Apparently you need at least 100 posts to post on General Apologetics

[Lisa0315]

Do you hold to the belief that man and God were separated before Jesus? I am curious how you feel about God appearing before the nation of Israel during the wondering in the desert for 40 years (as He appeared before His people in a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day). Also how God's Spirit rested between the cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple before its original destruction.

Yes, I do believe man was separated from God before Christ. Man still is separated unless he comes to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

To answer your question, God honored his promised to Adam and Abraham, and the whole OT is about God keeping that promise. It is the story of the chosen people who would birth a Saviour of the world. Regardless, there was still a separation. Even the High Priest was only allowed to go into the Holy of Holies once a year, and this after much ritual purification. The rending of the veil at the completion of the saving work of Christ was not just symbolic. It was a literal tearing apart of the separation of God and man. It was done! Completed! No more need for all of that. God no longer required the separation between Him and the people, the purification rites of the priests, the sacrifices, the scapegoats, and the law. Instead, He could now reside in the hearts of men. The law passed away, and the age of grace began!

 

[Turbulence]

If no one needed salvation, then, there would not be all the various religions or even the various flavors of Christianity. If salvation were not needed, then, man would still be sinless, and would have perfect communion with God. God would litterally come down and walk with us just as He did in the garden in the cool of the day.

There would be no need of Hell either unless it was reserved for the fallen angels.

So without salvation, Christianity is not needed since the necessity of salvation assumes a sinful world. By taking away the need for salvation, one does not negate all the world religions. For instance, this concept of salvation and hell is not found within Judaism, even though the Christian religion is built upon it. That concept is completely new and unique to Christianity. Other religions have no doctrines concerning the necessity of salvation from one's sins or the idea of an eternal place of torment for those that don't choose their way of believing. It seems most religions exist to help people draw closer to God, not because man needs saving from himself. Again, the concepts you present above - sinless vs. sinful, perfect communion with God, living in the garden - those are Christian concepts with no basis outside Christian Scriptures.

 

[Lisa0315]

According to the NT, Jesus was a miracle-worker. Perhaps he used the Spirit of God do accomplish the impossible. Since Jesus performed such wonderous signs, maybe he felt that he was the long-awaited Messiah for the Jewish people who was to usher in peace and show the way to God. Perhaps Jesus thought that the worship directed towards himself was a part of the Messiah role. Maybe the worship recorded in the NT was no different than the "worship" paid to kings such as David or Solomon.

Jesus accepted His due. The Messiah was Royal Priest, King, and Prophet...and God.

Let me say this...Jesus was from a humble background. He should not have been able to read the law much less taught with authority. If you study the culture of Christ's day, you will find that the knowledge of Christ had to be supernatural in itself, just becuase of who He was, and who His earthly parents were. This in itself is miraculous. By all rights, Christ should have been illiterate, but He wasn't. The point is this...If Jesus were just a man who took a notion to be the Messiah, He would have had a hard time understanding all of the requirements unless He had studied the prophecies. Pretenders were easily identified for this very reason.


The long awaited Messiah was indeed expected to be a victorious military leader who would defeat Israel's enemies and usher in a great kingdom such as had not been seen since David and Solomon. Yet, there were many verses of prophecy relating to the suffering and death of the Messiah. Even the 11 disciples missed it. They spent day after day with Jesus, and even after His resurrection, they still thought, "Okay, now, He sets up His kingdom!". It was only after Pentecost that the disciples finally got it!

I have a personal conviction that the High Priest KNEW who Jesus was. I believe that Caiaphas KNEW that Jesus was the Messiah, but chose to put Him to death because Caiaphas had no real faith. Caiaphas was corrupt and Jesus had called him corrupt often enough that Caiaphas knew that he would lose his position regardless of how it turned out. See, in Caiaphas's mind, Jesus was about to start a rebellion against Rome. If Jesus was sucessful, Jesus would clean house starting with him. If Jesus failed, Rome would raze Israel to dust. Caiaphas decided (and inadvertantly prophesized) that one man should die for the nation. Read John 11, the whole chapter, but pay attention to verses 43-57. After the raising of Lazarus, there was no question even to the high priests who Jesus was. Did they know He was God? I believe they resisted the idea, but there was no question that Jesus claimed to be God. This was the charge that they put Him to death for, blasphemy. All of the times Jesus said, "I Am", He was making a claim to deity. He used the same words that God used to Moses. In fact, "I AM THAT I AM" can be translated to "I am the one who has always been and I am the one who is coming". Jesus said in the garden, "I am HERE". No Jew of the day could not recognize this claim, and in fact, Caiaphas rends his robes when Jesus says, "You say I Am". No more witnesses required, Caiaphas heard Jesus make the claim. It must have been widely proclaimed as the soldier at the foot of the cross said, "Surely this man was the Son of God". He didn't just grab that out of thin air.

So, Jesus did not just accept the worship as the Messiah, but He accepted the worship as Incarnate God. Remember, He said, "I and the Father are one". There was no mistake. He knew who He was, not just a king, not just a priest, not just a prophet, not just a Messiah, but "God with us"!

 

[Turbulence]

I don't think G-d would let someone claim to be Him in the flesh if its not true..Jesus' "powers" would have been taken away I think...


http://www.annieshomepage.com/passover.html
I think that website could answer your question.

G-d bless,
sc

First of all, please tell me exactly where Jesus said he was God in flesh. Please also tell me where God said He would come down to earth as a man.

Secondly, I am more inclined to take the Jewish perspective on Passover over the Christian perspective - it is after all, a holy day given to the Israelites upon leaving Egypt. In the OT, the first Passover lamb was slain so that the blood could serve as a sign - a sign to not kill the first born male in the household. Exodus 12 speaks of the first Passover. God specifically says the blood will serve as a sign so that He will pass over that house and not kill the firstborn male that is there. In Deuteronomy 16, the Israelites were reminded again of the Passover offering. But, the Passover offering is never spoken of in terms of a sin offering. And even if you believe that the blood must be painted upon the lintels/doorposts each year (what Christianity seems to take as symbolic of painting one's heart with the blood of Jesus), it would only apply as a sign for the first born male of the house and no one else. So again, it is illogical for the Christian church to try to make the human killing of Jesus into the Passover lamb of Judaism.

 

[Turbulence]

Jesus accepted His due. The Messiah was Royal Priest, King, and Prophet...and God.

I am having a difficult time seeing where it is prophesied that the Messiah will be God Himself.

 

[Lisa0315]

So without salvation, Christianity is not needed since the necessity of salvation assumes a sinful world. By taking away the need for salvation, one does not negate all the world religions. For instance, this concept of salvation and hell is not found within Judaism, even though the Christian religion is built upon it. That concept is completely new and unique to Christianity. Other religions have no doctrines concerning the necessity of salvation from one's sins or the idea of an eternal place of torment for those that don't choose their way of believing. It seems most religions exist to help people draw closer to God, not because man needs saving from himself. Again, the concepts you present above - sinless vs. sinful, perfect communion with God, living in the garden - those are Christian concepts with no basis outside Christian Scriptures.

I do not know the Jewish point of view well enough to comment on this. To me it is very clear from Genesis to the last prophet that a Messiah was to come to reconcile man to God, to save us from our sin. But, yes, without original sin, Christianity falls apart at the seams. It is for this reason that the scene in the garden, the fall of man had to take place in order for Christianity to be valid. It is why Christians resist the idea of evolution. I can accept Creative Evolution to a point, but only if it includes the fall of man.

Indeed, the first premise of Christianity is admitting that you are a sinner and asking for God's forgiveness. Other religions...again, my knowledge is limited, but I believe there are other religions that teach some kind of punishment for bad behavior, and reward for good behavior. The Hindu Caste System for example...Hell as a concept? I do not know if this is exclusive to Christianity or not. Jesus spoke of Hell, so I believe in it.

 

[MyLittleWonders]

I do not know the Jewish point of view well enough to comment on this. To me it is very clear from Genesis to the last prophet that a Messiah was to come to reconcile man to God, to save us from our sin. But, yes, without original sin, Christianity falls apart at the seams. It is for this reason that the scene in the garden, the fall of man had to take place in order for Christianity to be valid. It is why Christians resist the idea of evolution. I can accept Creative Evolution to a point, but only if it includes the fall of man.

Indeed, the first premise of Christianity is admitting that you are a sinner and asking for God's forgiveness. Other religions...again, my knowledge is limited, but I believe there are other religions that teach some kind of punishment for bad behavior, and reward for good behavior. The Hindu Caste System for example...Hell as a concept? I do not know if this is exclusive to Christianity or not. Jesus spoke of Hell, so I believe in it.

The problem I have with this is that Christianity takes pieces of the Tanakh and tries to make them into messianic prophecy, but then completely ignores the actual messianic prophecy. You are not going to find in Judaism, or in the Tanakh the idea that man has "fallen" and needs the messiah to "pick him up." The Messiah has specific things that he will do - regather the Jews to Israel, rebuild the Temple, turn all hearts to G-d and His Torah, and show the one true G-d to the nations. The messiah is not commissioned as a "savior" - that is G-d's job alone. (He makes this clear throughout the Tanakh - He is the one that does the saving, not someone else.) So, if Christianity is supposed to be built upon Judaism, why does it have so many concepts and ideas that are completely foreign to Judaism? Why does it ignore the actual messianic prophecies of Judaism in favor of their own made-up prophecies (in other words, taking Scripture and making it into prophecies)? There are ample threads around here as to why the Christian prophecies held as proof for the messiahship of Jesus are invalid. Let me know if you'd like to me give a synopsis of them. (And I mean that sincerely.)

 

[Lisa0315]

]First of all, please tell me exactly where Jesus said he was God in flesh. Please also tell me where God said He would come down to earth as a man.

Isaiah 7:14 The name Immanuel means "God with us".

Secondly, I am more inclined to take the Jewish perspective on Passover over the Christian perspective - it is after all, a holy day given to the Israelites upon leaving Egypt. In the OT, the first Passover lamb was slain so that the blood could serve as a sign - a sign to not kill the first born male in the household. Exodus 12 speaks of the first Passover. God specifically says the blood will serve as a sign so that He will pass over that house and not kill the firstborn male that is there. In Deuteronomy 16, the Israelites were reminded again of the Passover offering. But, the Passover offering is never spoken of in terms of a sin offering. And even if you believe that the blood must be painted upon the lintels/doorposts each year (what Christianity seems to take as symbolic of painting one's heart with the blood of Jesus), it would only apply as a sign for the first born male of the house and no one else. So again, it is illogical for the Christian church to try to make the human killing of Jesus into the Passover lamb of Judaism.

Passover is about deliverance from death. The Passover lamb was slain in PLACE of the first born son. That is the whole point. Jesus was the lamb that was slain in our place to deliver us from spiritual death.

 

[MyLittleWonders]

It's interesting how Jesus was never called Immanuel. It's also interesting how that "prophecy" from Isaiah 7 had nothing to do with Jesus in the first place. At that time, the Judahite were under attack from two kings - Rezin, king of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel. The people of Judah, under King Ahaz, were in fear. G-d begins by telling Isaiah to speak with Ahaz to let him know these two kings will no prosper in their bid to take over the people of Judah. He (G-d) then told Ahaz to ask for a sign from Him that His words were true. Ahaz declined and said he would not put G-d to a test. G-d gave him a sign anyway:

"'Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: BEhold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel. ... For before the child will know to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings whom you fear will be abandoned.'" Isaiah 7:14, 16

First of all, the Chrsitian Bible utilizes the Greek Septuagint (sp?) translation of the Tanakh - an innacurate translation. The word translated as "virgin" in the Christian OT is a mistranslation and should simply read "maiden" or "young women" - not necessarily a woman who has never had sexual relations. The Hebrew word used is "ha'almah". If the author wanted to portray the idea that this young woman was a virgin, the word "betulah" would have been used instead. The word used for conceive, as well, is actually written in the past tense, meaning the child had already been conceived, though the pregnancy was in such early stages that it was "hidden" from the people. As well, the child, called Immanuel, would have to learn the difference between evil and good, something illogical with the idea that Jesus was G-d incarnate. And, by the time the child was old enough to differentiate between good and evill, the land of the two kings (the king of Aram and the king of Israel/Ephraim) would be abandoned. And it was.

Passover is about deliverance from death. The Passover lamb was slain in PLACE of the first born son. That is the whole point. Jesus was the lamb that was slain in our place to deliver us from spiritual death.

Christianity has to do some major logical summersaults to get from a physical, one-time event of the passing over of the first-born Israelite child to the spiritual salvation of the entire world. It just plain ol' doesn't add up with what the Passover offering was, and why it happened. It was only one time that the Israelites painted the blood upon the lintels. Every Passover thereafter is to serve as a remembrance. No sin offering, no "spiritual" salvation ... just a rememberance of what happened in the Egyptian desert when G-d killed the first born of each Egyptian household.

 

[Lisa0315]

My Little Wonders,

I understand that you are sincere and that you believe what you are saying is true. However, there are many Messanic Jews who would disagree with you, and after careful study of the scriptures and conviction of the Holy Spirit, they have come to belief in Christ. I do not know the level of your expertise, or how long you have studied scripture to make these statements, but there are certainly Jewish scholars who have spent a great deal of time studying the same passages that you have, and have reached a completely different conclusion. I personally do not have the knowledge to debate this with you. I can only offer you my life as testimony to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Lisa

 

[MyLittleWonders]

Actually I was a Christian for 13 years; the last year of that as a Messianic. I have quite a bit of experience from the "other" side, so to speak, as my nature is to study and debate. As well, many of of the "conclusions" I draw to Jewish Scripture is learned from Jewish thought and scholarship - I am not here making things up as I go. So, personally, I do believe I have at least some reason to make the statements that I do.

 

[BourbonFromHeaven]

My Little Wonders,

I understand that you are sincere and that you believe what you are saying is true. However, there are many Messanic Jews who would disagree with you, and after careful study of the scriptures and conviction of the Holy Spirit, they have come to belief in Christ. I do not know the level of your expertise, or how long you have studied scripture to make these statements, but there are certainly Jewish scholars who have spent a great deal of time studying the same passages that you have, and have reached a completely different conclusion. I personally do not have the knowledge to debate this with you. I can only offer you my life as testimony to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Lisa

And what of Jewish Scholars who have converted to Islam? There were quite a few Sage level indivduals who converted willingly to Islam in the 10th and 12th centuary. Is this an indication that Islam is a valid faith of God?

Apostates of any faith only prove on thing. We are all human.

 

[Roman Soldier]

100 posts to go to GA? Why do we punish 100% of our members for what a few trolls do? This happens all the time at this site. A few do something and everyone loses freedom because of it. Is this server based in Singapore?

 

[Roman Soldier]

Well, you're less than 30 posts away. Nothing to stop you now...

 

[Lisa0315]

And what of Jewish Scholars who have converted to Islam? There were quite a few Sage level indivduals who converted willingly to Islam in the 10th and 12th centuary. Is this an indication that Islam is a valid faith of God?

Apostates of any faith only prove on thing. We are all human.

I cannot answer this question because I do not know the answer. I can only tell you that Jesus Christ changed my life.

 

[BourbonFromHeaven]

I cannot answer this question because I do not know the answer. I can only tell you that Jesus Christ changed my life.

Well, thats a fair answer.

 

[BourbonFromHeaven]

100 posts to go to GA? Why do we punish 100% of our members for what a few trolls do? This happens all the time at this site. A few do something and everyone loses freedom because of it. Is this server based in Singapore?

If it was, you would have already been caned

 

[Scholar in training]

100 posts to go to GA? Why do we punish 100% of our members for what a few trolls do? This happens all the time at this site. A few do something and everyone loses freedom because of it. Is this server based in Singapore?

Don't complain, it prevents people from copy-and-pasting the writings of people like Acharya S. and Kersey Graves, and as we all know that only makes skeptics look bad.

 

[Turbulence]

Don't complain, it prevents people from copy-and-pasting the writings of people like Acharya S. and Kersey Graves, and as we all know that only makes skeptics look bad.

I know that I am going to sound incredibly ignorant here ... But who are these authors?

 

[Scholar in training]

I know that I am going to sound incredibly ignorant here ... But who are these authors?

Be glad that you haven't heard of them before.

Acharya S. and Kersey Graves were skeptics who relied on supposed parallels between Christ and mythical savior gods, and went to ridiculous lengths to do so. Graves, for instance, compared Jesus' life to that of Quetzlcoatl and Japanese gods - I'm still having trouble figuring out how Jesus' followers, living in Judea at the time, found out about these gods! The rest of his list isn't much better. They wrote quite some time ago (Graves was alive in the 1800's, not sure about an exact date for Acharya) although some skeptics still think that 150 year old "sources" are authoritative.