Christians respond only: Is Moses damned to hell?

Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
1,721
Yes and I'm sure your scary obsession with a belief system you hate yet can't seem to leave alone is a real testament to your inner peace.
It is, yes.

All good men will fight against evil religions as a proof of their inner goodness.

Your homophobic and misogynous religion, that preaches that a genocidal son murdering god can somehow be good, shows that it is Satan's spawn.

Who is more likely to have his son murdered as a bribe or use genocide? Satan or god.

You know the answer don't you?

You will not answer as cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
607
It is, yes.

All good men will fight against evil religions as a proof of their inner goodness.

Your homophobic and misogynous religion, that preaches that a genocidal son murdering god can somehow be good, shows that it is Satan's spawn.

Who is more likely to have his son murdered as a bribe or use genocide? Satan or god.

You know the answer don't you?

You will not answer as cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL
Same old tripe. Same bland accusations. You really need to mix it up. I'm glad to see you've found your life purpose "fighting evil" by spamming countless internet forums with the same boring spiel.
 






Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
1,721
Same old tripe. Same bland accusations. You really need to mix it up. I'm glad to see you've found your life purpose "fighting evil" by spamming countless internet forums with the same boring spiel.
You do not deny the evil in your religion. I am not surprised.

I hope I am not as boring as your regurgitated garbage based on the supernatural ramblings that your own scriptures tell you to put away with the other things of children.

Regards
DL
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,591
What did God reveal to Moses of Himself
Same old tripe. Same bland accusations. You really need to mix it up. I'm glad to see you've found your life purpose "fighting evil" by spamming countless internet forums with the same boring spiel.
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
607
You do not deny the evil in your religion. I am not surprised.

I hope I am not as boring as your regurgitated garbage based on the supernatural ramblings that your own scriptures tell you to put away with the other things of children.

Regards
DL
You ignore any genuine attempt at debate. You stamp it out with personal insults and the same three or four childish jabs at a deity you claim doesn't exist. Every single thread you start to lure Christians into has always had responses you either outright reject or twist into complete misrepresentation of their position. You're a sham, Bishop. And no, not even an entertaining one.
 






JoChris

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,031
Moses became a mass murderer soon after coming down the mountain.

Do you trust the words of a mass murderer?

Regards
DL
Bible chapter and verse where Moses **himself ** killed any Israelites after he came down from Mount Sinai.

---

The thread asked for only Christians to respond. Your personal testimony therefore could be amazing.

So when did YOU come to trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, therefore believing in the Christian God?
That means believing in the God of the Old AND the New Testament.

The first thing you need to do as a Christian is to repent of your constant blasphemy and railing against God (the Father especially) or you will get punished in this life instead of the next (like all those who reject Jesus).
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,072
I haven't been on here in a while but this thread caught my eye. Original Sin and Jesus dying for your sins is ONLY a Christian concept. If Christians want to argue that Moses(pbuh) believed in Jesus dying for the sins of mankind and that he also, believed in Original Sin they're going to have to provide the evidence for it using the OT.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,591
I haven't been on here in a while but this thread caught my eye. Original Sin and Jesus dying for your sins is ONLY a Christian concept. If Christians want to argue that Moses(pbuh) believed in Jesus dying for the sins of mankind and that he also, believed in Original Sin they're going to have to provide the evidence for it using the OT.
Widening the question from Moses, the same logic could be used to infer that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc were also damned. As I didn’t assert that they would be, I am struggling to understand where the sense in this thread is.

I don’t think Christians contend that all the way through the OT, God somehow expected an inside elite of patriarchs to comprehend the entire precision of the gospel as it is revealed in the fullness of the Bible.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
9,963
I haven't been on here in a while but this thread caught my eye. Original Sin and Jesus dying for your sins is ONLY a Christian concept. If Christians want to argue that Moses(pbuh) believed in Jesus dying for the sins of mankind and that he also, believed in Original Sin they're going to have to provide the evidence for it using the OT.
Why is the world so bad off do you think if it’s not due to original sin? Why are people drawn to doing bad things more than good?
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,137
Widening the question from Moses, the same logic could be used to infer that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc were also damned.
Yes this is correct because I'm not even (in the OP) asking Moses specifically (though he is our patriarch under examination) but the very idea of salvation ONLY through Jesus.

I don’t think Christians contend that all the way through the OT, God somehow expected an inside elite of patriarchs to comprehend the entire precision of the gospel as it is revealed in the fullness of the Bible.
I wonder why not, afterall you are wanting us all to take the inital proposition seriously (which of course is hard to do), being that "salvation is ONLY through Jesus, no other exceptions, God-alone doesn't get you to heaven". Clearly it's a self-defeating polemical doctrine created from both weak theology, misunderstandings of the text itself and the long list of problems with the early Church (the very one you also happen to reject despite them giving you the Bible, inadvertently) who violently censored doctrines that differed from what has become mainstream doctrine.
 






Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
378
Clearly it's a self-defeating polemical doctrine created from both weak theology
Not with the premise that Jesus is in fact one with God because He's God incarnate.


misunderstandings of the text itself
Impossible. The texts made it clear that Jesus forgive sins and knows all our thoughts.


long list of problems with the early Church (the very one you also happen to reject despite them giving you the Bible, inadvertently) who violently censored doctrines that differed from what has become mainstream doctrine.
There wasn't even a catholic church when Paul wrote his letters stating that some will depart from the faith prescribing to not be married. We all know that celibacy is practiced among the Catholic clergy not to mention other practices and traditions that are clearly not compatible with what we learn from the gospel.
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,137
Not with the premise that Jesus is in fact one with God because He's God incarnate.
No exactly and for that reason itself of the doctrine of God-incarnate (idolatry according to the Old Testament AND pagan motif btw but I'm sure you're aware of that). The concept of God not only incarnating into a person but that historical person being the only path to salvation is a self-refuting doctrine.

Impossible. The texts made it clear that Jesus forgive sins and knows all our thoughts.
You over estimate your texts and your Protestant ideology (but you stole from Catholicism most of your doctrines anyway, so this doesn't change much here).

There wasn't even a catholic church when Paul wrote his letters stating that some will depart from the faith prescribing to not be married.
When Paul wrote his letters, there wasn't even a Bible canon, let alone the culmination of schisms from the early Church that culminated in the Catholic Church establishing itself as the fulfillment of Jesus' mission.

We all know that celibacy is practiced among the Catholic clergy not to mention other practices and traditions that are clearly not compatible with what we learn from the gospel.
And you think they pulled that out of thin air? you're awfully selective when it comes to blatant messages in your texts.
 






Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,599
Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh/Torah, there is no reason to assume that Moses knew a person who was born far after him.
What you are saying here is that we should then (as a way to dodge the logical errors of the Christian view of "progressive revelation") agree to an unfalsifiable claim that presupposes Moses actually knowing Jesus (without even textual evidence at the very least) as a way to circumvent the initial issue of Jesus-alone being the only mode of salvation in mainstream Christian doctrine (and again the logical errors replete therein).
Iam engaging you for the first time so I hope this will be pleasant. While Red said that he didn’t see the sense in the thread, I see otherwise and iam glad you asked the question.

I don’t know if you, as a Muslim, personally believe this but most muslims on here have unequivocally stated that Deuteronomy 18:17-19 and Isaiah 42 are prophecies about Mohammed. If you don’t believe this, I understand but to other Muslims who do, it would then be reasonable to assume that Moses “knew” Mohammed, right?? It would also mean that if Jesus isn’t mentioned in the Tanakh/Torah as you say but Mohammed is, then somehow the latter is of greater importance than the former since God only saw fit to reveal Mohammed’s future “ministry” rather than Jesus’ to Moses. Also, its easy to dismiss/undermine the biblical text but can you show evidence of a heralding of the coming Mohammed outside of the bible or Jewish texts? A Babylonian/Sumerian/Sanskrit text, perhaps? Or do Muslims have to rely on a faulty biblical text as evidence for his foreshadowing?

Again, in the Vatican thread, you said...
You have the Bible and most of your acquired canon through the Catholic Church which predated the Protestant reformation. The Catholic Church's official Bible canonization was the final re-evaluation from the prior Alexandrian and Apostolic Church attempts at canonization prior.

As for the "whole" Bible, it's quite arbitrary really. Your so-called "Old Testament" (which makes the majority textual space of your canon) is just the written portion of Jewish texts (namely the Tanakh - aka, leaving out Oral Torah etc).
The rest (New Testament) is the early Church's chosen bow-tie presentation of Jesus (and their new emerging religion) how they saw fit, customized to create the narrative they wanted to create.
So, if the Catholic Church took pains to include in the canon, books that contain prophecies about Mohammed, doesn’t that cement the argument or claims made on and off the board that the RCC created (or had a hand in creating) Islam? Seeing as the RCC actually predates Mohammed’s birth?
 






Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,599
As the thread title states. Moses (Moshe מֹשֶׁה) did not believe in Jesus, in fact Jesus wasn't born for quite some time (to make an understatement). Sure, this problem occasionally comes along but is never tackled without apologetics. The problem remains that even though Moshe claimed to talk to God, he still didn't accept Jesus as "Lord and savior", he also didn't believe in the Original Sin and other Christian doctrines. The lingering question remains, is Moshe damned to hell? and if not, what implications does this have on the nature of Christian doctrine, which is built the idea of "saved through Jesus only".
What about the Israelites who followed the Torah? are they damned to hell for not accepting Jesus? what about the Jews? what about the Samaritans? what about Abraham? what about Abraham's followers? what about Noah? history is long and vast.

The other implied question, is in what way is "salvation through Jesus only" superior to pure-monotheism? (which is "salvation directly through the one eternal God")
In your view.
Does not stop it being a fact that Christianity has an object, an image, an idea, an item that is an intermediary between themselves and God which they had to build the Trinity doctrine around to defend the fact of such idolatry.

Which is a big problem. Sure you can have your trinitarian theology but it remains a problem to the validity of your religion if you believe in such an intercessor as being (through believing an image as God) the only way to heaven. As this thread points out.
I guess that to answer this, we have to ask; how did Moses understand the themes of redemption and where did he get them from? And do they align with Islamic understanding of redemption or the sin problem?

OR, the information about Moses that the 3 Abrahamic faiths have; does it support Moses believing salvation only through “keeping the law” (as prescribed by Islam) or does it support Moses believing that “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins”?

“The Day of Atonement, according to Biblical tradition, is one in the cycle of holidays instituted by Moses… In every sacrifice there is the idea of substitution; the victim takes the place of the human sinner. The laying of hands upon the victim's head is an ordinary rite by which the substitution and the transfer of sins are effected; on the Day of Atonement the animal laden with the people's sins was sent abroad (compare the similar rite on the recovery of a leper, Lev. xiv. 7; see Azazel). The sprinkling of the blood is essential to all sin-offerings. By dipping his finger in the victim's blood and applying it to a sacred object like the altar, the priest reestablishes the union between the people that he represents and the Deity.” www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur

[Exodus 25:8, Lev 16. Esp vs 6, 20-22,31-34, Exodus 36-38]

None of this was necessary if infact re-establishing the union between man and God only required “keeping the law”. God wouldn’t have dictated the Sanctuary rituals to Moses if there was a sufficient and “less bloody” alternative. If you argue that Moses was into paganism (above quoted), Islam prides itself on not denigrating the prophets, so why does your own sacred text acknowledge the Levites/Priesthood when these kinds of things wouldn’t happen without the Priestly class? If you argue that Mosaic Law wasn’t…well, written by Moses, you’d have to prove that outside of the Quran otherwise we are being asked to simply take the Quran by faith.

I understand that many people have a problem with ‘vicarious atonement’/’substitutionary punishment’ or whatever other words are used to describe it. If God’s solution to the sin problem is as simple as Islam prescribes it and Christianity just dreams up substitutionary punishment, complicating the matter then the origin of Mosaic Law (specifically the Sanctuary rituals) has to be called into question.

Christianity finds its definition in the Cross, without it, it becomes like every other religion where righteousness is achieved by simply “keeping the law”. If the Islamic theme of redemption is sufficient enough to deal with the problem of sin, both in this age and the age to come, then how are we to interpret the events of the first century? If “keeping the law” is all there is to man’s redemption, then the seers need not have prophecied of the coming Redeemer; Christ need not have come and there was no need for His death and as such Christianity wouldn’t have arisen. Therefore, by insisting that righteousness is achieved solely through “keeping the law”, it in and of itself negates Christianity because our faith finds its definition in the Cross. As Christians, we can argue over whether Jesus is or isn’t God but to deny the crucifixion or the remission of sins through shed blood, then one would as soon “revert” to Islam.

“…if righteousness could be gained through the law, then Christ died for nothing!” Galatians 2:21
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,137
I don’t know if you, as a Muslim, personally believe this but most muslims on here have unequivocally stated that Deuteronomy 18:17-19 and Isaiah 42 are prophecies about Mohammed.
I understand this question and sympathize with the point you are trying to make, but you have to realize that this equally (if not more so) applies to Christian apologetic attempting to legitimize Jesus, as written in the NT which themselves openly quote (eg Isaiah 7:14, as if that passage is either literal or referring to Jesus).

Your contention here is a form of special pleading if it not able to be equally applied to Christian presumption.
As for my own position on the topic, I don't see the Bible the way you Christians (at least, Protestants) and Jews do, even Jews agree that a chunk of the Tanakh is only literature (particularly the Ketuvim books).
This is beside the point though.

I don't think your referenced verses from Deuteronomy and Isaiah respectively refer to Jesus though, that's for sure.

If you don’t believe this, I understand but to other Muslims who do, it would then be reasonable to assume that Moses “knew” Mohammed, right??
Just as with Jesus, I don't think it's right to characterize that Moses know Muhammad, rather Muhammad (like Jesus) had a vision of Moses (like Matthew 17:2-3).

It depends on what your conceptualization of time is, doesn't it?

To assume that the corporeal Moses knew any of the Prophets after him is preposterous, however the other way around with Jesus and Muhammad having visions of previous Prophets (who are RIP) is more likely, logically, if we assume some realness to the supernatural or a form of divine vision at the least.

It would also mean that if Jesus isn’t mentioned in the Tanakh/Torah as you say but Mohammed is, then somehow the latter is of greater importance than the former since God only saw fit to reveal Mohammed’s future “ministry” rather than Jesus’ to Moses.
Yes, but you're also so historically and culturally distanced from those texts that you've got to realize that they could easily be referring to something unexpected (under the impression we are taking these texts as valid in the first place). Deuteronomy 18:17-19 could easily be referring to Joshua (coincidentally similar name to someone else...) or even Elijah. However I can't see Deuteronomy 18:18-19 ever applying to Jesus (as recorded in the NT) by any stretch of the imagination, Jesus' whole persona as a Prophet was contrary to that.
Only the Jesus (as spoken of in the Qur'an) could possibly apply to that, seeing as Jesus as seen in Islam, received direct revelation from God, like Muhammad did.
The Jesus of the NT didn't. Even taking on the idea of "Jesus as deity", he taught in parables and never is attributed to accounting any massive passages revealed to him by God, which the Deuteronomy passage clearly states.

Also, its easy to dismiss/undermine the biblical text but can you show evidence of a heralding of the coming Mohammed outside of the bible or Jewish texts? A Babylonian/Sumerian/Sanskrit text, perhaps? Or do Muslims have to rely on a faulty biblical text as evidence for his foreshadowing?
I could say a lot here but how is this argument you are pulling any better than "The Bible is correct because the Bible is correct"?

So, if the Catholic Church took pains to include in the canon, books that contain prophecies about Mohammed, doesn’t that cement the argument or claims made on and off the board that the RCC created (or had a hand in creating) Islam? Seeing as the RCC actually predates Mohammed’s birth?
This is you making assumptions and a non-sequitur fallacy. The Catholic Church established the 'official canon' of the Bible after much disagreement, they closed off doctrinal dispute and made the Trinity unquestionable.
However my reasons for that Vatican thread obviously allude you here, let me just say though that you're not picking up the right stance there.
This is aside from how your non-sequitor here makes no sense, even as a serious question.

I guess that to answer this, we have to ask; how did Moses understand the themes of redemption and where did he get them from? And do they align with Islamic understanding of redemption or the sin problem?
This kind of polemic (also applied to exegesis, or more accurately eisegesis) is a form of anachronism, likely just from unfamiliarity of the overall worldview of the Israelite religion, Samaritanism and Judaism. The Torah, the Tanakh has no concept of redemption or even salvation - in the semantics as known in Christianity.
This kind of false expectation clearly makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many Christians to make sense of other religions - because of supplanting foreign doctrines onto a completely different worldview and evaluating it through that.

In Judaism, the actual requirements is based around love, righteousness and a willingness to obey God. Look at all of the prophets of the Tanakh, what is the message there? it's entirely different from Christian doctrine and expectations, which is perhaps also why much of the "old testament" alienates so many of you.
Law (Torah, in the more definitive sense) is one aspect of it but the actual function of Torah is to bring someone closer to God, not Jesus but THE God. In Jesus' terms, it's all about "the Father".

Why would somebody that understands this need a savior intermediary figure between them and God? what logical role does this serve?

No disrespect but questions like this are important to ask, especially when most of your peers are very hostile over that topic.

Islam shares a similar, albeit more thorough explanation, in that Submission to God and Consciousness of God (Taqwa) are the paths to salvation, through that one obtains righteousness, Taqwa is the consequence of true piety.
Both Judaism and Islam realize that nobody is perfect, the point is that we don't dwell on that because we know that the whole point of the scriptures is to enlighten us, not depress us. We have to understand what the root of suffering and sin are before we can learn to prevent it.
Most of Jesus' own words seem to fly under most Christians' noses even though they incessantly quote from their book.

OR, the information about Moses that the 3 Abrahamic faiths have; does it support Moses believing salvation only through “keeping the law” (as prescribed by Islam) or does it support Moses believing that “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins”?
You are strawmanning Islam on that, Sharia is not salvation, it is discipline, it is a way of life. Just like Jews believe about Torah, Sharia is a cosmic thing. Sharia is universal law, the orbit of planets so-to-speak. It's a topic I can't do justice to in a single post but I do see a very strong tendency for Christians to look down on any traditions that are spiritually disciplined.

As for 'shedding of blood', under your presumptions there, how is that better than the idea of a man somehow dying so that people can have salvation? does this make your contention about Leviticus 17:11 any better? IMHO, it just makes far more problems (and perhaps a lack of understanding how that actually applies in Mosaic law?)

“The Day of Atonement, according to Biblical tradition, is one in the cycle of holidays instituted by Moses… In every sacrifice there is the idea of substitution; the victim takes the place of the human sinner. The laying of hands upon the victim's head is an ordinary rite by which the substitution and the transfer of sins are effected; on the Day of Atonement the animal laden with the people's sins was sent abroad (compare the similar rite on the recovery of a leper, Lev. xiv. 7; see Azazel). The sprinkling of the blood is essential to all sin-offerings. By dipping his finger in the victim's blood and applying it to a sacred object like the altar, the priest reestablishes the union between the people that he represents and the Deity.” www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur

[Exodus 25:8, Lev 16. Esp vs 6, 20-22,31-34, Exodus 36-38]

None of this was necessary if infact re-establishing the union between man and God only required “keeping the law”. God wouldn’t have dictated the Sanctuary rituals to Moses if there was a sufficient and “less bloody” alternative. If you argue that Moses was into paganism (above quoted), Islam prides itself on not denigrating the prophets, so why does your own sacred text acknowledge the Levites/Priesthood when these kinds of things wouldn’t happen without the Priestly class? If you argue that Mosaic Law wasn’t…well, written by Moses, you’d have to prove that outside of the Quran otherwise we are being asked to simply take the Quran by faith.
Several things here.

1. Your quoted ritual is not Paganism, if so define "Paganism".

2. What is the theological root of this "separation" (as you put it) between man and God? if you're speaking of the "original sin", then you'll once again get a blank stare from both Jews and us Muslims. "Original sin" is completely theologically absent.

3. Islam takes claim to the religion of Abraham not Moses. Islam is opposed to both the very idea of a priestly class and more famously opposed to Monasticism.

4. On the latter, this has already been brought up, but we'll perhaps leave that for another time.

I understand that many people have a problem with ‘vicarious atonement’/’substitutionary punishment’ or whatever other words are used to describe it. If God’s solution to the sin problem is as simple as Islam prescribes it and Christianity just dreams up substitutionary punishment, complicating the matter then the origin of Mosaic Law (specifically the Sanctuary rituals) has to be called into question.

Christianity finds its definition in the Cross, without it, it becomes like every other religion where righteousness is achieved by simply “keeping the law”. If the Islamic theme of redemption is sufficient enough to deal with the problem of sin, both in this age and the age to come, then how are we to interpret the events of the first century?
Go back to the book of Genesis alone, what do you see the non-Prophets doing? do you make any connections to the way history works in general?

On the latter, with or without Islam, I see it as a massive confluence of different ideas and movements all competing for the copyrights to Jesus, of which went on for several centuries till the Catholic Church decided to enforce their own vision of Christianity as inherited from the previous streams of the Early Church.

If “keeping the law” is all there is to man’s redemption, then the seers need not have prophecied of the coming Redeemer; Christ need not have come and there was no need for His death and as such Christianity wouldn’t have arisen. Therefore, by insisting that righteousness is achieved solely through “keeping the law”, it in and of itself negates Christianity because our faith finds its definition in the Cross. As Christians, we can argue over whether Jesus is or isn’t God but to deny the crucifixion or the remission of sins through shed blood, then one would as soon “revert” to Islam.

“…if righteousness could be gained through the law, then Christ died for nothing!” Galatians 2:21
Ok firstly, do you actually know what the Tanakh actually prophecies? and do you know what the Jewish view of a messiah actually is? because Christianity is completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfillment of.

Well, as James 2 states:
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture (Leviticus), “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law (Torah) as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law (Torah) and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Actually brings to mind the very Bismillah that is a centerpiece of our faith, "In the name of God, the (most) compassionate, the (most) merciful". Compassionate "Rahman" is one of the 99 names of God in Islam, as is merciful "Rahim". As with all the 99 names, these two names which crucially open most Surahs and are present in every prayer and formal introduction, these two names have immense implication. Our very existence itself is an act of compassion and mercy by God, in the Islamic view, the very fact that we've been given an opportunity to experience sentience and grow in this world through all of it's hardships, to have the ability to reflect God's mercy and compassion on others likewise says a lot about how we should be treating others.
God sets out laws for a reason, if we follow, observe and actually learn from what these laws teach us about ourselves and how we relate to not only God but to each other.

One question which you might actually answer (idk but I'll try at least because no other Christian here would even lift a finger on it):
If Jesus dying 'for the sins of the world' as Christianity puts it, is the epitome of salvation, then why did it take the 1st century for this to happen and not in the period of Cain/Abel?
 






Last edited:

Karlysymon

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,599
I understand this question and sympathize with the point you are trying to make, but you have to realize that this equally (if not more so) applies to Christian apologetic attempting to legitimize Jesus, as written in the NT which themselves openly quote (eg Isaiah 7:14, as if that passage is either literal or referring to Jesus).

Your contention here is a form of special pleading if it not able to be equally applied to Christian presumption.
As for my own position on the topic, I don't see the Bible the way you Christians (at least, Protestants) and Jews do, even Jews agree that a chunk of the Tanakh is only literature (particularly the Ketuvim books).
This is beside the point though.

I don't think your referenced verses from Deuteronomy and Isaiah respectively refer to Jesus though, that's for sure.
Thanks for your response. I’ll move this to a more appropriate thread. Please pardon the delayed response, iam not into quick back and forths. You deserve a more thought response.

The Torah, the Tanakh has no concept of redemption or even salvation - in the semantics as known in Christianity.
Come to think of it, doesn’t every religion have a theme of redemption (not the Christian one ofcourse) built within it? Doesn’t every religion have promises of an afterlife, a good one if you are ,well, good and a bad one if you didn’t walk a proper path?
Why would somebody that understands this need a savior intermediary figure between them and God? what logical role does this serve?

No disrespect but questions like this are important to ask, especially when most of your peers are very hostile over that topic.
None taken. I do like these questions because they get me into my element so I don’t have a problem with them. :)

I think that every religion’s idea of redemption is directly based on their understanding of the problem of sin/evil and its origins thereof (more on that below).
1. Your quoted ritual is not Paganism, if so define "Paganism".
I said that because vicarious atonement is often referred to by non-christians as pagan.
3. Islam takes claim to the religion of Abraham not Moses. Islam is opposed to both the very idea of a priestly class and more famously opposed to Monasticism.
I see.
2. What is the theological root of this "separation" (as you put it) between man and God? if you're speaking of the "original sin", then you'll once again get a blank stare from both Jews and us Muslims. "Original sin" is completely theologically absent.
This separation is something we all experience, a part of our reality. Why can’t we see God? Why can’t we talk to God face to face? What caused this separation? Man is a spiritual being. It is his spiritual-self that allows him to grasp/comprehend/commune with the Source of that spirituality, which is God. Man intensely understands and feels this alienation and it is what drives him fashion idols out of silver, stone and gold so he could atleast satiate that desire of being able to see and touch God. One can choose to deny the original sin but then you have to account for why man ceaselessly desires to “see God” and why he can’t “see Him”. Again, this separation is something we all experience. I will use this example: let’s say your long-trusted neighbor, with premeditation, kills your child. You choose to forgive him, which he perceives and expresses the deepest remorse. Despite your forgiveness, it is something that alters both your lives and creates a schism between the two of you and you’d probably not seek each other’s company as frequently as before….either out of shame/guilt on his part and caution on your part.

A guy murders one person, breaks just one law of the land and is locked up for life as the aggrieved party cries for justice. If these terrestrial laws make such claims on our lives, isn’t the magnitude greater, of the claim on our lives of transgressing the laws of the government of heaven? We expect God to just forgive over and over and over without and any claims on the transgressor but is that how justice works?

Therefore, if sin, this side of heaven can fundamentally alter relationships between human beings what makes you think that the transgression of the Moral Law, which we do ALL the time, doesn’t wrought the same alienation between man and God? Did God simply “hide” Himself or is it man, in his shame, that hides from his Creator? Incidentally, biblically ofcourse, this is exactly what Adam did in Eden, after the Fall when the Creator came seeking him out. It is this separation, the schism between man and his Creator that demands a Mediator. This Mediator stands in Man's place before the Lord since Man cannot physically represent himself.

If there is no original sin, then we should have physical access to God. Only Adam and Eve should have been deprived of His presence and we, their posterity, supposedly having nothing to do with it, shouldn't share their fate. Unfortunately, that’s not how biology works. All the changes that occurred to Adam’s person (spiritual, emotional, physical), after the Fall, towards his Creator, were passed on to posterity.

Ok firstly, do you actually know what the Tanakh actually prophecies? and do you know what the Jewish view of a messiah actually is? because Christianity is completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfillment of.
They just want a political redeemer/king.

I could also switch this around on Islam. If Muslims see Muhammad in Isaiah 42 and Deut 18, is that how Jews view those prophecies aswell? Or are they in just plain denial about that reality…the reality of Muhammadic prophecies…completely divorced from what it claims to be a fulfilment of? Would Rashi agree?
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15973/showrashi/true
One question which you might actually answer (idk but I'll try at least because no other Christian here would even lift a finger on it):
If Jesus dying 'for the sins of the world' as Christianity puts it, is the epitome of salvation, then why did it take the 1st century for this to happen and not in the period of Cain/Abel?
This is a good question and iam glad you asked. Its something I have privately pondered and while it’s a broad topic, I’ll exercise simplicity and brevity. This is just my personal conclusion.

To understand this, one has to (re-)examine the problem of sin to get the answer. Sin began in heaven with Lucifer’s rebellion. He challenged God’s government, as the rebel ofcourse, and the celestial beings had to take a side. This decision could only be done by faith. Just like Adam, none of the angels knew what sin was or its consequences thereof. So this experiment began, to show both the angels(fallen and unfallen) and man, the nature of sin/rebellion and its consequences inorder to safeguard the age to come. Besides this, Adam’s decision required taking a side and chose independence from his Creator/chose to join the rebels. Angels are as much interested in the theme of redemption, as depicted by the Cherubim looking down on the Mercy seat/the Atonement cover of the Ark of the Covenant.

Even angels long to look into these things 1Peter 1:10-12

If Christ had died at the time of Abel/Cain, neither man nor the angels could be able to comprehend the need for the Cross since they didn’t even fully understand the nature of rebellion and its consequences. Its not like they had a “History of the previous world” to look back on. Besides that, who would do the crucifying? Anyway, Satan as one who challenged God was given time to prove the veracity of his claims/rebellion, before man and the angels. That is why the First Advent was heralded as “Good News”. While the Sanctuary rituals had simply been a foreshadowing, Man could finally, with the coming of the Redeemer, be presented with hope that sin can be conquered and that Satan’s hold over Man and his habitation could be broken. The First advent also came with the hope of a restoration, a renewal of things. Its been 2000 years and Christ hasn’t yet returned, if this promise of restoration had been given 5500yrs ago (if He had died at the time of Abel), would there still be any believers? People would lose hope after such a long time.

Ofcourse, Christ’s promises of a return can be mocked or derided but the reality is our current existence is unsustainable, atleast the trajectory we are on. If He doesn’t come back, we will end up blowing ourselves into oblivion. That is the nature of sin, it destroys. Man, exposed to the machinations of the forces of evil, not only destroys his habitation but eventually destroys himself. The question is, is God going to sit around and watch his creation render itself extinct or will He step in?
 






Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,320
As the thread title states. Moses (Moshe מֹשֶׁה) did not believe in Jesus, in fact Jesus wasn't born for quite some time (to make an understatement). Sure, this problem occasionally comes along but is never tackled without apologetics. The problem remains that even though Moshe claimed to talk to God, he still didn't accept Jesus as "Lord and savior", he also didn't believe in the Original Sin and other Christian doctrines. The lingering question remains, is Moshe damned to hell? and if not, what implications does this have on the nature of Christian doctrine, which is built the idea of "saved through Jesus only".
What about the Israelites who followed the Torah? are they damned to hell for not accepting Jesus? what about the Jews? what about the Samaritans? what about Abraham? what about Abraham's followers? what about Noah? history is long and vast.

The other implied question, is in what way is "salvation through Jesus only" superior to pure-monotheism? (which is "salvation directly through the one eternal God")
Jesus has been prophecied all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Jesus was present & participated in Creation, and even made appearances in the OT.

Christianity IS a monotheistic religion. We believe in ONE God.

Moses was definitely saved.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The Bible says that Abraham’s FAITH in the Lord was counted for righteousness. Moses was no different.
 






Top