Is Jesus who He said He is?

[undone]

I know you all are wondering the same thing.

Why would someone try to refute the validity Christianity with a Jewish argument when that person isn't a Jew but in fact denies the existence of a Creator altogether. Audasity defined.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. (Leviticus 5:11 KJV)

If flour can be used to atone for sin, then it is obvious that sacrifice doesn't need to be blood sacrifice. And sacrifice isn't the only way to atone for sin according to the Old Testament. But then, I guess we can't expect Christians to care about what the Bible actually teaches.

It comes back to the problem of unbelievers trying to handle what they don't undersand. Lev. 5:11 does not in any way negate the teaching blood sacrifice is necessary.

What a lot of people fail to grasp is the role that the sacrificial system played in the civil affairs of a Theocratic state which is what is being described here. The word "atonement" might be misleading at face value because we might fail to distinguish the trespass offering and the type of "atonement" that was procured relevant to it.

Atonement for sin before God ALWAYS required blood. The Bible says that there is no remssion of sin without the shedding of blood. Yet, on civil grounds, this was not the case. What we have in Leviticus 5: 6-14 is the trespass offering which differs from the main sin offering. The trespass offering was a sin offering but it deals more with what would be civil offenses in a theocracy such as failing to be witness in court when one has relevant testimony, for touching a dead body, or failing to perform one's oath.

The trespass offering was also accompanied by the concept of restitution. Simply making a sacrifice was not enough, and even in the Mishna Bava Kama, we read that if one had committed offense against another person, restitution for damages was to be made to the injured before any sacrifice was to be offered. The "atonement" offered here simply brings one into good standing in the community, hence flour could be used in this particular case. It has nothing to do with atoning for sin belfore God. The "flour" option was never available for anyone where the sin offering made solely for one's sins before God are concerned.

[TheProcess]

Grace to you,

Jews think that it is prophesied that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed. If true, this seems to conflict with the idea that Jesus was a "once for all" sacrifice.

Your very artfully dodging the question. I didn't ask you about the sin of the Jew. I asked you about your sin.

Since you seem to put such weight upon the Jewish system of Religious acts to disprove Christ. I want to know to what regard you hold your own sins accountable before a Holy, Just, and Righteous God. How are you making atonement today.

You were asking me about my sin? How on earth is that relevant to the issue of whether Christianity is consistent with the O.T.?

You seem to want to put Gods Word and Christianity on trial.

However when convenient...

You offer up Faith in Gods Word as an argument To which we do not disagree.

I pointed out that the shedding of blood isn't required for atonement. Do you have a relevant point about this?

It is Faith in the finished work of Christ that matters.

I would say that this is the "argument by assertion" fallacy.

It's really that simple because without Faith it is impossible to Please God. Faith that is pleasing to God is Faith in the shedding of the Messiahs Blood on your behlaf. Whether foreshadowed in His Mercy by allowing a seah of fine flour for those who could not afford the Bull. Or the Bull. Doesn't really matter. It's all about Jesus.

More argument by assertion.

He's alltogether Lovely and Worthy to be Praised and the Truth of the matter is that without the shedding of His Blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Peace,

Dave

And more...

[TheProcess]

It is absolutely relevant, because I am explaining that Christians were not commanded to live as Jews, and therefore they are not "dumping" something that was never their's to start with. Christianity does not reject or repudiate the law, as I said, we strive to obey it commandments. The problem is that you brought up the dietary laws to prove that Christians "dumped" the law, and it is simply not a good example. You are trying to dodge the truth that Christians do still read the OT, preach from it, and seek to live according to the portions of it that are relevant to the Christian life. Many Christians on their own, DO keep the dietary commandments as a matter of their own personal choice, they celebrate the Feasts of Israel, and so forth.

That Christians were commanded anything is question-begging.

The issue here is whether Christianity is consistent with how the Old Testament God behaves. Please try and give a relevant reply on this point.

The approach that uses Christian nonobservance of the OT law as means of discrediting what we believe when I can show you Jewish people who do not even stay kosher except during the high holydays and maybe during Passover. Yo

What Jewish people do or don't do isn't at all relevant. And the issue here isn't exactly "Christian non-observance".

Jews think that it is prophesied that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed. If true, this seems to conflict with the idea that Jesus was a "once for all" sacrifice.

No it does not. What the book of Hebrews says is that Jesus was the once for all sin offering, and it was specifically referring to the sin offering of Yom Kippur. The Temple will be rebuilt, and you can read about it in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. You will notice as you read that the sin offering of Yom Kippur is not in the list of Sacrifices that will be performed in the Millennial Temple. Not every sacrifice was a sin offering.

Your correct that "Not every sacrifice was a sin offering". Jesus was "typed" as the Passover lamb. And that wasn't a sin offering. Do you want Jesus to be both the Passover lamb and a Yom Kippur offering?

[sweetycakes]

It is absolutely relevant, because I am explaining that Christians were not commanded to live as Jews, and therefore they are not "dumping" something that was never their's to start with. Christianity does not reject or repudiate the law, as I said, we strive to obey it commandments. The problem is that you brought up the dietary laws to prove that Christians "dumped" the law, and it is simply not a good example. You are trying to dodge the truth that Christians do still read the OT, preach from it, and seek to live according to the portions of it that are relevant to the Christian life. Many Christians on their own, DO keep the dietary commandments as a matter of their own personal choice, they celebrate the Feasts of Israel, and so forth.

That Christians were commanded anything is question-begging.

The issue here is whether Christianity is consistent with how the Old Testament God behaves. Please try and give a relevant reply on this point.

The approach that uses Christian nonobservance of the OT law as means of discrediting what we believe when I can show you Jewish people who do not even stay kosher except during the high holydays and maybe during Passover. Yo

What Jewish people do or don't do isn't at all relevant. And the issue here isn't exactly "Christian non-observance".

Jews think that it is prophesied that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed. If true, this seems to conflict with the idea that Jesus was a "once for all" sacrifice.

No it does not. What the book of Hebrews says is that Jesus was the once for all sin offering, and it was specifically referring to the sin offering of Yom Kippur. The Temple will be rebuilt, and you can read about it in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. You will notice as you read that the sin offering of Yom Kippur is not in the list of Sacrifices that will be performed in the Millennial Temple. Not every sacrifice was a sin offering.

Your correct that "Not every sacrifice was a sin offering". Jesus was "typed" as the Passover lamb. And that wasn't a sin offering. Do you want Jesus to be both the Passover lamb and a Yom Kippur offering?

Just wondering, Process.....does your name derive from the 'process church of the final judgement?'

[TheProcess]

shiloh357, I will get back to you on the sacrifice issue when I have time.

[TheProcess]

I know you all are wondering the same thing.

Why would someone try to refute the validity Christianity with a Jewish argument when that person isn't a Jew but in fact denies the existence of a Creator altogether. Audasity defined.

So a skeptic can't use the argument that the N.T. isn't consistent with the O.T.? You are talking complete nonsense here.

[sweetycakes]

It is absolutely relevant, because I am explaining that Christians were not commanded to live as Jews, and therefore they are not "dumping" something that was never their's to start with. Christianity does not reject or repudiate the law, as I said, we strive to obey it commandments. The problem is that you brought up the dietary laws to prove that Christians "dumped" the law, and it is simply not a good example. You are trying to dodge the truth that Christians do still read the OT, preach from it, and seek to live according to the portions of it that are relevant to the Christian life. Many Christians on their own, DO keep the dietary commandments as a matter of their own personal choice, they celebrate the Feasts of Israel, and so forth.

That Christians were commanded anything is question-begging.

The issue here is whether Christianity is consistent with how the Old Testament God behaves. Please try and give a relevant reply on this point.

The approach that uses Christian nonobservance of the OT law as means of discrediting what we believe when I can show you Jewish people who do not even stay kosher except during the high holydays and maybe during Passover. Yo

What Jewish people do or don't do isn't at all relevant. And the issue here isn't exactly "Christian non-observance".

Jews think that it is prophesied that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed. If true, this seems to conflict with the idea that Jesus was a "once for all" sacrifice.

No it does not. What the book of Hebrews says is that Jesus was the once for all sin offering, and it was specifically referring to the sin offering of Yom Kippur. The Temple will be rebuilt, and you can read about it in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. You will notice as you read that the sin offering of Yom Kippur is not in the list of Sacrifices that will be performed in the Millennial Temple. Not every sacrifice was a sin offering.

Your correct that "Not every sacrifice was a sin offering". Jesus was "typed" as the Passover lamb. And that wasn't a sin offering. Do you want Jesus to be both the Passover lamb and a Yom Kippur offering?

Just wondering, Process.....does your name derive from the 'process church of the final judgement?'

Just wondering....still

[TheProcess]

Is your explanation plausible? I don't think it is.

I'm done talking to you. It is not worth the effort.

To be honest, I didn't think you were coming back. If you choose to ignore the plain meaning of the Bible and go in for non-literal interpretation you will not be able to defend your position.

[sweetycakes]

It is absolutely relevant, because I am explaining that Christians were not commanded to live as Jews, and therefore they are not "dumping" something that was never their's to start with. Christianity does not reject or repudiate the law, as I said, we strive to obey it commandments. The problem is that you brought up the dietary laws to prove that Christians "dumped" the law, and it is simply not a good example. You are trying to dodge the truth that Christians do still read the OT, preach from it, and seek to live according to the portions of it that are relevant to the Christian life. Many Christians on their own, DO keep the dietary commandments as a matter of their own personal choice, they celebrate the Feasts of Israel, and so forth.

That Christians were commanded anything is question-begging.

The issue here is whether Christianity is consistent with how the Old Testament God behaves. Please try and give a relevant reply on this point.

The approach that uses Christian nonobservance of the OT law as means of discrediting what we believe when I can show you Jewish people who do not even stay kosher except during the high holydays and maybe during Passover. Yo

What Jewish people do or don't do isn't at all relevant. And the issue here isn't exactly "Christian non-observance".

Jews think that it is prophesied that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed. If true, this seems to conflict with the idea that Jesus was a "once for all" sacrifice.

No it does not. What the book of Hebrews says is that Jesus was the once for all sin offering, and it was specifically referring to the sin offering of Yom Kippur. The Temple will be rebuilt, and you can read about it in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel. You will notice as you read that the sin offering of Yom Kippur is not in the list of Sacrifices that will be performed in the Millennial Temple. Not every sacrifice was a sin offering.

Your correct that "Not every sacrifice was a sin offering". Jesus was "typed" as the Passover lamb. And that wasn't a sin offering. Do you want Jesus to be both the Passover lamb and a Yom Kippur offering?

Just wondering, Process.....does your name derive from the 'process church of the final judgement?'

*sigh* still wondering.......