| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Michael Cecil 28SW2" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2004 08:05:07 AM |
| Object: |
Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorship ofthe Truth |
It's no wonder that there are so many Christians in the United States.
Nor is it any wonder that they are so witless or so arrogant: They are
*never* required to defend (or even so much as *think* about) the
Scriptural validity (or even reasonableness) of the doctrine of 'vicar-
ious atonement'.
On the contrary, backed by a relentless and universal censorship by the
media of any opposing view, the Christian belief in the doctrine of
'vicarious atonement' is absolutely *unshakable*--almost on a par with
'the sun is at the center of the solar system'.
Both the print, broadcast, and Internet media--both the religious and
the secular media, both the Christian and the Jewish media, both the
liberal and the conservative media--in the United States has made a
*firm* commitment to preserve at *all* costs the fundamental doctrine
of Christian theology: the doctrine of 'vicarious atonement'.
Because of the censorship by the media of any opposing view, Chris-
tian ministers are free to say, without fear of contradiction, that
*any* criticism of "The Passion of the Christ"--and, clearly, such
criticisms come exclusively from "the Jews"--constitutes an "attack
by the enemies of Truth". Because of the censorship by the media of
any opposing view, the Christians are free to say, without fear of
contradiction, that "we are *all* guilty for the crucifixion of
Jesus"; that "Jesus died for *all* of us"; that watching a graphic
depiction of a person being tortured to death is "life-changing",
"uplifting", "edifying", or a "religious experience"; and that, even
more incredibly, they are not really being *entertained* at all by
watching a graphic depiction of a man being tortured to death. (OF
COURSE they are being entertained. Feeling guilty is, for them, a *hot*
pleasure almost on a par with *sexual* arousal. Seriously. Call it the
pornography of religious violence; pornography which, just watch, they
will even take their *children* to see.) And these assertions will like-
ly be repeated dozens if not *hundreds* of times--and without contradic-
tion, just watch--by every kind of media in the United States over the
next few months.
Now, any reasonable person might conclude that the religious officials
of the Jewish people--a people that has suffered the most from the
doctrine of 'vicarious atonement' (without the doctrine of 'vicarious
atonement', the Holocaust *never* would have happened)--would be par-
picularly aggressive in providing an opposing point of view; that they
would be particularly vociferous in their condemnation of "The Passion
of the Christ" because of its graphic 'validation' of the doctrine which
resulted in the Holocaust. But such a conclusion would be wrong.
On the contrary, the response of the Jewish religious officials to the
arrogance of the Christian religious officials has been COWARDICE.
Rather than focusing on the doctrinal *evil* of the belief in 'vicari-
ous atonement' itself as a perverse contradiction of the Righteousness
of God--or, more specifically, a substitute, idolatrous, and fantas-
tical 'explanation' for the crucifixion of Jesus--the Jewish religious
officials have criticized "The Passion of the Christ" *only* for its
"anti-Semitic" portrayal of the Jews themselves; which is something
like finding fault with Hitler because he had...
Bad breath.
But Jewish *cowardice* in the face of Christian *arrogance* is not an
appropriate response, any more than cowardice in the face of terrorism
is *ever* an appropriate response. On the contrary, this response by
the Jewish religious officials is merely an incitement to even greater
arrogance on the part of the Christian religious officials and their
followers. And, whether this movie results in increased hatred of the
Jews--or even, heaven forbid, an eruption of anti-Semitic violence
against individual Jews--depends, at least in part, on whether these
Jewish religious officials are capable of *changing* their reaction
to this movie.
What is needed most at this time is not any further discussion about
how "Jesus died for *all* of us", or how this movie will "undo the
progress that has been already achieved in Jewish-Christian relations";
but, rather, how the conflicts between Christians, Jews, as well as
Muslims can be traced to the *lies* told by Jewish, Christian and Muslim
religious officials about the Doctrine of the 'resurrection'...
A discussion of which is, of course, VERBOTEN as far as the media is
concerned because of its obsessive concern with the economic survival
of Judaeo-Christianity, Inc.
For further information see:
http://www.deadseanaghammadiresearch.com
Michael Cecil
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Cecil 28SW2" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipof the Truth |
08 Feb 2004 12:20:41 PM |
|
|
Emma wrote:
<snip>
Actually, I checked the quote again
and I got it slightly wrong. Here is the
quote and the reference:
"76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves
as Christian.
The fundamental assumption made by these Christians is that
Christianity is the Teaching of Jesus. And the principal reason
that they make this assumption is that neither the secular nor
the religious media in the United States will allow this assumption
to be contradicted by the media. Whenever the word Christian is
used in the media, it is generally assumed--and *no* information
to the contrary is *allowed* to be published in the media--that a
Christian is a follower of Jesus. This is one of the greatest lies
in the history of human civilization; but it is a lie which continues
to be propagated because it is backed by the multi-*billion* dollar
interests of Christianity, Inc. (The implication of this censorship,
of course, is that Christians would be *less* likely to provide
economic support to Christianity, Inc. were they to know the
Truth.)
I have to wonder how many of these people would *still* be
Christian were they to beinformed that Christianity consists of
the idolatrous, pagan metaphysical perversion of the Teach-
ing of Jesus by Paul, the Pharisee--beginning with the replace-
ment of the Doctrine of Rebirth (i.e., 'resurrection') taught by
Jesus with the modified Egyptian doctrine of a physical raising
of a dead body from the grave believed by the Pharisee enemies
of Jesus, and which required that Jesus be eliminated.
This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990.
Not major enough.
Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of
9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about
0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical
to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001.
In other words, identification with Christianity in the United
States is declining almost *twice* as fast as it is declining
in Canada. Hopefully, this means that people are beginning
to wise up to the demonic lies of Paul and the Christian the-
ologians, and/or the greed and lust for power of the Chrisian
evangelists.
If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042,
non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S."
Hopefully, this means that the followers of Jesus will, by then,
outnumber the followers of Paul in the United States.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Michael Cecil
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimGem3015" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorship |
08 Feb 2004 07:50:37 PM |
|
|
I have to wonder how many of these people would *still* be
Christian were they to beinformed that Christianity consists of
the idolatrous, pagan metaphysical perversion of the Teach-
ing of Jesus by Paul,
Paul did nothing of the kind. You do not understand what you read. Or you
choose not to.Paul understood exactly what it was Jesus was conveying to a
select few. He understood quite clearly the many incarnations of the Messiah,
and the neccessity that you must be born first of the flesh -and then of spirit
-to re-enter this- the Fathers kingdom. "You must be like these little
children."
You choose to rant at the misguided Christians, while you ignor the real threat
that comes from 200 million mis-guided, angry and lied to Muslims. The violence
that they will follow "is" found in the Qu'ran and justifies their sin. Paul
did nothing to mislead, lie to, or deceive millions; but Mohammed has. This is
your real thief, and his legacy is the "true wolf" in lambs clothing.
"The Prophet" the-that ...as spelled out in the Hebrew Bible thousands of years
ago....can be identified and verified as a warning - whose "evidence" still
exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written 600 years before "The Prophet" that
these same verses speak of... was even born. Unseen prophecy. What you do not
choose to see will be your downfall.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorship ofthe Truth |
08 Feb 2004 04:30:46 AM |
|
|
Michael Cecil (28SW2) wrote:
It's no wonder that there are so many Christians in the United States.
Maybe it's because, when Mohammed said "no man can die for another's
sins",
they realized that David's son died for David's sins, and David's men,
thousands of them, died for David's sins.
I guess they realized that Mohammed was wrong???
???
Could that be it Elly?
On the contrary, backed by a relentless and universal censorship by the
media of any opposing view,
No, no, no... Mohammed made a WRONG statement, and people
looked at said WRONG statement for what it was...
Didn't you?
Or did you self-censor said error right out of existence?
eh?
Regardless:
* Mohammed didn't know how Genesis 1 correctly describes our
solar system's formation.
* Mohammed didn't know how Daniel 9 predicted WHEN the messiah
would show up, and that the messiah would DIE for SINS, other's
SINS. it's right there in Daniel 9.
* Mohammed didn't know how Ezekiel 1 confirmed Daniel 9, again
showing the messiah DYING for SINS.
* Mohammed didn't know how Isaiah 53 directly says the ARM OF GOD
would show up as a MAN and would DIE for the SINS of OTHERS.
* Mohammed didn't know that BOTH Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 said
directly that he'd DIE, not for himself, but for OTHERS sins.
How did Mohammed miss it Elly???
How???
If Mohammed is getting his "clues" from an angel, HOW did he
not know what he needed to know?
HOW???
Big hint Elly... Jesus said to watch for Daniel's statement
to come true, said when you see it, when you see the disgusting
devestation on the Holy One's quarter, then they should FLEE
Judea.
But Mohammed missed it... he denied what YOU and others should
have been looked for.
It showed up Elly, and YOU and others MISSED it since you
didn't know what Jesus said.
You were told WRONG stuff and MISSED it.
When what Jesus said to look for, showed up, they were supposed
to flee Judea. On 5/11/00, it was known what Jesus said to look
for... the 7 year peace agreement was about to end, they were
going to sign the stuff and close it out... but the big sticking
point was the territories... they didn't want to leave them.
At that very time... leaving would have ended it... but they didn't.
What Jesus said to look for showed up, the warning went out,
and NO ONE believed what Jesus said to look for, had shown up
and it all collapsed. Only months later, Sharon showed up at
the temple, and said he could do anything he wanted there,
and they went ballistic... about a thousand died in street
rioting... then months later, the jets slammed into the towers
and the towers collapsed.
Don't you see Elly?
Jesus knew when they should flee Judea, if they had, it
would have ended. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas, they said
that it would end if they left the territories... and at
that very time... the 7 year agreement was nearly closure,
then it all collapsed, "peace peace, and there is no peace".
Israel offered peace, but it wasn't wanted, they wanted
them out of there... then peace... or so they said.
Jesus knew WHEN.
God knew WHEN too. God said at the SAME TIME, it would
be said that the moon shines as the light of the sun
(it does, it's just reflected sunlight), and the
sun shines as the light of 7 days (the sun has shown
as the light of 7 "God days" as given in Genesis 1
which matches what God's creation shows), that there
would be a slaughter in the hills filled with water
(Afghanistan is known for it's hills filled with water)
in the day the towers collapse... Bin Laden sent the
jets into the WTC towers at the SAME TIME.
It all happened at the same time.
The entire world mourned at the same time.
God knew it would happen, God knew when it would be SAID.
Notice though, Jesus gave a WARNING, that WARNING was
written up only months before Sharon showed up at the
temple. On 5/11/00, Jesus's warning was UNDERSTOOD,
it was written up, but NEITHER of the two over there
believes Jesus... the warning was never taken seriously.
Mohammed didn't know it... so how could you be expected
to know it?
The Jews didn't know it... they don't believe Jesus
is anyone to believe in the first place, so they didn't
and don't listen anyway.
Two groups, one says they believe Jesus... they don't,
since they don't even know what he said, or why he died,
claiming he never died... their leader... their prophet,
Mohammed, said "no man can die for anothers sins"... so
they point blank have no idea that Jesus was right thousands
of years ago in saying such.
The other group... they don't realize who Jesus is and
tend to not care what he said... they think it's unimportant
to know anything about him.
But if BOTH had known and done what Jesus said to do,
none of it would have happened as BOTH would have known
what to do such there would have been no issues in the
first place.
Regardless, Jesus said when you see it and understand
what Daniel described, that disgusting devestation on
the Holy One's quarter... then they should flee Judea.
At the time it was understood and written up (5/11/00),
they were nearing the end of the 7 year peace agreement,
the big sticking point was the territories... leaving...
never happened and the 7 year peace agreement... it all
fell apart, and the entire world got sucked into it.
Jesus knew WHEN to flee... and hundreds of years before,
God knew WHEN it would be SAID.
Only God could predict such stuff... but NEITHER cares
to find him, or understand what he said.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipof the Truth |
08 Feb 2004 09:43:16 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Michael Cecil (28SW2) wrote:
It's no wonder that there are so many Christians in the United States.
Maybe it's because, when Mohammed said "no man can die for another's
sins",
they realized that David's son died for David's sins, and David's men,
thousands of them, died for David's sins.
David's son and men died because of David's sin not for it, nor did they
make atonement for it.
I guess they realized that Mohammed was wrong???
somethings Mohammed got right maybe.
[repetitive irrelevent nonsense snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipof the Truth |
15 Feb 2004 07:28:39 AM |
|
|
@np@!dx.com.au, > wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Michael Cecil (28SW2) wrote:
It's no wonder that there are so many Christians in the United States.
Maybe it's because, when Mohammed said "no man can die for another's
sins",
they realized that David's son died for David's sins, and David's men,
thousands of them, died for David's sins.
David's son and men died because of David's sin not for it, nor did they
make atonement for it.
No, you're wrong... and so was Mohammed.
Read the verses:
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from
thine house; because thou hast despised me, and
hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil
against thee out of thine own house, and I will take
thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy
neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the
sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this
thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against
the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also
hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
(See? David's sins were forgiven in the process of the others
paying for those sins... David didn't die for the sins and
Mohammed is KNOWN to have been wrong in saying no man
could die for another's sins.)
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great
occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD
struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David,
and it was very sick.
16 David therefore besought God for the child; and
David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon
the earth.
17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him,
to raise him up from the earth: but he would not,
neither did he eat bread with them.
18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the
child died. And the servants of David feared to
tell him that the child was dead: for they said,
Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto
him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how
will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the
child is dead?
(David's child DIED for David's sins... Mohammed was WRONG)
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered,
David perceived that the child was dead: therefore
David said unto his servants, Is the child dead?
And they said, He is dead.
20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and
anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came
into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he
came to his own house; and when he required, they
set bread before him, and he did eat.
See?
It was over, the sins were paid for, they were paid by
others, not by David.
David was the leader, he was chosen by God to lead them,
and when he messed up, THEY paid. If David had paid,
David wouldn't have been the leader anymore, he'd have
been dead... but when the others paid for the sins, David
could then continue to lead them, as God had desired.
An atonement, is a recnociliation, an agreement that
the stuff is PAID FOR, the sins were PAID FOR by others.
Why didn't Mohammed know it?
In Mohammed NOT knowing it, he's messed up SEVERAL verses
sets that THEY really need to know.
Them NOT knowing what they need to know, it continues on
and on and on...
I guess they realized that Mohammed was wrong???
somethings Mohammed got right maybe.
Here's what Mohammed left them WITHOUT, the stuff that if
they'd known it, all that recent stuff going on, never
would have happened:
* Mohammed didn't know how Genesis 1 correctly describes our
solar system's formation.
* Mohammed didn't know how Daniel 9 predicted WHEN the messiah
would show up, and that the messiah would DIE for SINS, other's
SINS. it's right there in Daniel 9.
* Mohammed didn't know how Ezekiel 1 confirmed Daniel 9, again
showing the messiah DYING for SINS.
* Mohammed didn't know how Isaiah 53 directly says the ARM OF GOD
would show up as a MAN and would DIE for the SINS of OTHERS.
* Mohammed didn't know that BOTH Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 said
directly that he'd DIE, not for himself, but for OTHER's sins.
How did Mohammed miss it???
How???
If Mohammed is getting his "clues" from an angel, HOW did he
not know what he needed to know?
HOW???
Big hint... Jesus said to watch for Daniel's statement
to come true, said when you see it, when you see the disgusting
devestation on the Holy One's quarter, then they should FLEE
Judea.
But Mohammed missed it... he denied what they BOTH should have
been looking for.
It showed up, and BOTH MISSED it since NEITHER knew what
Jesus said, or understood the value of what he'd said.
Mohammed told them WRONG stuff and they BOTH MISSED it. One
missed it since they believed Mohammed's wrong stuff, and
the other missed it since they didn't believe Jesus in the
first place... they probably thought Mohammed was telling
them what Jesus said... Jesus didn't say to seek revenge
and kill Jews... Jesus was a Jew, but he didn't defend himself
against the decision to have him put to death.
His own kinsmen rejected him, but he didn't fight them,
or ask anyone to stop it.
Nearly 2000 years ago, Jesus said what could have helped them
recently.
When what Jesus said to look for, showed up, they were supposed
to flee Judea. On 5/11/00, it was known what Jesus said to look
for... the 7 year peace agreement was about to end, they were
going to sign the stuff and close it out... but the big sticking
point was the territories... they didn't want to leave them.
At that very time... leaving would have ended it... but they didn't.
What Jesus said to look for showed up, the warning went out,
and NO ONE believed what Jesus said to look for had shown up,
and it all collapsed. Only months later, Sharon showed up at
the temple, and said he could do anything he wanted there,
and they went ballistic... about a thousand died in street
rioting... then months later, the jets slammed into the towers
and the towers collapsed.
Jesus knew when they should flee Judea, if they had, it
would have ended. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas, they said
that it would end if they left the territories... and at
that very time... the 7 year agreement was near closure,
then it all collapsed, "peace peace, and there is no peace".
Israel offered peace, but it wasn't wanted, they wanted
them out of there... then peace... or so they said.
Jesus knew WHEN.
God knew WHEN too. God said at the SAME TIME, it would
be said that the moon shines as the light of the sun
(it does, it's just reflected sunlight), and the
sun shines as the light of 7 days (the sun has shown
as the light of 7 "God days" as given in Genesis 1
which matches what God's creation shows), that there
would be a slaughter in the hills filled with water
(Afghanistan is known for it's hills filled with water)
in the day the towers collapse... Bin Laden sent the
jets into the WTC towers at the SAME TIME.
It all happened at the same time.
The entire world mourned at the same time.
God knew it would happen, God knew when it would be SAID.
Notice though, Jesus gave a WARNING, that WARNING was
written up only months before Sharon showed up at the
temple. On 5/11/00, Jesus's warning was UNDERSTOOD,
it was written up, but NEITHER of the two over there
believes Jesus... the warning was never taken seriously.
Mohammed didn't know it... what he told them made it
impossible for them to know to look for it, so how could
they be expected to know it? They can only look back
and realize that they did the wrong thing, BOTH did
the wrong things. If they'd BOTH done what Jesus said
to do, it never would have happened.
The Jews didn't know it... they don't believe Jesus
is anyone to believe in the first place, so they didn't
and don't listen anyway.
Two groups, one says they believe Jesus... they don't,
since they don't even know what he said, or why he died,
claiming he never died... their leader... their prophet,
Mohammed, said "no man can die for another's sins"... so
they point blank have no idea that Jesus was right thousands
of years ago in saying such.
The other group... they don't realize who Jesus is and
tend to not care what he said... they think it's unimportant
to know anything about him.
But if BOTH had known and done what Jesus said to do,
none of it would have happened as BOTH would have known
what to do such there would have been no issues in the
first place.
Regardless, Jesus said when you see it and understand
what Daniel described, that disgusting devestation on
the Holy One's quarter... then they should flee Judea.
At the time it was understood and written up (5/11/00),
they were nearing the end of the 7 year peace agreement,
the big sticking point was the territories... leaving...
never happened and the 7 year peace agreement... it all
fell apart, and the entire world got sucked into it.
Jesus knew WHEN to flee... and hundreds of years before,
God knew WHEN it would be SAID.
Only God could predict such stuff... but NEITHER cares
to find him, or understand what he said.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipofthe Truth |
15 Feb 2004 05:46:20 PM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
@np@!dx.com.au, > wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Michael Cecil (28SW2) wrote:
It's no wonder that there are so many Christians in the United States.
Maybe it's because, when Mohammed said "no man can die for another's
sins",
they realized that David's son died for David's sins, and David's men,
thousands of them, died for David's sins.
David's son and men died because of David's sin not for it, nor did they
make atonement for it.
No, you're wrong... and so was Mohammed.
Read the verses:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipofthe Truth |
16 Feb 2004 03:23:04 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
What did they die for then?
Make up your mind.
Here are your choices:
* They died because... just random reasons.
* They dided because of David's sins.
Which is it?
In your sentence above, you claim both, make up your mind.
You said:
* The troubles came because of David's sin.
* The people (troubles) didn't die (happen) because of David's sin.
Which is it?
Unlike your ability to say TWO things at once, both in
conflict, I will agree with God:
2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have SINNED against
the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also
hath put away thy SIN; thou shalt not die.
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great
occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
See?
David SINNNED... God reconciled the SIN, with DEATH of David's
son.
Take away David ever having sinned, and what would have happened
to David's kid?
eh???
Any ideas?
Let's compare the two results:
* SIN = DEATH... the kid died.
* NO SIN = LIFE... the kid would have lived on.
Why isn't this OBVIOUS to you?
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
Mohammed completely blew it... he said NO MAN could die for another's
sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are
responsible for their own sins... yet he forgot about King David's son
dying for King David's sins... and King David's men dying for King
David's sins.
If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known
what to do, and it never would have happened.
You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and
understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at
the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than
make it look silly.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hillel Sabba Markowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipof the Truth |
16 Feb 2004 10:16:39 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<40308B7E.39AA@For-God.net>...
Jan Pompe wrote:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
What did they die for then?
Make up your mind.
Here are your choices:
* They died because... just random reasons.
There are no such things as "random reasons"
* They dided because of David's sins.
Yes in one sense, no in the sense that you mean when you say that
"y'shu died for people's sins".
Which is it?
In your sentence above, you claim both, make up your mind.
You said:
* The troubles came because of David's sin.
* The people (troubles) didn't die (happen) because of David's sin.
[cut to save bandwidth]
David SINNNED... God reconciled the SIN, with DEATH of David's
son.
Take away David ever having sinned, and what would have happened
to David's kid?
eh???
Any ideas?
Let's compare the two results:
* SIN = DEATH... the kid died.
* NO SIN = LIFE... the kid would have lived on.
No sin, the child would never have been conceived.
Why isn't this OBVIOUS to you?
If someone steps over a cliff, he falls "because" of the "law of
gravity". Actions cause consequences. Dovid's sin had consequences
which included the death of the child. The death of the child did not
"atone" for the sin. The atonement was the true and sincere
repentance and recognition that he had done wrong. The child's death
was a consequence, like the death of someone who falls off a cliff
during an earthquake.
Perhaps the child would have lived if King David had had the extra
merit to "use" to save it. Perhaps it was "destined" to die anyway.
Perhaps G-d sent a child who was not destined to live as a punishment
for King David (as we are saying). Note that had King David not
sinned, the child would never have been conceived. Perhaps had King
David not sinned, Uriah would have died in the war anyway and he would
have married Batsheva then. Note the commentators state that even
though the King gave orders to withdraw from around Uriah, exposing
him to death, he actually died *before* those orders were carried out
(as shown by the grammar and word order in the original Hebrew).
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
Mohammed completely blew it... he said NO MAN could die for another's
sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are
responsible for their own sins... yet he forgot about King David's son
dying for King David's sins... and King David's men dying for King
David's sins.
No. In that respect he was correct in that there is a difference
between responsible and consequences. For example, the fact that many
people have died as a result of the sins of the corrupt leaders of
various nations (as in the famines in Africa) does not mean that those
deaths were "atonements". They were consequences.
Each man is punished for his own sins and is subject to the laws G-d
has set forth for ruling the world. If a man is murdered, it it the
sin of the murderer and the murderer is punished. The fact that being
a victim *MAY* have been the result of some (unknown) sin of the
victim is not relevant and does not enter the discussion.
If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known
what to do, and it never would have happened.
You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and
understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at
the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than
make it look silly.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Part one is correct, spart two is false (in the sense that you appear
to mean it).
--
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
Sabba.Hillel@verizon.net | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipof the Truth |
22 Feb 2004 04:58:24 AM |
|
|
Hillel Sabba Markowitz wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<40308B7E.39AA@For-God.net>...
Jan Pompe wrote:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
What did they die for then?
Make up your mind.
Here are your choices:
* They died because... just random reasons.
There are no such things as "random reasons"
It was an option, it didn't have to make sense.
I'm assuming that he'll provide the "alternate reason" as to
why King David's son was dying and not King David himself.
* They dided because of David's sins.
Yes in one sense, no in the sense that you mean when you say that
"y'shu died for people's sins".
They are the same thing.
God COMMANDED the deaths to PAY for the sins.
YOU can not command someone's son dying to pay for sins,
YOU are not God... God is God, God can command it.
In the same way that King David's son died to help
pay for the sin of taking Uriah's life and wife,
the one they were looking for, the messiah, was foretold
to be taken, deserted, beaten, mutilated, and KILLED
while being rejected by his kinsmen. That death for
one that did no wrong, was as the son for King David,
to pay for sins.
Let's compare the two results:
* SIN = DEATH... the kid died.
* NO SIN = LIFE... the kid would have lived on.
No sin, the child would never have been conceived.
There could have been no sin, if Uriah had been killed
before King David had ever gotten Uriah's wife pregnant,
if he'd found her after Uriah's death, and married her
to provide for her after Uriah's death.
In that senario, King David would have been doing the
proper thing, a wonderful thing that God would have
wanted and the son of King David would have lived.
But King David sinned...
Why isn't this OBVIOUS to you?
If someone steps over a cliff, he falls "because" of the "law of
gravity". Actions cause consequences. Dovid's sin had consequences
which included the death of the child. The death of the child did not
"atone" for the sin. The atonement was the true and sincere
repentance and recognition that he had done wrong. The child's death
was a consequence, like the death of someone who falls off a cliff
during an earthquake.
There was no accident about it.
God COMMANDED that the child would die, and he did.
Where is the sin offering?
What paid for the sin of killing Uriah and taking his wife?
The only agreement I see is where God said directly that
the son dying, the House of David having the sword put
against them, and the wives dispersed, that all those were
done to make God content that it was over, finished,
atoned for.
Perhaps the child would have lived if King David had had the extra
merit to "use" to save it. Perhaps it was "destined" to die anyway.
Perhaps G-d sent a child who was not destined to live as a punishment
for King David (as we are saying). Note that had King David not
sinned, the child would never have been conceived. Perhaps had King
David not sinned, Uriah would have died in the war anyway and he would
have married Batsheva then. Note the commentators state that even
though the King gave orders to withdraw from around Uriah, exposing
him to death, he actually died *before* those orders were carried out
(as shown by the grammar and word order in the original Hebrew).
God specifically said that he saw it, and was disgusted at
King David's despising God's commandments and doing it, setting
it up and completing it.
What commandments did King David break?
* He got Uriah's wife pregnant BEFORE Uriah had been killed.
* After she was pregnant, King David had Uriah sent to the
hottest front of the battle, the worst. King David told
the commander to RETREAT when Uriah was at the front...
to insure he'd die.
God said specifically that he had Uriah killed:
2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of
the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed
Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken
his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with
the sword of the children of Ammon.
God himself, through Nathan said specifically that he saw it.
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
Mohammed completely blew it... he said NO MAN could die for another's
sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are
responsible for their own sins... yet he forgot about King David's son
dying for King David's sins... and King David's men dying for King
David's sins.
No. In that respect he was correct in that there is a difference
between responsible and consequences. For example, the fact that many
people have died as a result of the sins of the corrupt leaders of
various nations (as in the famines in Africa) does not mean that those
deaths were "atonements". They were consequences.
God COMMANDED the death of the son of King David.
That COMMAND left God content that it was over, equalized,
atoned.
What definition are you using for atonement?
Each man is punished for his own sins and is subject to the laws G-d
has set forth for ruling the world. If a man is murdered, it it the
sin of the murderer and the murderer is punished. The fact that being
a victim *MAY* have been the result of some (unknown) sin of the
victim is not relevant and does not enter the discussion.
It was not uknown, it was COMMANDED by God, that the son
would die for King David's sin.
If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known
what to do, and it never would have happened.
You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and
understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at
the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than
make it look silly.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Part one is correct, spart two is false (in the sense that you appear
to mean it).
See Daniel 9.
You were told thousands of years ago, but you can't see.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
16 Feb 2004 07:31:55 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
What did they die for then?
Make up your mind.
I have made up my mind don't be so idiotic as to suggest I haven't.
They died for nothing they died because of Davids sin. It was a waste of
life.
Kapiche.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
22 Feb 2004 05:04:54 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
I have made up my mind don't be so idiotic as to suggest I haven't.
They died for nothing they died because of Davids sin. It was a waste of
life.
Kapiche.
Then you agree, fine.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
22 Feb 2004 05:03:52 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
I have made up my mind don't be so idiotic as to suggest I haven't.
They died for nothing they died because of Davids sin. It was a waste of
life.
Kapiche.
Then you agree, fine.
But this was not your position. Yours was they made vicarious atonement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
22 Feb 2004 07:01:43 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
But this was not your position. Yours was they made vicarious atonement.
Are you saying King David's son did or didn't die due to the sin?
Yes or no.
???
Let's review again:
"vicarious" - someone else substituting
"atonement" - pay the debt, reconciliation, or equalizing.
The debt was David's horrible sin.
The payment was all the stuff that God commanded to be done
to pay that debt:
* David's son dying
* Sword coming against the House of David
* David's wives being dispersed
And of course... NOTHING happening to King David himself.
'vicarious atonement' - others PAID the DEBT, God decided the payment.
Are you unable to see the obvious?
There was NO ACCIDENT about it, God COMMANDED that King David's
son would die, and he did... and it paid the debt. God COMMANDED
that King David's wives would be dispersed... that the House
of David would have the sword against them... those PAID the DEBT
for King David's sin.... that's why King David got up right after
he found out his son was dead, cleaned himself up, ate, annointed
himself and went to the temple to praise God... it was OVER,
the DEBT was PAID by OTHERS... God was content that it was PAID.
Those are all PAYMENTS, atoning for the sin of taking Uriah's
life and wife... completely against God's commandments.. David
had rejected God's commandments, and that sin, David's lust and
coveting Uriah's wife, was PAID FOR by OTHERS.
'vicarious atonement'
David instead got MENTAL PAIN of knowing that HIS sinning
had to be paid for by OTHERS... he was TOLD directly by God
through Nathan that this was the case.
How does this compare to the messiah dying for sins?
It's much the SAME THING.
Read Daniel 9, start to finish. Notice that Daniel is asking
God to forgive them, saying they've done wicked things,
that he wanted them forgiven. The answer Daniel got, was from
an angel and the angel told Daniel HOW it would be PAID OFF,
when sins would end, that the messiah would DIE, but not
for himself.
They then got MENTAL PAIN instead of their messiah, just like
King David got MENTAL PAIN instead of his son.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
22 Feb 2004 07:29:42 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
But this was not your position. Yours was they made vicarious atonement.
Are you saying King David's son did or didn't die due to the sin?
Yes or no.
yes but it did not make the atonement.
ou seem unable to learn the lessons of the Tanakh
A little later when Jeroboam was told he would get the Northern Kingdom
what was it the Navi said to him?
"And you I have taken and appointed king over all that your soul
should desire; and you will be king over Israel. And it will be if you
will listen to all that I command you and (if you) go in My ways and do
what is straight in My eyes to keep My statutes and My commandments as did
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David My servant, then I will be with you and I will build for you a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
permanent house as I built for David and I will give to you Israel. (I
Kings, 11; 37 - 38)
Of course Jeroboam didn't and the rest is history. Nevertheless there is
no metnion of David sinning here. Why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
06 Mar 2004 02:06:34 AM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
But this was not your position. Yours was they made vicarious atonement.
Are you saying King David's son did or didn't die due to the sin?
Yes or no.
yes but it did not make the atonement.
ou seem unable to learn the lessons of the Tanakh
A little later when Jeroboam was told he would get the Northern Kingdom
what was it the Navi said to him?
"And you I have taken and appointed king over all that your soul
should desire; and you will be king over Israel. And it will be if you
will listen to all that I command you and (if you) go in My ways and do
what is straight in My eyes to keep My statutes and My commandments as did
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David My servant, then I will be with you and I will build for you a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
permanent house as I built for David and I will give to you Israel. (I
Kings, 11; 37 - 38)
Of course Jeroboam didn't and the rest is history. Nevertheless there is
no metnion of David sinning here. Why not?
DUH!!!
God told Nathan to tell David that >>> THE SIN WAS PUT AWAY <<<.
The sin was ERASED... God doesn't need to consider it anymore,
it's GONE.
Why was it erased?
Because God took in trade, the life of David's son, the sword
being put against the House of David, and David's wives being
dispersed.
Those PAYMENTS, PAID for the sin that King David did, that
got God very UPSET with him.
It's a FORCED negotiation, David had no choice, the judgement
was given by God, and the sin was erased due to the PAYMENTS
that God commanded be paid.
After that, it's OVER, forgotten... no more sin.
That's why King David didn't get the Torah punishment
of being stoned for adultrey, nor did his new wife Bathsheba.
If you bothered to think about what occurred, you might
then see and understand what went on with Abraham's son,
Pharaoh's son, thousands and thousands of soldiers, and
of course, Jesus dying for sins as was given by the angel
in telling Daniel when sins would end... the WHEN occurred
on time, and like the verse set says, the messiah was
rejected by his kinsmen, DERSERTED, and as it says, the
ending was OUTRAGEOUS... the DESERTED was MUTILATED and
CUT OFF (killed).
Specific verse set is discussed here:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/dan9.htm
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
07 Mar 2004 07:38:15 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<404985FC.488@For-God.net>...
Jan Pompe wrote:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
But this was not your position. Yours was they made vicarious atonement.
Are you saying King David's son did or didn't die due to the sin?
Yes or no.
yes but it did not make the atonement.
ou seem unable to learn the lessons of the Tanakh
A little later when Jeroboam was told he would get the Northern Kingdom
what was it the Navi said to him?
"And you I have taken and appointed king over all that your soul
should desire; and you will be king over Israel. And it will be if you
will listen to all that I command you and (if you) go in My ways and do
what is straight in My eyes to keep My statutes and My commandments as did
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David My servant, then I will be with you and I will build for you a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
permanent house as I built for David and I will give to you Israel. (I
Kings, 11; 37 - 38)
Of course Jeroboam didn't and the rest is history. Nevertheless there is
no metnion of David sinning here. Why not?
DUH!!!
God told Nathan to tell David that >>> THE SIN WAS PUT AWAY <<<.
The sin was ERASED... God doesn't need to consider it anymore,
it's GONE.
Why was it erased?
David acknowledged his sin straifht away and repented.
Please note the order of events. Repentence does not nullify the
consequences any more than when you jump off a tall building and
repent of it halfway down will it save your life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Isidore of Laytonville" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's CensorshipoftheTruth |
07 Mar 2004 01:46:29 PM |
|
|
What about the pagans ravens? You left them out.
The Psychedelick Pope
Saint Isidore of Laytonville
^Ö^ Patron Saint of the Internet ^Ö^
°°^Ö^ °°
http://apple2.org.za/gswv/me
AOXOMOXOA and ENESSA QUA ONNICA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Cooper" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipofthe Truth |
15 Feb 2004 08:23:18 PM |
|
|
Jan Pompe wrote:
No, you're wrong... and so was Mohammed.
Read the verses:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because
of David's sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the
consequences of what he did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "psalmsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipof the Truth |
15 Feb 2004 08:44:04 PM |
|
|
In article <qQVXb.28717$gl2.9741@lakeread05>,
Stephen Cooper <nupreacher@mailinator.com> wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
No, you're wrong... and so was Mohammed.
Read the verses:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because
of David's sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the
consequences of what he did.
I agree with you Stephen. The reference cited is in no way an example
of atonement. However, I am compelled to point out (regarding Jan's
comments) that the ability or inability to read Hebrew has no bearing on
this discussion whatsoever. The English is just as clear as the Hebrew
in that they died as a result of David's sin, and not as an atonement
for David's sin.
There is a subtle degree of spin going on here, as if Jan were trying to
say, "if you were able to read Hebrew, you wouldn't believe in the
atonement Christ provided." That notion is, of course, patently
rediculous.
Hebrew is a fine language, and the original languages present us with a
more sharply defined, shaded, and contrasted exculpation of the biblical
text. However, in no way, shape, or form is there to be found any
differentiation in basic meaning between the (reliable versions in)
English, and the originals.
There are innumerable Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew,
Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, and more who with full intellectual
integrity have continued to believe in the atonement provided by Christ,
linguistic skills notwithstanding.
I absolutely love the sorts of deep conceptual interconnections provided
by the Hebrew in the TaNaKh, which remain mostly unseen in the English.
That does not, however, mean that the English O.T. says something
different than the Hebrew TaNaKh. As someone who reads both, I assure
you it does not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian Arrogance Vs. Jewish Cowardice and the Media's Censorshipofthe Truth |
15 Feb 2004 09:11:46 PM |
|
|
psalmsmith wrote:
In article <qQVXb.28717$gl2.9741@lakeread05>,
Stephen Cooper <nupreacher@mailinator.com> wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
No, you're wrong... and so was Mohammed.
Read the verses:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because
of David's sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the
consequences of what he did.
I agree with you Stephen. The reference cited is in no way an example
of atonement. However, I am compelled to point out (regarding Jan's
comments) that the ability or inability to read Hebrew has no bearing on
this discussion whatsoever. The English is just as clear as the Hebrew
in that they died as a result of David's sin, and not as an atonement
for David's sin.
There is a subtle degree of spin going on here, as if Jan were trying to
say, "if you were able to read Hebrew, you wouldn't believe in the
atonement Christ provided." That notion is, of course, patently
rediculous.
Is it? the confusion arises from the fact that 'for' may be synonimous
with 'because' in English this is not so in the Hebrew so it is clearer.
Hebrew is a fine language, and the original languages present us with a
more sharply defined, shaded, and contrasted exculpation of the biblical
text. However, in no way, shape, or form is there to be found any
differentiation in basic meaning between the (reliable versions in)
English, and the originals.
there are heaps.
There are innumerable Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew,
Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, and more who with full intellectual
integrity have continued to believe in the atonement provided by Christ,
linguistic skills notwithstanding.
I must admit I find this perplexing but there are indicators that the
translations are not honest.
I absolutely love the sorts of deep conceptual interconnections provided
by the Hebrew in the TaNaKh, which remain mostly unseen in the English.
That does not, however, mean that the English O.T. says something
different than the Hebrew TaNaKh. As someone who reads both, I assure
you it does not.
So how is it that you read justification for vicarious antonement in the
Tanakh. The Torah speaks against this specifically and plainly in all
languages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "psalmsmith" |
|
| Title: Atomenent made with human blood?? |
15 Feb 2004 11:28:23 PM |
|
|
In article <29372fe3763d6d5e551ffc381c59afe2@news.teranews.com>,
Jan Pompe <janp@!dx.com.au> wrote:
psalmsmith wrote:
In article <qQVXb.28717$gl2.9741@lakeread05>,
Stephen Cooper <nupreacher@mailinator.com> wrote:
Jan Pompe wrote:
No, you're wrong... and so was Mohammed.
Read the verses:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted.
the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn't die for it.
Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore
to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because
of David's sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the
consequences of what he did.
I agree with you Stephen. The reference cited is in no way an example
of atonement. However, I am compelled to point out (regarding Jan's
comments) that the ability or inability to read Hebrew has no bearing on
this discussion whatsoever. The English is just as clear as the Hebrew
in that they died as a result of David's sin, and not as an atonement
for David's sin.
There is a subtle degree of spin going on here, as if Jan were trying to
say, "if you were able to read Hebrew, you wouldn't believe in the
atonement Christ provided." That notion is, of course, patently
rediculous.
Is it? the confusion arises from the fact that 'for' may be synonimous
with 'because' in English this is not so in the Hebrew so it is clearer.
While it's true that in English, the word "for" shares some shades of
meaning with "because" and where they part company, a large disparity
can be made...it is also true that the context clarifies any questions
that might arise.
As you likely know, issues such as word-order and context are crucial to
understanding English, but both of these concepts are far less important
to rightly understanding both Hebrew and Greek.
Whereas in the original languages, we need not necessarily pay as much
attention to word-order and contect in order to come to a right
understanding of what a passage is saying. However, anybody who studies
the English without accounting for the word-order and context is doing a
great injustice to the text, and will certainly come to a wrong
conclusion.
Hebrew is a fine language, and the original languages present us with a
more sharply defined, shaded, and contrasted exculpation of the biblical
text. However, in no way, shape, or form is there to be found any
differentiation in basic meaning between the (reliable versions in)
English, and the originals.
there are heaps.
Depends on the version you are using. For the English OT, I like to
cross-reference the NASB and the KJV, putting the greater weight of
reliability on the KJV's source material, and on the NASB's translation.
Between these two, with the weight of reliability on the one's sources
and the other's translation; a near-perfect representation of the
original language is carried over into the English thoughtspace.
There are, of course, other far less reliable English translations; and
one can always be found which perverts the meaning and intent of the
original language.
There are innumerable Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew,
Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, and more who with full intellectual
integrity have continued to believe in the atonement provided by Christ,
linguistic skills notwithstanding.
I must admit I find this perplexing but there are indicators that the
translations are not honest.
Do you believe that every Christian which reads Hebrew is dishonest?
I absolutely love the sorts of deep conceptual interconnections provided
by the Hebrew in the TaNaKh, which remain mostly unseen in the English.
That does not, however, mean that the English O.T. says something
different than the Hebrew TaNaKh. As someone who reads both, I assure
you it does not.
So how is it that you read justification for vicarious antonement in the
Tanakh. The Torah speaks against this specifically and plainly in all
languages.
Certainly. This will come in three parts. First I'll discuss the role
of Messiah as High Priest in affecting the atonement of the
congregation. Second, I'll discuss the role of the blood in the
atonement, and third (the part you seem to object to) I'll discuss the
role of Messiah as the sacrificial lamb in the covering atonement.
FIRST:
In Leviticus 16:29-34 (regarding Yom Kippur) Moses describes the process
under which the sins of the people are covered. While the event in
question took place on the Passover rather than on Yom Kippur (because
the major theme of the crucifixion was the covering of blood which
causes death to pass over us) we clearly see Messiah here in the role of
High Priest. This is the priest whom shall be annointed in his fathers
stead, to make the atonement for all the people:
"And this shall be a statute for ever unto you:
that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month,
ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all,
whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that
sojourneth among you: For on that day shall the priest
make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be
clean from all your sins before the LORD. It shall be a
sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls,
by a statute for ever. And the priest, whom he shall
anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the
priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the
atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the
holy garments: And he shall make an atonement for the holy
sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the
tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he
shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the
people of the congregation. And this shall be an
everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the
children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he
did as the LORD commanded Moses." Leviticus 16:29-34, KJV.
The above was established on Yom Kippur under the Levitical and Aaronic
priesthoods. It must be understood here that Levi and Aaron became
priests without an oath, but there is another, Melchisedek, which became
priest by an oath. For God, speaking by David the King said: "The Lord
hath sworn, and will not lie, Thou art a priest for ever, after the
likeness of Melchisedec."
Because of this, there is a better priesthood than that of Aaron or
Levi, a priesthood that came by way of an oath from God. That is the
priesthod of Melchisedek.
Aaron and Levi were mortal, just as their sons after them, but the one
for whom was sworn a priesthood by God is not merely a priest for a
short time until he dies, but he is a priest forever. His priesthood
does not pass away, and he is able to make atonement for ever, for them
who come to God by him. He is not obliged, every day, like the Aaronic
high priest, to first offer sacrifices for his own sins, and then for
the people; for this he did once, by offering up himself.
For while the law of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods annointed
mortal men to be priests; the oath of God, which was subsequent to the
law, constituted the Son perfect for ever.
SECOND:
It was into the outer courtyard that the priests, on a daily basis,
entered and performed their duties, but into the Holy of Holies only
once a year did the high priest enter, with the blood, which he offered
for himself and for the sins of the people.
"And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every
morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense
upon it. And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he
shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the
LORD throughout your generations." Exodus 30:7-8, KJV.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy
brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place
within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the
ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon
the mercy seat." Leviticus 16:2, KJV.
And by this, the Holy Spirit indicated that the way to the holy places
was not yet manifested, so long as the first tabernacle was standing:
and so it was a symbol, for that time, during which oblation and
sacrifices were offered. Sacrifices that could not make perfect the
conscience of him who offered them.
But the Messiah who came, was a High Priest of the good things which he
himself had made: and he entered into the great and perfect heavenly
temple, which was not made with hands and was not made of these created
things. He did not enter with the blood of goats and calves; but rather
with the blood of himself, he entered once into the sanctuary, and
obtained eternal redemption.
Just as the annual sacrifice was greater than the daily sacrifices --
and was thus made with a greater offering -- so also is the eternal
sacrifice greater than the annual sacrifice -- and so made with the
greatest offering of all, the blood of Messiah.
Blood of the Passover:
"Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the
first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from
the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth
day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the
congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening."
Exodus 12:5-6, KJV.
For if the blood of goats and calves, with the ashes of a heifer, was
sprinkled upon those that were defiled, and sanctified them as to the
purification of their flesh; then how much more will the blood of the
Messiah, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to
God, even more so purge our CONSCIENCE from dead works, so that we may
serve the living God?
Identity of the Lamb:
"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he
opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so
he openeth not his mouth." Isaiah 53:7, KJV.
And for this reason Messiah became the mediator of the new covenant,
that he might by his death be redemption, to them who had transgressed
the first covenant; so that they, who are called to the eternal
inheritance, might receive the promise.
You see, even the first covenant was not confirmed without blood. For
when the whole ordinance had been explained by Moses to all the people,
according to the law; Moses took the blood of a heifer, and water, with
scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled upon the books and upon all the
people; and said to them, This is the blood of the covenant which is
made with you by God.
"And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in
basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the
audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD
hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the
blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold
the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with
you concerning all these words." Exodus 24:6-8, KJV.
With that blood he also sprinkled upon the tabernacle, and upon all the
vessels of the ministry: because every thing, according to the law, is
purified with blood: and without the shedding of blood, there is no
remission.
But because he entered into the sanctuary with his own blood, it was not
necessary that he should offer himself many times, as the Aaronic high
priest entered every year into the sanctuary with blood that was not his
own. And, as it is appointed to men, that they must once die, and after
their death is the judgment; so also the Messiah was once offered; and,
by himself, he atoned for the sins of many.
"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall
be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath
poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with
the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:11-12, KJV.
THIRD:
But clearly the point on which you believe all these things fall apart,
is the fact that the blood offering was, in this case, the blood of a
man. And that, given the fact that human sacrifice is not legal in the
Torah of God.
Of course, the Torah which was recorded by Moses describes the duties,
obligations, teachings, and regulations pertaining to the Aaronic and
Levitical priesthoods, rather than the Melchisedekian priesthood
discussed above.
Nevertheless, it is my believe that the whole Torah is not only in
Moses, but the whole of scripture is God's Torah. Everything that God
has told us is His Torah. The following is from the Naviim.
Daniel relates clearly and without equivocation that Messiah will be cut
off, but not for himself:
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah
be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and
unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
Daniel 9:26, KJV.
And Isaiah clearly lays out how that the atonement will be made by the
sacrifice of a man, and explains why, and for whom Messiah would be cut
off:
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace
was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we
like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all." Isaiah 53:5-6, KJV.
FOR our transgressions. /mipshaenu/. FOR our iniquities.
/meavonotheynu/. Not on account of, or because of; but FOR in the
meaning of 'for' which you objected to earlier. Which, if that wasn't
clear enough is made even clearer to say that "the LORD hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all."
"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he
opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so
he openeth not his mouth." Isaiah 53:7, KJV.
HE (remember, this is a human being Isaiah is speaking of here) is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter. Clearly this means a man is being
killed; again FOR our iniquities, which were laid on him by God.
"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and
who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out
of the land of the living: for the transgression of my
people was he stricken." Isaiah 53:8, KJV.
Again, FOR the transgression /mipesha/ of the people he was stricken.
But here is the clearest indication of all. neither in the English nor
in the Hebrew can this verse be interpreted any other way than to say
that this man's soul was made an offering for sin.
"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put
him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering
for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."
Isaiah 53:10, KJV.
"thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin" is the English, and
/im-tasiym asham naphesho/ in the Hebrew.
Let me break this down a little further.
/im - tasiym asham naphesho/
when youmake trespassoffering ofhissoul
It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah
53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin.
If there remains any doubt whatsoever, the balance of the chapter clears
them up.
"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall
be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath
poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with
the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:11-12, KJV.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Mikra" |
|
| Title: Re: Atomenent made with human blood?? |
16 Feb 2004 12:01:45 AM |
|
|
"psalmsmith" wrote
: It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah
: 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin.
*Not according to the translations that I study:
Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his
soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his
days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press
Complete Tanach)
Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his
soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong
his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish
Publication Society Bible)
Isaiah 53:10 HaShem desired to oppress him* and He afflicted him; if his
soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and
the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
*That is, Israel. God replies to the nations that Israel's suffering was
punishment for its own sins; and when the people realize this and repent,
they will be redeemed and rewarded. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
Also, I wonder if your so-called messiah was ever ill, acknowledged his
guilt or had any offspring?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: Atomenent made with human blood?? |
16 Feb 2004 08:52:13 AM |
|
|
Ben Mikra wrote:
"psalmsmith" wrote
: It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah
: 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin.
*Not according to the translations that I study:
Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his
soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his
days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press
Complete Tanach)
Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his
soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong
his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish
Publication Society Bible)
Isaiah 53:10 HaShem desired to oppress him* and He afflicted him; if his
soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and
the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
*That is, Israel. God replies to the nations that Israel's suffering was
punishment for its own sins; and when the people realize this and repent,
they will be redeemed and rewarded. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
Much as I dislike Stone edition in this case it is the closest that
still makes sense in English.
All of them hearken back into Torah, which is the test of the true
prophet see Leviticus 26 it is the same story.
What we have is "v'' chafetz dakko hecheli" = "but God desired to
oppress him with disease"
*This is leviticus 26 up to verse 39
im-tasym (3rd person feminine hiphil of sam to set/appoint place if she
has appointed )asham naphsho if/when she appoints his soul to be guilty
*This is Leviticus 26:40,41
yireh zera he will see his seed.
*This is the rest of Leviticus 26.
It's plain in the Hebrew even if the direct translation is clumsy it is
also clear how it maps back into Torah or supports Torah which is
something prophecy must do according to Deuteronomy 13 to be valid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "psalmsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Atomenent made with human blood?? |
16 Feb 2004 04:39:12 PM |
|
|
In article <19bebdca243b1aa7ef8551b4c857ff11@news.teranews.com>,
Jan Pompe <janp@!dx.com.au> wrote:
Ben Mikra wrote:
"psalmsmith" wrote
: It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah
: 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin.
*Not according to the translations that I study:
Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his
soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his
days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press
Complete Tanach)
Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his
soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong
his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish
Publication Society Bible)
Isaiah 53:10 HaShem desired to oppress him* and He afflicted him; if his
soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and
the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
*That is, Israel. God replies to the nations that Israel's suffering was
punishment for its own sins; and when the people realize this and repent,
they will be redeemed and rewarded. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
Much as I dislike Stone edition in this case it is the closest that
still makes sense in English.
More likely it's just the one that more closely suits your adgenda.
I'm not all that familiar with the Stone edition, but from my
experiences with the Judaica Press and JPS editions, they seem to be
overall competant translations -- except when it comes to messianic
passages -- where they drop the ball entirely.
It would be easy to speculate as to why this is so, but I won't be doing
that unless I have a member of the Judiaca Press or the JPS people
around to defend themselves.
All of them hearken back into Torah, which is the test of the true
prophet see Leviticus 26 it is the same story.
Let's see: Don't make idols, don't worship idols, keep the Sabbaths,
honor His house. If you obey, God will sent rain, your farms will
produce, you wil have good crops, you will et bread in safety. God will
keep the land safe, no predatory nimals, no war, if anyody attacks you
will route them. You will multiply, have stores of food, God will set
His house among the people, and God will dwell with them. God took them
out od Egypt where they were slaves, and made them free. If you do not
obey, if you despise His commandments He will give you terror, fear and
disease. Your crops will not produce and you will go hungry. You will
be defeated by your enemies. If you still do not obey then He will
punish you sevenfold more. wild beasts, desolate highways, swords,
vengeance, pestilence, and delivered into the hand of the enemy. Take
away your bread, and even when you do eat you won't be satisfied. Then
God beomes infuriated if they don't repent. Cannibalism, destruction of
the Temple, ciies lay waste, no good smells in the land. Scattered
among the nations, land left desolate and given it's sabbath rest. Make
the remnant very afraid, fleeing from every sound, fleeing without
pursuers, they will perish and waste away.
That brings us up to Vs 39.
What we hav | | | | | | | | | | | |
