IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
How many years did Christianity survive as a Jewish sect before they were kicked out of the synagogues for being heretics?
-
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!
Israel as Jesus and as Job, Resurrection Equal to Repentance
- Thread starter Brickjectivity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- israel jesus job repentance resurrection
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Hebrews 9:22 says "without shedding of blood is no remission." It doesn't take an expert to understand what this verse means, nor does it take a scholar to read the Torah and find out that it is not true.
They had been expelled by Jewish Synod of Jamnia, and by the time of John's Gospel which would have been decades after the Apostolic preaching, oral tradition. so somewhere around the mid 80's.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
So given that Christians were kicked out of the synagogues, I see no reason to make a big deal out of the first Christians being Jewish.
Just that it was these Jews who interpreted Scripture in the light of Christ, before any gospel was penned.
Israel as Jesus and as Job, Resurrection Equal to Repentance
Its opening is a long list of allusions to prophecies about Israel, which I point out is called 'The Son of God' by Isaiah; and Isaiah is referred to by all four gospels. In the opening Hebrews says the Son upholds all things by his powerful word, but Paul says the same thing in Romans when he says that the circumcised are alone entrusted with the oracles of God. Semantically Hebrews may sound different, but its the same thing.
Before I address 9:22 review 1:1-4, the opening to Hebrews which compounds the point:
Hebrews is written by the same crowd that says Christians must deny themselves and take up their crosses and that says they must be 'Living sacrifices.' That is part of the context you mustn't overlook when it says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins." Israel's blood is shed (by the Romans), and Christians are required to be living sacrifices.
One overall effect of the gospels and Hebrews is an argument that the reason Jerusalem has been overrun by Romans was not that it had failed but that the obedient death (nonviolence in the face of violence) would become an atonement. Its saying "This isn't for nothing. Its going to be used for good." The argument mostly clearly explained by Paul is that the Son, the Servant, has by obedience to the point of death become evidence that humanity's ignorance can be atoned for. It argues that all now can commune together.
The opening of Hebrews connects to your challenge (or objection) when it mentions 'Purification for sins'. Blood is used for remission of sins of ignorance, and that is the nature of the atonement in Hebrews 9:22. Blood is used symbolically, however it is effective only when people forgive one another. Every sacrifice is about people. It doesn't satisfy some hunger of some god. The NT argues that the humanity will learn to live in peace as a result of Israel's pacifism, its witness. Recall that Jesus upon the cross is quoted to say "Father forgive them, because they are ignorant." The atonement is for ignorance, backwardness. This is the argument of the NT.
The best place to start when examining nuts and bolts arguments about why the atonement is what I'm saying is not Hebrews but Romans chapter 7, which argues that gentiles are divorced from the law (Noah's law). There are various NT arguments along these lines, some better than others. The argument in Galations is very bad I think and might be incompatible with Judaism, so its a weakness of Christianity but not of the OP's point. The point of the OP is stronger than ever, not weakened by your reference to Hebrews 9:22. The blood that is shed is Israel's, literally. Figuratively or indirectly it is a man Jesus in the gospels whose name means something like "Hashem is Salvation."
With respect for your objection, any reference to the book Hebrews supports the OP.
Its opening is a long list of allusions to prophecies about Israel, which I point out is called 'The Son of God' by Isaiah; and Isaiah is referred to by all four gospels. In the opening Hebrews says the Son upholds all things by his powerful word, but Paul says the same thing in Romans when he says that the circumcised are alone entrusted with the oracles of God. Semantically Hebrews may sound different, but its the same thing.
Before I address 9:22 review 1:1-4, the opening to Hebrews which compounds the point:
" In the past God spoke...through...but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things... sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand..." (Hebrews 1:1-4 NIV)
Hebrews is written by the same crowd that says Christians must deny themselves and take up their crosses and that says they must be 'Living sacrifices.' That is part of the context you mustn't overlook when it says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins." Israel's blood is shed (by the Romans), and Christians are required to be living sacrifices.
One overall effect of the gospels and Hebrews is an argument that the reason Jerusalem has been overrun by Romans was not that it had failed but that the obedient death (nonviolence in the face of violence) would become an atonement. Its saying "This isn't for nothing. Its going to be used for good." The argument mostly clearly explained by Paul is that the Son, the Servant, has by obedience to the point of death become evidence that humanity's ignorance can be atoned for. It argues that all now can commune together.
The opening of Hebrews connects to your challenge (or objection) when it mentions 'Purification for sins'. Blood is used for remission of sins of ignorance, and that is the nature of the atonement in Hebrews 9:22. Blood is used symbolically, however it is effective only when people forgive one another. Every sacrifice is about people. It doesn't satisfy some hunger of some god. The NT argues that the humanity will learn to live in peace as a result of Israel's pacifism, its witness. Recall that Jesus upon the cross is quoted to say "Father forgive them, because they are ignorant." The atonement is for ignorance, backwardness. This is the argument of the NT.
The best place to start when examining nuts and bolts arguments about why the atonement is what I'm saying is not Hebrews but Romans chapter 7, which argues that gentiles are divorced from the law (Noah's law). There are various NT arguments along these lines, some better than others. The argument in Galations is very bad I think and might be incompatible with Judaism, so its a weakness of Christianity but not of the OP's point. The point of the OP is stronger than ever, not weakened by your reference to Hebrews 9:22. The blood that is shed is Israel's, literally. Figuratively or indirectly it is a man Jesus in the gospels whose name means something like "Hashem is Salvation."
'Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' but, Hebrew Scripture
mentions contrition of heart (Ps 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving (Sir 3:25) The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult, which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive value.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you are taking one verse and saying it has the same context as other verses but there is no evidence to support that view.
I believe Matthew can stretch things sometimes to prove his point but that doesn't mean he is making things up.
I believe you see it that way because it was a partial fulfillment, the last fulfillment coming when He returns.
I believe then you should see your sin just that way and it starts with rejecting God by rejecting Jesus.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Merry Christmas.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What I'm doing is approaching the book of Isaiah the same way that I would approach any work of literature. Isaiah has the metaphor of the servant running all through it. Therefore, if one part of the book identifies the servant as Israel, it applies to all the times this metaphor is used in general.
Oh the author of Matthew absolutely makes up stuff out of whole cloth. Take the prophecy that He shall be called a Nazarene, which refers to Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth. "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene." Mattehew 2:23 There is NO such prophecy anywhere in the Tanakh. It is completely fabricated. There is NOTHING about the Messiah coming from the city of Nazareth.
Jesus had his chance, and blew it. The ONLY way we have to identify the messiah is whether he fulfills ALL the prophecies. Jesus simply did not.
It is not a sin to reject a false messiah and an idol of flesh.[/QUOTE]
You call the prophecies foreshadowing, but it sounds like what you mean is that the prophecies are deceiving the people. People who live for centuries under these prophecies about themselves are getting encouragement from them. Its telling them to be the suffering servant, to be the son of God, to uphold justice, to be the prince of peace.
How can you even say that? Jesus is not a murderer. His words are against all nations. The kingdoms of this world are destroyed by a stone that destroys them and fills the world, and Revelation 19 is saying that Jesus words are that stone.
Nazareth…he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus’ residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the foreannounced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there. The vague expression “through the prophets” may be due to Matthew’s seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town.
The vague expression “through the prophets” may be due to Matthew’s seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town.
Some such Old Testament texts are Is 11:1, where the Davidic king of the future is called “a bud” (nēser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Judges 13:5,7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nāzîr) to God.
I don't understand why 'Through the prophets' should be considered vague. She has a point that nobody can find a prophecy about Nazareth. Its not the end of the conversation, but it is a little embarrassing that no one seems to remember how this came to be in the gospel. I view it as evidence that a lot has been forgotten.
That doesn't satisfy me, either. There are many things about ancient Nazareth that we don't know, and that is probably where the connection if any lies. For all I know it could be an allusion to Genesis 49, and there are many things it could be about.
We must remember that everything has a specific purpose to those who wrote in post Resurrection faith and addresses the needs of the early church communities.
Muffled
Jesus in me
[/QUOTE]
I believe in the Wheel of Time books the Dragon Reborn is mentioned several times. So one could generalize that it is the current one. However there was also one 3000 years previous and the context reveals that. What you are doing in generalizing the servant is the same thing when you ignore the context.
I believe God does consider it a sin when you think He is false. Of course the main problem is that you do not know God, because if you did you would be able to recognize Him in Jesus. No doubt He does not fit the whole concept of the Messiah because much of that is reserved for the second coming of Jesus.