Oh, That's Just The Old Testament

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

Where do you see Jesus in Psa 119 or Ezek 18????

Everywhere where the word salvation is there, that is Jesus's Hebrew name, Yeshua. 

This is eactly what I mentioned earlier.

You have a Jesus fetish.

You want to see Jesus everywhere, even though there is no application of Jesus to these verses.

 

My particular favorite is אַל־תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים בְּבֶן־אָדָם שֶׁאֵֽין לֹו תְשׁוּעָֽה׃ - do not put your trust in princes, in a son of man there is no salvation. And yes, salvation there is from the same root as Yeshua.

 

Nice example.

 

Not really.  It means do not put your trust in men to warrant your salvation.  Pretty simple the context here.

 

 

Lets ask Jesus to appear in person and he can tell us what it means.

[pawn]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where do you see Jesus in Psa 119 or Ezek 18????

Everywhere where the word salvation is there, that is Jesus's Hebrew name, Yeshua.

This is eactly what I mentioned earlier.

You have a Jesus fetish.

You want to see Jesus everywhere, even though there is no application of Jesus to these verses.

My particular favorite is

אַל־תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים בְּבֶן־אָדָם שֶׁאֵֽין לֹו תְשׁוּעָֽה׃ - do not put your trust in princes, in a son of man there is no salvation. And yes, salvation there is from the same root as Yeshua.

Nice example.

Not really. It means do not put your trust in men to warrant your salvation. Pretty simple the context here.

Lets ask Jesus to appear in person and he can tell us what it means.

Soon enough...

Yeah, deluded Christians have been saying that since Paul was running around....

[Ravenstar]

He's not terribly punctual.. obviously never went to school in Britain  LOL

[centauri]

 

 

 

 

The central theme of unclean vs. clean is present in this vision just as I wrote earlier.

The message is that the rules have been changed.

Where in the OT does God state that the rules will change regarding clean and unclean food?

Nowhere does it say the rules will change regarding food. 

 

Acts 10:13 "A voice came to him, Get up, Peter, kill and eat!

 

Kill and eat is a Hebrew concept of going up to Jerusalem of going to make "aliyah" and make a sacrifice. The Greek says "thusia kai phago" meaning go to sacrifice and eat. Make a sacrifice to the Lord and eat and partake of the sacrifice as this was protocol (depending on the sacrifice) such as in Leviticus 7:15 "Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning" However, there was a problem and we need to understand the concept and the difference of one being unholy and holy versus unclean and clean which there is a big difference before going any further.

Unholy or common, or koinos in Greek, can also be used as ritually impure, profane, unhallowed and unable to offer to the Lord in the state that it was in. But, what was unholy could be rendered holy and permissible to be offered to the Lord. So a clean animal (such as a lamb) could be rendered as unholy or impure if it came into contact with an unclean animal such as swine as stated in Leviticus 7:21 "When anyone touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, or an unclean animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people." Just being in direct contact with something "unclean" can render a "clean" animal "common" or "impure." The opposite of common, comes the Hebrew word "tahor" which means pure, ceremonially clean, morally and ethically clean.

 

Jesus changed the rules in Mark 7 and Paul also changed them.

You've already denied that Jesus meant what the scripture clearly states.

Either you believe the scripture or you don't.

You've indicated that you do not believe the scripture.

In essence, you've written your own Bible.

 

Now an unclean animal such as swine, could never be made clean and be ritually pure or ceremonially clean to be offered to the Lord. No matter how "holy" we try to make it, a pig is still a pig. In Greek it is "akathartos" which is "unclean."

 

Acts 10:14 " But Peter said, By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy [common] and unclean.

So now knowing unholy means a clean animal that has come into contact with something unclean. Peter here has expressed there is a difference between what is common and unclean. In verse 13 "and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air" Peter said there were all "kinds" meaning there were animals that were both clean and unclean. However, the clean animals were in contact with the unclean animals. Hence, making the clean animals "common" or "unholy." If there weren't any clean animals, he would have surely said I have never eaten anything that was unclean. But he didn't. He was differentiating that the clean animals were now "common" as they were in contact with the unclean animals. Peter had never eaten a clean animal that was "unholy or common," nor an unclean animal such as a swine. Following along?

I'm following that you are going to great lengths to deny what Jesus stated in Mark 7.

The theme of Acts 10 was that God changed the rules, using unclean animals as examples in a vision.

 

Acts 10:15 "Again a voice came to him a second time, What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.

This is the kicker here now. The voice clearly said what God has cleansed, no longer consider "unholy". This was repeated twice. We already know an unclean animal cannot be considered to be made clean, or be in a state or ritual purity. God specifically did not say "unclean." If he said "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy and unclean" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. He only pointed out what was "unholy" as it had the possibility of being made "tahor" or being made pure again. To state otherwise would be an impossibility as that would be God going against his Word, which I know is unbreakable and never changing. He cannot change his mind. Period.

But he did change his mind.

Jesus and Paul changed the food law to include all foods as clean.

That's change.

There were other changes as well.

According to Christianity he scraped his old system, and came up with a new one that uses a human sacrifice to provide salvation.

That human sacrifice itself is illegal according to God's unchanging law.

You're trying to claim God doesn't change his unbreakable word, yet ignoring that Christianity does change it.

 

Now this was Peter's problem. His problem was the thinking at that time that a Gentile was "unclean" and without hope of having eternal life because unclean creatures can never be clean. So to explain some of the epistles, the Jews believed erroneously that a Gentile must convert to being Jewish so they could be made "clean" and then being able to obtain eternal life. God was telling Peter the 3 Gentiles were not to be considered "unclean" but rather likened to "clean animals" which were made "unholy or common" by paganism and an unbelief in Jesus. However, belief in Jesus can make what was "unholy or common," now "holy." This is why Peter concludes that he is never to call any man no matter how defiled with paganism they are, as being "unclean." He was taught to call them as being "unholy or common" but being able to be made clean again by faith in Jesus.

The Jews were not in error regarding how gentiles could be accepted by God.

Isaiah spelled it out quite clearly in Isa 56.

Nowhere in that passage does it say anything about needing to believe in Jesus.

Gentiles are to adopt the same covenant as the Jews.

Believing in a vicarious pagan sacrifice doesn't do a gentile a bit of good.

 

No, Jesus did not teach anything else but Torah and could not change a dot or a tittle, or the Pharisees would have sought to of killed him earlier as he would have been declared a false prophet.

 

No, Jesus taught against Torah in Mark 7 when he declared all foods clean.

Your apologetic is that Jesus didn't mean what he said.

Several Bible translations have already been provided and you ignored them all.

You simply write your own Bible and then base your theology on that.

 

Mark 7 and Acts 10 has nothing to do with the dietary requirements.  Pork was not even considered a food product to a Jew living in Israel, so when he received the vision and said he had never eaten anything unclean, why would he not have heeded Jesus's so called instructions in Mark 7 that pork is now food?  You use the same arguments Christianity uses which is wrong.

It's only wrong if one ignores the teaching.

Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7.

Many Bibles tell me so and you apparently denounce every single one of them as false.

Paul went right along with that teaching and Acts 10 employs the same theme regarding gentiles.

 

I really don't know what you mean by an illegal human sacrifice according to the Torah?

Humans cannot serve as sin sacrifices per the law.

 

The Messiah was taught throughout the OT as one who would bring about salvation and redemption for his people.  Not only spiritually, but physically as well.  The problem is/was the Jews thought they would get the conquering king instead of the suffering servant for that time due to being oppressed by Roman rule.

The expected king messiah was to usher in an era of peace and prosperity, leading the people into great complience with the law.

Jesus didn't do that and never sat on the throne as required.

[centauri]

 

Not really.  It means do not put your trust in men to warrant your salvation.  Pretty simple the context here.

According to Jesus he was the son of man.

Jesus was not Yahweh.

[pawn]

 

Not really.  It means do not put your trust in men to warrant your salvation.  Pretty simple the context here.

According to Jesus he was the son of man.

Jesus was not Yahweh.

 

 

 

Also, MEN wrote the bible, every single word, chapter and book... yet in that same very book, it says, do not put your trust in men to warrant your salvation.

 

How do you reconcile these two facts Funguyrye?  How can you trust the bibel, when it is a rcord written by fallible men, in who we should not PUT OUR TRUST???

[Blood]

 

This is one of the most frustrating arguments I hear from Christians; the Old Testament is irrelevant now because of the New Covenant in Jesus blah blah, he abolished the old covenant, blah blah. Despite the fact that Jesus, who himself was quite keen on the Law, specifically said that he didn't come to abolish the Law, modern Christians still seem to have this view, which neatly absolves them of most of the ridiculous commandments of the OT. How do you deal with this OT denial?

This was the key issue that exposed Christianity for me.

There is nothing in the new covenant, defined in Jer 31, that says anything about faith in a human sacrifice replacing the need to keep the law.

Each person will die for their own sin and salvation is based on personal work (Ezek 18).

The law is eternal and salvation is based on seeking the law (Psa 119).

The Levitical priesthood was not replaced and will not be replaced (Jer 33).

There is no provision in God's law for a human to be a vicarious sin sacrifice.

 

Christianity is revisionst theology that's loosely based on the Old Testament.

Ironically, it's the Old Testament that exposes Christianity as a fraud.

 

 

That was a superb crystallization. To say nothing of the idea that (a) Jews could think that YHWH could be a physical man, ( i.e. he recently lived and walked in Israel, and ( b ) that the Bible prophesied that "the Jews" (i.e., themselves) would murder YHWH. And that the Old Testament was really all about Jesus and the Gentiles the whole time. The Psalms of David were not enthronement psalms, no, they were prophecies of Jesus.

 

I mean, you really have to be insane to believe this stuff. I guess we can let the ancient Christians off the hook -- they were mystics and monks and gurus who got off on figuring out "secret prophecy" -- but a person living in the 21st Century? 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Lets ask Jesus to appear in person and he can tell us what it means.

 

Soon enough...

 

 

 

No, not soon enough.  If your God is imaginary then God can't show up today.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

Lets ask Jesus to appear in person and he can tell us what it means.

 

Soon enough...

 

 

 

No, not soon enough.  If your God is imaginary then God can't show up today.

 

 

Yall just be afraid now, ya hear! The Boogey Man, I mean, Jesus is gonna gitcha! Then you'll be sorry. You'll all be sorry. Muhahahahaha! (Adapted from the Original Star Trek: Charlie X episode) 

[centauri]

 

 

This is one of the most frustrating arguments I hear from Christians; the Old Testament is irrelevant now because of the New Covenant in Jesus blah blah, he abolished the old covenant, blah blah. Despite the fact that Jesus, who himself was quite keen on the Law, specifically said that he didn't come to abolish the Law, modern Christians still seem to have this view, which neatly absolves them of most of the ridiculous commandments of the OT. How do you deal with this OT denial?

This was the key issue that exposed Christianity for me.

There is nothing in the new covenant, defined in Jer 31, that says anything about faith in a human sacrifice replacing the need to keep the law.

Each person will die for their own sin and salvation is based on personal work (Ezek 18).

The law is eternal and salvation is based on seeking the law (Psa 119).

The Levitical priesthood was not replaced and will not be replaced (Jer 33).

There is no provision in God's law for a human to be a vicarious sin sacrifice.

 

Christianity is revisionst theology that's loosely based on the Old Testament.

Ironically, it's the Old Testament that exposes Christianity as a fraud.

 

 

That was a superb crystallization. To say nothing of the idea that (a) Jews could think that YHWH could be a physical man, ( i.e. he recently lived and walked in Israel, and ( b ) that the Bible prophesied that "the Jews" (i.e., themselves) would murder YHWH. And that the Old Testament was really all about Jesus and the Gentiles the whole time. The Psalms of David were not enthronement psalms, no, they were prophecies of Jesus.

 

I mean, you really have to be insane to believe this stuff. I guess we can let the ancient Christians off the hook -- they were mystics and monks and gurus who got off on figuring out "secret prophecy" -- but a person living in the 21st Century? 

 

Just today I listened to the radio and two Christian "scholars" went on and on for over an hour about how Jesus was the king of the universe, sits on a throne, and every knee would bow to him.

Granted, it was a Christian radio station, but they firmly believe their fantasies are facts.

It reminded me of the "mind virus" theory and how infections are not limited to the body.

[Nadooshka]

I just found this thread today. Thanks OP!

 

One argument that christians make about the old testament being obselete is that Jesus not only fulfilled the Mosaic law, but also took the law to a new level by spiritualizing it. For instance, he said that adultery is not only the act, but also having lustful thoughts.

 

What do you make of this argument?

[centauri]

I just found this thread today. Thanks OP!

 

One argument that christians make about the old testament being obselete is that Jesus not only fulfilled the Mosaic law, but also took the law to a new level by spiritualizing it. For instance, he said that adultery is not only the act, but also having lustful thoughts.

 

What do you make of this argument?

The argument contradicts the Old Testament.

The law is not to be tampered with (Deut 4:2), do not add or subtract from it.

The law is eternal (Psa 119).

Jesus undermined (Mark 7) parts of the law such as the dietary provisions.

You don't fulfill a law by breaking it.

There is absolutely nothing in the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about any parts of the law being done away with by a king messiah.

The expected king was to lead people into great compliance with the law.

The law states that a human being is not a valid sin sacrifice, Jesus was an illegal sacrifice.

Jesus was not a valid king according to the law.

 

There's more but that covers some of the basics.