Many christians like to claim that good works or good deeds cannot provide salvation; only believing in Jesus does. Its certainly true that Paul the so-called "great" apostle felt so:"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22)HOWEVER We have discussed before the various verses in the Tanakh that bash sacrifices; and demand Israel to switch to prayer based repentence from sacrificial repentence (which completely contradicts the Pauline idea that only sacrifices can redeem sins)."Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." These verses show "explicitly that cleansing from sin may be achieved by a contrite heart". (Ps. 51:16-19 [14-17 KJV])The above is rather clear that God does not require sin offerings. Now the writers of the New Testament were all pathological liars, but they were not stupid. They knew these problematic passages in the Old Testament pretty much undermined all of Christianity. After all Jesus himself is taken as sin offering in the New Testament(Rom. 8:3) and the above Psalms 40:6 quite explicitly says God does not require sin offerings.And of course this is why the New Testament so often "edits" these problematic passages to conform to Christian theology. For example in Hebrews 10 when quoting Psalm 40:6 says:"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.' "Now compare that with the above Psalm 40:6 and you will see the edit. The writer to the Hebrews clearly added "but a body you prepared for me" to the passage to make an exception for Jesus. The tradition of christian apologists, biblical writers and church fathers changing or ignoring problematic passages goes way back to earliest archons of the christian movement.In fact if we read Jesus parable of the lost son or prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32 the basic message is the same, you earn forgiveness through prayer and repetence which allowed the father to take back his son. No sacrifice, No blood and NO Jesus; simple sincere repetence was enough to earn forgiveness showing even Jesus did not support Paul's vicarious sacrifice theology, rather he too favoured biblical prayer and repentence as opposed to sacrificial atonement
Let me just say that not only Paul but even the forth gospel was not accepted as Divine until about 400A.D.I have not read the original church fathers for along time so i forgot most of this stuff-- but using Paul to define Jesus was a mistake in Christianity and I think certainly became a source of anti Semitism.I remember that Rabbi Yakov Emden had a similar approach to mine about all this.
Shalmo you are making stuff up. The prophets never said sacrifices were useless. David's own son Solomon built the first Temple. Temple sacrifices continued until shortly after the Old Testament times.Jesus died on the cross to take the heat for the wrongdoings of mankind but still believers make mistakes so repentance is still necessary even for believers.Shalmo you're arguing nonsense.Leto there were tons of gospels floating around and only a thin minimum were chosen to be in the New Testament.Antisemitism in the church is not because of Paul. I find that very hard to believe.
OK I understand why the church liked Paul. But he still was not part of the cannon. Even John was not part of the cannon until after Isadora (I vaguely remember--I have got to look that up). So they learnt john and Paul and revelations but that does not mean they were considered divinely given until very late.And I don't claim Paul was anti Semitic but I think he opened the door by some of his comments.I think the church understood from the beginning that Paul was good for gentiles but did not very accurately describing Jesus or the faith of Jesus (which the way I see it was Jewish faith but with the added need to believe that Jesus was sent by God to save fallen souls--but not to create a new religon.)
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidencehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm>> And I don't claim Paul was anti Semitic but I think he opened the door by some of his comments.In Romans it seems like Paul shut the door. Every religion has haters though.
As the muslim philosopher said, the sacrificial system was revealed to Israel as an accomodation of man's primitive desires. Long before Judaism sacrificial worship was the norm; the greeks, the babylonians, the canaanites, and various others all worshipped the divine using sacrifices. This does not mean sacrifices were forever, juust that they were a temporary accomodation, hence why Israel is ordered by the prophets to switch to prayer based repentence instead. Why else would the prophets ask them to switch to prayers instead?
2 words- Isaiah 53.
Rambam also said the same thing. That sacrifices were a previous accomodation for Israel before we knew any better. Since all we knew were sacrificial worship, a sacrificial system was given to us. And overtime as we grew and matured, the new prophets now could introduce prayer and repentence to replace the repugnant sacrifices.Do you want me to go over isaiah 53 point by point to show you this is a reference to the Jewish people not to the cosmic jewish zombie Christianity?
>> Do you want me to bla bla bla.Bring it.
Alright let's go over Isaiah 53Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, "see - the Prophet predicted what I already believe." Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no "proof" at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: "God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims - why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God "remove this cup from me" (Mk. 14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the benefits?
Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God's chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a reward for God's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: "`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,' declares the L-rd." So we see in context between chapter 52 and 54 its all about us, about the Jewish people so its ludicrous to take 53 out of context and claim wallah look its a Jesus proof text when clearly the message between the chapter has always been about the Jewish people
In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. All these countless passages already should settle the case that the suffering servant is the Jewish people and not Jesus.ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?" Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say "who would believe what we have heard?". 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations' astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?" In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).53:3 "Despised and rejected of men." While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease." Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore." In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself. 53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of GoD and afflicted." See Jer. 30:17 - of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not "for" as christians mistranslate the verse) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not "for") our iniquities." Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25.
53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth." Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.53:8 "From dominion and judgement he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as "cut off" and God promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to them." Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in our Scriptures, always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."53:9 "And with the rich in his deaths." Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).53:9 "He had done no violence." See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.
53:10 "He shall see his seed." The Hebrew word for "seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.). And you and I both know Jesus died without having children.53:10 "He will prolong his days." Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4). This makes Jesus' second coming impossible per the Jewish scriptures because they clearly say the messiah shall not die until he brings the messianic age ("set right in the earth"), where as in the christian version he already committed suicide on the cross.
Shalmo wouldn't it be easier for you to tell me that you want me to respond to http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/library/library-primary-228/scriptures-a-prooftexts/313-isaiah-53?
Don't bother going to liars like J.P. Holding or the frauds at CARM. They can't refute it, they can only play circular arguments.There is a reason next to muslims, the best refutations of Christianity come from Jews. You will note EVERYONE who wants to debunk Christianity relies on our refutations because we know our texts."Isaiah 53 lead me out of Christianity"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68iabTXx1wYJews for Judaism have a youtube page where they discuss the different passages Christians are brainwashed into believing prophecize Jesus including the Isaiah 53: http://www.youtube.com/user/Jews4JudaismDo you have an answer for the refutations brought forth?
Since Christianity, as the Hebrews chapter 10 example I provided illustrates, is a religion that since its very inception was founded by pathological liars it comes as no surprise that missionaries continues to pathetically insist this is a reference to Jesus when now secular, muslim, jewish and now even honest christian commentators have accepted than indeed this is a reference to Israel and not to Jesus
Shalmo wouldn't it be easier for you to tell me that you want me to respond to http://www.jewishpassion.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:isaiah-53&catid=1:introductory?You're railing that CARM and J.P. Holding are "dishonest" but you plagiarized your whole Isaiah 53 argument verbatim. XD This is a new low even for you Shalmo.
Oh please. This is blog. On the blogosphere everyone copies and pastes things from somewhere else. Nobody is writing academic papers hereAnd this is a covenient excuse for you not dealing with the arguments presented in this thread
I dealt with your crap on the newer threads. Shalmo, I don't copy and paste other people's work and call it my own. That's dishonest.
Post a Comment