazarites (the prophets) were opposed to sacrificial atonement, hence Jesus' quoting of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7.

Just so you know, Judaite doesn't necessarily mean Jew. Present day Judea (the West Bank) was formerly known as the Kingdom of Judah, and in Biblical times, after the Kingdom of Judah's destruction, this land changed hands many times. It was a province of the Babylonian Empire from 586 to 539 BC; a province of the Persian Empire from 539 to 332 BC; a province of the empire of Alexander the Great from 332 to 305 BC; a province of the Ptolemaic dynasty from 305 to 198 BC; a province of the Seleucid Empire from 198 to 141 BC; an independent kingdom under the Hasmoneans from 141 to 37 BC (although it fell under Roman supremacy in 63 BC); ruled by the Herodian Dynasty under Roman supremacy from 37 BC to 70 AD, with periods of direct Roman rule from 6 to 41 AD and 41 to 66 AD. The Jewish Revolt against the Romans from 66 to 73 AD resulted in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the scattering of the peoples living in Judea. A Judaean could have been a Hebrew, an Israelite, a Judaite, a combination of these three, or none of these. A Jew in the time of Jesus could have been a Hebrew, an Israelite, a Judaite, a Judaean, a combination of these, or none of these.

Another thing to take into account is that Jesus was from Nazareth (Galilee). At that time, Jews didn't dwell in Nazareth, but only in Jerusalem.

If you contend that the Christ was opposed to sacrificial atonement, then what do you consider his death on the cross to be ? Further, it is totally clear that his Mother was descendant from the line of David, was not David a Jew ?

 

[shmogie]

Last time I checked, Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but believe the Messiah has yet to come. Some Jews don't even believe he existed. Messianic Judaism only encompasses a small number of Jews. Besides, the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus (known as Toldoth Yeshu therein) is "in hell sitting in a cauldron of boiling excrement" and that his mother was "a whore who slept with carpenters."

Paul did not contradict Moses, the Prophets, or Jesus. His writings are actually in keeping with them. One thing that you and other anti-Paulists don't consider is that Paul's letter's were written to Gentiles, not to Israelites. The Gentiles were not bound to the Law of Moses, but his message was not to break Yahweh's commands, but to obey them in Spirit—to understand and apply the spiritual message of the Torah rather than going through the motions of it. For example, the law "You shall not kill" would apply to all beings, not just humans. So the spiritual meaning of that command is "don't kill anything that lives" and don't kill animals for food. As Yahushua pointed out that Moses permitted divorce, but in the beginning it wasn't so; the same logic says that although Moses permitted certain "clean" animals to be eaten, it wasn't so in the beginning (Genesis 1:29). This is one example of many to understand what Paul meant when he said the Torah can only be kept by living in the Spirit, but condemns those living by the flesh.

Scriptural evidence that Paul kept the Torah:

Paul always kept the Sabbath (Acts of the Apostles 17:1, Acts of the Apostles 18:4)
Paul kept the Feasts (Acts of the Apostles 20:6, Acts of the Apostles 20:16)
Paul instructed us to keep the Feasts (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)
Paul believed all of the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 24:14)
Paul stated that we establish the Torah (Romans 3:31)
Paul taught from the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 28:23)
Paul obeyed the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 21:24, Romans 7:25)
Paul took delight in the Torah (Romans 7:22)
Paul said the Torah is holy (Romans 7:12)
Paul said the Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14)
Paul said not to judge anyone observing the Torah (Colossians 2:16-17)
Paul said that doers of the Torah are justified (Romans 2:13)
Paul said teachers who break the Torah dishonor Yahweh and blaspheme His name (Romans 2:21-24)
Paul said we learn what sin is from the Torah (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7)
Paul taught that being under grace is not a license to break the Torah (Romans 6:15)

Good post ! Two quibbles. The law does not and cannot say "do not kill", if it does, then God broke his own law. It says, "do not murder", the unlawful killing of someone. If this is what the Christ believed, why did he tell his disciples to buy swords. In Romans 13 ( I carried a weapon for 25 years, and was prepared to kill in the defense of someone else or myself) Why does Paul say that those who have the power of the sword are chosen by God to defend against evil and lawlessness ? AS to vegetarianism, I was a vegetarian for many years, my daughters are vegetarians, I came from a religious tradition where that was prominent. Please don't attempt to make diet choice a matter of morality. As long as the animals for food are treated humanely and butchered humanely it is not a moral issue, any more than eating pork is. The Christ declared all food clean. Paul talks about eating with a non believer, and eating without comment WHATEVER is put before you.

 

[rosends]

Last time I checked, Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but believe the Messiah has yet to come. Some Jews don't even believe he existed. Messianic Judaism only encompasses a small number of Jews. Besides, the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus (known as Toldoth Yeshu therein) is "in hell sitting in a cauldron of boiling excrement" and that his mother was "a whore who slept with carpenters."

Paul did not contradict Moses, the Prophets, or Jesus. His writings are actually in keeping with them. One thing that you and other anti-Paulists don't consider is that Paul's letter's were written to Gentiles, not to Israelites. The Gentiles were not bound to the Law of Moses, but his message was not to break Yahweh's commands, but to obey them in Spirit—to understand and apply the spiritual message of the Torah rather than going through the motions of it. For example, the law "You shall not kill" would apply to all beings, not just humans. So the spiritual meaning of that command is "don't kill anything that lives" and don't kill animals for food. As Yahushua pointed out that Moses permitted divorce, but in the beginning it wasn't so; the same logic says that although Moses permitted certain "clean" animals to be eaten, it wasn't so in the beginning (Genesis 1:29). This is one example of many to understand what Paul meant when he said the Torah can only be kept by living in the Spirit, but condemns those living by the flesh.

Scriptural evidence that Paul kept the Torah:

Paul always kept the Sabbath (Acts of the Apostles 17:1, Acts of the Apostles 18:4)
Paul kept the Feasts (Acts of the Apostles 20:6, Acts of the Apostles 20:16)
Paul instructed us to keep the Feasts (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)
Paul believed all of the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 24:14)
Paul stated that we establish the Torah (Romans 3:31)
Paul taught from the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 28:23)
Paul obeyed the Torah (Acts of the Apostles 21:24, Romans 7:25)
Paul took delight in the Torah (Romans 7:22)
Paul said the Torah is holy (Romans 7:12)
Paul said the Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14)
Paul said not to judge anyone observing the Torah (Colossians 2:16-17)
Paul said that doers of the Torah are justified (Romans 2:13)
Paul said teachers who break the Torah dishonor Yahweh and blaspheme His name (Romans 2:21-24)
Paul said we learn what sin is from the Torah (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7)
Paul taught that being under grace is not a license to break the Torah (Romans 6:15)

Just a note -- Jews are not Christians. People who believe in Jesus are not Jews (no matter what they call themselves). It is highly debatable whether Jesus is at all mentioned in the Talmud though there is a separate, non-talmudic medieval book called Toldot Yeshu.

 

[MountainPine]

If you contend that the Christ was opposed to sacrificial atonement, then what do you consider his death on the cross to be ?

Read the first three posts in this thread.

Further, it is totally clear that his Mother was descendant from the line of David, was not David a Jew ?

David was a Judaite, not a Jew. Read what I said in post #520.

As long as the animals for food are treated humanely and butchered humanely it is not a moral issue, any more than eating pork is.

"Humane" meat is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, unless you're slaughtering your own animals "humanely", but even then you're depriving an animal of it's life (in which it values as much as you do your life) to please your lust for flesh, especially when you know there are plant-based alternatives. That is murder. It is delusional to believe you are being "humane" or "compassionate" to an animal while leading it to it's death. The only time when killing is compassionate is when you're euthanizing an animal because it is suffering from incurable pain, but not when killing it for a meal.

If this is what the Christ believed, why did he tell his disciples to buy swords. In Romans 13 ( I carried a weapon for 25 years, and was prepared to kill in the defense of someone else or myself) Why does Paul say that those who have the power of the sword are chosen by God to defend against evil and lawlessness ?

God himself, who instituted the Law, commanded the Israelites to kill off the Canaanites for various reasons, one of which was for justice. Executing justice or killing in defense isn't murder, especially when God commands you to do so, but "thou shall not kill" is a moral principle to live by in everyday life. In other words, don't kill unless it is what God has asked of you. God didn't command anyone to eat meat. He only permitted it. (1 Corinthians 6:12) Again, apply the same logic Jesus used regarding divorce to the eating of "clean" animals.

The Christ declared all food clean.

Matthew 15:11 "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles the man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” Yahushua was saying this to the Pharisees because they were accusing his disciples of breaking their tradition of washing their hands before eating. Any dirt that may have been on their food would have been cleaned out via digestion. He goes on to say "But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and these defile the man. For out of the heart come forth wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, whorings, thefts, false witnessings, slanders. These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man" One cannot eat meat without first murdering the animal, so putting what came from murder into your mouth is what defiles you. So clearly Yahushua was not giving the green light for us to eat whatever we want. There is a similar passage from Mark 7:19: "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The additional narrative where Yahushua supposedly declared all foods clean is only found in the contemporary versions of the Bible. It is not found in the King James Bible or any of the Greek manuscripts. Some versions even say that he declared all meats clean. The narrative was clearly added to support the bias of the translators.

Paul talks about eating with a non believer, and eating without comment WHATEVER is put before you.

Wrong. He also said in that passage (1 Corinthians 10) to abstain from eating food offered to idols, in which all meat at the time was. You need to read this book.

 

[shmogie]

Just a note -- Jews are not Christians. People who believe in Jesus are not Jews (no matter what they call themselves). It is highly debatable whether Jesus is at all mentioned in the Talmud though there is a separate, non-talmudic medieval book called Toldot Yeshu.

Was anyone doubting this as it is currently ? Paul called himself a Jew, and in the beginning The Way was considered a Jewish sect. As we discussed before, Talmudic Judaism came into being around the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, 1500 years or so after the details of the faith were given by God. So, why is someone who accepts the changes made in the Talmud a Jew, but a Jew who accepts and follows the Messiah not ? Simply because the believers in the Talmud have the power to compel belief in their changed version of Judaism to be a Jew ?

 

[MountainPine]

Just a note -- Jews are not Christians. People who believe in Jesus are not Jews (no matter what they call themselves).

You've just proved my point. If anyone believing in Jesus is not a jew, then how can anyone call Jesus a Jew?

 

[rosends]

You've just proved my point. If anyone believing in Jesus is not a jew, then how can anyone call Jesus a Jew?

Jesus (if he existed as described) would be called a Jew by virtue of his mother's having been Jewish. A druid can worship a tree and not be a tree.

 

[rosends]

So, why is someone who accepts the changes made in the Talmud a Jew, but a Jew who accepts and follows the Messiah not ?

A follower of the messiah could very well be a Jew, sure. It just hasn't happened yet. Judaism is inherently messianic in that it established the concept and the rules and we still pray for the arrival of a messiah. So the entire construct is Jewish as are the requirements and they haven't been satisfied -- not by Bar Kochva. Not by Shabbtai Tzvi. Not by Jesus.

No one cares if you like this or not. It is simply a fact.

 

[shmogie]

Read the first three posts in this thread.



David was a Judaite, not a Jew. Read what I said in post #520.



"Humane" meat is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, unless you're slaughtering your own animals "humanely", but even then you're depriving an animal of it's life (in which it values as much as you do your life) to please your lust for flesh, especially when you know there are plant-based alternatives. That is murder. It is delusional to believe you are being "humane" or "compassionate" to an animal while leading it to it's death. The only time when killing is compassionate is when you're euthanizing an animal because it is suffering from incurable pain, but not when killing it for a meal.



God himself, who instituted the Law, commanded the Israelites to kill off the Canaanites for various reasons, one of which was for justice. Executing justice or killing in defense isn't murder, especially when God commands you to do so, but "thou shall not kill" is a moral principle to live by in everyday life. In other words, don't kill unless it is what God has asked of you. God didn't command anyone to eat meat. He only permitted it. (1 Corinthians 6:12) Again, apply the same logic Jesus used regarding divorce to the eating of "clean" animals.




Matthew 15:11 "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles the man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” Yahushua was saying this to the Pharisees because they were accusing his disciples of breaking their tradition of washing their hands before eating. Any dirt that may have been on their food would have been cleaned out via digestion. He goes on to say "But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and these defile the man. For out of the heart come forth wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, whorings, thefts, false witnessings, slanders. These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man" One cannot eat meat without first murdering the animal, so putting what came from murder into your mouth is what defiles you. So clearly Yahushua was not giving the green light for us to eat whatever we want. There is a similar passage from Mark 7:19: "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The additional narrative where Yahushua supposedly declared all foods clean is only found in the contemporary versions of the Bible. It is not found in the King James Bible or any of the Greek manuscripts. Some versions even say that he declared all meats clean. The narrative was clearly added to support the bias of the translators.

I have 9 translations, everyone of which says, "thus he declared all food clean", Translations from different groups, from different times, I'll take their word for it. Have you read of how the animals were sacrificed daily in the Temple, for God ? Or, to use your term, murdered ? Have you read how those sacrifices were eaten by the priests, those chosen by God to facilitate and support the Faith to the people ? Corinth was a pagan city, some animals were butchered for food, some were butchered as sacrifices in the temples to the various gods. Here is what Paul actually says " eat WHATEVER is sold in the meat market asking no questions for conscience sake............................. If any of those who do not believe invites you to a meal, and you desire to go, eat whatever is put before you asking no questions for conscience sake. But, if anyone says to you, this was offered to idols, do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you" "Conscience I say, not your own, but for the other. For what is my liberty judged by another mans conscience ? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for what I give thanks ?" You totally misconstrued what he is saying ! To a non believer, eating meat offered to idols gives credence to idols. He, and all believers know these gods are bogus, and so it is proper to eat meat offered to idols, provided it does not impact another. You are trying to judge my liberty by your conscience, it doesn't work that way, and frankly, you are wrong in doing so.

Wrong. He also said in that passage (1 Corinthians 10) to abstain from eating food offered to idols, in which all meat at the time was. You need to read this book.

 

[shmogie]

A follower of the messiah could very well be a Jew, sure. It just hasn't happened yet. Judaism is inherently messianic in that it established the concept and the rules and we still pray for the arrival of a messiah. So the entire construct is Jewish as are the requirements and they haven't been satisfied -- not by Bar Kochva. Not by Shabbtai Tzvi. Not by Jesus.

No one cares if you like this or not. It is simply a fact.

It means nothing to me, one way or another. Just a bit of sophistry exposed. You will, in the end know that Jesus was the Messiah, of that I am totally confident. Peace

 

[MountainPine]

I have 9 translations, everyone of which says, "thus he declared all food clean", Translations from different groups, from different times, I'll take their word for it.

Okay then. Trust the words of biased translators than the Holy Spirit. Very wise!

Have you read of how the animals were sacrificed daily in the Temple, for God ? Or, to use your term, murdered ? Have you read how those sacrifices were eaten by the priests, those chosen by God to facilitate and support the Faith to the people ?

Yes I have. I've also read that the law of sacrifice was instituted for sinners (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Sacrifice was a consequence for sin. As I've stated in the OP, the idea was to inflict guilt on the one offering the sacrifice in order to cause the sinner to repent once and for all, knowing that it is they who really deserved to die instead of the animal. Natural law states that "the wages of sin is death," but if the Israelites didn't have penal substitution then they would have all died from their sins and God's promise to Abraham would never have been. Death had to happen as consequence for sin. The idea behind the sacrificial system is this: don't sin. It wasn't supposed to be a continual thing. If you read Numbers 11, you will see that the only reason why God gave them those laws to begin with was because of their lust for meat, and they abused God's system to keep eating meat because they wanted to keep sinning, in which the all the prophets admonished them for. To believe otherwise is to make God out to be a blood-thirsty ego-maniac tyrant who demands blood if he doesn't get what he wants.

You totally misconstrued what he is saying ! To a non believer, eating meat offered to idols gives credence to idols. He, and all believers know these gods are bogus, and so it is proper to eat meat offered to idols, provided it does not impact another. You are trying to judge my liberty by your conscience, it doesn't work that way, and frankly, you are wrong in doing so.

You can't offer anything that is not meat to an idol because it was created by God. Animals are created by God, and are living as he created them. Meat, on the other hand, is created from death, and therefore is not created by God (Yahweh is the God of the living) but by murderers for their idols. Meat is the only suitable offering for idols. Anyway, the Bible never uses "food" and "meat" interchangeably—or in the KJV where "meat" has the meaning of "food" and "flesh" has the meaning of "meat" (these words had different meanings back in 1611)—so you can't say that a slab of carcass that came from a dead animal is food.

Besides, the Law states that you must drain all blood before eating the meat anyway (Deuteronomy 12:23). All the priests drained all the blood to the best of their ability before eating it. The Law also states, according to Leviticus 17, it is unlawful to slaughter an animal outside the "Tent of Meeting," or to kill an animal outside the sacrificial system. Do you present your meat to a priest and drain all the blood before eating it? If not, then you are in violation of the Torah, and all meat sold in stores today are in violation as well—not only for having blood still in it, but I'm pretty sure Moses would not have deemed genetically modified meat injected with antibiotics and hormones as "clean." (You can't really drain the blood anyway, because the blood cells are still present in the meat even after it is cooked.) So you can't use one part of the law to justify your carnism, otherwise you are justifying yourself by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16). Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill and until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away (Matthew 5) and that one must guard the commandments to enter everlasting life (Matthew 19). This is exactly why people like @Ben Avraham and so many others believe Paul was a false prophet, because Christians like you take Paul's letters out of context to break Yahweh's commands, especially by saying that being free from the law equals breaking it because being under grace somehow gives you a license to do so. Just so you know, if you still sin, you are still under the law.

And, no I'm not judging you by my conscience, You are being judged by the Word.

 

[shmogie]

Okay then. Trust the words of biased translators than the Holy Spirit. Very wise!



Yes I have. I've also read that the law of sacrifice was instituted for sinners (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Sacrifice was a consequence for sin. As I've stated in the OP, the idea was to inflict guilt on the one offering the sacrifice in order to cause the sinner to repent once and for all, knowing that it is they who really deserved to die instead of the animal. Natural law states that "the wages of sin is death," but if the Israelites didn't have penal substitution then they would have all died from their sins and God's promise to Abraham would never have been. Death had to happen as consequence for sin. The idea behind the sacrificial system is this: don't sin. It wasn't supposed to be a continual thing. If you read Numbers 11, you will see that the only reason why God gave them those laws to begin with was because of their lust for meat, and they abused God's system to keep eating meat because they wanted to keep sinning, in which the all the prophets admonished them for. To believe otherwise is to make God out to be a blood-thirsty ego-maniac tyrant who demands blood if he doesn't get what he wants.



You can't offer anything that is not meat to an idol because it was created by God. Animals are created by God, and are living as he created them. Meat, on the other hand, is created from death, and therefore is not created by God (Yahweh is the God of the living) but by murderers for their idols. Meat is the only suitable offering for idols. Anyway, the Bible never uses "food" and "meat" interchangeably—or in the KJV where "meat" has the meaning of "food" and "flesh" has the meaning of "meat" (these words had different meanings back in 1611)—so you can't say that a slab of carcass that came from a dead animal is food.

Besides, the Law states that you must drain all blood before eating the meat anyway (Deuteronomy 12:23). All the priests drained all the blood to the best of their ability before eating it. The Law also states, according to Leviticus 17, it is unlawful to slaughter an animal outside the "Tent of Meeting," or to kill an animal outside the sacrificial system. Do you present your meat to a priest and drain all the blood before eating it? If not, then you are in violation of the Torah, and all meat sold in stores today are in violation as well—not only for having blood still in it, but I'm pretty sure Moses would not have deemed genetically modified meat injected with antibiotics and hormones as "clean." (You can't really drain the blood anyway, because the blood cells are still present in the meat even after it is cooked.) So you can't use one part of the law to justify your carnism, otherwise you are justifying yourself by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16). Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill and until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away (Matthew 5) and that one must guard the commandments to enter everlasting life (Matthew 19). This is exactly why people like @Ben Avraham and so many others believe Paul was a false prophet, because Christians like you take Paul's letters out of context to break Yahweh's commands, especially by saying that being free from the law equals breaking it because being under grace somehow gives you a license to do so. Just so you know, if you still sin, you are still under the law.

And, no I'm not judging you by my conscience, You are being judged by the Word.

Okay then. Trust the words of biased translators than the Holy Spirit. Very wise!



Yes I have. I've also read that the law of sacrifice was instituted for sinners (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Sacrifice was a consequence for sin. As I've stated in the OP, the idea was to inflict guilt on the one offering the sacrifice in order to cause the sinner to repent once and for all, knowing that it is they who really deserved to die instead of the animal. Natural law states that "the wages of sin is death," but if the Israelites didn't have penal substitution then they would have all died from their sins and God's promise to Abraham would never have been. Death had to happen as consequence for sin. The idea behind the sacrificial system is this: don't sin. It wasn't supposed to be a continual thing. If you read Numbers 11, you will see that the only reason why God gave them those laws to begin with was because of their lust for meat, and they abused God's system to keep eating meat because they wanted to keep sinning, in which the all the prophets admonished them for. To believe otherwise is to make God out to be a blood-thirsty ego-maniac tyrant who demands blood if he doesn't get what he wants.



You can't offer anything that is not meat to an idol because it was created by God. Animals are created by God, and are living as he created them. Meat, on the other hand, is created from death, and therefore is not created by God (Yahweh is the God of the living) but by murderers for their idols. Meat is the only suitable offering for idols. Anyway, the Bible never uses "food" and "meat" interchangeably—or in the KJV where "meat" has the meaning of "food" and "flesh" has the meaning of "meat" (these words had different meanings back in 1611)—so you can't say that a slab of carcass that came from a dead animal is food.

Besides, the Law states that you must drain all blood before eating the meat anyway (Deuteronomy 12:23). All the priests drained all the blood to the best of their ability before eating it. The Law also states, according to Leviticus 17, it is unlawful to slaughter an animal outside the "Tent of Meeting," or to kill an animal outside the sacrificial system. Do you present your meat to a priest and drain all the blood before eating it? If not, then you are in violation of the Torah, and all meat sold in stores today are in violation as well—not only for having blood still in it, but I'm pretty sure Moses would not have deemed genetically modified meat injected with antibiotics and hormones as "clean." (You can't really drain the blood anyway, because the blood cells are still present in the meat even after it is cooked.) So you can't use one part of the law to justify your carnism, otherwise you are justifying yourself by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16). Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill and until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away (Matthew 5) and that one must guard the commandments to enter everlasting life (Matthew 19). This is exactly why people like @Ben Avraham and so many others believe Paul was a false prophet, because Christians like you take Paul's letters out of context to break Yahweh's commands, especially by saying that being free from the law equals breaking it because being under grace somehow gives you a license to do so. Just so you know, if you still sin, you are still under the law.

And, no I'm not judging you by my conscience, You are being judged by the Word.

You totally bypassed your mis characterization of what Paul said, because it proved you wrong. Unfortunately, like many in my former Church, you haven't a clue as to what the Gospel means. You want to continue under the old covenant made with Israel, and struggle and fail to not sin, and if you say you don't sin, there is no truth in you. I have already quoted Pauls words regarding meat, and it is obvious that he wasn't concerned about methods of butchering, nor your precious vegetarianism, he had important things to deal with. So then, by your standard, Paul did not follow or teach followers to adhere to the food laws re meat. So, are you right and Paul is wrong ? Not hardly. You are right, the old covenant (law) was not to pass away till all was fulfilled, and it was fulfilled at the Cross. The law was given to Israel, not gentiles, and it was fulfilled within Judaism, with little effort to convert Gentiles, When Christ died. At his resurrection there was a new Covenant, called the law of Christ in the NT. There are numerous chapters in the NT on the failures of the OT law, it's fulfillment, and the new covenant, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews especially. Do you put the menstruating women in your household away and call them unclean ? That is what the law requires, and if you don't you have failed in the whole law, because to break one is to break all. If you decide to yoke yourself to the old covenant law, you better keep perfectly every command on every issue, you can't pick and choose. Christians like me don't take Paul's letters out of context, you did so, not I, to try and prove your erroneous conclusions. They, like you, are bound by a system that has passed away, and neither they nor you can grasp the Gospel, Grace, Faith and sanctification. No one that I know of believes Grace is a license to sin, that is claptrap. The result of ignorance of the Truth. I sin, as do you, but your sin's are compounded by ignorance, you don't even know which law you are to keep. I bet you keep the sabbath too, right ?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Last time I checked, Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but believe the Messiah has yet to come. Some Jews don't even believe he existed. Messianic Judaism only encompasses a small number of Jews. Besides, the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus (known as Toldoth Yeshu therein) is "in hell sitting in a cauldron of boiling excrement" and that his mother was "a whore who slept with carpenters."

Yes, there are many among us who still believe the Messiah has yet to come. In my case, I neither believe that Jesus could have been the Messiah nor that one is still to come. I take from Prophet Habakkuk 3:13 that, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God
if you read Exodus 4:22,23. To me, the concept of a coming Messiah is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile. They have returned three times already. The first time when Moses, the Messianic leader freed the Messiah from Egypt and back to the Promised Land. The second time around was when the Jews got exiled to Babylon for 70 years and, the Messianic leader then was Cyrus according to Isaiah 45:1 because of his role to proclaim freedom to the Jews and financed the rebuilding of the Temple. The third and last time is now after almost 2000 years when the third Jewish Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1948.

Now, why Jesus could not have been the Messiah? Because the Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) As you can see, I am of the opinion that the truth is in the collective concept of the Messiah, not the individual.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Paul did not contradict Moses, the Prophets, or Jesus. His writings are actually in keeping with them. One thing that you and other anti-Paulists don't consider is that Paul's letter's were written to Gentiles, not to Israelites. The Gentiles were not bound to the Law of Moses, but his message was not to break Yahweh's commands, but to obey them in Spirit—to understand and apply the spiritual message of the Torah rather than going through the motions of it. For example, the law "You shall not kill" would apply to all beings, not just humans. So the spiritual meaning of that command is "don't kill anything that lives" and don't kill animals for food. As Yahushua pointed out that Moses permitted divorce, but in the beginning it wasn't so; the same logic says that although Moses permitted certain "clean" animals to be eaten, it wasn't so in the beginning (Genesis 1:29). This is one example of many to understand what Paul meant when he said the Torah can only be kept by living in the Spirit, but condemns those living by the flesh.

So, you don't believe Paul contradicted Moses, the Prophets or Jesus! Read Romans 10:4. Paul said that Jesus was the end of the Law when Jesus said in Mat. 5:17-19 that the Law would never pass away as long as heaven and earth existed. Did heaven and earth pass away? I don't think so. First contradiction of Jesus by Paul. Do you want a second one? In the same text of Mat. 5:17, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law. Then, later Paul showed up with a different gospel claiming that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephesians. 2:15) How about a third one? Jesus said that to escape hell-fire, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) Paul declared to their disciples that they had been released from the Law. (Romans 7:1-7) And mind you that he meant the Decalogue if you read verse 7 again. There are many more of those but, let me mention at least one against Moses. In the Diaspora, he was teaching the Jews to stop circumcising their children and abandon the customs of Moses. Can you see the size of the man's arrogance to tell the Jews to stop circumcising their own children! That will do for all the others.[/QUOTE]