How Paul changed the course of Christianity

[Trailblazer]

These are core beliefs of most southern baptists and evangelicals, but they are not the whole story of Christianity. Actually they have proven to be hypocritical and pathetic misrepresentations of Christianity which allow evils to go on in our midst: slavery for example. These are what you get when you read the Bible from back to front (backwards) presuming Revelation to be an expose of the Roman Catholic church and presuming the gospels to fairly describe Jewish culture in total. It is a reimagining of Christianity without any cultural cues to help, relying only upon a particular set of books and excluding historical input. To say that these are core beliefs of Christianity is only going to make things worse. Baha'i claim to uphold scholarship highly, so please do so. Do not call their backward teachings the core of Christianity. Please be more specific. They are the core Southern Baptist and Evangelical teachings which sometimes overlap with the core of Christianity but not necessarily.

Well, of course they are not going to accept the Baha'i Faith if they believe everyone but themselves is damned. On the other hand I should require Baha'i to know better about the 'Core of Christianity', because Baha'i are supposed to be scholars. Why do I keep hearing them preach Oral Roberts and Billy Graham? We have plenty of people doing that and making their millions on the backs of Christians. We don't need their ideas reiterated. We need release from them.

When I said they are the core beliefs of Christianity I meant that they are the core doctrines of the Christian Church. I did not mean I believe that is what Jesus actually taught or what is in the Bible.

All the Christians I talk to believe in these core doctrines (see below). It is not just Baptists and Evangelicals. If there are any liberal Christians who do not believe in any or all of these Christian doctrines I have never met them.

You call them backward teachings but they are what have come to be accepted as mainstream Christianity. It is only on a rare occasion that I meet a Christian who does not have these core beliefs. By virtue of their belief that Jesus Is the Only Way, they have to believe that all other religions are false. Any Christian or Christian Church that does not believe in the Church doctrines is considered a heresy by mainstream Christians. Everything else is false to Christians except what they believe.

The Basic Tenets of Christian Faith By: Michael Bradley

Table of Contents:
1. An Introduction to the “Basic Tenets of Christian Faith”
2. Jesus Christ is the Only Way To Eternal Salvation With God the Father
3. We Are Saved by Grace Through Faith – Not by Works
4. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
5. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ
6. Resurrection of Jesus Christ
7. The Ascension of Jesus Christ
8. The Doctrine of the Trinity
9. The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God
10. Baptized With the Holy Spirit at Salvation
11. Renewed – Regenerated By Holy Spirit
12. The Doctrine of Hell
13. The Return of Jesus

Conclusion

With the rapid rise of the New Age Movement, the occult, and all of the other false religions that are in the world today, it is extremely important that every single Christian have a firm and solid grasp on each of these 12 basic tenets so they will not be so easily led right out of their faith with the Lord.

All of these basic tenets are very easy to understand, and they will all be the key for you if any other false doctrine or belief system ever comes your way in this life.

All you have to do is take any other false religion or belief system that is out there and compare it to all of the above basic tenets, and you will then be able to see very quickly and very easily how they will not fit in with our basic, Christian belief system.

The above 12 tenets will fully expose for you any of the other false belief systems that are in the world today.

These 12 basic tenets should also be burned into all of your children’s memory banks as you are raising them up in the Lord so they will not be so easily led astray by other false doctrines and belief systems once they leave your home.

Basic Tenets of Christianity

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, Trailblazer, do you realise that you are now going up against everything said in the Bible?

Romans 3:23 says that 'all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' Thus indicating that God is holy and without sin, but that all men are sinful./QUOTE]
And yet...

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. Genesis 6:9

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
Job 1:1


It seems there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Basic Tenets of Christian Faith By: Michael Bradley

Table of Contents:
1. An Introduction to the “Basic Tenets of Christian Faith”
2. Jesus Christ is the Only Way To Eternal Salvation With God the Father
3. We Are Saved by Grace Through Faith – Not by Works
4. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
5. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ
6. Resurrection of Jesus Christ
7. The Ascension of Jesus Christ
8. The Doctrine of the Trinity
9. The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God
10. Baptized With the Holy Spirit at Salvation
11. Renewed – Regenerated By Holy Spirit
12. The Doctrine of Hell
13. The Return of Jesus

This isn't a bad list at all, but the book has quite an obvious Protestant slant. The chapter about "Saved by Grace through Faith and not by Works being so early in the book is a dead give away that it's really an argument for faith ALONE (which really isn't the same thing and quite disputed). A book that is perhaps truer to the full breadth of of the religion is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. As an Anglican, he's got one foot on the Protestant lawn and one foot on the Catholic lawn.

 

[Trailblazer]

This book has quite an obvious Protestant slant. A book that is perhaps truer to the full breadth of of the religion is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. As an Anglican, he's got one foot on the Protestant lawn and one foot on the Catholic lawn.

As far as I know, Protestants and Catholics share the same doctrines with the exception that Catholics believe that works are necessary for salvation whereas Protestants don't believe works are necessary. Forgive my ignorance because religion is not a subject I ever studied since I never had much interest in it till recently. It is not as if I was only interested in my own religion because I did not study that much either until fairly recently. Moreover, I was not raised in any religion so I only stared learning about Christianity when I came to forums about six years ago. I have also learned a little about Judaism on forums.

As a Baha'i, I am more concerned about the situation in the world than in studying religion. That is just horrible what happened in the synagogue. This division and hatred between those of different races and religions just has to stop. There is only One God so there is no reason for all this hatred and division.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As far as I know, Protestants and Catholics share the same doctrines with the exception that Catholics believe that works are necessary for salvation whereas Protestants don't believe works are necessary. Forgive my ignorance because religion is not a subject I ever studied since I never had much interest in it till recently. It is not as if I was only interested in my own religion because I did not study that much either until fairly recently. Moreover, I was not raised in any religion so I only stared learning about Christianity when I came to forums about six years ago. I have also learned a little about Judaism on forums.

It seems like the only people the Klan hates as much as Jews and Blacks are Catholics --ever notice that? If you go into some of these Christian (read Protestant) forums, they'll almost always have one board to discuss Catholicism, and it will be the most hate filled, irrational, trolled board on the entire forum. It's just baffling -- they actually hate Catholics more than they hate Jews!!!! LOL I find that very odd, and my curiousity gets stirred up a bit. Yes, yes, I think if anyone is seriously studying Christianity they should study the Reformation and the solas (especially sola fide), but this residual swamp of hate in the age of ecumenism is its own curiosity.

I really should let the Catholics explain their own religion, as they would do it a better service than I, but suffice it to say that they ALSO believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. Remember that it was the Catholic Church that canonized the Bible -- they only put in it the stuff they agreed with LOL. To say, "Catholics believe you can work your way to heaven" is just a mistaken notion protestants have about Catholics.

Catholics have, at least since Vatican 2, been trying rather well to listen to the other side and have given up a lot of their old misunderstandings. Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, need to do the same.

As a Baha'i, I am more concerned about the situation in the world than in studying religion. That is just horrible what happened in the synagogue. This division and hatred between those of different races and religions just has to stop. There is only One God so there is no reason for all this hatred and division.

The violence is the ultimate of extreme "us/them" mentality. "Us/them" thinkiing is bioligically ingrained in us. If we don't divide ourselves by skin color or god or gender or geography, we'll divide ourselves by which end we break our eggs. The solution, if there is one, is to expose people as much as possible to different races, religions, etc., on a very personal level. Literally make it so that they can say "Hey I have Jewish friends." IOW we need to widen the circle of who "us" is.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I usually capitalize Law (sorry for the typo in my post)to show that I'm referring to the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible). Strictly speaking, Torah actually translates as "instructions," but it does include 613 rules for Jewish behavior, everything from don't murder to don't mix linen and wool. Somes of these rules (or laws) are really binding on everyone, such as don't steal. But most of them are particular to the People of Israel, such as don't eat shrimp.

There is nothing in the Torah that refers to an afterlife. I know that Christians like to read things into the text, but at face value, there is simply nothing there about any life after death.

You'll have to be much more specific -- I really have no idea what you are talking about. Start by quoting the verse, then show step by step how it means what you say. Pleas focus and don't go off onto a different topic like Paul and temporal/ritual law.

"I the Lord search the heart" (Jer 17:10) has nothing to do with spiritualizing the law or fulfilliling it.

I've read your Christian Scriptures, and I don't see anything to support a figurative (spiritual) teaching of the law by Jesus at all. Jesus taught obedience to th Torah, in full, both written and oral. He DID prioritize it, stating that one needed to observe the basics of the written Torah FIRST and THEN add the oral Torah. But he was talkig about the same Torah that the Pharisees taught (Matthew 23:1-3, Matthew 23:23)


The Christian ritual of the Lord's Supper and the Feast of Pentecost are not the same as Passover and Shavuot. Our holy days remain as they always have been.

It's not a matter of my personal desires. Although according to Hosea we can keep the sacrificial laws with prayers, it is still asked of us to build a house of worship in Jerusalem if we can. IOW, it's not a matter of if, but when. There are obstacles to be overcome. I am not the sort of Jew that goes around destroying mosques. Something must be negotiated that will be neither good nor bad for each side. I think it needs to be remembered that in the messianic era the Temple will be a house of worship for ALL peoples not just Jews. Perhaps that is what we should shoot for, as a way of inviting the messiah.

I quite agree that Jesus did not come to destroy the law. He says so himself. Matthew 5:17, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.' Jesus was a perfectly righteous Jew. In fact, he was the only perfectly righteous Jew because His heavenly father says, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And as a consequence Jesus is anointed with the Holy Spirit. He is chosen to be King of the Jews.

Now I don't expect you to suddenly accept Jesus as your Messiah. But you might like to think about what the Law is intended to achieve in your life. Jesus said this, 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'

Again Jesus says, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

And in a further utterance, he says, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;' [Matthew 5]

Impossible, you say.

Now I understand that Jesus is suggesting, not that the law be destroyed, but that law be fulfilled in LOVE. Law might bring justice, but true love brings forgiveness.

So then we apply this thinking to the question of sin, the wages of which is death. If it's true that all men have sinned, and deserve to die, then the only one capable of forgiveness is God himself.
Psalm 130:3,4. 'If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.'

Do you not see, from what Jesus says, that we, as sinners, are incapable of fulfilling the law! Show me one perfectly righteous man, not just in outward appearance but in HEART!

Then I will show you Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

When Jesus said He was the Way, Jesus was referring to that time period in history and He meant that He was the Only Way to God (the only mediator) during his dispensation. Every Manifestation of God is the Way to God during their dispensation. No Manifestation is the Only Way to God for all time since there will always be another Manifestation of God in the future.

Not so, according to Jesus.
'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.' [John 3:16,17]

There is only ONE Saviour. Isaiah 43:11, 'I,even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

Yet Jesus is seen to be the Saviour of the world. 'For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.' [Luke 2:11/Isaiah 9:6]

Two plus two = Jesus Christ is the Lord. Salvation comes from Him alone. Neither Muhammad nor Baha'u'llah are able to save you from sin and death. Not in my opinion, but according to the Word of God!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I quite agree that Jesus did not come to destroy the law. He says so himself. Matthew 5:17, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.' Jesus was a perfectly righteous Jew. In fact, he was the only perfectly righteous Jew because His heavenly father says, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And as a consequence Jesus is anointed with the Holy Spirit. He is chosen to be King of the Jews.

Now I don't expect you to suddenly accept Jesus as your Messiah. But you might like to think about what the Law is intended to achieve in your life. Jesus said this, 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'

Again Jesus says, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

And in a further utterance, he says, 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;' [Matthew 5]

Impossible, you say.

Now I understand that Jesus is suggesting, not that the law be destroyed, but that law be fulfilled in LOVE. Law might bring justice, but true love brings forgiveness.

So then we apply this thinking to the question of sin, the wages of which is death. If it's true that all men have sinned, and deserve to die, then the only one capable of forgiveness is God himself.
Psalm 130:3,4. 'If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.'

Do you not see, from what Jesus says, that we, as sinners, are incapable of fulfilling the law! Show me one perfectly righteous man, not just in outward appearance but in HEART!

Then I will show you Jesus.

Good to see you again, my friend!

The second temple period expression "fulfill the law" means for rabbi to teach the law in such a way that their disciples can then go out and keep the law. This is what Jesus was referring to.

Jesus was certainly not the first Jew to point out that love is the Key. Every Rabbi will tell you that the heart of the Torah is to love God with all your heart, your soul, and your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Rabbi Hillel, born before Jesus, said "Whatever is hateful to you, don't do to others. That is the whole Torah." Sound familiar? When you are familiar with the teachings of the Pharisees, it becomes so obvious that Jesus was a Pharisee.

Even the hyperbole he used in his sermon on the Mount are amazingly Jewish. The very first Mishna of the Pirkei Avot is "to build a fence around the Torah." The Christian equivalent of this is "Avoid the near occasion of sin." For example, things like envying yur neighbor's wife and committing adultery are sins. It is therefore a good idea not to go places that would lead to these temptations -- don't go out to lunch with the guys at a gentleman's club. Makes sense, right? The Oral Torah contained many of these practical rules to help us avoid obvious trouble. Jesus did this sort of thing to. You've heard murder is wrong? Don't even give in to a rage, because it's like already having murdered in your heart. He is being a typical Rabbi and building a fence around the Torah.

Honestly, if you knew Judaism, you'd see Jesus for the Yid he really is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not so, according to Jesus.
'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.' [John 3:16,17]

There is only ONE Saviour. Isaiah 43:11, 'I,even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

Yet Jesus is seen to be the Saviour of the world. 'For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.' [Luke 2:11/Isaiah 9:6]

Two plus two = Jesus Christ is the Lord. Salvation comes from Him alone. Neither Muhammad nor Baha'u'llah are able to save you from sin and death. Not in my opinion, but according to the Word of God!

The Bible only applies to the Dispensations of Moses and Jesus, but those Dispensations have now been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

Jesus Christ was the Only Way to the Father for those who believed in Him during His Dispensation.

The Bible is not the only Word of God. The Qur'an and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are also the Word of God, and Muhammad and Baha'u'llah are also Ways to the Father.

I do not believe in 'original sin' so there is nothing for us to be saved from except the sins we commit owing to our own choices to live according to our sinful natures.

The salvation Jesus conferred upon humanity was geared towards the sins of individuals...

“…those who turned toward the Word of God and received the profusion of His bounties—were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, were delivered from the chains of bondage, and attained to the world of liberty. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom. This is the meaning of the words of Christ, “I gave My blood for the life of the world” 6 —that is to say, I have chosen all these troubles, these sufferings, calamities, and even the greatest martyrdom, to attain this object, the remission of sins” Some Answered Questions, p. 125
​

The work of Jesus is finished and Baha'u'llah came to confer salvation upon all of humanity.

“Wert thou to consider, for but a little while, the outward works and doings of Him Who is the Eternal Truth, thou wouldst fall down upon the ground, and exclaim: O Thou Who art the Lord of Lords! I testify that Thou art the Lord of all creation, and the Educator of all beings, visible and invisible. I bear witness that Thy power hath encompassed the entire universe, and that the hosts of the earth can never dismay Thee, nor can the dominion of all peoples and nations deter Thee from executing Thy purpose. I confess that Thou hast no desire except the regeneration of the whole world, and the establishment of the unity of its peoples, and the salvation of all them that dwell therein.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 243
​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is only ONE Saviour. Isaiah 43:11, 'I,even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

Hello my friend.

I see that it is somewhat disturbing to you that a later religion (in this case Baha'i) ha.s come along and sort of appropriated your scriptures, reinterpreting them, and adding a whole new messiah like prophet with his own message.

Perhaps you can take a moment to reflect, "This is how Jews must feel about Christians."

After all, it is clear to us that your verse about the Savior, Isaiah 43:11, refers to God almighty. Jesus is superfluous to us. We have our Savior and need no other.

 

[Trailblazer]

After all, it is clear to us that your verse about the Savior, Isaiah 43:11, refers to God almighty. Jesus is superfluous to us. We have our Savior and need no other.

Jesus is not superfluous to us Baha'is but He was definitely not the Lord, Creator of the heavens and earth.
According to Bahai beliefs, Jesus is on par with Moses; He was a Prophet, a Messenger, a Manifestation of God, but not God incarnate. The Almighty God cannot become a man.

Jesus said that God was greater than He was, so how could Jesus be God?

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.​

 

[Redemptionsong]

Good to see you again, my friend!

The second temple period expression "fulfill the law" means for rabbi to teach the law in such a way that their disciples can then go out and keep the law. This is what Jesus was referring to.

Jesus was certainly not the first Jew to point out that love is the Key. Every Rabbi will tell you that the heart of the Torah is to love God with all your heart, your soul, and your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Rabbi Hillel, born before Jesus, said "Whatever is hateful to you, don't do to others. That is the whole Torah." Sound familiar? When you are familiar with the teachings of the Pharisees, it becomes so obvious that Jesus was a Pharisee.

Even the hyperbole he used in his sermon on the Mount are amazingly Jewish. The very first Mishna of the Pirkei Avot is "to build a fence around the Torah." The Christian equivalent of this is "Avoid the near occasion of sin." For example, things like envying yur neighbor's wife and committing adultery are sins. It is therefore a good idea not to go places that would lead to these temptations -- don't go out to lunch with the guys at a gentleman's club. Makes sense, right? The Oral Torah contained many of these practical rules to help us avoid obvious trouble. Jesus did this sort of thing to. You've heard murder is wrong? Don't even give in to a rage, because it's like already having murdered in your heart. He is being a typical Rabbi and building a fence around the Torah.

Honestly, if you knew Judaism, you'd see Jesus for the Yid he really is.

Hi IndigoChild,
I do understand that Jesus fulfilled the law by keeping it! This is what pleased his Father in heaven.

But do you understand that the new covenant is about life lived in Christ's Spirit?. Because the purpose of Jesus' coming was not to teach a new religion but to take away sin, and to make it possible for those that receive Christ by faith to be born-again of God's Spirit. It's this new Spirit that enables a person to overcome sin and to live above and beyond the written law of Moses. It is not human love that makes this possible, but the love of God.

John the Baptist, an old covenant prophet, said of Jesus, 'I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.'
This baptism of which he spoke was not provided until after Jesus had been crucified, raised to life, and lifted up to sit at the right hand of his Father in heaven. So, to be accurate, the new covenant does not actually begin until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

As the scripture says, 'And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.'

The blood of Jesus Christ makes a new covenant possible.

Then we hear the accusation that Paul somehow changed the message of Jesus. Rubbish! Jesus had done all that was needed to bring grace and forgiveness to a lost world. Now it needed an apostle to spread the Gospel to the farthest corners of the earth. Repent, believe, and be born-again.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Hello my friend.

I see that it is somewhat disturbing to you that a later religion (in this case Baha'i) ha.s come along and sort of appropriated your scriptures, reinterpreting them, and adding a whole new messiah like prophet with his own message.

Perhaps you can take a moment to reflect, "This is how Jews must feel about Christians."

After all, it is clear to us that your verse about the Savior, Isaiah 43:11, refers to God almighty. Jesus is superfluous to us. We have our Savior and need no other.

Bonsoir, IndigoChild,
What you say sounds very reasonable, but there is one big difference between how I view the Hebrew scriptures and how Trailblazer views the New Testament. I believe every 'jot and tittle' of the Hebrew scriptures, as far as to say that I believe the Hebrew scriptures to be inerrant. Trailblazer, it seems, is happy to 'cherry pick' bits from the New Testament that suit Trailblazer's philosophy.

If, as you say, Jesus was very Jewish, where do you think he went astray?
It says that, at the age of 12, Jesus astounded the teachers of the law with his perception and insight. So where do you think his interpretation of Hebrew scripture is wrong?

This is what Jesus says in Mark ch.12. 'And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear , O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.'

Now, I'm sure you will say to me, Well there you go! Jesus quoting the Shema, and showing that he is very Jewish. Yes!

So why don't you believe the next bit!

'And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself called him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.'

How do you answer Jesus' question? [Psalm 110]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Bonsoir, IndigoChild,
What you say sounds very reasonable, but there is one big difference between how I view the Hebrew scriptures and how Trailblazer views the New Testament. I believe every 'jot and tittle' of the Hebrew scriptures, as far as to say that I believe the Hebrew scriptures to be inerrant. Trailblazer, it seems, is happy to 'cherry pick' bits from the New Testament that suit Trailblazer's philosophy.

If, as you say, Jesus was very Jewish, where do you think he went astray?
It says that, at the age of 12, Jesus astounded the teachers of the law with his perception and insight. So where do you think his interpretation of Hebrew scripture is wrong?

This is what Jesus says in Mark ch.12. 'And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear , O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.'

Now, I'm sure you will say to me, Well there you go! Jesus quoting the Shema, and showing that he is very Jewish. Yes!

So why don't you believe the next bit!

'And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself called him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.'

How do you answer Jesus' question? [Psalm 110]

It is impossible for me to know where the truth about the gospel accounts end and where extrapolation by his well intentioned but imaginative followers begin. In no case do I ever think Jesus believed himself to be God. Is it possible that he came to misunderstand the Tanakh about the messiah and believed himself to be a false idea of a messiah? Many scholars seem to think so.

It is therefore a *possibility* that Jesus misunderstood this psalm and thought it was messianic in nature, when it is not (as opposed to the incident never happening).

 

[Redemptionsong]

Jesus is not superfluous to us Baha'is but He was definitely not the Lord, Creator of the heavens and earth.
According to Bahai beliefs, Jesus is on par with Moses; He was a Prophet, a Messenger, a Manifestation of God, but not God incarnate. The Almighty God cannot become a man.

Jesus said that God was greater than He was, so how could Jesus be God?

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.​

Almighty God is not a man. God is Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity perplexes many, but it is central to an orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. It is this doctrine that you are failing to understand.

The Father is transcendent, and remains so, but to redeem mankind he condescends to come down and live amongst us. He does this in the form of the Son. The Son is also the Word of God.

The Father and risen Son send the Holy Spirit, to dwell within believers. This is God immanent. The Holy Spirit is the same Spirit that dwelt in Christ, and was sent by the Father. So God is Holy Spirit.

In Mark 10:18 Jesus is called Good, and in reply he tells the man that only God is Good. Now, consider this. Has Jesus said, I am not good? No, he hasn't. He has left it up to his audience to decide whether or not he (Jesus) is God. Is Jesus GOOD? I would say, Yes, and in consequence I believe Him to be my God and Saviour.

In the other two passages you have to consider at what point in time the events happen. Jesus' life is lived through phases of divine revelation. Jesus was born 'under the law' and lived that way until about 30 years of age. He was then anointed by the Holy Spirit and began to minister in power. But he was still a mediator, God and Man. This places him as a Son under his Father. However, once his flesh has been crucified, and he is raised to heaven, he changes into an immortal being that is able to reside at the right hand of his Father. As such, He is worthy of worship, for he has become King of Heaven and Earth, for all creation is placed under His authority.

Which is why he is able to return and bring judgment.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It is impossible for me to know where the truth about the gospel accounts end and where extrapolation by his well intentioned but imaginative followers begin. In no case do I ever think Jesus believed himself to be God. Is it possible that he came to misunderstand the Tanakh about the messiah and believed himself to be a false idea of a messiah? Many scholars seem to think so.

It is therefore a *possibility* that Jesus misunderstood this psalm and thought it was messianic in nature, when it is not.

Then tell me what Psalm 110 means. It's your scripture as well as mine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then tell me what Psalm 110 means. It's your scripture as well as mine.

I thought I did??? Must have been someone else.

The LORD (God) said to my lord (David) sit at my right hand (be honored).

The psalm is written by someone in King David's court.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I thought I did??? Must have been someone else.

The LORD (God) said to my lord (David) sit at my right hand (be honored).

The psalm is written by someone in King David's court.

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that Jesus, a Jew who knew his scriptures backwards, should be wrong about the authorship of a Psalm? He walked the earth two thousand years ago,and had better access to traditional belief than we do today.
And isn't it even stranger that the scribes, with whom he was having these heated discussions, did not raise any doubt about the authorship of Psalm 110 when Jesus attributed it to David?
In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 108b) R. Hana b. Liwai said '...as it is written, A Psalm of David. The Lord said unto my master, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;' So early tradition clearly attributes the Psalm to David.
If your interpretation were correct, you would then have to explain how King David could possibly be ' a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'
Then if you compare Psalm 110 with Zechariah 6:12,13 you discover further clues as to the true interpretation. Zechariah 6:12,13 is universally admitted to be Messianic, and it says, 'And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.'

Could a sinful man (King David) possibly sit at the right hand of the throne of Almighty God? If David had not been sinful then he would have been allowed to build the temple of the LORD. But we know from 1 Chronicles 22:8 that 'the word of the LORD came to me [David], saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.'

Jeremiah confirms this when he says, 'For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.' [Jeremiah 33:17,18]

Why would David never want a man on the throne? Why would the Levites never want a man to make offerings? It must be because ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.

David was a sinner. Solomon was a sinner. But all the evidence points to Jesus Christ being perfectly GOOD.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that Jesus, a Jew who knew his scriptures backwards, should be wrong about the authorship of a Psalm? He walked the earth two thousand years ago,and had better access to traditional belief than we do today.
And isn't it even stranger that the scribes, with whom he was having these heated discussions, did not raise any doubt about the authorship of Psalm 110 when Jesus attributed it to David?

My suggestions:

As a Jew speaking to other Jews he might have said things that outsiders would misinterpret. It was a time of Roman occupation and oppression, so a little bit of a nadsat should not surprise. The Roman authorities would have definitely gotten hold of a copy of the gospel, and if it said anything remotely political sounding would have disagreed at sword point. The Christians would have let the Roman authorities read everything in their materialistic fashion.

Could a sinful man (King David) possibly sit at the right hand of the throne of Almighty God?

David sits at the right hand of Israel, which is an expression of God not the entirety of God. The Torah, similarly, is an expression of God not the entirety of God. The Holy Spirit is, too. So are you and I.

did not raise any doubt about the authorship of Psalm 110 when Jesus attributed it to David?

It depends on how attribution works. In modern times we have copyrights, and we keep track of individual authors. This may not be the case for historical works. It does not behoove Jesus to stop in mid speech and clarify this. It could be by David or attributed to David.

Why would David never want a man on the throne? Why would the Levites never want a man to make offerings? It must be because ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.

When Israel opts for a king they reject the LORD, so the position of king is idolatry I think. This for me explains why the moment all of Jesus work is finished he returns the crown, ending all dynastic claims.

David was a sinner. Solomon was a sinner. But all the evidence points to Jesus Christ being perfectly GOOD.

Hebrews says he had to be made perfect. He also denied being good in the gospels and in the NT it says the Son has to learn obedience through suffering. By extension it is probably talking about more than just Jesus, but it applies to Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that Jesus, a Jew who knew his scriptures backwards, should be wrong about the authorship of a Psalm? He walked the earth two thousand years ago,and had better access to traditional belief than we do today.
And isn't it even stranger that the scribes, with whom he was having these heated discussions, did not raise any doubt about the authorship of Psalm 110 when Jesus attributed it to David?
In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 108b) R. Hana b. Liwai said '...as it is written, A Psalm of David. The Lord said unto my master, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;' So early tradition clearly attributes the Psalm to David.
If your interpretation were correct, you would then have to explain how King David could possibly be ' a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'

Let's assume for a moment that the gospel account of this is accurate and not a later editing in of a legend (because we really don't know this, but we'll assume for the moment). It means Jesus held an esoteric view. The question then becomes why would he hold such an odd, rare view, NOT why do I not accept his educated teaching.

The psalm is traditionally attributed to David, and has David speaking to himself in the third -person. However, modern scholarship agrees that David did not write it.

I have no problems with David being called a priest after the order of Melchizadek. It's a way of denoting how close to God he was, even though he was not a Levitical priest. I'm not sure why you would have problems with it. Do you have problems with the human King of Salem being a priest of God?