That's a misreading of the story.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil represented ... the knowledge
of good and evil! It didn't represent free will, and in fact,
God encouraged free will.
> Man yet retained the ability to
> do good and to do evil, but in usurping God's place as Lord man became
> a sinner, and became unable, through good works to obtain immortality.
The story doesn't say a thing about immortality, and in fact,
immortality is irrelevant.
>
> The good works would always be spoiled by the evil works, and even the
> good works would not be good enough to obtain God's eternal pleasure.
> At best it could only reach out towards God or do things that please
> God.
No, this sounds like the same Pauline stuff you always teach,
which is not at all taught in the Bible.
...
> When we talk about justification by good works then we're talking
> about a relationship between man's desire to do good and Christ's
> spirit, working together in participation to produce immortal works.
There are no such things as immortal works.
--
Rob Strom
> Even if that were true, modelling oneself on Jesus means doing
> what he allegedly did (studying and obeying the law perfectly), not
> just "believing in him".
There really is no such thing as "just believing in him." To believe
he was the Christ is to understand that we are to follow after him
spiritually. And this is done by actually receiving the spirit that
possesses the history of his own flawless record of righteousness.
When we possess this spirit and live according to this spirit, we
don't, of course, demonstrate flawless obedience. What we do, however,
is choose to participate in a spirituality that *by its own inherent
qualities* has proven to be capable of eternal righteousness.
> > Yes, but there are two ways to look at this. Either God decided to
> > take away the promise of the "tree of life" forever, in that man had
> > become "like God." Or, God teased man with the hope there would be a
> > way to get back to the tree of life, by someone legally dealing with
> > this prohibition.
> Unless you are already disposed to believe something else,
> it is a gross perversion of a text that says "Now [man] must
> be prevented from ... taking from the Tree of Life,
> [so He drove man away and put up a guard on the Tree]" to say
> that it means "God teased man with the hope there would
> be a way to get back to the Tree".
No, the passage does not prevent what followed. While it has been in
fact true that mankind had been prohibitted from ever receiving
eternal life *in his then-current form of righteousness,* it is not
true that he could not obtain legal rights to an eternal spirituality,
based upon a future form of righteousness.
> > I accept the latter. Christian redemption is nothing but a big
> > explanation as to how God legally deals with the problem of our
> > becoming "God-like." Redemption is all about identification,
> > spiritually, with Jesus, so that in somehow spiritually participating
> > in his death we no longer have a curse upon our natural bodies. We
> > have ceased to be "God-like" in a legal sense. We *died.*
> This is all Humpty-Dumpty make words mean whatever you want.
> A certain form of living is called "spiritually dying".
No, it is called "identification." We identify with Christ by assuming
his spirituality and by thus obtaining the legal rights that he
obtained when he experienced what he did. What Jesus experienced in
his earthly existence, in his death, and in his resurrection, remain
inherent qualities within the spirituality that he has now given to
men.
We have not obtained these legal benefits on our own, because they
belong to Christ's spirituality -- it is not our own spirituality.
However, in receiving this spirituality as the dominant element in our
works we obtain the inherent qualities of this spirituality legally,
because those qualities are resident in the spirituality we assume.
We in a very real sense "died with Christ on the cross" because the
spirituality that was with Christ on the cross was his own and now
resides within us. We possess the same capacity to declare ourselves
as having paid the penalty for human sin. We are thus free from
condemnation for *any sin* as long as we live in the spirituality of
Christ, who has already died.
Of course, in order to declare ourselves free of the condemnation of
sin we must live in the spirituality of Christ. In so doing we must
live in the righteousness that he exhibited in his earthly life.
> And being unrighteous but worshipping Jesus gets called
> "participating in the righteousness" even when it's not.
We do not have to be flawless when choosing to live in Jesus' spirit.
What we have to do is make Jesus' spirituality the prevailing element
in our lives. If we really choose to have Jesus' spirituality live
within us, we cannot have some pseudo-spirituality live within us. It
must really be Jesus' spirit, and must contain the very attributes
that he demonstrated he had in his earthly life.
> > Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed
> > are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says
> > the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds
> > follow them!"
> The verse actually implies that people *don't* live forever.
> The words seem to say that when you die, you *stop* doing
> deeds, and go to a state of rest, which contradicts your
> theory that you live forever. The dead "rest from their labor",
> and they are remembered by the record of their past deeds,
> which follow them. They don't do any new deeds after death.
Well, the point is that we must, as flawed human beings, die. That is
why Jesus died for us -- not because he himself deserved to die, or
was flawed, but that he wanted to demonstrate a spirituality that
could not be disqualified by our legal requirement to die.
In dying, he removed the condemnation for all our flaws, because
through death those flaws would've been paid for. By living in this
spirituality we live in a spirituality that had received an exemption
from any human disqualificaton.
We must all die, but our eternal life is predicated upon our receiving
a spirituality that not only gives us righteousness now, but is also
free from all future disqualification, including the experience of
death itself. Living in Christ's spirituality we obtain the rights
that go along with that spirituality, which involves the ability to
live in that spirituality forever.
Jesus died not to exempt us from death, but to give us a spirituality
tht endures beyond death. What his death did was remove any human
disqualification upon his spirituality because inherent in this
spirituality was the experience of human death, thus paying the legal
penalty for all of his theoretical human sin.
We are able to exhibit all that Jesus himself exhibited while he was
here on earth. We are able to obtain his legal rights to declare our
sins paid for, and to obtain his own eternal spirituality. We have the
same spirituality that demonstrated flawless righteousness on earth
and rose from the dead. And so we can demonstrate, even in our flawed
human experience, the characteristics of an unblemished divine
spirituality that is legally qualified to rise from the dead.
Our works "following us" means that we have all the rights that go
along with having a spirituality that existed in Jesus when he lived
on earth. As such we cannot be prevented by human death from resuming
its righteousness in a future resurrection, because that is an
inherent quality of the spirituality Jesus demonstrated when he lived
on earth.
All this I call "identification." It is validated not by a theoretical
"claim" to do good works, but rather, by a demonstrated quality of
spirituality that actually existed in the historical record of Jesus'
life. We should, in reality, demonstrate the love, compassion, and
kindness that Jesus himself demonstrated in the gospel records.
randy
This is just word games.
We believe in God and we do the best we can to obey His commandments.
Of course we don't succeed perfectly, so Christians come back and say
that this makes our attempts at obedience worthless.
Then you guys do the same thing -- you believe in Jesus, and you do
the best you can to follow him. Of course, you don't succeed
perfectly either. But now you say that's ok, because you have
"participated in a spirituality". Fooey. If *you* can obey partially
but not totally and be judged ok, then so can we.
...
> > Unless you are already disposed to believe something else,
> > it is a gross perversion of a text that says "Now [man] must
> > be prevented from ... taking from the Tree of Life,
> > [so He drove man away and put up a guard on the Tree]" to say
> > that it means "God teased man with the hope there would
> > be a way to get back to the Tree".
>
> No, the passage does not prevent what followed. While it has been in
> fact true that mankind had been prohibitted from ever receiving
> eternal life *in his then-current form of righteousness,* it is not
> true that he could not obtain legal rights to an eternal spirituality,
> based upon a future form of righteousness.
Anything is possible. It's also possible that Jesus' teachings are
temporary and will only apply until Alan Dershowitz comes and teaches
a "future form of righteousness". But that's not the plain meaning of
the text. The text said God prevented man from getting to the Tree,
not God teaqsed man with the hope there would be a way to get back.
...
> > > I accept the latter. Christian redemption is nothing but a big
> > > explanation as to how God legally deals with the problem of our
> > > becoming "God-like." Redemption is all about identification,
> > > spiritually, with Jesus, so that in somehow spiritually participating
> > > in his death we no longer have a curse upon our natural bodies. We
> > > have ceased to be "God-like" in a legal sense. We *died.*
> > This is all Humpty-Dumpty make words mean whatever you want.
> > A certain form of living is called "spiritually dying".
>
> No, it is called "identification." We identify with Christ by assuming
> his spirituality and by thus obtaining the legal rights that he
> obtained when he experienced what he did. What Jesus experienced in
> his earthly existence, in his death, and in his resurrection, remain
> inherent qualities within the spirituality that he has now given to
> men.
You said that in a legal sense we "died". It's another way to say we
did X but we're going to pretend that because we really really like
this guy who did Y, we're going to pretend that we did Y too.
I like Mariano Rivera, so therefore I spiritually can throw a 95 mph
cutter, because I identify with the participation of him.
...
> Of course, in order to declare ourselves free of the condemnation of
> sin we must live in the spirituality of Christ. In so doing we must
> live in the righteousness that he exhibited in his earthly life.
And I do better, because I live *on* the spirituality of Rivera. On
trumps in.
--
Rob Strom
>(Futurist, since that is what translators
>usually are)
Of course people who study and translate the
original languages of the Bible are going to be
futurist in their eschatology. People who are more
interested in their imagination than what the text
says become Preterists.
Well there's also the issue of my not knowing where your church is.
If you recall, I know where Randy's is, because when we were
discussing his (then) pastor's wife whose son Seldon was
(supposedly) brought up Orthodox, Randy posted a link to
the wife's book, which I was able to order online, and the
information in the bio told me where the church was.
All I know about you is that you live somewhere in California,
you work(ed) for the IRS for $20000/year, that you refuse to buy
health insurance, and that you own several books by
and about figures from the 3rd Reich.
--
Rob Strom
1. It's now way less than $20000/year
2. I do buy health insurance (when working)
3. I own no books by and about figures from the 3rd Reich.
Sorry, I erred by saying "greek". I did that out of force of habit.
The main point is, "taboo" is a HORRIBLE word to throw in there. In our
culture, it means "forbidden to do"
The hebrew word doesn't mean that AT ALL
>
> It is *etymologically* Polynesian, but is now English.
> Just as the word "devote" is etymologically Latin,
> but is now English.
>
> ...>
> > > I had to go look in a historical dictionary to find that the English
> > > word
> > > "devoted" in earlier times
> > > (the language of the KJV Bible) didn't mean "loved", but
> > > rather the opposite: "cursed, execrated, doomed to destruction",
> > > and its initial meaning was "set apart by a vow".
> >
> > And Christ, the lamb of God, became a sacrifice for sin and became
> > cursed on the cross.
>
> He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
> I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
> for sins.
He was the lamb of God who became a propitiary sacrifice for sin
a. Human sacrifices are NOT ok, but GOD made provision for CHRIST as a
propitiary sacrifice for sin, and HE is "most holy"
You're failing to see the ultimate point of that verse and trying to
give it a wooden, lieral interpretation when its deeper and ultimate
meaning is about CHRIST.
Also, criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just
because they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted to God, and
is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a most
holy sacrifice for sin.
That's the ultimate point of the verse
b. You've been shown where men's lives can atone for sin. You just don't
like it and are trying to find a way around it
>
> ...
> >
> >
> > > If you want Hebrew, here is the passage:
> > > "Kol-cherem asher yochoram min-ha'adam lo yipadeh mot yumat."
> >
> > > So the word is "cherem", the same word that is used to
> > > denote someone who is ritually banished.
> >
> > > So "devoted of man" doesn't mean "devoted *by* man",
> > > but "set apart/banished *from among* men", as the Hebrew indicates.
> >
> > As Christ, the HUMAN SACRIFICE, was
>
> He was a condemned criminal, just like the passage was saying.
Criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
most holy sacrifice for sin.
> >
> > every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
> >
> > Followed immediately by:
> >
> > None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed ; but
> > shall surely be put to death
> >
> > The context is a HUMAN BEING who must die is "most holy" unto the Lord.
>
> Oh?? Then by your logic, the Canaanites were "most holy" unto the
> Lord,
> since they were also cherem.
Canaanites are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
most holy sacrifice for sin.
That's what you miss
> ...
> >
> > > > > I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
> > > > > condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
> > > > > sin of another".
> >
> > > > That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying that a human
> > > > sacrifice cannot be redeemed.
> >
> > > There are no human sacrifices.
> >
> > I just showed you there were. You simply are trying to define "human
> > sacrifice" with your own terms when God's are different
> >
>
> Perhaps you can show me a quotation from the Bible that calls
> a cherem a human sacrifice.
The passage in leviticus makes the point
>
> ...
> > > No it doesn't, and if you read the 11th chapter of the book of
> > > Judges, you will see a teaching that he was foolishly bound.
> >
> > > It is very odd especially at this time of year that you are
> > > trying to teach that vows in vain are binding. In two days,
> > > I will be singing with my choir theKolNidre, accompanied
> > > by some of the most beautiful cello music ever, on
> > > the holiest night of the year, an explicit affirmation
> > > to repudiate foolish and vain vows that I may have made.
> >
> > SO WHAT? This NON-BIBLICAL holy day and process ISN'T IN THE SCRIPTURE
> > AT ALL, but was INVENTED by jews looking for ways to avoid doing what
> > scripture says about keeping vows made to God
>
> Uh, This Biblical holy day is mentioned by name in the scripture.
> Leviticus 23:27 --
> "The 10th of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement for
> you.
That is Yom Kippur, not the Kol Nidre which was invented in the 10th
century and made a part of it!!!
This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law
> It is a sacred holiday when you must fast and bring a fire offering to
> God."
> Ach be'asor lachodesh hashevi'i hazeh **Yom haKipurim** hu mikra-
> kodesh
> yihyeh lachem ve'initem et-nafshoteychem vehikravtem isheh l'Adonay.
>
> ...
> >
> > I'm amazed you appeal to it like it was taught in scripture or was
> > available to jepthah
>
> Kol Nidre (which begins Yom Kippur)
> isn't some modern liberal or Reform idea -- it goes back *at least*
> to the 10th century, so it is far more ingrained in Judaism than
> Lutheranism is in Christianity. The procedure for
> annulling vain or foolish vows goes back to
> ancient times, so it's halachic!
>
> The story of Jephthah was one of the *incentives* for
> establishing a procedure.
This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law
>
> In any case, it's in the Mishneh Torah:
> "One who makes a vow and regrets it applies to a sage who dissolves
> it, and the law of dissolution of vows is like the law of dissolution
> of oaths, which can be dissolved only by a recognized sage or three
> commoners in a place where there is no sage, and a vow is dissolved by
> the same formula by which an oath is dissolved, and the other matters
> that I explained in regard to oaths are the same for vows as for
> oaths. (Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Nedarim, 4)"
>
> ...
> >
> > > Wrong if it means the modern English sense of "devoted".
> >
> > No one says it does. The BIBLE indicates the human who dies is "most
> > holy" just as ALL the things procribed in the passage are called "most
> > holy"
> >
> > EVERY devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
> >
> > Did you miss the word "every"?
> >
>
> Did you miss that they were talking about things vowed to the
> sanctuary?
Did you miss the part Christ cleansed the heavenly sanctuary with His
own blood, and was devoted to that?
>
> ...
> >
> > > Mine said killing the innocent made Saul now legally innocent.
> > > Yours said Saul (and others) had their sin atoned for by
> > > the execution of innocent men.
> >
> > I didn't say their deaths bought saul entrance into heaven )"legally
> > innocent") as you seem to suggest I must mean.
> >
> > I said their deaths atoned for the consequences of his sin.
> >
>
> The normal meaning of atone is to show in your
> future actions that you deserve mercy for the
> sin of your former actions.
That's nice. Who said this was a "normal" incident?
>
> ...
> >
> > > There is nothing in that passage that said this
> >
> > The whole incident shows it.
> >
> > As always, when you don't like something, you require language so
> > specific you can'r find any theory to get around it before you'll admit
> > you're wrong...and you never DO admit your wrong on these sorts of
> > things
>
> That's the normal principle. Extraordinary things require
> extraordinary evidence.
The resurrectrion IS extraordinary evidence ebrything i am saying is
true
You apply it all the time, e.g.,
> you won't accept the dimensional transcendence theory
> of Rebekah's womb because you would first look for
> any way to read the passage as symbolic even though
> the passage very clearly states that there were *nations*
> in Rebekah's womb, not patriarchs of future nations.
>
> ...
> >
> > It's ALL problematic.
> >
> > 1. You claim God can never accept or demand the sacrifice of a human
> > messaiah to atone for sin because the law "forbids" that.
>
> I didn't say the law forbids that. I said that the Bible
> teaches, both in the akeidah and in the rule that
> everyone dies for its own sin that nobody
> can be killed to take away the guilt of others.
And that has been shown to be wrong in at least Job amd the bullocks on
sukkhot, and in the jewish writings I cited which say the righteous can
atone by their deaths for the society as a whole as you seem to admit
below.
>
> >
> > 2. You claim no one can atone for someoene else's sin.
>
> The Bible says it.
>
And that has been shown to be wrong in at least Job amd the bullocks on
sukkhot
> >
> > 3. You claim a human person's death cannot atone for sin.
>
> Yes.
shown to be wrong
>
> >
> > I have shown all these claims to be FALSE.
> >
> > God DID accept saul's sons' deaths to atone for their grandad's sin,
>
> No, it never says it atones for the sins.
It don't have to "say" it; it shows it CLEARLY
>
> It says, without commentary, that the sin happened, the plagues
> happened, the
> deal with the Gibeonites happened, the sons were
> killed and left hanging in public. The bodies were
> then buried. Then the plagues stopped.
So? They stopped because the process of their deaths and burying was
completed--not because they were simply buried.
>
> > and
> > the law has an enigmatic verse showing a human has the capacity to be
> > reserved to death for sin, and is actually "most holy" in that.
>
> Those are two different verses. One about property devoted to
> the Temple (that is holy), and the other about persons
> condemned to death. To say that all cherem is holy
> would imply, as I've shown, that the Canaanites were holy.
not at all. Christ was prophesied to be a holy sacrifice for sin and
cleansed the ehavenly temple.
The canaanites didn't
>
> >
> > I showed verses where moses and job atoned for other people's sins on
> > behalf of them. job especially, and the bullocks on sokkhot.
>
> These are just usual sacrifices.
Those are just usual examples of people enacting sacrifices for the sins
of others
If you attended YK services,
> you'd have read from the prophets including Isaiah where
> fasts and sacrifices without proper repentance and acts
> of justice *don't* atone for anything, and another prophet
> mentions that without sacrifices prayer and repentance *do* atone.
Yet at the same time God shows instances where He allows others to
sacrifice for others
>
> >
> > I showed where the death of human men acted as a means of atoning for
> > other mens' sins and even posted jewish writings claiming that the death
> > of the righteous atones for sins in God's eyes
>
> These are collective sins, and what is meant that good acts of
> a people can mitigate the collective punishment of a people for
> their bad acts, not that the death of innocents atones for
> sins of guilty.
What drivel.
Christ did atome for the sins of many, and in your own writings, the
deaths of the RIGHTEOUS proves the deaths of INNOCENTS accomplishes
atonement for the guilt and sins of others.
>
> ...
> >
> >
> > > The last thing that happened before God removed
> > > the curse on the land was the burying of the bodies.
> >
> > No, the last thing would have been Michal's going into mourning, or the
> > witnesses going back home, if you want to foolishly throw things out to
> > obfuscate the incident.
>
> The last thing in the story.
Irrelevant. You're grasping at straws to soemhow make their deaths NOT
be payment for the sin, and that's obvious.
>
> ...
> >
> > > A sin offering, as explained by the prophets later, only atones
> > > when the real atonement (t'shuvah) has been done by the guilty
> > > person, otherwise no.
> >
> > Are you retracting the statement "Sacrifices don't atone"? yes or no?
>
> I am qualifying the statement.
> ...
> >
> > Your claim that your repentance and penance are the atonement because
> > YOU atone for your sin by that-- and the animal really means/does
> > nothing--is not biblical
>
> Hosea 14:2 is an inkblot?
The red wool is an inkblot?
And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it
The bullock--not the repentnance--is the atonemnt.
You need both, but once the person seeks forgiveness he isn't forgiven
until there is shed blood somewhere, either in the form of the
sacrificial offering, or through the grace of God applying the coming
merits of the cross
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > And on this week, you of all people should know this,
> > > since you have Yom Kippur in 2 days!!
> >
> > I don't believe your observance of yom kippur secures the forgiveness of
> > even one sin for you!
>
> That's because you have a different religion from mine
> and you don't accept Judaism!
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And think you for agreeing Judaism and Christianity are mutually
exclusive--and mutually exclusive because Christianity teaches CHRIST is
the atonement.
The precepts of Judaism have no place in the Christian faith, and those
who try to bring it in are apostates from both religions
agree?
Point is, HE secured the atonement, not the people repenting, praying
and giving alms as you teach
PS--next time you feel the need to give some alms to atone for your sin,
I'll be glad to take them. I'm poor
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is Yom Kippur and the Days of Awe -- how
> > > can you be getting the story so wrong?????
> >
> > Your sins remain on you before and after yom kippur even in a best-case
> > scenario with the goats being sacrificed, which never took sin away
> > after 30 AD since the wool stayed red.
> >
> > Do you miss the significance of that? THe goat wasn't taking away sin
> > anymore so the wool never turned white again after the crucifixion in 30
> > AD
> >
> > Now you don't even have the goat!
> >
>
> You're still thinking like a primitive
Your religion is "primitive"? Thanks for the admission
-- sins aren't taken away by
> goats and magic.
Your talmud says otherwise
They are taken away by contrition and repentance,
> and if you had fasted and gone to services Friday night and yesterday,
> you might have learned this!!
Unfortunately, being contrite and repenting does not remove the PENALTY
for sin by itself. Blood must still be shed and the penalty paid.
You will either pay it or Christ will pay it.
Choose
It also means set aside, which is what cherem means.
It's just that in different places, it means set aside for
death and in other places it means set aside for the temple,
and in general speech it means kicked out of the community.
...
>
> > He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
> > I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
> > for sins.
>
> He was the lamb of God who became a propitiary sacrifice for sin
>
> a. Human sacrifices are NOT ok, but GOD made provision for CHRIST as a
> propitiary sacrifice for sin, and HE is "most holy"
If human sacrifices are NOT ok, then God couldn't have "made
provision"
for Christ as a propitiary sacrifice for sin.
> You're failing to see the ultimate point of that verse and trying to
> give it a wooden, lieral interpretation when its deeper and ultimate
> meaning is about CHRIST.
>
There's nothing in there that says anything about Christ.
> Also, criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just
> because they are slain for their crimes.
I didn't say "as sacrifices". I said that the verse
that says don't redeem anything that is cherem
was talking about condemned criminals, and
not about "sacrifices".
> Christ WAS devoted to God, and
> is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a most
> holy sacrifice for sin.
Remember that the word translated as "devoted" is "cherem",
and that in the days of the KJV, the word "devoted" didn't
mean "devoted"; it meant either "cursed" or "set apart
by a vow".
>
> That's the ultimate point of the verse
>
> b. You've been shown where men's lives can atone for sin. You just don't
> like it and are trying to find a way around it
No. I've been shown where good acts of some in a nation
can overcome the negative judgment resulting from
the bad acts of others.
...
>
> > He was a condemned criminal, just like the passage was saying.
>
> Criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
> they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
> and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
> most holy sacrifice for sin.
We don't know this at all. You can't infer that just because you
can't redeem criminals that they can act to wipe out
the sins of others.
...
> > > The context is a HUMAN BEING who must die is "most holy" unto the Lord.
>
> > Oh?? Then by your logic, the Canaanites were "most holy" unto the
> > Lord,
> > since they were also cherem.
>
> Canaanites are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
> they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
> and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
> most holy sacrifice for sin.
Your logic was that you thought the passage said that anyone
who was cherem was also "most holy". I showed you
that it was unlikely that this meant "all cherem are holy"
given that Canaanites were also cherem.
...
>
> > > I just showed you there were. You simply are trying to define "human
> > > sacrifice" with your own terms when God's are different
>
> > Perhaps you can show me a quotation from the Bible that calls
> > a cherem a human sacrifice.
>
> The passage in leviticus makes the point
It doesn't say they are a sacrifice. And clearly
the passage about the Canaanites doesn't imply
they are a sacrifice.
...
>
> > Uh, This Biblical holy day is mentioned by name in the scripture.
> > Leviticus 23:27 --
> > "The 10th of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement for
> > you.
>
> That is Yom Kippur, not the Kol Nidre which was invented in the 10th
> century and made a part of it!!!
>
> This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
> ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law
We're not "adding to the law", since it's not *compulsory* to do Kol
Nidre.
But Judaism is an evolving religion, and the legislature is allowed to
decide when vows can be annulled. Christianity does this too:
marriage is supposed to be "until death do you part", but over time
the church has decided that some so-called marriages were
fraudulent or done while drunk or deceived or whatever, and they
could be annulled. Jews did the same thing. When Jews began
to be living in hostile environments it became necessary to
recognize a whole category of vain vows.
....
> > Kol Nidre (which begins Yom Kippur)
> > isn't some modern liberal or Reform idea -- it goes back *at least*
> > to the 10th century, so it is far more ingrained in Judaism than
> > Lutheranism is in Christianity. The procedure for
> > annulling vain or foolish vows goes back to
> > ancient times, so it's halachic!
>
> > The story of Jephthah was one of the *incentives* for
> > establishing a procedure.
>
> This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
> ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law
It's not adding to the law. Jews are not just allowed to interpret
the law, but are *required* to interpret it.
...>
> > > Did you miss the word "every"?
>
> > Did you miss that they were talking about things vowed to the
> > sanctuary?
>
> Did you miss the part Christ cleansed the heavenly sanctuary with His
> own blood, and was devoted to that?
Huh?????? I thought we were talking about a passage in Leviticus,
and all of a sudden, you're talking about cleansing a heavenly
sanctuary?
...>
> > The normal meaning of atone is to show in your
> > future actions that you deserve mercy for the
> > sin of your former actions.
>
> That's nice. Who said this was a "normal" incident?
You've switched from "normal meaning" to "normal incident".
Even if this was an abnormal incident, if you want to
describe it so that people hundreds of years later will
understand what you're talking about, you need words
that people will understand. If you invent new words --
or worse, use existing words with brand new meanings --
you will assuredly mislead.
...>
> > That's the normal principle. Extraordinary things require
> > extraordinary evidence.
>
> The resurrectrion IS extraordinary evidence ebrything i am saying is
> true
I don't believe in the resurrection, and the words in the Tanakh
have to mean what they meant for all these years before
Jesus was born.
>
> You apply it all the time, e.g.,
>
> > you won't accept the dimensional transcendence theory
> > of Rebekah's womb because you would first look for
> > any way to read the passage as symbolic even though
> > the passage very clearly states that there were *nations*
> > in Rebekah's womb, not patriarchs of future nations.
>
> > ...
I think you have no response to this.
...
>
> And that has been shown to be wrong in at least Job amd the bullocks on
> sukkhot, and in the jewish writings I cited which say the righteous can
> atone by their deaths for the society as a whole as you seem to admit
> below.
>
Bullocks are not human sacrifices. I told you what death
of righteous atones for sinners means -- it doesn't mean
that if you've committed a sin, shoot your neighbor's
child, because the death of that innocent will atone
for your sin.
...>
> > > 3. You claim a human person's death cannot atone for sin.
>
> > Yes.
>
> shown to be wrong
No, it just means that if Peter sins and harms his
country, Paul's brave acts can help the country.
...
>
> So? They stopped because the process of their deaths and burying was
> completed--not because they were simply buried.
>
>
Actually, the Bible is 100% silent on why the plagues stopped.
...
>
> > Those are two different verses. One about property devoted to
> > the Temple (that is holy), and the other about persons
> > condemned to death. To say that all cherem is holy
> > would imply, as I've shown, that the Canaanites were holy.
>
> not at all. Christ was prophesied to be a holy sacrifice for sin and
> cleansed the ehavenly temple.
Huh?????????????????????????????????????????????????
I've never heard of this. Please quote a verse where "Christ"
was prophesied to be a sacrifice for sin, and where he
cleansed the heavenly temple.
I didn't even know there was a heavenly temple.
....>
> > These are collective sins, and what is meant that good acts of
> > a people can mitigate the collective punishment of a people for
> > their bad acts, not that the death of innocents atones for
> > sins of guilty.
>
> What drivel.
>
Please show Biblical evidence for this being drivel.
> Christ did atome for the sins of many, and in your own writings, the
> deaths of the RIGHTEOUS proves the deaths of INNOCENTS accomplishes
> atonement for the guilt and sins of others.
No, they don't.
...
>
> > The last thing in the story.
>
> Irrelevant. You're grasping at straws to soemhow make their deaths NOT
> be payment for the sin, and that's obvious.
How could their deaths be payment for the sin?
We don't even know if the executed folks were innocent, and
in any case this was a deal worked out between the
Israelites and the Gibeonites.
...
> > > Your claim that your repentance and penance are the atonement because
> > > YOU atone for your sin by that-- and the animal really means/does
> > > nothing--is not biblical
>
> > Hosea 14:2 is an inkblot?
>
> The red wool is an inkblot?
>
> And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
> atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
> atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it
>
> The bullock--not the repentnance--is the atonemnt.
No. The bullock is a ceremony. The atonement is
the actual act of atoning for your sin.
>
> You need both, but once the person seeks forgiveness he isn't forgiven
> until there is shed blood somewhere, either in the form of the
> sacrificial offering, or through the grace of God applying the coming
> merits of the cross
I don't know what the term "coming merits of the cross" means,
but it's not written anywhere.
The prophets say that people will be forgiven for their
repentance an prayers, and that's good enough for me.
If you actually went to YK services, you'd know the
liturgy, that ends
"but repentance, prayer, and charity temper judgment's stern decree".
That's what Judaism is about.
That's not some new-agey modern version of Judaism, either,
but it's something that everyone from Orthodox to Reform teaches.
It's in the Unetaneh Tokef! That's pretty ancient!
....>
> > That's because you have a different religion from mine
> > and you don't accept Judaism!
>
> AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And think you for agreeing Judaism and Christianity are mutually
> exclusive--and mutually exclusive because Christianity teaches CHRIST is
> the atonement.
>
> The precepts of Judaism have no place in the Christian faith, and those
> who try to bring it in are apostates from both religions
>
> agree?
Sure! If by "Christianity" you mean "conservative Christianity",
absolutely.
I don't believe the law is dead; I don't believe that I can forgive
my sins by killing some innocent person.
...>
> > > Now you don't even have the goat!
>
> > You're still thinking like a primitive
>
> Your religion is "primitive"? Thanks for the admission
In its earliest days, sure.
We don't actually believe that a scapegoat takes away sins.
>
> -- sins aren't taken away by
>
> > goats and magic.
>
> Your talmud says otherwise
>
> They are taken away by contrition and repentance,
>
> > and if you had fasted and gone to services Friday night and yesterday,
> > you might have learned this!!
>
> Unfortunately, being contrite and repenting does not remove the PENALTY
> for sin by itself. Blood must still be shed and the penalty paid.
Blood doesn't have to be shed.
>
> You will either pay it or Christ will pay it.
>
> Choose
By this logic, I could drown a kitten and pay for my sins. Don't
think so.
--
Rob Strom
I jave never seen TABOO used to mean "set aside". Ever.
EVER. Every context I've ever heard it used in in my life meant "don't
do that"
I stand on what I said--taboo is a HORRIBLE word to use there
>
> It's just that in different places, it means set aside for
> death and in other places it means set aside for the temple,
> and in general speech it means kicked out of the community.
>
> ...
> >
> > > He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
> > > I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
> > > for sins.
> >
> > He was the lamb of God who became a propitiary sacrifice for sin
> >
> > a. Human sacrifices are NOT ok, but GOD made provision for CHRIST as a
> > propitiary sacrifice for sin, and HE is "most holy"
>
> If human sacrifices are NOT ok, then God couldn't have "made
> provision"
> for Christ as a propitiary sacrifice for sin.
Rob, of course He can. He can do whaetver He wants, and doesn't need to
justify Himself.
But this is the heart of the problem--you refuse to acknowledge Christ
as the lamb of God so you go on arguing about hebrew words and and
refusing to see the hidden references to Christ throughout the OT.
Doesn't change the fact I showed every point I made with an
illustration. You just choose to reject the illustration
And so far as the heavenly temple goes (which the jews did believe
existed)...
heb 8:55 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as
Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle:
for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
shewed to thee in the mount.
heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which
are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in
the presence of God for us:
"What this signifies is that Moses' Tabernacle was made according to the
plan of a heavenly sanctuary; the Mishkan of Moses was like a copy, and
it was also a sort of continuation of the Lord's presence on high, on
top of Mount Sinai."
--Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Parashat Pequde 5763/ March 8, 2003
Why is it necessary for me to teach you the jews did and do believe in a
heavenly temple?
YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WITHOUT MY TELLING YOU!
It means "this thing is so sacred that you can't speak
its name or -- if it's a place -- enter it -- except for
very special people at very special times".
"a sacred prohibition put upon certain people, things,
or acts which makes them untouchable, unmentionable, etc."
> I stand on what I said--taboo is a HORRIBLE word to use there
>
Things can be taboo either because they're so disgusting
you can't say or touch them, or because they're so holy/sacred
you can't say or touch them.
Moving from Polynesia to our own society, think of
the words that children are taught not to say --
they're either certain private bodily functions or
organs, or they're very holy things that it's considered
too sacred to say in ordinary conversation, e.g.
"Christ". That's taboo. They say "Crikey"
or "Jiminy Cricket" instead.
In Judaism, of course, you can't say the name of
God (except the high priest under certain conditions)
and you can't enter the holy of holies (except the
high priest under certain conditions). So even
when reading the Torah, we say Adonai when
we come to the name of God, even though what's
written there is not "Adonai". That's taboo.
"Set aside" means that the forbidden things
aren't always forbidden 100% of the time,
but rather *reserved* for specific special occasions or people.
So for Jews, one person in the tribe *is* allowed to
say the name of God. For Christians, you
can say "Jesus Christ" in prayers or
theological discussions, but not regular speech.
"Cherem" most often doesn't mean taboo -- it means
excommnicated. It just means taboo in this passage,
and I'm not going to take your word over Kaplan's.
...
>
> > If human sacrifices are NOT ok, then God couldn't have "made
> > provision"
> > for Christ as a propitiary sacrifice for sin.
>
> Rob, of course He can. He can do whaetver He wants, and doesn't need to
> justify Himself.
You can't make a legitimate argument for a point of view for which
you have no evidence by saying, "well God *could* have done
it this way because God can do *anything*."
>
> But this is the heart of the problem--you refuse to acknowledge Christ
> as the lamb of God so you go on arguing about hebrew words and and
> refusing to see the hidden references to Christ throughout the OT.
And you refuse to acknowledge Dershowitz as Messiah, so you
keep arguing about technicalities of obscure post-Biblical
books like Hebrews.
>
> Doesn't change the fact I showed every point I made with an
> illustration. You just choose to reject the illustration
>
> And so far as the heavenly temple goes (which the jews did believe
> existed)...
>
> heb 8:55 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as
> Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle:
> for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
> shewed to thee in the mount.
>
> heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
> heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
> themselves with better sacrifices than these.
> 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which
> are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in
> the presence of God for us:
>
> "What this signifies is that Moses' Tabernacle was made according to the
> plan of a heavenly sanctuary; the Mishkan of Moses was like a copy, and
> it was also a sort of continuation of the Lord's presence on high, on
> top of Mount Sinai."
>
> --Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center
> Parashat Pequde 5763/ March 8, 2003
>
> Why is it necessary for me to teach you the jews did and do believe in a
> heavenly temple?
Oh **that** kind of "heavenly".
In this context, "heavenly" meant "on top of Mount Sinai".
It didn't mean "heavenly" in the modern English sense of the word
that refers to a place *outside the Earth* where in some
religious views God and the angels sit (or stand,
or whatever they do there), and in some religious views,
the souls of people will go after they die.
Strange that you reject even sacred commentaries
like Talmud, but think it's ok to go to a d'var torah
from some random person at Bar Ilan University
to decide what the tabernacle instructions meant.
--
Rob Strom