Israel, the Servant of God

[clara17]

Jewish law is.

That's up to you. Since it is irrelevant to this discussion, it is more a reflection of your own priorities than anything else.

Why, do you go around claiming that other religious are based on lies and deceit?

I think all religion is based on lies and deceit.

When you say Jewish law is judge and jury,
do you mean Mosaic law? There are mountains of Jewish law from many sources...

 

[rosends]

I think all religion is based on lies and deceit.

When you say Jewish law is judge and jury,
do you mean Mosaic law? There are mountains of Jewish law from many sources...

There is Jewish law. It is a thing.

 

[clara17]

Paul's message to the Gentiles was that they weren't under the law, or even to keep the covenant given to the nations, via the father of nations, Abraham (Zechariah 11:10). But to worship on God's mountain, even for strangers, one must keep the My covenant/Commandments and the Sabbath (Isaiah 56:6). Do the Gentiles keep God's commandments and his Sabbath, or do they follow the apostles, prophets, leaders put in place by Paul. As for the "house of Israel", Ephraim, they remain "scattered" among the nations (Ezekiel 36:19), and are yet still under the law, and when they are given a new heart and spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), "they will observe my ordinances". Jeremiah 31:31-33 The Commandments are for every person (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Yeshua was sent as the prophet to come, in whom you must heed, and he was to send out fishers of men, but later, hunters of men will be sent out to bring in the "sons of Israel", the lost tribes/sheep of Israel. (Jeremiah 16:14-16), to the land given to Jacob. Judah has been gathered in to the land given to Jacob, but not Ephraim, and they haven't been joined, at which time David will be king (Ezekiel 37). As for the spiritual kingdom, of power and spirit, the Gentiles have neither, for they can neither raise the dead or heal the sick. (James 5:15) They have followed the message of the devil, which is the tare seed, and those who commit lawlessness will be gathered and thrown into the furnace of fire (great tribulation). Matthew 13:38-42 Paul's witness is a self witness, which according to Yeshua, "is not true", (John 5:31) The fruit of Paul's tree (Paul's church) is apparently rotten, which would identify him as a false prophet (Matthew 7:15-21). As for Paul speaking out of the side of his mouth, such as with a forked tongue, the devil also quotes from the bible, yet his overall aim is one of deception. The devil is probably aware of his deception. In the case of Paul, he seems to simply to be under the control of his demons. (Revelation 14:13). Regardless, at the end of the age, the stumbling blocks, such as Peter (Matthew 16:23), and those who commit lawlessness will be removed (Matthew 13:40-41).

When you say
"the gentiles follow the apostles...
As for the spiritual kingdom, of power and spirit, the Gentiles have neither," etc
who are you referring to?
The word Gentile is not in the Bible, and was used in place of the words nations, peoples, Greeks.
Its a latin word that was not in the greek texts.
when you say it, who are you referring to?

 

[clara17]

There is Jewish law. It is a thing.

yes. we agree on something.

 

[74x12]

Well, they only had one law so singular obedience was the same as total obedience.

Even Moses didn't enter the promise land over one single sin he did. He got mad at the people spoke harshly and hit the rock and God didn't like it because God wanted him to speak softly that day. So God made him die in the wilderness even though he let him see the land he didn't enter it. We don't know that Moses ever did any other sins during his years leading Israel but that one alone was enough. So God takes one sin seriously.

No, that makes no sense at all. Human sacrifice doesn't do anything more than disgust God.

What about when Jephthah's daughter came out of the house? Was that just random happenstance or did God control everything and make it happen? As Job said "The Lord gives and takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord" So God gave her to Jephthah and took her. It's that simple. That doesn't change the fact that Jephthah made a foolish hasty vow, but still ... God ultimately was responsible for turning his vow on it's head that way; because God made her come out first instead of the family dog or whatever Jephthah assumed would come out. When you think about it; God was rightfully angry at such a foolish vow because anything could come out first such as an unclean animal like a dog. So God punished him; but still God made it happen.

Also you forget that God asked for Isaac to be sacrificed at first. Then later in Egypt; God claimed that all the firstborn sons of Israel are his by right and he wanted them to sacrifice animals in their place because he spared them when he killed all the Egyptian firstborns.

Then you forget how many people have died for Judaism. Like in the book of Maccabees when they refused to make sacrifices to Zeus; they were killed for it. They were counted as sacrifices to God because they gave their life for their faith. And God demands that Jews give their life; rather than give in and sacrifice to idols. That's part of God's demand. So sometimes God does demand people sacrifice their life.

Every circumcision is a form of human sacrifice. I mean you're literally giving up part of your own human body by shedding blood to be in a covenant with God.

So human blood is part of Judaism and it's part of making Judaism sanctified. But ultimately Jesus' death was not by the Law of Moses but the previous order of the priesthood of Melchizedek according to the book of Hebrews which is correct.

Neither is the death of another person. People die for their own sins.

Indeed they do; but without a sacrifice they can't be forgiven. God showed this in typology. Just as Isaac who is the ancestor of all Jews was about to be killed by Abraham; God provided a replacement. That was a replacement for all Israel. All Israel was redeemed by God that day and was symbolic of the coming redemption for Israel.

So it is not like we can die for another person's sins; but if God provides the sacrifice; then that is different. Because God is doing it by himself.

In a statement stating that we shouldn't EAT blood.

Because the blood was meant to be for an offering to God as atonement for the soul as it says Lev. 17:10-11. Blood is for atonement of the soul; not to be eaten by people.

 

[rosends]

Even Moses didn't enter the promise land over one single sin he did. He got mad at the people spoke harshly and hit the rock and God didn't like it because God wanted him to speak softly that day. So God made him die in the wilderness even though he let him see the land he didn't enter it. We don't know that Moses ever did any other sins during his years leading Israel but that one alone was enough. So God takes one sin seriously.

And God judges people based on their level of specialness -- a single sin (though it isn't clear exactly what the sin was...it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is) affects a national leader differently from a commoner. Strictly speaking, though, the entire of Moses' generation was barred from entering the land already and Moses just didn't get an exception.

What about when Jephthah's daughter came out of the house? Was that just random happenstance or did God control everything and make it happen? As Job said "The Lord gives and takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord" So God gave her to Jephthah and took her. It's that simple. That doesn't change the fact that Jephthah made a foolish hasty vow, but still ... God ultimately was responsible for turning his vow on it's head that way; because God made her come out first instead of the family dog or whatever Jephthah assumed would come out. When you think about it; God was rightfully angry at such a foolish vow because anything could come out first such as an unclean animal like a dog. So God punished him; but still God made it happen.

OK, Let's say "God made it happen to show Yiftach the error of his statement" so what? Therefore God WANTS human sacrifice? And by the way, if you understood the precise language, the text doesn't say he sacrifices her.

Also you forget that God asked for Isaac to be sacrificed at first.

Well, no, not exactly. He asked for Isaac to be raised up as a sacrifice (which he was).

Then later in Egypt; God claimed that all the firstborn sons of Israel are his by right and he wanted them to sacrifice animals in their place because he spared them when he killed all the Egyptian firstborns.

No, in commemoration of saving the first born, he wanted the first born of certain animals sacrificed and the children are consecrated (and have to be redeemed from the state of consecration).

Then you forget how many people have died for Judaism. Like in the book of Maccabees when they refused to make sacrifices to Zeus; they were killed for it. They were counted as sacrifices to God because they gave their life for their faith.

Maybe by you. Jews don't think of them as sacrifices.

And God demands that Jews give their life; rather than give in and sacrifice to idols. That's part of God's demand. So sometimes God does demand people sacrifice their life.

You are now using words quite loosely. The idea of a "sacrifice" which can effect any sort of divine reaction/consequence is very specific. You are now including death by martyrdom because in English, it is the loss of an item of value, life. But that isn't a "sacrifice" in the Hebrew textual sense, just in the imperfect translational sense.

Every circumcision is a form of human sacrifice. I mean you're literally giving up part of your own human body by shedding blood to be in a covenant with God.

No, this isn't any form of human sacrifice. Neither is murder, suicide or cutting your toenails.

So human blood is part of Judaism and it's part of making Judaism sanctified.

Human blood is a variable in various Jewish laws. That has nothing to do with sacrifice.

But ultimately Jesus' death was not by the Law of Moses but the previous order of the priesthood of Melchizedek according to the book of Hebrews which is correct.

Great. So you say that he wasn't anything according to Jewish law and you rely on an invented idea of priesthood and a text which holds no value to anyone Jewish so your argument can be ignored completely.

Indeed they do; but without a sacrifice they can't be forgiven.

Sure they can. God lists other options.

God showed this in typology. Just as Isaac who is the ancestor of all Jews was about to be killed by Abraham; God provided a replacement. That was a replacement for all Israel. All Israel was redeemed by God that day and was symbolic of the coming redemption for Israel.

So Isaac was going to die because who sinned? Especially since there was no Mosaic law yet. Oh, this is some sort of metaphor. Not a very good one...

So it is not like we can die for another person's sins; but if God provides the sacrifice; then that is different. Because God is doing it by himself.

Well, he used the Romans, and went against his own law in animal choice and method, but hey...because God, no doubt.

Because the blood was meant to be for an offering to God as atonement for the soul as it says Lev. 17:10-11. Blood is for atonement of the soul; not to be eaten by people.

Because the death of an animal can effect atonement, we aren't allowed to eat blood. Blood isn't an offering by the way. It is drained (sometimes sprinkled) and buried.

 

[2ndpillar]

When you say
"the gentiles follow the apostles...
As for the spiritual kingdom, of power and spirit, the Gentiles have neither," etc
who are you referring to?
The word Gentile is not in the Bible, and was used in place of the words nations, peoples, Greeks.
Its a latin word that was not in the greek texts.
when you say it, who are you referring to?

The prophets refer to the nations, as in the beasts of Daniel or to all the nations of Joel 3, as in non sons of Jacob. Paul refers to the Gentiles, as in the Greeks, as with those who are not Jewish, and he doesn't mention the lost 10 tribes, the house of Israel, Ephraim, who are "scattered" among the "nations". As for "apostles", "prophets", etc. set up by Paul, they are preaching to those who consider themselves non Jewish, as within the Nicene Council, effort was made to separate the Roman church teachings from any Jewish heritage, as with the setting up of the pagan feast of Easter, with respect to the "last supper" and "crucifixion", apart from the Jewish Festival of the feast of Unleavened Bread. The "Gentiles", the followers of Paul, would be in general, the Roman mother church, based on Peter and Paul, with Peter as the supposed head of household/church (Isaiah 22:15), with the keys of David (Isaiah 22), who is supposed to "fall" in "that day" (Isaiah 22:25), which is to say, the pope, Peter's supposed heir, is prophesized to "fall". The Protestant churches would simply be grouped under the heading of other "harlots" of 'Babylon" (Revelation 17), who may have members from the lost sheep of Israel, but they would consider themselves non Jewish in creed, and apparently, not knowing their own heritage, for the most part. As for "Christian" Jews/Judah, they have apparently jumped from the pot into the fire. As for Messianic Jews, they are a different brew altogether, and would be consider Judah, not alluding to Levi and Benjamin..

Acts 15:7, "that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe" Written by some unknown author, which is contrary to Galatians 2:7, but is supposedly written by someone with ties to Paul. On the other hand, my NT version translates nations in Amos 9:11 into Gentiles, directly in Acts 15:17. "the nations/Gentiles, who are called by my name" (Amos 9:11)

I neither read Greek nor Latin. I use English translations, which use both the terms nations and Gentiles.

 

[clara17]

The prophets refer to the nations, as in the beasts of Daniel or to all the nations of Joel 3, as in non sons of Jacob. Paul refers to the Gentiles, as in the Greeks, as with those who are not Jewish, and he doesn't mention the lost 10 tribes, the house of Israel, Ephraim, who are "scattered" among the "nations". As for "apostles", "prophets", etc. set up by Paul, they are preaching to those who consider themselves non Jewish, as within the Nicene Council, effort was made to separate the Roman church teachings from any Jewish heritage, as with the setting up of the pagan feast of Easter, with respect to the "last supper" and "crucifixion", apart from the Jewish Festival of the feast of Unleavened Bread. The "Gentiles", the followers of Paul, would be in general, the Roman mother church, based on Peter and Paul, with Peter as the supposed head of household/church (Isaiah 22:15), with the keys of David (Isaiah 22), who is supposed to "fall" in "that day" (Isaiah 22:25), which is to say, the pope, Peter's supposed heir, is prophesized to "fall". The Protestant churches would simply be grouped under the heading of other "harlots" of 'Babylon" (Revelation 17), who may have members from the lost sheep of Israel, but they would consider themselves non Jewish in creed, and apparently, not knowing their own heritage, for the most part. As for "Christian" Jews/Judah, they have apparently jumped from the pot into the fire. As for Messianic Jews, they are a different brew altogether, and would be consider Judah, not alluding to Levi and Benjamin..

Acts 15:7, "that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe" Written by some unknown author, which is contrary to Galatians 2:7, but is supposedly written by someone with ties to Paul. On the other hand, my NT version translates nations in Amos 9:11 into Gentiles, directly in Acts 15:17. "the nations/Gentiles, who are called by my name" (Amos 9:11)

I neither read Greek nor Latin. I use English translations, which use both the terms nations and Gentiles.

That is quite a cluster. I was just asking who YOU mean, when you say it in the earlier post.

 

[2ndpillar]

That is quite a cluster. I was just asking who YOU mean, when you say it in the earlier post.

As my name isn't Webster, I don't set up meanings. The meanings are either laid out in the context, or they are not. I tried to give a contextual answer, which is complicated by the improper bifurcation of the elements by Paul. And Yes, the term Gentile, is in my bible, but the proper term should be nations, as the lost sheep of Israel, are "scattered" among the "nations", and are considered Gentiles, when in fact, they are not. Is that less of a "cluster"?

If you don't understand who the lost sheep of Israel are, and where they are at, you are going to have a hard time figuring out the "kingdom" to come. (Matthew 10:6).

 

[74x12]

And God judges people based on their level of specialness -- a single sin (though it isn't clear exactly what the sin was...it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is) affects a national leader differently from a commoner. Strictly speaking, though, the entire of Moses' generation was barred from entering the land already and Moses just didn't get an exception.

It boils down to that he messed up. He's still going to heaven but I'm interested in the symbolism of it. That he didn't go into the inheritance of Abraham because of it.

OK, Let's say "God made it happen to show Yiftach the error of his statement" so what? Therefore God WANTS human sacrifice? And by the way, if you understood the precise language, the text doesn't say he sacrifices her.

By context it should be reasonably clear he did do it. Her death became a lament in that region of Israel for years afterward.

Well, no, not exactly. He asked for Isaac to be raised up as a sacrifice (which he was).

Then he was a sacrifice by the Word of God. God called him a sacrifice and God can't lie.

No, in commemoration of saving the first born, he wanted the first born of certain animals sacrificed and the children are consecrated (and have to be redeemed from the state of consecration).

Their lives were redeemed and the Egyptian firstborns were not. It doesn't get more plain than that.

Maybe by you. Jews don't think of them as sacrifices.

By God they are. For example the symbolism of Psalm 44 compares martyrs (those killed for God's sake) to sheep and we know sheep are used for sacrifices.

Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. (Psalm 44:22)

You are now using words quite loosely. The idea of a "sacrifice" which can effect any sort of divine reaction/consequence is very specific. You are now including death by martyrdom because in English, it is the loss of an item of value, life. But that isn't a "sacrifice" in the Hebrew textual sense, just in the imperfect translational sense.

God receives them as a sacrifice. They are an accepted sacrifice to God.

No, this isn't any form of human sacrifice. Neither is murder, suicide or cutting your toenails.

It is a kind of human sacrifice and it ultimately symbolizes a life devoted to worshiping God by the covenant with Abraham. So a kind of living sacrifice. The details are important when you're dealing with the things of God. So it's significant that blood is shed in this way. Because you have vaginal blood; women's period and now blood for men as well. It obviously has to do with reproduction. Making a holy progeny.

Human blood is a variable in various Jewish laws. That has nothing to do with sacrifice.

According to Lev. 17:10-11 the blood is for atonement.

Great. So you say that he wasn't anything according to Jewish law and you rely on an invented idea of priesthood and a text which holds no value to anyone Jewish so your argument can be ignored completely.

The priesthood of Melchizedek is in the Tanakh and predates the priesthood of Aaron or Levi. So are you denying it exists? Because it's pretty important if it does exist; it should be taken seriously. Like I said the details are really important in the scriptures. They must be paid attention to.

Isn't David called a priest after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110 by God? So that's also important because it shows the priesthood of the kings of Judah by the Davidic line goes back to Melchizedek. This only makes sense as they rule Jerusalem. Or do you deny that? If so; on what basis do you deny that the Davidic line of kings have the priesthood of Melchizedek? Because they were anointed with oil and the Spirit of God.

This is why Zachariah makes them equal with the priesthood of Aaron. He says there are two anointed ones who stand before the Lord instead of just Joshua the heir of Aaron. Now also Zerubbabel the heir of David. (Zecheriah 4:14)

Sure they can. God lists other options.

No, I don't think he does. Just because the sacrifice is not yet mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't coming. So of course no one knew Jesus would be the sacrifice for their sins in those days; but they still believed God and so it was accounted to them for righteousness.

But go ahead and list some of these options. Let's see what you're talking about.

So Isaac was going to die because who sinned? Especially since there was no Mosaic law yet. Oh, this is some sort of metaphor. Not a very good one...

There was clearly sin before Moses gave the Law. God flooded the world because of sin. We're all mortal because the sin of Adam and Eve according to Genesis. Mortality itself is the biggest witness that we are in fact sinners. We all sin even before Moses. If we weren't sinners we should be immortal like heavenly beings are.

Ultimately however yes it was metaphor. Because Isaac was not going to die. God knew he would provide a sacrifice. Even Abraham predicted it on the way. Because Isaac asked where the sacrifice was and Abraham said God would provide one.

So that was the anointing of prophecy on Abraham predicting what really would happen even though Abraham himself thought he would sacrifice Isaac.

Well, he used the Romans, and went against his own law in animal choice and method, but hey...because God, no doubt.

So how do you interpret Isaiah 53? No doubt you think it's about Israel as a nation being persecuted by gentiles. So then God uses gentiles to persecute Israel and make Israel a sacrifice according to your understanding of Isaiah 53. So what were you saying about Romans being used by God?

It really is a God thing. I don't know why you would scoff at the idea of it being because of God. Unless you're atheist. I know some practicing Jews, even Rabbis are atheists sometimes and only practice for the sake of tradition. It's not unheard of. If so then there is no shame in admitting it.

Because the death of an animal can effect atonement, we aren't allowed to eat blood. Blood isn't an offering by the way. It is drained (sometimes sprinkled) and buried.

It is put on the horns of the altar as a witness that the animal was slain and was sprinkled with the incense. So that is an offering of witness to God. It's saying to God that the deed is done. The rest of the blood is not needed and so is poured at the base of the altar.

The fact the blood is spilled shows the life of the animal was taken because the life is in the blood. Besides there is symbolism in the blood (and life) going back into the earth which the animal came from originally anyway. As the preacher says in Ecclesiastes who knows the spirit of the beast that goes down to the earth. Whereas on the other hand the righteous blood of man cries out from the ground to be avenged like Abel's.

 

[rosends]

It boils down to that he messed up. He's still going to heaven but I'm interested in the symbolism of it. That he didn't go into the inheritance of Abraham because of it.

so the symbolism that you get to interpret as you want. Got it.

By context it should be reasonably clear he did do it. Her death became a lament in that region of Israel for years afterward.

You mean the context as you understand it. The text doesn't say what you want it to say.

Then he was a sacrifice by the Word of God. God called him a sacrifice and God can't lie.

Can you show me where God called him a sacrifice? In the Hebrew, please.

Their lives were redeemed and the Egyptian firstborns were not. It doesn't get more plain than that.

They were declared special because they were saved -- not murderable. I don't see how you invent that.

By God they are. For example the symbolism of Psalm 44 compares martyrs (those killed for God's sake) to sheep and we know sheep are used for sacrifices.

Psalm 44 mentions sheep that are slaughtered and eaten. There is no mention of sacrifice. What did you have in mind, supper?

Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. (Psalm 44:22)

And shockingly, the text does NOT use any word that means "sacrifice". Crazy, right? Almost like it is specifically NOT saying "sacrifice."

God receives them as a sacrifice. They are an accepted sacrifice to God.

So you say. Though you say it without any textual evidence.

It is a kind of human sacrifice and it ultimately symbolizes a life devoted to worshiping God by the covenant with Abraham. So a kind of living sacrifice.

No, no kind of human sacrifice. See how you have to say "kind of" to make your theology work? That means "not" but you are twisting it.

The details are important when you're dealing with the things of God. So it's significant that blood is shed in this way. Because you have vaginal blood; women's period and now blood for men as well.

So a woman's period is a sacrifice I guess...

It obviously has to do with reproduction. Making a holy progeny.

Too much Dan Brown for you.

According to Lev. 17:10-11 the blood is for atonement.

No actually what it says. The text says that it is the soul which expiates, not the blood.

The priesthood of Melchizedek is in the Tanakh and predates the priesthood of Aaron or Levi. So are you denying it exists?

oops by you. The text uses a particular word to describe the role Malki-tzedek plays, not a category. It is the same word that is used to describe Yitro. Is there a "priesthood" of Yitro? No. Because that's not what the Hebrew word means. Somehow, your translator didn't explain that to you.

Because it's pretty important if it does exist; it should be taken seriously. Like I said the details are really important in the scriptures. They must be paid attention to.

The words are important. Can you even read them?

Isn't David called a priest after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110 by God?

oooh, no, not really. You should really study the text better. The use of a specific root doesn't point to the noun you want it to. Study would have revealed that...

So that's also important because it shows the priesthood of the kings of Judah by the Davidic line goes back to Melchizedek.

Ouch. As the "line" of Malki-Tzedek is the line of Shem, then the line goes through Jacob and to all the tribes, but not Yitro who was also called by the same noun root.

This only makes sense as they rule Jerusalem. Or do you deny that? If so; on what basis do you deny that the Davidic line of kings have the priesthood of Melchizedek? Because they were anointed with oil and the Spirit of God.

Because the priesthood vested in the tribe of Levi and David was of the tribe of Judah. Are you new at this?

This is why Zachariah makes them equal with the priesthood of Aaron. He says there are two anointed ones who stand before the Lord instead of just Joshua the heir of Aaron. Now also Zerubbabel the heir of David. (Zecheriah 4:14)

Yes, two from different tribes. You just undid yourself.

No, I don't think he does.

Really? Because even for the small slice of unintentional sins for which ANY sacrifice can atone, God clearly states that a meal offering can suffice (Lev 5:11), meaning that blood is not necessary.

Just because the sacrifice is not yet mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't coming. So of course no one knew Jesus would be the sacrifice for their sins in those days; but they still believed God and so it was accounted to them for righteousness.

So they were all wrong, but God is cool with that because secrets gotsta be kept. Amirite?

But go ahead and list some of these options. Let's see what you're talking about.

You mean besides the meal offering I just listed? Deut 4 and 30 mention prayer and turning back to God through repentance (and that's just in the Pentateuch...if you want to, look at 1 Kings 8 etc)

There was clearly sin before Moses gave the Law. God flooded the world because of sin.

That doesn't answer what sin, according to your metaphor, Isaac was to die for,

Mortality itself is the biggest witness that we are in fact sinners.

Not actually what the text says...

Ultimately however yes it was metaphor. Because Isaac was not going to die. God knew he would provide a sacrifice. Even Abraham predicted it on the way. Because Isaac asked where the sacrifice was and Abraham said God would provide one.

Great, so it isn't parallel to any other death because here, Abe knew that it wasn't a death. Thanks.

even though Abraham himself thought he would sacrifice Isaac.

Wait...you just said the exact opposite. Get your story straight.

So how do you interpret Isaiah 53? No doubt you think it's about Israel as a nation being persecuted by gentiles. So then God uses gentiles to persecute Israel and make Israel a sacrifice according to your understanding of Isaiah 53. So what were you saying about Romans being used by God?

I'm not sure why you drag Isaiah into this, but you clearly haven't read Isaiah through and through -- this isn't about MY opinion of anything. The text makes clear who is speaking. My problem is that you said "God is doing it by himself" but he wasn't -- the Romans did the killing.

It really is a God thing. I don't know why you would scoff at the idea of it being because of God. Unless you're atheist. I know some practicing Jews, even Rabbis are atheists sometimes and only practice for the sake of tradition. It's not unheard of. If so then there is no shame in admitting it.

I'm not an atheist, I just don't believe that God changes his mind and his rules whenever he feels like it the way you do. It is ok to admit that you need a changeable and mortal God to make your theology work -- lots of pagans before you believed that. Own it.

It is put on the horns of the altar as a witness that the animal was slain and was sprinkled with the incense.

Except when it isn't.

The fact the blood is spilled shows the life of the animal was taken because the life is in the blood. Besides there is symbolism in the blood (and life) going back into the earth which the animal came from originally anyway. As the preacher says in Ecclesiastes who knows the spirit of the beast that goes down to the earth. Whereas on the other hand the righteous blood of man cries out from the ground to be avenged like Abel's.

So you play with "symbolism" and explain things the way you need to. That's ok. Everyone needs a fantasy life.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You know it; but it never indicates how God can forgive anyone. Only that he does do it. That changes nothing.

God can forgive whomever he wishes without any activity on the part of the pentiant. But what he requires from us is repentence, meaning to turn away from the sin and turn back to God. Psalm 51:19 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

Unintentional sins are small and intentional ones are great. What I said still stands. This changes nothing.

What needs to change is your mistaken idea that God asked us to make a sin offering for intentional sins. Turn to Leviticus 4 and read the chapter on sin offerings. You will notice that not only does the introduction say it is for unintentional sins, but all of the examples given are all unintentional sins.

You are good even though you've broken the Law? I think goodness is God's alone.

You believe this only because you think Jesus said it and that what Jesus says is somehow important. The truth is that apart from Christians, the entire world notes that good people do exist.

Isaiah 53 shows us he does want blood for sins.

No, you are having problems confusing your sets with your subsets. Yes blood can atone, but there is atonement without blood as well, and forgiveness with only repentence.

But if you are right; then why does God demand sacrifices for unintentional sins? It would make no sense if he can easily forgive intentional sins.

Repentence is much MUCH harder than making a sin offering. Really, he demands more of the intentional sinner by requiring them to alter their lives.

If you were God and someone intentionally murdered someone, would you let them get off scot free by simply offering a token of a burnt offering? Or would you demand more of them than that, demand that they change their ways, turn from their sin, and turn back to God's law?

 

[Rival]

So a woman's period is a sacrifice I guess...

Yes it actually is

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Scripture related to the light to the Gentiles is correlated with "the tribes of Jacob" have been gathered out of the nations/Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6-7) & (Ezekiel 36 & 37), when kings will bow down (Zechariah 14:16). That has not happened as of yet. At that time the nations/Gentiles will cry, we have inherited nothing but falsehood from our fathers (Jeremiah 16:19), which is to say the Gentiles are operating under a false narrative. As for the nations which are "destroyed completely", it will be those in which "O Israel" was scattered (Jeremiah 30:11). Or in the words of Daniel 2:45, the nations described from the head of gold, to the feet of iron and clay. As per Joel 3:1-2, first Jerusalem has to be "restored", which is happening now, and then all the nations will be judged. Judgment day, the great tribulation, will come to the whole world.. The 144,000 "bond servants", from the 12 tribes, from Judah to Benjamin, will be marked to escape from harm from the "four angels".(Revelation 7:3). The rest will feel the whole weight of the great tribulation, and unless the time was not shortened, none would survive (Matthew 24:22).

Two thousand years of grace and mercy are missing from your narrative because you fail to recognise that David played a role whilst anointed to be king.

If you read lsaiah 61:1-3, you will see that this Messianic passage includes both the mercy and judgement of God. The mercy comes first, and the vengeance later. This same passage is read aloud by Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth, where he claimed to be fulfilling the first part of the prophecy. In other words, his coming, the first time, was to set the prisoners free from sin. And since he has not yet returned, we can only assume that His mercy will continue until the time he does return!

The judgement and vengeance of God is yet to come. What, therefore, do you think the Lord has been doing the last two thousand years? Creating a false Church?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So when David is speaking in the first person about how God saved "me" from "sheol" he's not referring to himself? And when the Korchites similarly speak about themselves/himself that God saved "me" from "sheol", likewise they were not talking about themselves?
So should we therefore conclude that when Jonah spoke about how "I am" in "sheol", he also wasn't talking about himself?
Okay, gotcha.

Let's first accept that 'she'ol' is 'the place of the dead'. This you seem reluctant to accept despite the fact that all the Jewish translators and commentators of the JPS seem to agree.

Then there's the question of whether or not Jonah had reached 'she'ol'. This appears to be confirmed by a number of verses in Jonah 2. The first states that he was in the 'belly of she'ol' [verse 2] and thereafter that he was 'cast out of thy sight' and compassed by waters. Then, in verse 6 [KJV], it says 'thou brought up my life from corruption', the pit of death.

Given what is written, it would take some impressive intellectual gymnastics to convince me that Jonah had not experienced death.

In addition to the story, we have some parallel uses of certain phrases which lead us to look elsewhere in scripture. Take, for example, the phrase 'l will look again toward thy holy temple' [Jonah 2, verse 4]. This is repeated, in slightly different words in verse 7, where it says, 'and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple'. So, can these words be a clue to uncover more about the person in 'she'ol'?

In Psalms 5:7 and 11:4 we are told of the whereabouts of God's temple, and that he hears the prayers of his faithful servant. Then in Psalm 18:6, we have these words, 'ln my distress l called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even unto his ears'. Now, does that sound familiar?

Why was 'David', in Psalm 18 [also 2 Samuel 22], 'brought forth into a large place' [verse 19]? We are told that it was because 'l was also upright before him, and l kept myself from mine iniquity' [verse 23]. Did David [1] succeed in being sinless? Because in the final verse of Psalm 18 it says, 'Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore'.

 

[Harel13]

Let's first accept that 'she'ol' is 'the place of the dead'. This you seem reluctant to accept despite the fact that all the Jewish translators and commentators of the JPS seem to agree.

You seem to have utterly missed my point. My point is that when David, Jonah, the Korchites and other psalmists use the term "sheol" they don't mean that they are literally dead. It's a borrowed term to mean being in a bad place (mentally, emotionally, spiritually).

 

[Redemptionsong]

You seem to have utterly missed my point. My point is that when David, Jonah, the Korchites and other psalmists use the term "sheol" they don't mean that they are literally dead. It's a borrowed term to mean being in a bad place (mentally, emotionally, spiritually).

Can you show me a passage where 'she'ol' actually means what it was intended to mean, 'a place of death'?

It's unusual for the Hebrew scriptures to provide a spiritual application without supplying a literal counterpart. The tendency is for the earthly stories to appear in advance of the spiritual explanation.

 

[2ndpillar]

Two thousand years of grace and mercy are missing from your narrative because you fail to recognise that David played a role whilst anointed to be king.

If you read lsaiah 61:1-3, you will see that this Messianic passage includes both the mercy and judgement of God. The mercy comes first, and the vengeance later. This same passage is read aloud by Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth, where he claimed to be fulfilling the first part of the prophecy. In other words, his coming, the first time, was to set the prisoners free from sin. And since he has not yet returned, we can only assume that the mercy will continue until the time he does return!

The judgement and vengeance of God is yet to come. What, therefore, do you think the Lord has been doing the last two thousand years? Creating a false Church?

The Gentile church was imaged by Hosea 3, whereas, the son of man, Hosea, went out and purchased an adulteress for the equivalence of 30 pieces of silver, and would stay with her for "many days" (two days/2000 years) until the "sons of Israel" "return" and "seek the Lord their God and David their king", in the "last days". The shepherds of this "flock"/church, which "is doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), would be Paul (Zechariah 11:10), Peter (Zechariah 11:16-17), and Judas Iscariot with his 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:11-12), as noted in Matthew 26:9-10. At this time, "I will go away and return to My place" (heaven), "until they (Ephraim & Judah) acknowledge their guilt", which would be "after two days" (Hosea 5:13-6:3), and their transgression, was "they transgressed the covenant" (Hosea 6:7). The "false church", would be the church of the tares, whose seed was planted by the "devil", whom at the "end of the age", would be "first" gathered, and "burned", and then the "wheat" would be gathered into the barn (Matthew 13:24-50). As an answer to your question, Yeshua had "returned to his own place (heaven)" until Judah and Ephraim (Israel) "acknowledged their guilt" (Hosea 5:14-15).

As for Isaiah 61:1-3, it is directed to those who mourn in Zion, which is Mount Zion, for which only those who keep God's covenant, and his Sabbath reside (Isaiah 56:6), for which "strangers" are included.

The "mercy" of God, is he gave time for repentance, but the day of judgment will arrive as a thief in the night, regardless.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Gentile church was imaged by Hosea 3, whereas, the son of man, Hosea, went out and purchased an adulteress for the equivalence of 30 pieces of silver, and would stay with her for "many days" (two days/2000 years) until the "sons of Israel" "return" and "seek the Lord their God and David their king", in the "last days". The shepherds of this "flock"/church, which "is doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), would be Paul (Zechariah 11:10), Peter (Zechariah 11:16-17), and Judas Iscariot with his 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:11-12), as noted in Matthew 26:9-10. At this time, "I will go away and return to My place" (heaven), "until they (Ephraim & Judah) acknowledge their guilt", which would be "after two days" (Hosea 5:13-6:3), and their transgression, was "they transgressed the covenant" (Hosea 6:7). The "false church", would be the church of the tares, whose seed was planted by the "devil", whom at the "end of the age", would be "first" gathered, and "burned", and then the "wheat" would be gathered into the barn (Matthew 13:24-50). As an answer to your question, Yeshua had "returned to his own place (heaven)" until Judah and Ephraim (Israel) "acknowledged their guilt" (Hosea 5:14-15).

As for Isaiah 61:1-3, it is directed to those who mourn in Zion, which is Mount Zion, for which only those who keep God's covenant, and his Sabbath reside (Isaiah 56:6), for which "strangers" are included.

The "mercy" of God, is he gave time for repentance, but the day of judgment will arrive as a thief in the night, regardless.

I think you've got a mix of truth and error in this summary.

God has not only given time for Judah and Ephraim to repent, He has sent out apostles to 'preach the gospel to every creature'..... 'And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.' [Mark 16]

Cherry-picking the books, and prophets, of scripture which support your private interpretation is not a convincing approach to uncovering the truth, lMO. l would sooner be convinced of your message if it had taken account of all the books accepted as canonical. I don't believe that God has allowed his word to be corrupted in the manner that you claim.

 

[Harel13]

Can you show me a passage where 'she'ol' actually means what it was intended to mean, 'a place of death'?

Certainly. Two examples:
a. "For a fire has flared in My wrath
And burned to the bottom of Sheol..." (Deut. 32:22)

b. "The LORD deals death and gives life,
Casts down into Sheol and raises up." (Samuel 1:2:6)