Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why many Jews do not believe Yeshua is the Messiah.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

 if you die without Yeshua's sacrifice you will have to stand before God with all your sins on you.

Yes, like every moral creature endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil.

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

 you will be found innocent on your own?

Sure. Every person is judged in relation to his own merit, not another's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Did not Moses and Solomon which are spoken here participate in the temple animal sacrifices? So they were offering the daily sacrifices right?

Sure. Did this particular forgiveness spoken of in the verse result from sacrificing an animal?

How did the Israelites under Moses gain forgiveness before the presence of a Temple, such as the time between the Exodus from Egypt and the arrival at Mount Sinai?

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

First that verse is not talking about sins being atoned in anyway or that animal sacrifices are invalid.

The passage shows that prayers have taken the place of sacrifices.

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

This means it was mixed with the blood

This is not pointed in the verse at all. And the reason for that is flour was offered generally by the poor who could not, by definition, sacrifice an animal.

8 hours ago, tek91 said:

I would have to ask you to provide me with a clear passage of something besides blood atoning sin

More than 30 references there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/05/islam-critiqued-dreams-of-transilvania.html?m=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

The fact that a goat was killed and its blood shed in the scapegoat sacrifice destroys your case because blood was indeed shed.

The 2 goats are offerings independant from eachother. The one supposed to do what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished is left alive.

So where is the second sacrifice supposed to validate Jesus as an offering?

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

The rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It demonstrates how applying double standards (necessity of 1 goat dying for the other to be accepted) completely undermines what these unknown writers of the gospels tried doing in relation to Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Sorry no "From your Brethen" im disappointed

Sure. See Deut18 speaking of the Ishmaelites.

7 hours ago, tek91 said:

God is speaking to the Jews

Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, 

Yes, Muhammad their Ishmaelite brother was raised from their midst. Medina and Mecca contained a significant Jewish population that closesly intermingled with the locals.

 

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
39 minutes ago, Nad_M said:

Sure. Did this particular forgiveness spoken of in the verse result from sacrificing an animal?

How did the Israelites under Moses gain forgiveness before the presence of a Temple, such as the time between the Exodus from Egypt and the arrival at Mount Sinai?

The passage shows that prayers have taken the place of sacrifices.

This is not pointed in the verse at all. And the reason for that is flour was offered generally by the poor who could not, by definition, sacrifice an animal.

More than 30 references there https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/05/islam-critiqued-dreams-of-transilvania.html?m=1

It is interesting to note as regards the type of offerings brought by the poor (flour in this case) that priests would make sure animal remains on the altar from previous offering would be washed before even placing the poor man's offering on top.

And since the Christian apologist will not address the references for other than blood atonement in the link above, let him consider the following few examples to which he expected to answer individually.

David was forgiven simply through repentance 2Sam12:13. Not only that, he is also told in Ps51:18-19 that in regards to this very sin, no blood was required of him.

If David's sin could be forgiven without blood, what prevents the notion from applying to other sins, just as the HB teaches in more than 30 places?

What animal was sacrificed by the seraphim when he touched Isaiah's lips and told him that Isa6"your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

What animal offering was necessary for Cain to rise above sin if he chose to Gen4?

Which animals did the Israelites offer for forgiveness during their desert wandering, as alluded to by Amos5“Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
    forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?"

Which animals did the non Israelite people of Nineveh offer when God forgave them?

Most importantly, where does Jesus even say that only blood atones?

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

level of denial is becoming humorous. Obeying God's voice being more important that sacrifices does not mean sacrifices are of lesser value than obedience?

It says he DELIGHTS in obeying more. God is not talking about which is more important.

To say that because he delights in obedience of Gods voice more then sacrifice in no way is saying that the sacrifices are no longer needed or obedience takes the place of sacrifices.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

We are in disobedience

Let me make it clear the verse is saying he would rather we obey his word then have to sacrifice.

This means he would rather we not commit sin which is not obeying God's word, then sin and have to sacrifice.

In no way is God enjoying obedience more in saying that that takes away the torah animal sacrifices.

 If you obey God's word you dont need a sacrifice because you are not sinning.

What happens when a person doesn't obey God's word? Does he need a sacrifice then? Yes or no

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

No it is in congruence with the premise that God does not care for human deeds and will not take them to account eventually.

Why did God prescribe commandements to follow to the best of one's ability?

In congruence so basically there is no bible verse outlining any measuring balance done to determine ones eternal soul whether they will go to heaven or hell.

Theres multitudes of specific verses all over Leviticus clearly stating animal blood sacrifices atoning sin yet you can't find a single verse outlining the muslim belief.

So you are putting your hope, your eternity on something that is only in the quran and no where else.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

above. As Jesus states in the NT in Matt6 when contrasting the ephemeral worldly benefits with the real, everlasting reward of the Hereafter which every believer should ultimately strive for "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". That mindframe inclines the individual to goodness, generosity towards one's fellow man. Because God's generous, gracious reward far surpasses in value the merit of those that shall benefit from it.

Not talking about atonement of sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Jesus further tells them that if they do not pray, fast or give to charity with the right attitude, but only to be seen by men as the hypocritical Jews of his time did, just as the hypocritical Muslims in Muhammad's time did 9:53-4, then "you will have no reward from your Father in heaven" and that their works will remain in this passing world and vanish.

Just as taught in Islam, God's gracious reward in the hereafter is what the true follower of Jesus strives for in this world.

A day will come where the people will be divided into groups; those that did the works that Jesus prescribed, will enter the heavenly abode while those that did not, will go to Hell Matt25

This is talking about rewards of believers for good work.

Nothing about atonement of sin.

Stay in the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes, like every moral creature endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil.

We can choose good and evil sure but by our works none is righteous. If that was the case GOD would never have implemented blood sacrifices for atonement all over the OT and in the gospels with the Lamb of God.

If you think you'll make it to heaven by your good works I pity you.

I will accept the gift God gave to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

ure. Did this particular forgiveness spoken of in the verse result from sacrificing an animal?

Psalms 86:5 never says God forgave anyone. David just says that the Lord is forgiving and good.

Numbers the jews of that time were giving sacrifices.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Nad_M said:

This is not pointed in the verse at all. And the reason for that is flour was offered generally by the poor who could not, by definition, sacrifice an animal.

The animals were put on the altar where they would be killed and it's blood shed. The flour would be put on that same altar and burned according to leviticus.

  They would be mixed with the blood.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The 2 goats are offerings independant from eachother. The one supposed to do what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished is left alive.

So where is the second sacrifice supposed to validate Jesus as an offering?

Read lev 16 it says he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two goats for a sin offering.

So two goats for a single sin offering. Blood was shed in that offering.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes, Muhammad their Ishmaelite brother was raised from their midst. Medina and Mecca contained a significant Jewish population that closesly intermingled with the locals.

Moses was speaking to the Israelites when he made the prophecies he was talking about the prophet coming from their midst.

The Ishmaelites dwelling according to the bible was beyond Arabia on the South, three days journey to the East of Aila in the desert Pharan. 

The Israelites and Ishmaelite dwelling was no where near each other.

There is absolutely no way the Ishmaelites were in the midst of them.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

To say that because he delights in obedience of Gods voice more then sacrifice in no way is saying that the sacrifices are no longer needed or obedience takes the place of sacrifices

Sure and that is not the point. So God delights more in obedience than blood. What then is more important to Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

If you obey God's word you dont need a sacrifice because you are not sinning.

So one can achieve God's pleasure through obedience to His commandements, without the need for blood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

In congruence so basically there is no bible verse outlining any measuring balance

You need to carefully answer the post before proceeding. Here again 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

We can choose good and evil sure but by our works none is righteous.

What is a good work?

As to heaven, it is not attained through one's works as it is a reward far surpassing any limited and imperfect human action.

Heaven is attained through gaining God's pleasure, He then graces us with a disproportionate reward. God's acceptance is attainable to anyone who believes, and does his best in obeying God's command.

All this is explicitly stated in the Quran.

That notion is expressed all throughout the HB, down to Jesus who stated in Lk1:6 that John's parents are upright in God's sight, observing all commandements blamelessly.

All this of course does not sit well with later Pauline theology.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

and that is not the point. So God delights more in obedience than blood. What then is more important to Him?

Delight means to take pleasure. 

To delight in something does not mean it's more important.

A high school student might delight in tv and videogames more then Homework does that mean it's more important.

Like I said before that verse is self explanatory God likes it when we are in obedience and don't sin.

This says nothing about the subject of atoning sin.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nad_M said:

one can achieve God's pleasure through obedience to His commandements, without the need for blood

Nothing about sin atonement is mentioned.

Sin atonement is a very important subject yet all you get is the vague things that has no implication of atonement by any other method.

I want a clear verse in the same manner I showed you about sin offering.

I also want to see God showing that all our sins and good works will be put in some balance to decide if we go to Heaven or Hell.

This is an important tenet in Islam surely it must be somewhere in the torah/tanach.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 it is in congruence with the premise that God does not care for human deeds and will not take themto account eventually. Why did God prescribe commandements

God appreciates our good works like you showed yourself there are rewards for what we do for GOD and the Holy Spirit works in us and edifies us to do good works but works cannot atone sin.

From the torah itself Isaiah says all our righteousness are like filthy rags. 

We need to get right with God and be made clean.

Our sins need to be dealt with thats why throughout the Torah/Tanach and NT God emphasized CLEARLY blood atonement for remission of sin.

Yeshua himself said in Matthew

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nad_M said:

notion is expressed all throughout the HB, down to Jesus who stated in Lk1:6 that John's parents are upright in God's sight, observing all commandements blamelessly.

All this of course does not sit well with later Pauline theology.

Blameless does not mean sinless

They were fine righteous couple, careful to obey the laws of Moses, which they lived under in that time. Good people that is all they are saying. Both were righteous in the signt of God just like Job observing the Lords commands and decrees blamelessly. If you read Matthew it was made plain by Jesus that simply obeying the requirements of the law was not sufficient.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

To delight in something does not mean it's more important

God delights in something of lesser value than another? Like when a human delights in sweets rather than nutritious, wholesome foods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

God delights in something of lesser value than another? Like when a human delights in sweets rather than nutritious, wholesome foods?

Once more delight and importance are not the same word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

You remaining posts leave many points unaddressed, making it useless to proceed.

I did answer your question you asked if God does not care for human deeds. I showed you from your own verses you brought that there are rewards and crowns for our good deeds. 

It never shows good deeds atone our sins or save us.

So I take it you can't find a single teaching in the torah and tanach of God using a measuring balance to decide if a person goes to heaven and hell.

If muslims eternity is determined by this balance surely God would have mentioned it somewhere.

You have also yet to show a clear verse about something else atoning sin.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

That He may admit the faithful, men and women, into gardens with streams running in them, to remain in them [forever], and that He may absolve them of their misdeeds. That is a great success with Allah. (Qarai)

Quote

That He may cause the believing men and the believing women to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow to abide therein and remove from them their evil; and that is a grand achievement with Allah (Shakir)

That He may bring the believing men and the believing women into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide, and may remit from them their evil deeds - That, in the sight of Allah, is the supreme triumph - (Pikthall)

That He may admit the men and women who believe, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein for aye, and remove their ills from them;- and that is, in the sight of Allah, the highest achievement (for man),- (yusufali)

 

https://wiki.ahlolbait.com/آیه_5_سوره_فتح

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 10/18/2021 at 7:56 AM, Nad_M said:

So one can achieve God's pleasure through obedience to His commandements, without the need for blood. 

 

blockquote widget

 

I think that this entire discussion boils down to, not a Paul vs Jesus discussion, because really the same discussion is held between Calvinists and Armenians that believe in both Jesus and Paul's writings of Jesus.

the problem is that there is a broader theological contradiction that exists where the following two ideas butt heads:

 

you have your Muslim/Calvinist position where people can earn salvation by following the law. As if life is some kind of competition where whoever circumcises their genitals well becomes more loved. Then God essentially changes His mind and says, ok, your genitals are circumcised, this pleases me and I will now change my mind to save you. 

the main issue being that God doesn't change His mind.

The other position, the protestant/Armenian position, of course being that everyone sins (including those who were blameless before following Jesus), the Jews and gentiles argued over laws it further divided then anyway, just as sectarian issues divide us to this very day, and so Paul said hey, The way you fold your arms isn't as important as loving one another. And therefore loving one another is the pinnacle act of goodness above laws like How we fold our arms or whether or not we circumcise our sexual organs.

But the problem with the latter position of course is the problem of evil and the idea that God might still punish relatively good people, on the basis that all sin. And not only that but God would predetermine someone's fate before they even had the option to make a choice to try to follow the law.

 

theologically, I'd say that both positions are broken. In this case neither the Muslim or the Christian or calvanist or Armenian are correct. 

But I think that it is fair to say that the debates and arguments people have do act as stumbling blocks, much like those described by Paul which result in people not loving one another. Which I would presume to be a problem in our spiritual goodness in the eyes of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...