The LAW of Moses Definitely set aside ?

[Prophet]

The laws of men cannot pass away until all know the Law of God.

Jesus would say, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Mosaic Law falls within the laws of men.

 

[dan p]

The laws of men cannot pass away until all know the Law of God.

Jesus would say, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Mosaic Law falls within the laws of men.

Hi , and where is a verse that proves that ?

dan p

 

[Shermana]

Now to further show that James2ko's argument about Nehemiah is fallacious, note that in Chapter 13, it says "In those days". This is where he says that the Israelite's crime and reason for entering captivity was breaking the (initial) 10 commandments since it cites the Sabbath.

However, Sabbath is also included in the SECOND set of 10 commandments. Why should we assume it only mentioning the 1st set?

But going further, Nehemiah 13 is not even referring to the reason why the Israelite's entered captivity, it's referring to an event that happened AFTERWARDS.

In those days I saw men in Judah treading winepresses on the Sabbath and bringing in grain and loading it on donkeys, together with wine, grapes, figs and all other kinds of loads.

Now when I brought up the second half, he says that it doesn't count because the above verse is referring to the reasons why they entered captivity. However, this conmpletely ignores the context of the beginning of the chapter. If his case is that it says "In those days"< well we see "In those days" again in the second half. There is no proof that this is indicating. Once again (and again) he is basing his argument on PRESUMPTIONS and then presuming that those presumptions are true without ANY scriptural basis, in fact, his presumption goes against what the context actually says.

Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab.

So the same "those days" involves a breaking of the SECOND SET of 10 commandments, of which the Sabbath is included again in the second set. Thus, it is plainly referring to the same set, and it is referring to the same "Those days">

Additionally, going back to Nehemiah 10, we see that the Sacrificial ordinaices are part of the same Law.

e assume the responsibility for carrying out the commands to give a third of a shekela each year for the service of the house of our God: 33for the bread set out on the table; for the regular grain offerings and burnt offerings; for the offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moon festivals and appointed feasts; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God. 34&#8220;We&#8212;the priests, the Levites and the people&#8212;have cast lots to determine when each of our families is to bring to the house of our God at set times each year a contribution of wood to burn on the altar of the Lord our God, as it is written in the Law.
35&#8220;We also assume responsibility for bringing to the house of the Lord each year the firstfruits of our crops and of every fruit tree.
36&#8220;As it is also written in the Law, we will bring the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, of our herds and of our flocks to the house of our God, to the priests ministering there.
.

His case is thus rendered void. We can see who has the "careless exegesis" here if we actually read the entire context. The Sacrificial ordinances are part of the same "Law", and Nehemiah 13 is not even listing reasons why the Israelites entered captivity, but referring to sins of the days afterwards regarding "in those days", and there's no proof that the Sabbath breaking in Nehemiah refers to the 1st set of 10 commandments as opposed to the 2nd set which it appears again in. Likewise, even if we accept Epistle to the Hebrew's canonicity, there is absolutely nothing in chapter 7, let alone verse 12, that indicates the "Change in priesthood" means an end to the sacrifices, that is a wild presumption without ANY scriptural basis. That is all for now.

 

[james2ko]

Another presumption based on presumptions based on your interpretation of what Paul did or didn't, and a presumption that Paul even wrote Hebrews, and a presumption of what exactly the meaning was. Can you list a SINGLE SITE that says that Paul was the one who did away with it? If not, just say "No, I cannot find a single other site that agrees with what I'm saying">

1. Find a site that explains Paul did away with the sacrificial statutes???? Please tell me you are kidding. No wonder you are so deceived. You are looking for truth in all the wrong places!

Sorry if you don't like the scholarly approach to scripture, sorry if you hold on to views of authenticity that even mainstream bible scholars don't accept.

2. And Im sorry you hold the opinions of men above God's.

By the way, Timothy 1 and 2 are spurious too. Nearly all scholars consider them to be written well after Paul was dead. If you don't like it, that's not my problem. We're debating objective Theology of what Jesus said, not just what the Traditional Roman non-gospel canon says. If you want to discuss Theology objectively, you have to be willing to accept that your canon may be under dispute. If you don't like it, go to Discussion boards and not the debate boards.

3. Just like I thought, throw away the scriptures that refute your premises. Keep the ones that do. Your scholars are pulling the wool over your eyes but you are too deceived to notice.

Nope. That's your interpretation of 7:12 based on a presumption of what it means. You love the personal comments I notice. Hebrews 7:12 does not specifically say the Sacrifices are done away with, just that there is a change in the priesthood. You are presuming what "change in priesthood means". And then there's the issue that virtually no one outside of the church establishment (and many scholars of the church establishment agree with this) considers Hebrews to be by Paul, as I've demonstrated. If you have a problem with me taking the scholarly opinion, try not to use ad hom at least like "blame yourself", what you consider "scripture" not everyone else does. Just because its in the traditional Roman canon doesn't mean it's objectively legit.

4. Whether you believe Paul wrote Hebrews or not is irrelevant. It is still considered part of the official canon. If God did not want it as part of the canon, it wouldn't be there. Period! BTW..This is a discussion about how the Law of Moses and ten commandments were distinct and not the canonization of the NT. If you want to discuss that, go start another thread.

So that's again, dodging of what I said, and basing your interpretation on presuumptions. The Sacrificial Portion is nowhere proven to have changed, it's a similar condition to the generation of the exiles who had no access to sacrifices.

5. I've answered every question you've thrown out and because it wasn't answered to your satisfaction, or to your agreement, you claim I ignored it?

This reply is a total non-sequitur to what I said. I don't even understand how this corrolates to what I said. Talk about careless and misleading, you totally ignored the concept of what I meant. Not only that, but there are other places where it lists reasons why the Israelites went into captivity other than Nehemiah, such as in Jeremiah (and Lamentations) and Isaiah, and you can find more than just the 10 there. The second half of Nehemiah 13 refers to the second set of "10 commandments" when Nehemiah curses the Israelites who married daughters of other tribes. You aren't even close to being on track to the point I made. Let me explain quite simply: In Exodus 34, Moses receives another set of 10 commandments (including the Sabbath again, as I pointed out several times, and you dodged from several times). A commandment is included to not marry the daughters of other tribes. You said that Nehemiah 13 is referring to only the 10 commandments as the cause of their sin. I showed that you are ignoring the second half of 13, which says that they violated one of the laws in the SECOND SET of 10 commandments. If you want to talk about careless and misleading exegesis, examine your own reply. Nehemiah was scolding them whether or not their sin was before or after the captivity, regardless, if Nehemiah was scolding them, that means that the second set of 10 commandments was being violated. Hope this makes sense to you.

6. I never said Nehemiah 13 is referring to "ONLY" the 10 commandments. Take a look at what I said in reply 2 here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/125826-law-moses-definitely-set-aside-9.html

Here is what I said verbatim:

2. God eliminated the opportunity of offering animal sacrifices for removal of their sins by allowing them to be taken captive. And what was the PRIMARY [NOT ONLY] reason for their captivity? Was it because they were breaking the Mosaic law by improperly offering sacrifices? NO! It was due PRIMARILY [DOES NOT MEAN EXCLUSIVELY] to the breaking of the 2nd (idolatry) and 4th commandments (Neh 13:18)--the ten commandments.​

Did you notice I never mentioned the word "only"? Sure there were other sins committed that eventually led to their captivity but I said the sabbath was one of the PRIMARY reasons which was specifically mentioned in Nehemiah 13:18. And if there is a primary reason, logic dictates, there also has to be secondary reason(s) which you continue to figuratively yell and scream out and accuse me of ignoring. Clear proof that the careless and misleading one is you Shermana. Like I said, save the dignity you have left. They'll be other discussions..

For example, here is Isaiah lamenting on the Israelites breaking the commandment to not consult mediums: (But you'll probably say this ties into the 2nd commandment or something even though its a specific statute)

7. It is a specific civil statute but the whole law of Moses, both civil and sacrificial, utilizes the 10 commandments as its basis.

 

[james2ko]

Now to further show that James2ko's argument about Nehemiah is fallacious, note that in Chapter 13, it says "In those days". This is where he says that the Israelite's crime and reason for entering captivity was breaking the (initial) 10 commandments since it cites the Sabbath.

However, Sabbath is also included in the SECOND set of 10 commandments. Why should we assume it only mentioning the 1st set?

But going further, Nehemiah 13 is not even referring to the reason why the Israelite's entered captivity, it's referring to an event that happened AFTERWARDS.

Why are you telling me this like I made some sort of oversight? You carelessly overlooked the fact I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS!!!!!! IN POINT 6 HERE:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2746124-post98.html

6. This particular aspect of our discussion involved the primary reason why Israel was taken captive in the first place which Neh makes reference to in Neh 13:18. The last half of Neh 13 refers to the sins of the people he witnessed while in Jerusalem--AFTER THEIR CAPTIVITY--not before! This is evidenced by Nehemiah's actions in Neh 13:25. He obviously did not perform these actions prior to their captivity. This proves, once again, your careless and misleading exegesis.​

Your gig is up!!!!! Your fallacious arguments have been exposed. Please Shermana, as humiliating as it may be, save any shred of credibility you have left and live to see another discussion.

 

[Shermana]

. The book of Hebrews is plain, Shermana. You need to stop listening to your scholar's interpretation of scripture and start reading it and forming your own.

Sorry pal, nothing in Hebrews 7 says that the Sacrifice system is done away with. You can't just make "Change in priesthood" mean whatever you want it to mean.

8. You finally got something right. Nice going

If only you could say the same for yourself. Are you being sarcastic as well about my reply here here? I was being sarcastic about it being "totally logical", but I'm assuming you got that.

9. Brush off your valid points? You consider some website on someones opinion on why Paul didn't write the book of Hebrews as a valid point?

You're on the wrong forum if you don't even want to examine points of view other than your own.

10. Heb 7:12 specifically refers to the priesthood and sacrificial laws. Only the first law in my reply refers to the sacrificial system. The rest are civil in nature. Here they are again:

Nothing in it says that the Sacrifice is done away with. Nice try.

the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple was built; the addition of singers under David; the cities of refuge; specific monetary amounts of fines; the death penalty for certain crimes; and the change made for the daughters of Zelophehad, as a change in the law of Moses.

Once again, nothing in Hebrews 7 says anything about the sacrifice system being done away with. You can't just interpret "Change in priesthood" to whatever you want it to mean and then brush off objections to the claim.
​

If the law of Moses is static in nature, as you claim, what would you call these changes?

How exactly were any of those changed? Where is the cities of refuge changed? The Tabernacle layout never changed. How did it? Where does the death penalty for certain sins changed? Nowhere? That's right.

11. Dodged? I answered it in post 98 reply 6. You continue to accuse me of dodging questions that have already been answered. Once again, just because they are not answered to your satisfaction doesn't mean I ignored them.

I'll let the reader decide if you addressed it or not.

12. Why on earth would you be concerned in seeking validation for MY beliefs? Doesn't make any sense. Unless, of course, I struck a chord

To prove that no one else agrees with you perhaps?



13. Here let me help (your rebuttal to my point 7 here,):

You asked: "That you think have been answered. And you totally ignore/sidestep certain questions repeatedly like "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding'?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2742998-post91.html

I answered (point 8): "Show me where you asked this specific question prior to this post and I failed to reply."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2744744-post94.html

you replied (point 8): "You failed to reply to the issue of why the Sabbath ordinance is mentioned twice in the second set of 10 commandments, just like how you failed to mention how the second half of Nehemiah 13 refers to the second set of 10 commandments this time".
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2744755-post95.html

I answered (point 13): " I asked for you to show me where you specifically asked me this: "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding and which ones aren't"? and your reply is your answer?????? What in the world ???? One has absolutely zero to do with the other...Might want to ease off the egg nog
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2746124-post98.html

You replied (last reply): This t appears to a cheap attempt to dodge out of the question. Let me find my initial quote, until then I leave you with the quote from Psalms that Knight brought up, the statutes are EVERY statute.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2746152-post99.html

Now that it is pieced together, your red herring tactics become quite obvious. It's quite comical how you accuse me of dodging questions that you never asked!!!!! Then you try and cover it up by making a reply that had nothing to do with the question asked!!!!. It was a valiant effort Shermana, but unfortunately your fallacious tactics caught up with you..The truth usually comes out at the end...I'll refrain from embarrassing you any further by ending this discussion. Yes you can accuse me of coping out, if you'd like, but the truth is I don't need validation from you or anyone else. The truth of your fallacious tactics is well documented for all to read. I'm confident I made my case and made it well. I will admonish you to try and read your bible without your scholars influence. It's so much more enlightening...until next time.

[/quote]


Wow the irony is staggering. See the above reply, my thing on Nehemiah 13 and how you totally missed the context of "in those days".

 

[Shermana]

Why are you telling me this like I made some sort of oversight? You carelessly overlooked the fact I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS!!!!!! IN POINT 6 HERE:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2746124-post98.html

6. This particular aspect of our discussion involved the primary reason why Israel was taken captive in the first place which Neh makes reference to in Neh 13:18. The last half of Neh 13 refers to the sins of the people he witnessed while in Jerusalem--AFTER THEIR CAPTIVITY--not before! This is evidenced by Nehemiah's actions in Neh 13:25. He obviously did not perform these actions prior to their captivity. This proves, once again, your careless and misleading exegesis.​

Your gig is up!!!!! Your fallacious arguments have been exposed. Please Shermana, as humiliating as it may be, save any shred of credibility you have left and live to see another discussion.

Sorry pal, YOUR gig is up. You didn't even understand what I said. Neh 13 doesn't really imply that the sins was before the captivity. You have no basis for saying it does. None. The same "in those days" is used again in the second half. Nice try. Not only that, but you ignore the fact that the Sabbath is mentioned again in the Second set of the 10 commandments. The extra exclamations are nice indicators of your desparation, as well as your constant appeals to my "credibility" and being "humiliated". Just let the reader decide whose credibility is being diminished.

 

[james2ko]

Wow. No seriously, your interpretation is completely a presumption of what the change of priesthood means.

7. The book of Hebrews is plain, Shermana. You need to stop listening to your scholar's interpretation of scripture and start reading it and forming your own.

Oh my, he quotes some of the 10, that must mean he was only referring to the 10. That's totally logical.

8. You finally got something right. Nice going

You're making it too easy to prove your presumptions and bad logic. Maybe you should quit before further embarassing yourself. Your tactic is to brush off my valid points as "red herrings" as if that excuses you from addressing them. I will let the reader decide who is behind here.

9. Brush off your valid points? You consider some website on someones opinion on why Paul didn't write the book of Hebrews as a valid point?

And you are presuming the laws were annulled based on your presumption of how to interpret Hebrews 7:12. YOU Make this too easy. You cannot base your interpretation on presumptions, sorry. The text is hardly explicit to begin with. And if you don't like the fact that virtually no one, not even uber-Christian-scholar Daniel Wallace agrees Hebrews is written by Paul, that's not my problem.

10. Heb 7:12 specifically refers to the priesthood and sacrificial laws. Only the first law in my reply refers to the sacrificial system. The rest are civil in nature. Here they are again:

the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple was built; the addition of singers under David; the cities of refuge; specific monetary amounts of fines; the death penalty for certain crimes; and the change made for the daughters of Zelophehad, as a change in the law of Moses.​

If the law of Moses is static in nature, as you claim, what would you call these changes?

Talk about fallacious tactics, you completely dodged the issue itself, and then you say this? Nehemiiah 13's second half explicitly refers to the other set of 10 commandments, anyone can see that you are skipping this and trying to use ad hom to smooth it over.

11. Dodged? I answered it in post 98 reply 6. You continue to accuse me of dodging questions that have already been answered. Once again, just because they are not answered to your satisfaction doesn't mean I ignored them.

Wow, you further demonstrate your logical ability. The falling on crickets is anyone who can validate or back up YOUR own beliefs. How am I begging for help exactly? I offered 3 frubals for anyone who can BACK YOUR OWN POSITION FOR YOU. This is a perfect example of how you are interpreting anything I've said thus far. How was I looking for validation for my own beliefs in this comment? I was looking for validiation of YOURS. Do you not get that? Personally, I find this attack on what I said to be "desparate".

12. Why on earth would you be concerned in seeking validation for MY beliefs? Doesn't make any sense. Unless, of course, I struck a chord

This t appears to a cheap attempt to dodge out of the question. Let me find my initial quote, until then I leave you with the quote from Psalms that Knight brought up, the statutes are EVERY statute. Psalms 119:152" Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever

13. Here let me help (your rebuttal to my point 7 here,):

You asked: "That you think have been answered. And you totally ignore/sidestep certain questions repeatedly like "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding'?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2742998-post91.html

I answered (point 8): "Show me where you asked this specific question prior to this post and I failed to reply."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2744744-post94.html

you replied (point 8): "You failed to reply to the issue of why the Sabbath ordinance is mentioned twice in the second set of 10 commandments, just like how you failed to mention how the second half of Nehemiah 13 refers to the second set of 10 commandments this time".
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2744755-post95.html

I answered (point 13): " I asked for you to show me where you specifically asked me this: "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding and which ones aren't"? and your reply is your answer?????? What in the world ???? One has absolutely zero to do with the other...Might want to ease off the egg nog
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2746124-post98.html

You replied (last reply): This t appears to a cheap attempt to dodge out of the question. Let me find my initial quote, until then I leave you with the quote from Psalms that Knight brought up, the statutes are EVERY statute.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2746152-post99.html

Now that it is pieced together, your red herring tactics become quite obvious. It's quite comical how you accuse me of dodging questions that you never asked!!!!! Then you try and cover it up by making a reply that had nothing to do with the question asked!!!!. It was a valiant effort Shermana, but unfortunately your fallacious tactics caught up with you..The truth usually comes out at the end...I'll refrain from embarrassing you any further by ending this discussion. Yes you can accuse me of coping out, if you'd like, but the truth is I don't need validation from you or anyone else. The truth of your fallacious tactics is well documented for all to read. I'm confident I made my case and made it well. I will admonish you to try and read your bible without your scholars influence. It's so much more enlightening...until next time.

 

[Shermana]

1. Find a site that explains Paul did away with the sacrificial statutes???? Please tell me you are kidding. No wonder you are so deceived. You are looking for truth in all the wrong places!

So that's a refusal to back up a single site that backs your beliefs. Thank you.

2. And Im sorry you hold the opinions of men above God's.

So you believe your opinion is of G-d's and not just man's...for some reason. Thank you.

3. Just like I thought, throw away the scriptures that refute your premises. Keep the ones that do. Your scholars are pulling the wool over your eyes but you are too deceived to notice.

So you don't believe there's any need to adhere to any scholarly point of view, and that you have all the answers, and that the scholars are just "pulling the wool over my eyes" without addressing their claims, and that I am just too decieved to notice. No chance that YOU are deceived at all, because your word is G-d's, and mine can't possibly be, without any need to back your claims of course. THank you.

4. Whether you believe Paul wrote Hebrews or not is irrelevant. It is still considered part of the official canon. If God did not want it as part of the canon, it wouldn't be there. Period! BTW..This is a discussion about how the Law of Moses and ten commandments were distinct and not the canonization of the NT. If you want to discuss that, go start another thread.

It's place in "official canon" is irrelevant, if it's not by Paul, why is it in Canon? Because the later churches thought it should be? It wasn't in all the early Christian canons. You must not understand what this thread is about, can you quote anything in the OP that says that the entire current NT canon beyond the Gospels is somehow necessary for the argument?

5. I've answered every question you've thrown out and because it wasn't answered to your satisfaction, or to your agreement, you claim I ignored it?

Not really, you've persistently ignored the fact that the Sabbath is mentioned twice, once again in the second set of the 10 commandments.

6. I never said Nehemiah 13 is referring to "ONLY" the 10 commandments. Take a look at what I said in reply 2 here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/125826-law-moses-definitely-set-aside-9.html

Here is what I said verbatim:

2. God eliminated the opportunity of offering animal sacrifices for removal of their sins by allowing them to be taken captive. And what was the PRIMARY [NOT ONLY] reason for their captivity? Was it because they were breaking the Mosaic law by improperly offering sacrifices? NO! It was due PRIMARILY [DOES NOT MEAN EXCLUSIVELY] to the breaking of the 2nd (idolatry) and 4th commandments (Neh 13:18)--the ten commandments.​

Well then, going by Isaiah and other books, it DOES mention that the sacrifices were being done improperly. But this entire argument is based on what constitutes the eternal law. Not to mention also that Saul lost his kingdom because he made sacrifices without a priest. But that's another story....sort of.

Did you notice I never mentioned the word "only"? Sure there were other sins committed that eventually led to their captivity but I said the sabbath was one of the PRIMARY reasons which was specifically mentioned in Nehemiah 13:18. And if there is a primary reason, logic dictates, there also has to be secondary reason(s) which you continue to figuratively yell and scream out and accuse me of ignoring. Clear proof that the careless and misleading one is you Shermana. Like I said, save the dignity you have left. They'll be other discussions..

I'm the one yelling and screaming? I'm not the one using multiple exclamation points and personal attacks with words like "Careless" and "lay off the egg nog" and such. Anyways, you said that Neh 13 was referring to the sins that led up to the captivity, and now I've shown that it doesn't say that whatsoever, it's referring to sins they committed after they got back.

7. It is a specific civil statute but the whole law of Moses, both civil and sacrificial, utilizes the 10 commandments as its basis.

[/quote]

And how does that make the laws different?

PS Did you just delete and re-copy your last post for some reason? I thought you said you were done with this discussion anyway.

 

[JacobEzra.]

7. The book of Hebrews is plain, Shermana. You need to stop listening to your scholar's interpretation of scripture and start reading it and forming your own.

LOL. Why, because he doesn't have the same interpretation as you?

 

[Astounded]

Shermana,

The sacrificial system was done away with at the Last Supper. The todah that Jesus instituted there to be done in remembrance of Him doesn't require any future animal sacrifice.

If you believe Jesus is God then this todah is acceptable to God. If you believe Jesus is just a man, then you are following a sinner because he replaces the object of worship in the todah (God) with himself ( a man.)...not to mention that a mere human being is not acceptable matter for a sacrifice.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Shermana,

The sacrificial system was done away with at the Last Supper. The todah that Jesus instituted there to be done in remembrance of Him doesn't require any future animal sacrifice.

If you believe Jesus is God then this todah is acceptable to God. If you believe Jesus is just a man, then you are following a sinner because he replaces the object of worship in the todah (God) with himself ( a man.)...not to mention that a mere human being is not acceptable matter for a sacrifice.

Todah=Gd?

And technically the belief is Jesus was both man and a god. But who says I am guilty of your sins?

 

[Astounded]

Todah=Gd?

And technically the belief is Jesus was both man and a god. But who says I am guilty of your sins?

No..the todah is a form of Jewish worship to thank/remember God for a salvific action.

Yes, I know Jesus is both God and man and as God He can be the object of worship in the todah/Jewish or eucharist/Greek.

 

[Shermana]

The sacrificial system was done away with at the Last Supper.

There is no scripture to back this assertion. Whatsoever. Presumptions do not count as actual scriptural exegesis.

The todah that Jesus instituted there to be done in remembrance of Him doesn't require any future animal sacrifice.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or how it somehow invalidates the sacrifices in the future when the Temple is rebuilt, on any scriptural level. Presumptions don't count as exegesis when you have no text to back the assertion. It seems it's a common trend for these arguments against the sacrifices to have no actual scriptural basis.

If you believe Jesus is God then this todah is acceptable to God

I don't believe Jesus is G-d, and the Trinity has been discussed (and debunked) on numerous threads. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/61330-did-jesus-say-he-god-579.html Even if Jesus was, this wouldn't in any way indicate the sacrifices to be done away with permanently.

. I

f you believe Jesus is just a man, then you are following a sinner because he replaces the object of worship in the todah (God) with himself ( a man.)...

This is not a thread about Trinity, but Jesus never really places himself as THE object of Worship, and besides, King David was worshiped in 1 Chr 29:20, and David worshiped King Saul. There is a common misunderstanding of what "Worship" actually means, and what the First commandment actually says. And then there's the issue that John 20:28 clashes with the ending of Matthew and Luke and is considered to be a later interpolation/add on, as I've pointed out in other threads. This is not a Trinity thread, so I don't want to get into it here. In any event, it doesn't back your assertion that the last supper somehow invalidates the sacrifices, you have no scripture to back your case on.

not to mention that a mere human being is not acceptable matter for a sacrifice.

Says who? Have you even read Isaiah 53? He wasn't just a "mere human being", he was the incarnation of the Logos, the Highest of the Angels and Firstborn of Creation.

 

[Prophet]

I sincerely doubt that Jesus himself ever taught anything about being a human blood sacrifice for the sin of the world, and am happy to posit that these doctrines were added on later by what is referred to in Revelation as the "WHORE OF BABYLON".

 

[james2ko]

LOL. Why, because he doesn't have the same interpretation as you?

No. So he can form his own interpretations instead of allowing fallible man to form them for him.

 

[JacobEzra.]

No. So he can form his own interpretations instead of allowing fallible man to form them for him.

What's the difference between following the interpretation of a fallible man to following your own interpretation? Your just as fallible. And unless you do not belong to a community, your contradicting yourself since pastor and friends interpretation still influences you.


Fact that Shermana is not a Catholic, he forms his interpretation the sameway you do, just different influences.

In other words, do you really have room to criticize him?

 

[JacobEzra.]

I sincerely doubt that Jesus himself ever taught anything about being a human blood sacrifice for the sin of the world, and am happy to posit that these doctrines were added on later by what is referred to in Revelation as the "WHORE OF BABYLON".

Sure, you can cite when they were formally pnned, but I wouldn't call that actual proof.

As for being a whore, I just the majority of christians have followed this babylon whore. But why leave it there and include Jews and Mulims, since the whore of babylon seems to be anyone contrary to your supposed enlighten interpretation.

 

[james2ko]

What's the difference between following the interpretation of a fallible man to following your own interpretation? Your just as fallible. And unless you do not belong to a community, your contradicting yourself since pastor and friends interpretation still influences you.


Fact that Shermana is not a Catholic, he forms his interpretation the sameway you do, just different influences.

In other words, do you really have room to criticize him?

You interpret it as criticism, I interpret it as encouragement.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Fine, how bout I say, your encouragement was a contradiction. Remove the branch from your eye before you try o remove the twig from your brothers eye