The Old Testament IS Christianity [Archive]

View Full Version : The Old Testament IS Christianity

Christian

02-21-2006, 10:02 AM

Thinking otherwise is making the same mistake as the Jews did

Genesis prophecies the "Son of Man" that will bruise the serpents head

The central theme that runs through the Old Testament is the Messiah to come

In Daniel is plainly laid out the time line from his time to the Messiah and from there till the opening of probationary time in which we live now.

Jesus made a reference to Daniel's time period in one of the Gospels when speaking to Peter on forgiveness stating "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven" Matt 18:22 70X7 times which gives 490, this is the period of years given to the Jews as forgiveness from God when Daniel pleaded with him in Chapter 9.

Jesus was well aware of the time line when he was in his ministry as in one of the other Gospels he states "...Behold I cast out devils, and do cures today tomorrow and the third day I shall be perfected" Luke 13:32 This was 6 months into his ministry he had three years left just as Daniel stated he would have 3 and 1/2 years from 27AD to 31AD when he was crucified.

In The Bible it states that a day is to be a year "..I have appointed thee each day for a year" Ezekiel 4:6.

In Daniel it displays an historical timeline of empires all the way from Daniel to the one "that is diverse from the others" (Those who know my posts know that I believe this to be the Catholic Church) and shows how it will come to an end.

Incidentally the same quantity that was given to Jesus to build up the Gospel(3 1/2 days) is given to the beast power that wars with the saints(In Daniel and Revelation) to break it down only it is given a great deal more for instead of days it is given years. "..and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months" Rev 13:5 or in Daniel 7:25 "..until a time a times and the dividing of time" So this last power being diverse from the others will rise from the last empire and war against the saints for this period of time.

So 42 months 3 1/2 years was given it, you then have to take each day in that time period and give it a year(42 months times 30 days each) so you end up with 1260 years

In 538AD Belisarius recaptured Rome and Papal Supremacy began. If you place the addition of 1260 years it brings you to 1798. Papal power as it knew it was ceased by General Berthier of France on orders from the General Assembly to dethrone the Pope (This is known as the wound in both Daniel and Revelation)

Revelation is the consummation of the entire Bible in one book, it's symbols, themes and illustrations are represented throughout most of the books that came before it.

There is no portion of The Bible to be left out by Christians because it is all one and the same

As always there is a great deal more to The Bible

Amra

02-21-2006, 10:17 AM

Christian,

Do you eat pork? Do you believe that all males should be circumsized?
Do you believe that those who commit adultery should be punished with a death sentence? Do you believe that you shouldn't make an image of God?

Christian

02-21-2006, 11:08 AM

The quote you are referring to does not state we should apply all portions but that we should not leave them out

Amra

02-21-2006, 11:39 AM

The quote you are referring to does not state we should apply all portions but that we should not leave them out

:confused: can you clarify?...How can you not apply something and at the same time not leave it out?

Unspar

02-21-2006, 12:09 PM

Do you eat pork? Do you believe that all males should be circumsized?

The New Testament refers to these things as part of the Old Convenant. Paul makes it clear in many of his letters that circumcision doesn't matter anymore because everybody is now part of God's covenant. You can circumcise or not, eat pork or not, but it doesn't matter because those laws have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe that those who commit adultery should be punished with a death sentence?

The Bible says that the wages of sin are death, so any sin (not just adultery) is punishable by death according to God. The nice thing about it is that Jesus fulfilled that law as well; He died for our sins for us so that we don't have to.

Do you believe that you shouldn't make an image of God?

Yes, I believe that we shouldn't make graven images of God. But that refers to idols, not artworks (which people do not worship). It's still important not to worship idols. If you're trying to imply Jesus is an idol that is unlawfully worshipped, you'd be wrong (at least by the commandment you quote here) because Jesus is not an image created by man. You could make a case that Jesus was a blasphemer or a heretic (if you believe that He took the name of the Lord in vain), but it's absurd to say He is a graven image of God.

The point of the Old Testament is that it lays the foundation for the coming of Jesus. As Paul explains in Galatians and Romans, the law was given so that we might know we are sinners and that we require the saving grace of Jesus. Jesus fulfills this law by offering Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of everyone.

Amra

02-21-2006, 12:20 PM

Unspar

02-21-2006, 12:22 PM

Christian,
Numerology like this can be both faulty and deceiving. It's dangerous to make associations from obscure and symbolic prophecies to concrete and clear world history. It's also fairly arbitrary, like where did 538 AD come from?

It's important to note, though, that you take your Ezekiel quote incredibly out of context to come up with your year theory; the whole verse 4:6 reads, "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." A "day for a year" refers more to this forty-day scheme than all the prophecy of the Bible.

I humbly suggest you look more to the texts themselves than singular symbols. This kind of reading brings us much too close to a Da Vinci Code kind of truth.

Amra

02-21-2006, 12:22 PM

The point of the Old Testament is that it lays the foundation for the coming of Jesus. As Paul explains in Galatians and Romans, the law was given so that we might know we are sinners and that we require the saving grace of Jesus. Jesus fulfills this law by offering Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of everyone.

Whad did Jesus say about this?

What does Jesus' death have to do with following the laws? If he fulfilled the laws, which I still don't quite understand, why did that invalidate the law? Does that mean that Christians can do whatever they like because Jesus forgave all sins? They can live as they desire; drink, commit adultery, kill, steal, simply because Jesus died for them?

Unspar

02-21-2006, 12:46 PM

Fulfillment of law: by this I mean that the punishment demanded by the law has been answered. The law demands a price for transgressions. Jesus pays that price for everyone for all time. Transgression + price paid = fulfillment.

Here's some passages about that relating to laws you mentioned.
"Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?" Romans 2:25-26

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Romans 3:20-26

Also check out Galatians 3:15-25, which is too long to post here.

All these things tell us that the covenant with Abraham and the succeeding law exist as a precursor to Jesus so that we made be righteous through Him because we cannot be made righteous through the law.

As for your commandments, I don't know. If I were to read verse 4 strictly, I would take this to mean that man is forbidden to paint, sculpt, film, or artistically reproduce anything at all. But that doesn't seem to be correct or accurate. I'm pretty sure God is referring to the pagan gods the Egyptians and other cultures made idols of and worshipped. I can't explain that commandment in terms of Christianity today (can you explain it in terms of Islam today?) because I believe it to be relatively obsolete.

As for verse 5, worshipping Mary is probably a bad idea, but I'm not hear to defend the practices of individuals. I'm here first to use the text to defend The New Testament relative the old. Christianity has done some terrible things, and this sin of idolatry you point out is probably not the most significant. But Islam has done some terrible things as well, and surely you would agree not to hold the religion responsible for the unholy and ignorant acts of a few people. I ask you to do the same for the Christian faith.

Unspar

02-21-2006, 01:09 PM

Whad did Jesus say about this?

What does Jesus' death have to do with following the laws? If he fulfilled the laws, which I still don't quite understand, why did that invalidate the law? Does that mean that Christians can do whatever they like because Jesus forgave all sins? They can live as they desire; drink, commit adultery, kill, steal, simply because Jesus died for them?

The best example I can find of Jesus' words on the subject is John 8:4-9.

"and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there."

Jesus takes the law as commanded by God and uses it to show everyone their own sin. It's fairly circumstantial, I know, but it shows Jesus' relationship to the law as one who understands its nature better than anyone else. His talk of tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days reflects that as well, suggesting that He fulfills and nullifies the standards of the old law and erects a new one.

As far as "Christians doing whatever they like," that's one of the tougher questions of Christian life. The answer is no, because Jesus' fulfillment (He is punished for everyone's trangressions) of the law only nullifies its standard of punishment; it doesn't change God's mind of what is right and what is wrong. The true Christian lives with the Holy Spirit, which is also God, and therefore is called to do right by it. It's a difficult tenet to explain, so sorry if this isn't up to snuff.

Amra

02-21-2006, 03:18 PM

Thank you for your explanations. I enjoy discussing this withouth anyone getting offended or resorting to ad hominem attacks. We are simply here to offer the different perspectives and say what we know.

As for your commandments, I don't know. If I were to read verse 4 strictly, I would take this to mean that man is forbidden to paint, sculpt, film, or artistically reproduce anything at all. But that doesn't seem to be correct or accurate. I'm pretty sure God is referring to the pagan gods the Egyptians and other cultures made idols of and worshipped. I can't explain that commandment in terms of Christianity today (can you explain it in terms of Islam today?) because I believe it to be relatively obsolete

Islam takes it for what it is. It is forbiddent to paint any image of God, or anything that He has given life to. I mentioned this commandement because it seems to me that if you follow one of them, you should follow all of them. If you believe one to be from God, then the other ones are from Him as well. It seems inconsistent to accept the commandments of not killing or stealing as valid, but to ignore this one.

As for verse 5, worshipping Mary is probably a bad idea, but I'm not hear to defend the practices of individuals. I'm here first to use the text to defend The New Testament relative the old.

I just thought that this practice is pretty prevelant in the Christian faith. Maybe I am wrong...When you pray, do you pray to God directly, or do you pray to some intermediaries, such as Mary, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc. to pray to him for you? That would, I guess, be may question.

As far as "Christians doing whatever they like," that's one of the tougher questions of Christian life. The answer is no, because Jesus' fulfillment (He is punished for everyone's trangressions) of the law only nullifies its standard of punishment; it doesn't change God's mind of what is right and what is wrong. The true Christian lives with the Holy Spirit, which is also God, and therefore is called to do right by it. It's a difficult tenet to explain, so sorry if this isn't up to snuff.

Do they pick and choose what will be followed and what not? do you only follow the 10 commandements or everything? That is the problem, I guess, because even if you say that the punishment is nullified, which of the laws are supposed to be followed and why? If there is no punishment for your actions, what would motivate people to do anything? I mean, when they are already guaranteed paradise, why would they bother doing anything for it? I mean, don't get me wrong, Islam doesn't teach that we earn paradise by our own deeds, but only by God's mercy. However, those who don't even try, cannot hope for God's mercy. There is justice in that. Both hell and heaven are there because of justice. Those who do good deeds, and follow God's law cannot be the same as those who don't. Right? But, it seems to me, that Christianity equates them, because if both of them accept Jesus, then they are both saved, and are hence on the same level?

Christian

02-21-2006, 03:44 PM

Unspar

I suppose I could have used the whole text but I would still have drawn the same conclusion, that God applies days for years.

For example also in

Numbers 14:34 - "According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you shall know my opposition."

It is reasonable that if God placed a year-day principle in these two prophecies we should perhaps see whether it applies to other prophecies and when we find that it does it is also reasonable to conclude that the year-day principle functions.

Why 538? Well I do believe I explained why but nonetheless would you not agree that prophetic fulfilment has to begin somewhere? It just so happens that it's application is logical there.

If the shoe fits, you have been worned

Unspar

02-21-2006, 05:16 PM

"If the shoe fits, you have been worned"
This line, I like.

Amra,
I too am glad that we can have a civil discussion like this. I really appreciate the exchange of ideas this forum allows.

Worshipping Mary and the Saints is strictly a Catholic phenomenon, and it's not even that common in Catholicism anymore. It's prevalent in Central America and maybe in parts Europe, but mostly it's not that popular. What I've always been taught as a Christian is to pray to God/Jesus. Jesus can receive and answer prayer as much as God because they, according to Christian belief, are the same. Praying to intermediaries like Mary and the saints still happens, but most Christian belief teaches that one should pray directly to God.

Now the 10 Commandments. We can't pick what commandments to follow and what to disdain, and we don't submit to our inability to follow the commandments. A good Christian will seek to lead a moral life because that is pleasing to God; obeyance is a form of worship. People take their freedom from punishment as a license to disobey God aren't really following Him at all. Anyone who believes in Jesus in their heart will hold God's commandments as well, or at least as best as they can. It's paradoxical, considering we all sin and that we're saved by faith rather than actions. Hard to get the mind around, but that's God, I guess.

There's a similarity in our beliefs in that we both rely on God's mercy; we just find it in different ways. No one can live a sinless life, so people only reach salvation by God's mercy. I believe I have that mercy through accepting the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for me and everyone, and you have it through your belief. Out of curiosity, then, how does following Islam achieve God's mercy?

kilted exile

02-21-2006, 07:07 PM

I just thought that this practice is pretty prevelant in the Christian faith. Maybe I am wrong...When you pray, do you pray to God directly, or do you pray to some intermediaries, such as Mary, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc. to pray to him for you? That would, I guess, be may question.

The idea of Mary being holy and prayed to is one the contentions between Catholics and Protestants.....Cathcolics pray to her (Hail Mary etc.) Protestants do not, and I am unsure what the Eastern Orthodox church's opinion is on the matter. See Martin Luther's 95 Theses available on the main site for the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants.

rachel

02-24-2006, 05:54 PM

the bible says that there is communion of all saints,-the church militant(here on earth now) the church suffering(those having died and waiting to be united with God ) and the church triumphant_those people now with God that watch over and pray for us.
So we petition those that are triumphant just as we would phone up a friend to pray for us, that is prayer. We absolutely do NOT worship her or any other saint.

Mililalil XXIV

02-25-2006, 01:03 AM

The New Testament refers to these things as part of the Old Convenant. Paul makes it clear in many of his letters that circumcision doesn't matter anymore because everybody is now part of God's covenant. You can circumcise or not, eat pork or not, but it doesn't matter because those laws have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The Bible says that the wages of sin are death, so any sin (not just adultery) is punishable by death according to God. The nice thing about it is that Jesus fulfilled that law as well; He died for our sins for us so that we don't have to.

Yes, I believe that we shouldn't make graven images of God. But that refers to idols, not artworks (which people do not worship). It's still important not to worship idols. If you're trying to imply Jesus is an idol that is unlawfully worshipped, you'd be wrong (at least by the commandment you quote here) because Jesus is not an image created by man. You could make a case that Jesus was a blasphemer or a heretic (if you believe that He took the name of the Lord in vain), but it's absurd to say He is a graven image of God.

The point of the Old Testament is that it lays the foundation for the coming of Jesus. As Paul explains in Galatians and Romans, the law was given so that we might know we are sinners and that we require the saving grace of Jesus. Jesus fulfills this law by offering Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of everyone.
Actually, the matter of clean and unclean animal flesh is never reversed in the New Teastament Writings. Paul only speaks of meat bought at the market. Why? Because nothing known to have been sacrificed to idols was good to eat - but, in the case of what was sold at the market, the history of every piece of meat couls not be known (except by Prophecy), and, if it was likely not idolatrously made abominable, it was to be eaten with a clear conscience, as knowing no connection to an idol.
Physical cleanliness was used in the Old Covenant to illustrate spiritual Purity, but was not necessary for establishing it in the Old or New Covenants. However, Christians do not dispense with the physical, since all cleanliness belongs together, the physical following from the spiritual.
It is true that images for idolatry are still forbidden in the New Covenant - the first generations of the Church suffered much in avoiding this in the pagan Roman era. But images for non-idolatrous purposes existed in the Old Covenant given through Moses, as with the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.
Adultery is still not considered to merit life, but Christians understand the concept of handing over Judgement to CHRIST in an era of patiently waiting, revealed Grace. Nonetheless, the men crucified beside JESUS were not let down from their punishments (for attrocious crimes), but the one that acknowledged his guilt was offered Hope and an immediate new beginning spiritually.

Theshizznigg

03-04-2006, 04:01 PM

But Jesus made it perfectly clear when he said, forget all old laws, remember this only, love thine nieghbor as thineself.

The old testament is merely a difference to show us of what Jesus has freed us from.

Mililalil XXIV

03-14-2006, 05:13 PM

Theshizznigg wrote:
But Jesus made it perfectly clear when he said, forget all old laws, remember this only, love thine nieghbor as thineself.

The old testament is merely a difference to show us of what Jesus has freed us from.

When did HE say, "Forget old laws"?

I completely agree that HE replced the old form of the Covenant with the New, as a man replaces his childhood with his manhood - but as the latter does not nullify the person, but matures him, so also the New Covenant fulfills the Hope of the Covenant in its older form.

Under the old form of the Covenant, there existed shadows of things to be revealed in the New Covenant. Get yourself a sheet of cloth, place it up like a screen, put a light source on the opposite side, and your arm behind it, on that same lit side - then look at the shadow cast by your hand:
it will only take shape in conformity to the reality of that hand behind the screen. So it is with the shadows of things to be revealed in the New and Everlasting Covenant, during the Old Covenant. Some things, according to the perfection of how GOD created all things in the beginning, must remain in effect - otherwise we be still going against the nature assigned the creation by GOD, when HE saw all that HE had made, and that it was very good.

Eating unclean animals - like eating from a trash can - is still dirty physically. Or if someone put rusty nails before you to eat, would you bless and sanctify them and enjoy? Not everything was given to eat - and there is no new teaching under the New Covenant that we now no longer need to be clean.

As is written in a Book by St. Clement, this Homily of St. Peter says:
"Yea rather, he will be worthy of greater punishment, who does good works not well; for merit accrues to men from good works, but only if they be done as God commands. Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by Baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God's, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will."

Then, a little after, it says:
"But when you have been regenerated by water, show by good works the likeness in you of that Father who hath begotten you.... There is truly a certain peculiar observance of our religion, which is not so much imposed upon men, as it is sought out by every worshipper of God by reason of its purity. By reason of chastity, I say, of which there are many kinds, but first, that every one be careful that he `come not near a menstruous woman; 'for this the law of God regards as detestable. But though the law had given no admonition concerning these things, should we willingly, like beetles, roll ourselves in filth? For we ought to have something more than the animals, as reasonable men, and capable of heavenly senses, whose chief study it ought to be to guard the conscience from every defilement of the heart.

"Moreover, it is good, and tends to purity, also to wash the body with water. I call it good, not as if it were that prime good of the purifying of the mind, but because this the washing of the body is the sequel of that good. For so also our Master rebuked some of the Pharisees and scribes, who seemed to be better than others, and separated from the people, calling them hypocrites, because they purified only those things which were seen of men, but left defiled and sordid their hearts, which God alone sees. To some therefore of them-not to all-He said, `Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye cleanse the outside of the cup and platter, but the inside is full of pollution. O blind Pharisees, first make clean what is within, and what is without shall be clean also.' For truly, if the mind be purified by the light of knowledge, when once it is clean and clear, then it necessarily takes care of that which is without a man, that is, his flesh, that it also may he purified. But when that which is without, the cleansing of the flesh, is neglected, it is certain that there is no care taken of the purity of the mind and the cleanness of the heart. Thus therefore it comes to pass, that he who is clean inwardly is without doubt cleansed outwardly also, but not always that he who is clean outwardly is also cleansed inwardly - to wit, when he does these things that he may please men.

"But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshipping God. But there is this further reason why chastity should be observed by those who hold the trite worship of God, in those forms of it of which we have spoken, and others of like sort, that it is observed strictly even amongst those who are still held by the devil in error, for even amongst them there is in some degree the observance of chastity. What then? Will you not observe, now that you are reformed, what you observed when you were in error?

"But perhaps some one of you will say, Must we then observe all things which we did while we worshipped idols? Not all. But whatever things were done well, these you ought to observe even now; because, if anything is rightly done by those who are in error, it is certain that that is derived from the truth; whereas, if anything is not rightly done in the true religion, that is, without doubt, borrowed from error. For good is good, though it be done by those who are in error; and evil is evil, though it be done by those who follow the truth. Or shall we be so foolish, that if we sue a worshipper of idols to be sober, we shall refuse to be sober, lest we should seem to do the same things which he does who worships idols? It is not so. But let this be our study, that if those who err do not commit murder, we should not even be angry; if they do not commit adultery, we should not even covet another's wife; if they love their neighbours, we should love even our enemies; if they lend to those who have the means of paying, we should give to those from whom we do not hope to receive anything. And in all things, we who hope for the inheritance of the eternal world ought to excel those who know only the present world; knowing that if their works, when compared with our works, be found like and equal in the day of judgment, there will be confusion to us, because we are found equal in our works to those who are condemned on account of ignorance, and had no hope of the world to come.

"And truly confusion is our worthy portion, if we have done no more than those who are inferior to us in knowledge. But if it be confusion to us, to be found equal to them in works, what shall become of us if the examination that is to take place find us inferior and worse than them? Hear, therefore, how our true Prophet has taught us concerning these things; for, with respect to those who neglect to hear the words of wisdom, He speaks thus: `The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here, and they hear Him not.'"14 But with respect to those who refused to repent of their evil deeds, He spoke thus: `The men of Nineve shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.' You see, therefore, how He condemned those who were instructed out of the law, by adducing the example of those who came from Gentile ignorance, and showing that the former were not even equal to those who seemed to live in error. From all these things, then, the statement that He propounded is proved, that chastity, which is observed to a certain extent even by those who live in error, should be held much more purely and strictly, in all its forms, as we showed above, by us who follow the truth; and the rather because with us eternal rewards are assigned to its observance."

m o n s i e u r

03-14-2006, 05:52 PM

I have often wondered about whether we should follow the old laws.

Jesus said he had not come to erase the old law, «until everything had been accomplished» ... Now, does that mean the old law is erased, after the crucifixion?

Jesus went against a few of the old laws of «unclean» such as with the food and the total rest on the sabbath. However, he refers often to the old scripture and law.
And Paul tells us that circumcision is irrelevant.

From discussion, I have been told that for Christians, any Mosaic law which does not apply to agape is unimportant to us. This is why we do not follow all of the old laws on uncleanliness.

However, if we forgot the whole of the Old Testament, why is it included in our Bible? Of course we don't, because especially prophets like isiah are very important, as they show us why Jesus is the Messiah. If we did not have the old Testament we could not see how Jesus is the Messiah, until we read and it fits in.

Mililalil XXIV

03-14-2006, 06:10 PM

Interestingly, when the RESURRECTED LORD OF GLORY rehearsed to HIS Disciples all that the Scriptures had spoken of HIM, HE referred entirely to things written before the New Covenant.

And when the Apostle Paul spoke of some converts still only being able to recieve the milk of Scripture, as opposed to the Meat thereof, he referred also to those Scriptures alone. Once the LORD's Teaching was known, the Apostles saw it clearly in every verse of Scripture; they had to learn it orally in due order - and so too, as Scribes for the Kingdom of the Heavens, they brought out treasures both old (Scripture) and new (Oral Instruction in the HOLY SPIRIT), not leaving any to a private interpretation, but explaining the simpler things first, then adducing the deepest of things, first out of their knowledge of the Teaching, then showing Testimony of It prophetically in the prior Scriptures.

Stanislaw

03-15-2006, 11:04 AM

Waht jesus said, can be read as: the base idea of the old laws is...

for example if you lay down several rules that children must follow, the children will complain and think you are being mean in telling them what they shouldn't do, so instead tell them one rule, what they should do.

So the Ten Commandments, tell us what we shant do, and the words of Jesus tell us what we should do. Both covenants are to instruct us to live the life that God would want for us.

Mililalil XXIV

03-15-2006, 10:03 PM

Good point, Stanislaw!

Mililalil XXIV

03-29-2006, 03:58 PM

Islam takes it for what it is. It is forbiddent to paint any image of God, or anything that He has given life to. I mentioned this commandement because it seems to me that if you follow one of them, you should follow all of them. If you believe one to be from God, then the other ones are from Him as well. It seems inconsistent to accept the commandments of not killing or stealing as valid, but to ignore this one.

Is your avatar an image, Amra?

I just thought that this practice is pretty prevelant in the Christian faith. Maybe I am wrong...When you pray, do you pray to God directly, or do you pray to some intermediaries, such as Mary, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc. to pray to him for you? That would, I guess, be may question.

No true Christian prays to any image, nor worships one. Many Christians have family members that are finding their way, and, as of yet, still have soiled feet from the detours they are taking. In the Torah, Moses was recieving the Ten Commandments, while, below, the many Israelis were worshipping an idol. The Prophet came down from the mountain with a Commandment against this very thing. The tribe of Levi, Moses's tribe, was against this evil, and out of them came the Priesthood of Israel. GOD sent serpents that punished the idolators. After some individuals died of snake bites, GOD had Moses make a likeness of a serpent upon a pole, and commanded that all still alive but infected with venom look upon this image to recieve supernatural healing. It was not commanded that they trust in it, nor that they pray to it, nor that they worship it - only that they trust in GOD and regard what HE commanded them to look upon. They were to both remind themselves that their worshipping an image of their liking had brought on a chastisement, and they were seeing a prophetic type of CHRIST bearing their curse upon the Cross as an ATONING SACRIFICE.

Never was the making of images banned - only the worshipping of them. Catholics and most other Christians illustrate Sacred History with Images. Some Churches in France have practically the stone equivalent of a wax museum all over the place - a fatiguing sight to me, which looks like undesirable clutter where beauty should excell. My Catholic Parish has few Images, and no one that is used to them ever seems to even notice their presence. No part of the Mass involves them.

The Ark of the Covenant had two Cherubim on it. The Temple of Jerusalem had many symbolic depictions. Crucifixes were anticipated in the serpent on the pole of Moses. The Symbol of the Cross was prohetically anticipated in many ways from the time of Adam and Eve. Pictures of CHRIST only represent HIS Human form - it is thought that one must seek after HIS DEITY in the SPIRIT with spiritual eyes. Pictures of the TRINITY ought not to be made. Some have thought to illustrate an Epiphany representing THEM - not to worship the Image, but to draw to mind historical Apparitions of WHOM they worship as transcending all pictures. I do not go for this - but it is not beyond my awareness that some reason they avoid representing the DEITY while trying to convey a snapshot of a finite Appearance to, say, Abraham, or to whomever.

JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT are GOD, not mere intermediaries. Only as being both GOD and MAN is JESUS our MEDIATOR. The HOLY SPIRIT, as being the DIVINE SOURCE of the Holy Life of the Saints, is the source of our direct connection in Prayer to GOD. The LORD JESUS CHRIST, in HIS DEITY, relates to us as our CREATOR; as MAN, HE - still Divine in IDENTITY -is the CHAMPION of the human cause for Unity with GOD.

All THREE PERSONS of the TRINITY are GOD, all THREE SPIRIT, all THREE HOLY - the PERSON distinguished as the HOLY SPIRIT is so referred to on account of HIS assuming the Role of pouring HIMSELF out into us as the SPIRIT given us to make us holy unto the TRINITY.

Do they pick and choose what will be followed and what not? do you only follow the 10 commandements or everything? That is the problem, I guess, because even if you say that the punishment is nullified, which of the laws are supposed to be followed and why? If there is no punishment for your actions, what would motivate people to do anything? I mean, when they are already guaranteed paradise, why would they bother doing anything for it? I mean, don't get me wrong, Islam doesn't teach that we earn paradise by our own deeds, but only by God's mercy. However, those who don't even try, cannot hope for God's mercy. There is justice in that. Both hell and heaven are there because of justice. Those who do good deeds, and follow God's law cannot be the same as those who don't. Right? But, it seems to me, that Christianity equates them, because if both of them accept Jesus, then they are both saved, and are hence on the same level?

CHRIST HIMSELF, GOD INCARNATE, speaking from the DEITY directly, being HIMSELF the very WORD of GOD made Flesh, decided the whole Catholic Tradition. Those that decide otherwise are heretics. All moral Laws are perfectly strict in Christianity. No unholiness can enter Paradise or Heaven. No one that died with a lustful heart can waltz into Heaven. Even the Patriarchs of the Old Covenant era had to quit polygamy before death in order for them to not go to a punishment in hell until CHRIST came and preached the Gospel to the spirits in prison in Sheol.

We must daily seek for all things to be on earth as in Heaven. One ought to seek to live a holy life that can continue right on into Heaven without interruption. The Doctrine of Purgatory is from CHRIST, and warns that those that GOD's Mercy will conduct into Heaven, who were stained with sin at death, must be cleansed someplace outside of their sinless Destination. For some, Purgatory is a season in this very lifetime, with good days following in this world sometimes, in which one's Sanctity is nonetheless tested to the end, or else one's sufferings to there departure from this world not only work out other purposes, but even afford one that lived ill in good health or poorly in riches, an oppurtunity to bear a good Life for no reason but a good heart. After that, Heaven is likely immediate, due to the detachment of the purified soul from the idols of this world, affording the one perfected through sufferings to have arms free to embrace Heaven without further ado.

Some who are in Purgatory between this world and Heaven are gently instructed, merely lacking Wisdom needed to properly regard Heavenly things with due appreciation. No one rolls over from the bed of adultery to the place of honor Mary has recieved in Heaven as a Heroine of the Faith.

A Catholic may not look upon a woman not given him by GOD for a wife with a view to desire her - that is counted as adultery. The Catholic Teaching forbids touching a woman not already espoused honorably. If a man is insensitive to his wife, GOD will not hear his Prayers. A man that treats a woman harshly is likewise not heard by GOD. Padre Pio, a good Catholic, would not admit women to Confession who were dressed immodestly. He did not hate them but told them to go get properly dressed, so that they weren't still in sexual sin while confessing their sins. One must regularly confess all failings and avoid unworthilly recieving Communion. The penance must be fulfilled - and, if a Priest knows a Catholic is unrepentant about a sin, he may not give Absolution.

I am not unique as a Catholic. I grieve over even the slightest failure to love GOD and neighbor. I have always thought that a culprit hasn't the right to say an insincere "sorry" and skip along to the same merry melody as before - Love takes responsibility for one's own offences.

Xamonas Chegwe

03-29-2006, 04:39 PM

Mililalil,

You are obviously really devout. Most religious types just capitalise the first letter of holy words like 'god', 'christ', 'football', 'beer' etc. You upper-case the whole word! Makes me want to believe in something enough to pop a caps-lock on it's ***. Something profane and atheistical, certainly, but something.

Logos

03-29-2006, 05:26 PM

Upper case .. "In electronic communications, it is often considered very poor "netiquette" to type in all capitals, because it can be harder to read and because it can be seen as tantamount to shouting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_letters

Mililalil XXIV

03-29-2006, 05:50 PM

Since I was a boy, I have done this only for terms applying to YAHWEH, as setting the NAME apart from all else. I do use a lot of lower case letters for the bulk of my text. My forefathers used to use a different pen for the NAME in scrolls, than for the rest of the text. Muslims often write initials after names that I find tedious to read, and I admit that many Christians load names with "the Apostle Saint [name] the Great of [location]". That, however, has become a hallmark in various literary traditions.

Amra

03-29-2006, 05:54 PM

than for the rest of the text. Muslims often write initials

We don't write any initials. Those are abbreviations usually asking for God's blessing on our Prophet peace be upon him.

Mililalil XXIV

03-29-2006, 05:59 PM

What I meant was that very thing: each letter is the initial letter of one of the words making the phrase of blessing. I didn't mean that they were proper name initials.

Amra

03-29-2006, 06:05 PM

each letter is the initial letter of one of the words

As I said before...abbreviations.

Mililalil XXIV

03-29-2006, 06:47 PM

All right, Amra. {last word}

Amra

03-29-2006, 11:06 PM

Is your avatar an image, Amra?

It is a picture. In Islam, an image created by human hand is handled differently than a photography taken by an instrument. However, some would argue that it even photography itself is forbidden, although they are a minority. HOwever, I do not hold any photographs in my house, nor other images of any creations. It is said that in Judgment Day, God will ask those who created images to breathe life into that which they have created.

Never was the making of images banned - only the worshipping of them

What does this commandment mean?:

Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land'.

Amra

03-29-2006, 11:12 PM

if a Priest knows a Catholic is unrepentant about a sin, he may not give Absolution.

To know whether or not someone has repented, you would have to know someone's heart. No one knows the human heart except God. How can you give that power to a human being? How can someone else, beside God, forgive sins? Why do you pray to someone else for forgiveness? Why should the priest be closer to God than you? Do you know whether or not the priest is repentant? What are the requirements for a sin to be forgiven, or for a sinner to be thought of as repentant?

Amra

03-29-2006, 11:15 PM

A Catholic may not look upon a woman not given him by GOD for a wife with a view to desire her - that is counted as adultery. The Catholic Teaching forbids touching a woman not already espoused honorably. If a man is insensitive to his wife, GOD will not hear his Prayers. A man that treats a woman harshly is likewise not heard by GOD. Padre Pio, a good Catholic, would not admit women to Confession who were dressed immodestly. He did not hate them but told them to go get properly dressed, so that they weren't still in sexual sin while confessing their sins. One must regularly confess all failings

Same goes for muslims, but I rarely hear Christians speak in this manner.

Another question..When a Christian says that a person is saved by accepting Jesus, what does that mean? HOw does one show the "acceptace of Jesus as a savior"?

Mililalil XXIV

03-30-2006, 12:51 PM

It is a picture. In Islam, an image created by human hand is handled differently than a photography taken by an instrument. However, some would argue that it even photography itself is forbidden, although they are a minority. HOwever, I do not hold any photographs in my house, nor other images of any creations. It is said that in Judgment Day, God will ask those who created images to breathe life into that which they have created.

What does this commandment mean?:

Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land'.
Even you mention not to make images of "gods". Saints and scenes from sacred history are not gods.

Mililalil XXIV

03-30-2006, 01:17 PM

Another question..When a Christian says that a person is saved by accepting Jesus, what does that mean? HOw does one show the "acceptace of Jesus as a savior"?
Amra, your question is an important one. It's answer is important to understand.

In recieving Salvation from JESUS CHRIST, one must not repent of his Repentance from sin. To return to one's sin is to place oneself in the same straits as before, so that, unless GOD rescue that one from condemnation again, that one is worse off than before initial Salvation. Peter says it is as a dog returning to its vommit, and as a swine returning to rolling in the mud. The one that recieves JESUS as SAVIOR must also recieve HIM as LORD.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation forces a back-slider to humble himself and admit that he has soiled his baptismal Seal, and is lost without the Mercy of GOD and renewed Righteousness. Some in the Church's embrace do not embrace the SPIRIT that is the LIFE of the Church. These outwardly resemble the true Christian in certain material ways, but they possess none of the Christians' substance of being. JESUS said that they are like tares planted by satan in GOD's Field of Wheat. The Angels asked HIM if they could just uproot the tares - for they see all unrighteousness and cannot bear it. JESUS told them that it is not apparent what each person shall ultimately be before the Harvest (in their immaturity, that is), and that they would risk uprooting wheat that is merely undeveloped, thinking it a weed, because it bore nothing good on it yet. At the end of the age, on the last day, JESUS will reward the Wheat for their Fidelity, and will punish the tares for their evil they did taking HIS NAME in vain as they committed it.

HE also likens the matter to sheep that represent good Christians, and goats, that practice the same Religion artificially, but have not the heart that is within the sheep. HE will one day banish the goats forever from the Flock. A bad Christian is not a true Christian that is bad, but a person that makes an ingenuine carreer of calling himself a Christian. JESUS set the parameters of Christianity, and no one else can change them, just as black will never make pure white, nor some man's innovation replace hunger and thirst.

Amra

03-30-2006, 01:29 PM

Even you mention not to make images of "gods". Saints and scenes from sacred history are not gods

Is Jesus a saint or a god? Why do you make carved images of Him? Why do you make images of the angels, and Mary, and the FAther, and who knows what else?

Also, I said images of the Creator and creation are foribidden. Do not put words into my mouth again.

When I asked the question about salvation, I meant how does that manifest itself in practical life? HOw does a Christian who is saved differ from those who aren't? You didn't answer my other questions:

To know whether or not someone has repented, you would have to know someone's heart. No one knows the human heart except God. How can you give that power to a human being? How can someone else, beside God, forgive sins? Why do you pray to someone else for forgiveness? Why should the priest be closer to God than you? Do you know whether or not the priest is repentant? What are the requirements for a sin to be forgiven, or for a sinner to be thought of as repentant

Mililalil XXIV

03-30-2006, 01:57 PM

In Daniel is plainly laid out the time line from his time to the Messiah and from there till the opening of probationary time in which we live now.

Jesus made a reference to Daniel's time period in one of the Gospels when speaking to Peter on forgiveness stating "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven" Matt 18:22 70X7 times which gives 490, this is the period of years given to the Jews as forgiveness from God when Daniel pleaded with him in Chapter 9.

Jesus was well aware of the time line when he was in his ministry as in one of the other Gospels he states "...Behold I cast out devils, and do cures today tomorrow and the third day I shall be perfected" Luke 13:32 This was 6 months into his ministry he had three years left just as Daniel stated he would have 3 and 1/2 years from 27AD to 31AD when he was crucified.

While many of your statements are quite ludicrous (and I was once a fool to have spread them myself as a teen), I respect your trust that the Scriptures are dependable.

It is well to point out that the Book of Daniel, because it was so perfectly precise about the time of the Incarnation of the LORD, was called a recent forgery by Porphyry, a pagan who wrote in the third century AD. In his Commentary on Daniel, Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, replied to the allegations of a late authorship. The cahrges all stemmed from a disbelief in foreknowledge of a Prophet.

Amra

03-30-2006, 02:08 PM

Here are the first two commandments, so you tell me how it is ok to create images of Jesus, Father, angles, Mary, etc. ?

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

SheykAbdullah

04-05-2006, 06:30 PM

Is Jesus a saint or a god? Why do you make carved images of Him? Why do you make images of the angels, and Mary, and the FAther, and who knows what else?

Also, I said images of the Creator and creation are foribidden. Do not put words into my mouth again.

When I asked the question about salvation, I meant how does that manifest itself in practical life? HOw does a Christian who is saved differ from those who aren't? You didn't answer my other questions:

To know whether or not someone has repented, you would have to know someone's heart. No one knows the human heart except God. How can you give that power to a human being? How can someone else, beside God, forgive sins? Why do you pray to someone else for forgiveness? Why should the priest be closer to God than you? Do you know whether or not the priest is repentant? What are the requirements for a sin to be forgiven, or for a sinner to be thought of as repentant

The first question is very difficultly answered because it has been tossed about for a very long time. The simple answer is Jesus is God made flesh. However, the percise meaning of this is, to this day, not wholly clear. To answer any more would be very very very long. Mil can probably do it better than I, Christian dogma is not my area of expertise.

As for how a person who accepts Christ is different from everybody else, that too is an interesting and complex question. The idea is that someone who is 'saved' by accepting Christ is so overpowered by his love that he strives to be good for his sake. He is made a better person because God loves him and forgives him, and as a result of that love the Christian is driven to make himself worthy of salvation. Much like a Sufi saint who has, in meditation, come upon the sight of Allah and is driven mad by it and dances, sings, chants, etc, except that a Christian is driven to be 'good' by his vision and performs good acts. Of course, there are bad Christians, just as there are false faqirs.

As for shriving (being confessed by a priest) that is also bound up in the Catholic view of God. You see, Catholics, traditionally, do not view God as being able to directly interfere in the world, and so must act THROUGH intermediaries, such a priests. A priest has no power but what he has been given by the church, which is the presence of God on earth. Not everyone can access God equally, because we believe that only people who live a life dedicated to him in study contemplation and ministry (monks often are not full priests and do not have full duties) are authorized by their knowledge faith and purity to intercede on our behalf. It is similiar to the idea of ijtahad in some sects of Islam. Only the studied and wise can understand the Lord. I assume that you are a Sunni, which has a view of God like a Prostestant. A Protestant would say the same things you are saying now, which is why they left the Roman Church. They believe God comes to all to save them (see the above paragraph, and I realize this belief is different than in Islam) and can communicate directly with the world. In fact, some Protestant sects went so far as to deny ANY free will to a person (like some Muslims) and say that (unlike any Muslim sect I have heard of) some people are damned from the start, and some saved. They said that God has a list and if you aren't on it you are screwed no matter what you do, but since you aren't on the list you were going to do something bad anyway. It's the old question of fate. Strangely enough this relates to the above paragraph because these people (the Calvinists) believed that you knew when you were on the good list because God allowed you to feel his extasy directly at some point in your life. These people became called 'the Elect.'

In the end, depending on your thoughts, it is just another path to the Truth, or just another expression of a simple human idea. In the end it's all in the faith.

Mililalil XXIV

04-07-2006, 11:49 PM

The first question is very difficultly answered because it has been tossed about for a very long time. The simple answer is Jesus is God made flesh. However, the percise meaning of this is, to this day, not wholly clear. To answer any more would be very very very long. Mil can probably do it better than I, Christian dogma is not my area of expertise.

As for how a person who accepts Christ is different from everybody else, that too is an interesting and complex question. The idea is that someone who is 'saved' by accepting Christ is so overpowered by his love that he strives to be good for his sake. He is made a better person because God loves him and forgives him, and as a result of that love the Christian is driven to make himself worthy of salvation. Much like a Sufi saint who has, in meditation, come upon the sight of Allah and is driven mad by it and dances, sings, chants, etc, except that a Christian is driven to be 'good' by his vision and performs good acts. Of course, there are bad Christians, just as there are false faqirs.
Thank you, SheykAbdullah. You have surely striven to give a fair look at things.

As for shriving (being confessed by a priest) that is also bound up in the Catholic view of God. You see, Catholics, traditionally, do not view God as being able to directly interfere in the world, and so must act THROUGH intermediaries, such a priests. A priest has no power but what he has been given by the church, which is the presence of God on earth. Not everyone can access God equally, because we believe that only people who live a life dedicated to him in study contemplation and ministry (monks often are not full priests and do not have full duties) are authorized by their knowledge faith and purity to intercede on our behalf. It is similiar to the idea of ijtahad in some sects of Islam. Only the studied and wise can understand the Lord. I assume that you are a Sunni, which has a view of God like a Prostestant. A Protestant would say the same things you are saying now, which is why they left the Roman Church. They believe God comes to all to save them (see the above paragraph, and I realize this belief is different than in Islam) and can communicate directly with the world. In fact, some Protestant sects went so far as to deny ANY free will to a person (like some Muslims) and say that (unlike any Muslim sect I have heard of) some people are damned from the start, and some saved. They said that God has a list and if you aren't on it you are screwed no matter what you do, but since you aren't on the list you were going to do something bad anyway. It's the old question of fate. Strangely enough this relates to the above paragraph because these people (the Calvinists) believed that you knew when you were on the good list because God allowed you to feel his extasy directly at some point in your life. These people became called 'the Elect.'

In the end, depending on your thoughts, it is just another path to the Truth, or just another expression of a simple human idea. In the end it's all in the faith.
Again, you bring out many good points.

I do have to point out, though, that in the Catholic Faith, there is the invitation to total exercising of the Faith, while many hold only to things empowered only by the SPIRIT, WHO is nearest to those that dive deep into that total exercise of the Faith. To be spiritually lazy is to not perfectly lay hold of the Substance of the Catholic Faith. Many are just like weak little sheep, rather than being self-motivated, until they have seen a wonderful example before their eyes.

A strong Catholic believes he/she can speak directly face to Face with GOD in the SPIRIT at all times. The higher one has climbed before falling low from that highest point in their progress, the more even the least of sins will result in the stumbler's own broken-heartedness. At such a point, even the strongest sees a need to not only waste no time about going directly to GOD, but to humbly admit that GOD may only hear the stumbler's Prayer amidst a humble expression about being needy. It is an act of humility to ask a brother, whether on earth, or in Heaven, to pray for you.

Protestants mistake this as being caught up with Confession. Confession is actually to GOD, the GREAT HIGH PRIEST, but is witnessed by the Priest to whom is given a Stewardship of using the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to release stored up Graces to a Penitant, that not the Priest, but the Sacrifice of CHRIST affords and supplies. Parents are also given special places of channeling provisions from GOD to children.

There are Catholics in upbringing that hardly dip into their Spiritual Inheritance in CHRIST. Some such as these are the ones that SheykAbdullah would be noticing a lack of intimacy with GOD in. Their weakness is not Catholic, but GOD's offer to them is still the same Universal Gospel as ever, and HIS intent and offer has weakened not.

For me, it is not worth living without exploring the depths of Fellowship with GOD without limit.

ShoutGrace

04-08-2006, 12:41 AM

...except that a Christian is driven to be 'good' by his vision and performs good acts. Of course, there are bad Christians, just as there are false faqirs.
I would just like to say a few things here. The Bible postulates the understanding that Jesus is God's Son. Jesus said that he himself was the key to eternal life, and that by believing in him we would be "saved". The Bible claims that a person who has heard the Good News, trusts in their heart that the message is true, and repents, will be literally inhabited with the Holy Spirit and begin the transformation into a likeness of Christ. A Christian (christ-like) would naturally want to perform good acts in the hopes of obeying, or coming as close as possible to obeying, Jesus' earthly commandments. Yet works of righteousness or good acts are in and of themselves worthless as a Godly pursuit. The Bible teaches that grace and forgiveness comes as a gift through Jesus' atonement on the cross, and his resurrection. A Christian could lie, cheat and steal their whole life and it wouldn't matter. Of course, a person who has truly repented and is, in every moment, being made into the likeness of God, would never do such things. It would be to contradictory to their nature.

To know whether or not someone has repented, you would have to know someone's heart. No one knows the human heart except God. How can you give that power to a human being? How can someone else, beside God, forgive sins? Why do you pray to someone else for forgiveness? Why should the priest be closer to God than you? Do you know whether or not the priest is repentant? What are the requirements for a sin to be forgiven, or for a sinner to be thought of as repentant

You are quite correct in saying that a person cannot know whether another has truly repented or not. I guess Mililalil has explained about the Catholic confession practices. I'm not entirely sure what the Catholic beliefs are, and I would love for Mililalil to tell me. I don't think that a priest is any closer to God than anyone else, in and of the fact that he is a priest. He may be, incidentally, simply because he has a greater understanding of God and a greater passion to know and love him. Just reading Luther's 95 theses (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html) can help give a better understanding. The Great Schism is a direct result of people wanting to get back to the Scriptures themselves, without any human tradition. I'm not in any way knocking Catholic traditions because I haven't studied them fully.

The requirement for the forgiveness of sins is twofold. A true, uncompromising repentence (as can be found in Psalms 51, one of my favorite parts of the Bible), and a heartfelt unabashed acceptance of Jesus the Christ as your savior. Jesus claimed that he came to give his life as a ransom for many. The Bible tells us that he is directly responsible for restoring people to God.

Sin is an awful thing, and it helps to tell us how holy God is. God is so just and righteous that he needed to incarnate his Son as a blood sacrifice in order to wash it away (Isaiah 53, esp. verse 10).

For me, it is not worth living without exploring the depths of Fellowship with GOD without limit.

Amen! If only every person felt this way.

Thanks Amra. You sound like a very thoughtfull person. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes here.

rufioag

04-11-2006, 12:48 PM

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mathew 19: 21

Jesus clearly states that he is God throughout the bible. The phrase Son of Man, which was used to describe Jesus, can be traced to Daniel 7:13-14 in which Daniel describes one who was like a son of man who was given authority, glory and sovereign power over everyone and everything, thus proof of the Diety of Christ. Also, Jesus says he can forgive sins in the synoptics, an act on God can do. Thus another example showing Christ is God. Third, Jesus says, "Whoever acknowledges me, I will acknowledge before my father in Heaven." This verse shows that salvation is based upon the acceptance that Christ is God. But going back to the verse above in Mathew, it explains that Christ still calls for people to follow the old law(verses prior to the one noted) but it does not claim that these deeds will get you to Heaven. It even if you do all these things, you still must follow me, which is the key point of the verse, showing that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

So my point is, Christ is God and so close was His connection with God that He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God (John 8:19; 14:7). To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9). To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1). To receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). To hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23). And to honor Him was to honor God (5:23).

2 Now when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ: He sent two of his disciples to ask him:
3 Are you he that is to come, or are we expecting another?
4 And Jesus answered them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen.
5 The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them.

I hope i havent misconstrude any verses here but this is my interpretation. But thats the great thing about these forums is that one person makes a mistake, others are there to explain the error in an explanation, therefore arriving at truth.

Amra

04-11-2006, 01:34 PM

Jesus clearly states that he is God throughout the bible.

Where?

Also, Jesus says he can forgive sins in the synoptics, an act on God can do.

Verse?

"Whoever acknowledges me, I will acknowledge before my father in Heaven."

A Prophet could have said that. Prophet Mohammed a.s said that we have to follow him in order to be muslims, because he showed us how to practice Islam. During Judgment Day, Allah t. will allow Prophet Mohammed a.s to pray for all of his followers, and muslims ask God to be one of those for who Prophet Mohammed a.s will pray at that time. The importance of the Prophet a.s is enormous, but that doesn't mean he is God.

It even if you do all these things, you still must follow me, which is the key point of the verse, showing that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

I agree that we have to follow the Prophets a.s, but that doesnt' mean that we worship them as Gods. Following them means worshipping God Almighty, just like they did. Prophet Jesus a.s prayed to God, and he tells you to follow him in that and pray to the Almighty as well.

He equated a person's attitude to Himself with the person's attitude toward God. Thus, to know Him was to know God (John 8:19; 14:7). To see Him was to see God (12:45; 14:9). To believe in Him was to believe in God (12:44; 14:1). To receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37). To hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23). And to honor Him was to honor God (

All of these can be applied to a Prophet, as they are applied to Prophet Mohammed a.s in Islam. Those who hate the Prophet a.s cannot be muslims, and God requires us to love the Prophet and follow him. Those who accepted the message of the Prophet a.s are muslims, those who reject it are not. etc. All of those do not prove that Jesus is God; as they are valid for the relationship any prophet had with God Almighty.

Amra

04-11-2006, 01:41 PM

Here are some verses from the Qur'an showing the relationship of the Prophet a.s to God Almighty.

Bismillah..

[47.32] Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way and oppose the Apostle after that guidance has become clear to them cannot harm Allah in any way, and He will make null their deeds.

[47.33] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle, and do not make your deeds of no effect.

[47.34] Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.

ShoutGrace

04-12-2006, 05:46 AM

One thing that helped me to learn how dangerous and "blasphemous'' it was for Jesus to claim to be God was an understanding of Jewish customs during his lifetime. Jesus was a poor middle aged Jew when he began his ministry. He lived and taught in a Jewish land, to Jewish people.

"You shall have no other Gods but me" (Ex 20:1-6). We also have "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!" (Deut 6:4). From the New Testament, we see that Jesus's claims of divinity are what caused the Jewish leaders to push for his execution. His blasphemy was of the highest order. I will get to the quotes in a moment.

Jesus clearly states that he is God throughout the bible.

There are different ways that Jesus claimed to be God, be equal to God, and have a uniform relationship with God. I myself think of them in this breakdown.

------Jesus the "Son of Man"
------Use of the word "Abba"
------The "I Am" claims
------The miscellaneous claims
------The book of Revelation

The Son of Man title obviously and qualitatively (in my mind, there are Christians who have studied intensely and have a larger view) comes from one of Daniel's eschatological prophecies.

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of Heaven there came one like the Son of Man, and he approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13, 14.

One interesting thing to note here is that elsewhere in the Old Testament it is only God who comes on the clouds (Ps. 104:3, Is. 19:1). Accordingly, the Son of Man originates in heaven and comes by divine initiative. The phrase as used in Daniel is "bar enash". What is the significance? The combination "bar enash" and its parallels in Old Babylonian carry the meaning of an heir or successor to royalty, or of a free man of the highest class. A "man" here is not just any man, but as we might say, "THE MAN", as in royalty.

Daniel was written at a time when this phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, in which the one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' own "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that he was the entity described in the prophecy. Jesus had no money but he obviously had an education. He knew that the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin knew to whom the prophecy refered. The Messiah. When he describes himself as the Son of Man he asserts the fact that he is fufilling Jewish Messianic prophecies.

Son of Man verses : Mat 8:20, Mat 12:8, Mat 12:32, Mat 13:41, Mat 24:30, 25:31, Mrk 2:28, Mrk 8:38, Mrk 14:62, Lk 9:58, Lk. 18:8, Lk 19:10, Jn 3:14, amongst many others. Also interesting to note is how severely Jews respond to his Son of Man title in certain instances.

"Abba" means "Father" when used among human beings - and to use the term when referring to God was unthinkable! It was not used by Jews in such a familiar way until the Hasidim movement, which began in the 18th century. The use of "Abba" (which equals our "Papa," or perhaps "Daddy") is "without analogy in the Jewish prayers of the first millenium A.D."

Abba is an affectionate term used by young children to talk to their biological fathers. An adult wouldn't call their father "abba", just as we today wouldn't call our fathers "Daddy". Whenever Jesus talked about our relationship to God, he used the term "pater", a respectful adult term meaning "father". For instance, when he told us the Lords Prayer, he used "''pater". Whenever Jesus talked about his own relationship with God, he used the word "abba". When he says "The reason my father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again", (John 10:17) he uses the word "abba".

In Mark 14:36, the word "abba" is used by Jesus, along with "pater". Jesus used both the familiar term and the term of respect - as did Paul in the Galatians. So these two verses read, "Abba, Father." Note that the retention of both the Aramiac and Greek words is a strong indication that the use of "Abba" goes back to Jesus Himself, since there is no reason why the early Christians should not have been satisfied with Greek equivalents for both words.

Jesus' claims to being the great "I Am" have been a source of personal joy for me. In the gospel of John, when he said "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham even existed, I Am" (8:58) I literally laughed and felt awed by his existence. I also like his style. The crowd had been ridiculing and deriding him, so he put it to them as literally and persuasively as he could.

I guess that the main history of "I am" goes back to Exodus 3:14. (God said to Moses, 'I AM THAT I AM.' And he said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.').

[I took the following from David Mark Ball's 'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications].

Here are some other parallels . . .

* John 4:26//Is. 52:6
* John 6:20//Is. 43:1-3, 5, 10
* John 8:18, 24, 28, 13:19//Is. 43:10
* John 8:58//Is. 43:13

1. In Isaiah ani hu is "always attributed to Yahweh" and is a statement only he can make. Anyone else making the same statement would be guilty of "an attempt to claim equality with God or displace him."
2. It signifies that "Yahweh alone is God", is sovereign over history, and creator.
3. Though Isaiah is a main focus, Jesus' "I AM" sayings match him with the "the Bread of which the Old Testament spoke, the Light of which Isaiah spoke, the Shepherd of whom Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke, and the Vine of which many Old Testament passages spoke." The words I AM "thus act as a formula which applies Old Testament and Jewish concepts to the person of Jesus who embodies and fulfills them." [end reference].

I AM thus provides a powerful self-identification in which Jesus identifies himself with the roles and person of YHWH in the Old Testament.

As for miscellaneous claims . . .

Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Matthew 12:28; parallel in Luke 11:20. "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Matthew 23:34. "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes..." In Jewish belief, it is God that is responsible for sending prophets. In saying that He will send prophets, Jesus is equating Himself with God - once again, assuming a role reserved for God alone.

Matthew 24:5; parallels in Mark 5:23, Luke 21:8. "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall deceive many." This statement would be meaningless if Jesus did not perceive Himself as Christ. The title "Christ," of course, is a Greek equivalent to the Jewish term "Messiah". Therefore, this can be considered to be a claim to divinity if it is shown that Christ/Messiah is a divine title.

Matthew 28:18; similar quotes in Luke 24:25, 46. In this post-resurrection address, Jesus says that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to Him - in short, power that only God has.

Matthew 26:64; parallel in Mark 14:61-4. The high priest asks Jesus directly if He is the Christ, and Jesus answers in the affirmative.

Matthew 9:2; parallels in Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20 and 7:48. Jesus tells people that "their sins are forgiven." This may not seem significant to Western eyes, so an illustration is needed. If John does something bad to Joe, then Joe can forgive John. But it would be ridiculous for Jake - unless he were somehow related to Joe - to forgive John for what he did to Joe. Forgiveness requires the RIGHT to forgive; therefore, Jesus' forgiving the sins of others that He had no personal connection with indicates that He believed that He was the only One who was offended by all sins and therefore had the right to forgive them: God, the author of all moral law. Moreover, this is particularly a noteworthy claim in the context of Judaism, for as Charlesworth notes, "The faithful Jew...acknowledged that only God can forgive the sinner." So in effect, Jesus was assuming the place and role of the entire Temple sacrificial system authorized by God and claiming to be God's broker for forgiveness.

As for Revelation, just chapter 1 ought to suffice (I'm probably running out of room!). Revelation 22:12, 13 are useful.

Jesus summarily equated himself with God. He said he came for his lost sheep (John chp. 10), and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mat. 20:28).

We can either agree or disagree with him. But I think it can be and has been (in other places by smarter and more proficient people than I) shown that Jesus himself knew himself to be the Son of God, equal to God, and the answer and hope for every person. What we do with his assertion is a separate issue.

Amra

04-12-2006, 08:07 AM

Equal to God in what?

rufioag

04-12-2006, 11:02 AM

SheykAbdullah

04-12-2006, 02:40 PM

When he says Equal to God I think, correct me if im wrong, hes saying that Jesus was God. Which is what we are trying to explain. Christians dont believe in multiple God but we do believe in the Trinity, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Heres a proof.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

There is some ambiguity in quoting this passage. The meaning of the original greek is not specifically the word, rather in latinized greek it reads;

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai ho theos en ho logos. houtos en arche en pros ton theon.

Literally it says;

Originally (in the beginning) was the logos, and the logos was in the presence of the God, and the God was the logos. This was, in the beginning, the presence of the God.

Now some treatment must be made of the word 'logos' which does mean word, but it means slightly more than that. It also means speech and act. The best interpretation of this passage, and indeed Greek, Koine, Attic, Doric, and any ancient Greek, translates so poorly into English, but the best interpretation is that in the beginning there was God and that the mind, the action, the speech, the idea of speech, of action, and of the word, was in his presence, and was him. It does not mean THE WORD, in the sense of the word of the Bible, rather it says all things originated with God, including Jesus, this story, and all of us. In essence, it is not vouchsafing that the bible existed originally with God, however this passage and most of the bible is ambiguous because it is handled in a language which is ill suited to conveying the meaning of the original, and because so many practitioners of Christianity (and not to insult anyone, it is just a fact) are totally ignorant of its original language, and therefore the true nuances of the writing.

Of course there is the argument that the translators of the Bible were inspired to write the truth, and so be it if you believe that, but there are still linguistic discrepancies, as are inevitable in any translation.

rufioag

04-12-2006, 04:31 PM

But contine u to John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Could one argue that with your translation, which I thank you for becuase I for one am not fluent and little understanding of translations even though I would not be so quick to judge all christians in such light, would still allow that Jesus Christ became Flesh, because according to the translation, Word means the Mind, speech, actions of God, and since Jesus is God they are onein the same. Am I not correct in this assumption or am I wrong? Please take this as a question.

Also, the word logos means "The Word or Second Person of the Trinity" according to the Oxford Dictionary.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861699401/Logos.html
Logos:
Defintion:
1. Jesus Christ as divine wisdom: Jesus Christ, so named in St. John's Gospel, as the word of God, the personification of the wisdom of God, and divine wisdom as the means for human salvation

Logos

04-12-2006, 05:32 PM

Disclaimer: my choice of the word logos for my member name is merely for its meaning "word" (one of its most simplistic English translations). :goof: No other reason.

Stanislaw

04-12-2006, 06:25 PM

Disclaimer: my choice of the word logos for my member name is merely for its meaning "word" (one of its most simplistic English translations). :goof: No other reason.

hmmm...dellusions of grandure o glorious go...er mod? :D

Virgil

04-12-2006, 10:38 PM

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but here it is:

http://www.torahtots.com/holidays/pesach/misc/barech.gif

Happy Passover to those that observe.

ShoutGrace

04-13-2006, 03:10 AM

Disclaimer: my choice of the word logos for my member name is merely for its meaning "word" (one of its most simplistic English translations). :goof: No other reason.

I must have been catching some electrical premonitions or something, huh Logos?

Equal to God in what?

Amra, I'm sorry, but I think that I did already answer this question.

"In the context of Daniel 7:13, in which the one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' own "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that he was the entity described in the prophecy."

"I AM thus provides a powerful self-identification in which Jesus identifies himself with the roles and person of YHWH in the Old Testament."

"Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

"Matthew 23:34. "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes..." In Jewish belief, it is God that is responsible for sending prophets. In saying that He will send prophets, Jesus is equating Himself with God - once again, assuming a role reserved for God alone."

"''Matthew 28:18; similar quotes in Luke 24:25, 46. In this post-resurrection address, Jesus says that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to Him - in short, power that only God has."

Matthew 9:2; parallels in Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20 and 7:48. Jesus tells people that "their sins are forgiven." Forgiveness requires the RIGHT to forgive; therefore, Jesus' forgiving the sins of others that He had no personal connection with indicates that He believed that He was the only One who was offended by all sins and therefore had the right to forgive them: God, the author of all moral law. Moreover, this is particularly a noteworthy claim in the context of Judaism, for as Charlesworth notes, "The faithful Jew...acknowledged that only God can forgive the sinner." So in effect, Jesus was assuming the place and role of the entire Temple sacrificial system authorized by God and claiming to be God's broker for forgiveness."

"Revelation 22:13 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end'." That just sounds like something only God would say. An ordinary prophet wouldn't talk that way. Can either you, Amra, or you, SheykAbdullah, educate me about "shirk"? What is your definition? Am I and other Christians convicted by it?

The concept of the Trinity hasn't been easy for theologians, believe me! It would have been so much "easier" if Jesus had just affirmed himself as the Son. Then we would have a separate Father and a separate Son. Judging from what can be exegetically determined, the Trinitarian view of the Bible is the only fitting one. Sometimes it gives me brain blisters to try to encompass it all, but I try my best.

It does not mean THE WORD, in the sense of the word of the Bible, rather it says all things originated with God, including Jesus, this story, and all of us. In essence, it is not vouchsafing that the bible existed originally with God,

I don't think that John was here referring to the Bible, either. The Bible as we know it wasn't even completed until 327 A.D. I think that John meant to be talking about Jesus here, as I believe rufioag correctly identified.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I think the key words there are his glory. I think that it can be logically exegeticaly determined that John was speaking of Jesus as the Logos (especially concerning the nature of the gospel, theological inferences, etc).

and most of the bible is ambiguous because it is handled in a language which is ill suited to conveying the meaning of the original, and because so many practitioners of Christianity (and not to insult anyone, it is just a fact) are totally ignorant of its original language, and therefore the true nuances of the writing.

I think that the Bible is the way it ought to be. I think that with some effort the original meaning of the words, idoms, nuances, and phrases in the original language can be brought forth. The Bible has been intensely scrutinized for centuries. Thousands of people make it their quest to figure out what is being said and to let it be known to every known language on earth.

Of course there is the argument that the translators of the Bible were inspired to write the truth, and so be it if you believe that, but there are still linguistic discrepancies, as are inevitable in any translation.

The discrepancies can be identified and corrected, in much more sophisticated ways then we are doing here. I believe that God has the Bible the way it is for a reason. It is eminently logical and reasonable for believers to trust, and yet also leaves enough room for atheists to lose trust in it. The Bible is so amazing because it allows people to reject it on some of it's basic premises. God always allows enough space for people to decide either "Yes, this is rational and good and I want to know more!" or "No, I just cannot believe in this junk." Nobody is mentally forced. God dignifies each person, and allows them to freely believe or disbelieve according to their own will. Thank God! I don't understand it all and sometimes wish it weren't so, but if it is ordained from God, my own puny intellect ought not to object.