• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus vs the New Testament

New testament representative of Jesus?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
That is a GROSS misrepresentation of both Islam and beliefs of LDS Christians.
I've pointed that out to PruePhillip before, but it just continues to fall upon deaf ears. I'm still waiting to hear about all of the Old Testament "special days and months" we observe and where the New Testament forbids us to have a tabernacle. Claims without evidence are pretty meaningless.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I've pointed that out to PruePhillip before, but it just continues to fall upon deaf ears. I'm still waiting to hear about all of the Old Testament "special days and months" we observe and where the New Testament forbids us to have a tabernacle. Claims without evidence are pretty meaningless.

Do you accept Christmas (Jesus' birthday) and Easter (Jesus death
and resurrection) as worth honoring?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
That is a GROSS misrepresentation of both Islam and beliefs of LDS Christians.

Take the temple as a simple and quick point.
God gave the people the Tabernacle in the wilderness,
and the ark of God's Covenant with the people.
God did not ask for a temple, anymore than he asked
for a King of Israel - but both were granted to the Jews.
Jesus said that "God does not dwell in temples made
with hands." Jesus gave no instruction for any Christian
temple, rather he said that his people were the temple
of the living God.
No single thing changed what some call Christianity
more than the introduction of temples. God was now in
the temple (and you could leave him there.) And now
there was a class of officials caring for the temple, and
taxing people. With this came temporal powers, idols
and a new class of non-itinerant ministers.
The Christian temple became the "earthly sanctuary"
warned about in Romans and Hebrews. The temple
in short was a symbol, like the Passover lamb, the
sacred ground, the holy day, the priest etc that was
done away with Christ.

Thus Christ isn't our high priest, the Archbishop or
Pope now is. Now the sacred center of your life isn't
your heart but in the worldly temple. Now the ministers
without a home and church in the home is totally
reversed - without commandment, example or
permission from the bible.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I agree that a 'group' estimation, like that, tends to cult or just incorrect interpretation. That being said, it's just " from the tribe of", so, as I interpret this, it's an individualized thing, and there is really no way of telling this.

So on an individual basis, a christian might say, 'im one of those listed, im from the tribe of such and such'.

And, that's their belief, so that is what it is, a personal belief.

It is the overwhelming majority position of the cults, taken aggregately, that since THEY are the chosen people/race/leaders, they replace Israel and where the Bible is simple, explicit, literal (X from Y tribe), matching OT verses that are similar, in a book consumed with Israel's position and judgment in the End Times... no GENTILE Christian can say they are from the JEWISH tribe of such and such... no. THAT is a part/problem of replacement theology.
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
Take the temple as a simple and quick point.
God gave the people the Tabernacle in the wilderness,
and the ark of God's Covenant with the people.
God did not ask for a temple, anymore than he asked
for a King of Israel - but both were granted to the Jews.
Jesus said that "God does not dwell in temples made
with hands." Jesus gave no instruction for any Christian
temple, rather he said that his people were the temple
of the living God.
No single thing changed what some call Christianity
more than the introduction of temples. God was now in
the temple (and you could leave him there.) And now
there was a class of officials caring for the temple, and
taxing people. With this came temporal powers, idols
and a new class of non-itinerant ministers.
The Christian temple became the "earthly sanctuary"
warned about in Romans and Hebrews. The temple
in short was a symbol, like the Passover lamb, the
sacred ground, the holy day, the priest etc that was
done away with Christ.

Thus Christ isn't our high priest, the Archbishop or
Pope now is. Now the sacred center of your life isn't
your heart but in the worldly temple. Now the ministers
without a home and church in the home is totally
reversed - without commandment, example or
permission from the bible.
This is a complete straw man argument: you're disagreeing with a stance nobody is actually making.
I've pointed that out to PruePhillip before, but it just continues to fall upon deaf ears. I'm still waiting to hear about all of the Old Testament "special days and months" we observe and where the New Testament forbids us to have a tabernacle. Claims without evidence are pretty meaningless.
From my conversations with him/her, I'm inclined to agree.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
This is a complete straw man argument: you're disagreeing with a stance nobody is actually making.

From my conversations with him/her, I'm inclined to agree.
You know, it doesn't really bug me that much when someone tells me that my beliefs are in error. But what I really find annoying is when someone tries to tell me what I believe. :rolleyes:
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Take the temple as a simple and quick point.
God gave the people the Tabernacle in the wilderness,
and the ark of God's Covenant with the people.
God did not ask for a temple, anymore than he asked
for a King of Israel - but both were granted to the Jews.
Jesus said that "God does not dwell in temples made
with hands." Jesus gave no instruction for any Christian
temple, rather he said that his people were the temple
of the living God.
No single thing changed what some call Christianity
more than the introduction of temples. God was now in
the temple (and you could leave him there.) And now
there was a class of officials caring for the temple, and
taxing people. With this came temporal powers, idols
and a new class of non-itinerant ministers.
The Christian temple became the "earthly sanctuary"
warned about in Romans and Hebrews. The temple
in short was a symbol, like the Passover lamb, the
sacred ground, the holy day, the priest etc that was
done away with Christ.

Thus Christ isn't our high priest, the Archbishop or
Pope now is. Now the sacred center of your life isn't
your heart but in the worldly temple. Now the ministers
without a home and church in the home is totally
reversed - without commandment, example or
permission from the bible.

Solomon's temple was a copy of a larger temple at Byblos. I think it was probably just vanity. They wanted a Temple and a King,
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Solomon's temple was a copy of a larger temple at Byblos. I think it was probably just vanity. They wanted a Temple and a King,

Like all things it's complicated. The King and Temple did serve symbolic
uses. Thus in Judaeo and Christian liturgy the temple is figurative (only)
of God's house. And the monarchy is figurative of God's authority and the
Messiah.
Thus David as King represents two icons - the rejected King (Jesus as
Messiah) and the reigning King (Jesus as Lord.)
But no temple was to be built by Christians. Jesus said God doesn't
dwell in "temples made with hands" and Romans and Hebrews speaks
of those who have "no right" to enter the presence of God if they serve
at a worldly sanctuary - YOU must be the sanctuary.

Interestingly, in Revelation it speaks of the fall of false religion, and it
mentions this physical sanctuary which didn't exist in John's day.
"No more the candle, no more the voice of bride and bridgegroom, but
a cage of every hateful and unclean bird." or words to that effect. Call it
another prophecy if you like.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Like all things it's complicated. The King and Temple did serve symbolic
uses. Thus in Judaeo and Christian liturgy the temple is figurative (only)
of God's house. And the monarchy is figurative of God's authority and the
Messiah.
Thus David as King represents two icons - the rejected King (Jesus as
Messiah) and the reigning King (Jesus as Lord.)
But no temple was to be built by Christians. Jesus said God doesn't
dwell in "temples made with hands" and Romans and Hebrews speaks
of those who have "no right" to enter the presence of God if they serve
at a worldly sanctuary - YOU must be the sanctuary.

Interestingly, in Revelation it speaks of the fall of false religion, and it
mentions this physical sanctuary which didn't exist in John's day.
"No more the candle, no more the voice of bride and bridgegroom, but
a cage of every hateful and unclean bird." or words to that effect. Call it
another prophecy if you like.

John says there is no temple. What does revelation say about the fall of religion?

Like ancient Babylon, Jerusalem fell having been overcome to a large part by the passage of its enemies across the Euphrates.(the Roman garrison of Vespasian)

First century Jerusalem was itself a symbol of the Law of Moses and the old covenant system.

23
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
John says there is no temple. What does revelation say about the fall of religion?

Like ancient Babylon, Jerusalem fell having been overcome to a large part by the passage of its enemies across the Euphrates.(the Roman garrison of Vespasian)

First century Jerusalem was itself a symbol of the Law of Moses and the old covenant system.

23
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

Not sure what you are getting at. It's complex but there were things God did not
want in the Jewish people, including the need for the Law (ie commandments)
a temple, divorce and a monarchy.
The church was David's idea, the monarchy was Israel's idea, the law was (if
you will receive it) God's idea after the people rebelled.

Not sure about this Euphrates crossing but. Some of the Legions just came
from Syria down through Galilee. Maybe. Some came from Egypt and some
were already garrisoned in Israel.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Not sure what you are getting at. It's complex but there were things God did not
want in the Jewish people, including the need for the Law (ie commandments)
a temple, divorce and a monarchy.
The church was David's idea, the monarchy was Israel's idea, the law was (if
you will receive it) God's idea after the people rebelled.

Not sure about this Euphrates crossing but. Some of the Legions just came
from Syria down through Galilee. Maybe. Some came from Egypt and some
were already garrisoned in Israel.

You're right.

euphrates-river-valley_turkey_syria_iraq.jpg
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You said it's judaism, by your own definition, then say it isn't judaism, you can't even not contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.
Where did I say that anything that rejected the Talmud was anything but a heresy? Give a link to my post where I said such a thing.

It's like the Trinity and Christianity. Arianism is considered a heresy. It was ruled a heresy at the council of Nicea. Is Arianism Christianity? Some would call it a Christian heresy. Some would say it is not even Christianity. The point is, everyone agrees that it is a heresy (except, of course, the heretics).
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Clearly, when you say Judaism, you don't mean the religion of Jesus, , and it's confusing concepts, to say that, Jesus practiced Judaism, when you also say heresies and not your form of Judaism , 'aren't Judaism'.
Your statements are a confused mess, and even if you are a recent convert to judaism, there's no excuse for this.
That's why you actually need to know that Jesus didn't practice anything close to your form of Judaism, by
your own statements.
When I say Judaism, I include Jesus among its adherants. Judaism adjusts over time, but certain things are constant. For example, Jesus absolutely accepted the Oral Torah which is what the Karaites (and Sadducees) reject. Both born Jews and converts agree on this.

My posts are not a confused mess. I'm sure other Jews would have their own take on things. You are welcome to ask them their own views. But I've certainly presented a rational understanding of things.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You just called it Judaism.


Then, you say it isn't Judaism. Make up your mind.
I called it what it is called. Not everything called Judaism is actually Judaism. Case in point we have Messianic Judaism, which is a religion formed by apostates, and is in no way a part of Judaism. It is a syncretic religion that mixes itself up with Christianity. It can call itself Judaism all it wants--it still isn't. IMHO, Karaite Judaism is also not Judaism.

To be fair, there are Jews who would say that technically a Jewish heresy falls within the confines of Judaism. BUT it is STILL a HERESY.
 
Top