The Jewish "question"

[TokiEl]

If they're plain enough then what in Genesis 22 shows that what's occurring is pretense for something that would happen later?

Genesis 22 8 "And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

11 But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

So he said, “Here I am.”

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”

15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son— 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba."



God stopped Abraham before he sacrificed his only son and instead provided a substitute lamb caught in a thornbush. But God did not stop His only begotten Son crowned with thorns from being sacrificed.

 

[KoncreteMind]

God stopped Abraham before he sacrificed his only son and instead provided a substitute lamb caught in a thornbush.

Agreed.

But God did not stop His only begotten Son crowned with thorns from being sacrificed.

[/quote]

Disagree on the basis that Genesis 22 doesnt suggest that there will be a future human son for father sacrifice for everyone's sins. I understand you believe the NT's take, but on the forums from time to time, I just like pointing out things I saw and couldnt get past even if others rather superimpose the NT over the OT to make everything "fit"..

 

[TokiEl]

Disagree on the basis that Genesis 22 doesnt suggest that there will be a future human son for father sacrifice for everyone's sins. I understand you believe the NT's take, but on the forums from time to time, I just like pointing out things I saw and couldnt get past even if others rather superimpose the NT over the OT to make everything "fit"..

Micah 5 2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”


Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."


Zechariah 9 9
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey."


Daniel 9 26“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;"


Psalm 22 16
"For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17
I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18
They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."


Isaiah 53 4
"Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

 

[KoncreteMind]

Micah 5 2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”


Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."


Zechariah 9 9
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey."


Daniel 9 26“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;"


Psalm 22 16
"For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17
I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18
They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots."


Isaiah 53 4
"Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

+

Well now you've changed the topic from you originally saying "who would pay for our sins?" when God (in the OT) said YOU/I do, to Jesus being the Messiah. Which is fine I guess but the problem with that theory (imo) is that the people God sent to save in the OT actually delivered people. They didnt come and get killed then say they'll be back in 2000+ years. Moses delivered people. Joshua delivered people. Samson delivered people. Saul delivered people. Jesus came and said he'll deliver in a future time. Which isnt really something the OT, at least to my understanding, predicted the Messiah doing.

As far as Isaiah 53, theres the interpretation that its about the Messiah, then theres the interpretation that its about Israel as a whole since the book of Isaiah repeatedly mentions Israel as being God's servant. I obviously go with the latter since I see that being more in context with the rest of the book of Isaiah.

 

[TokiEl]

+

Well now you've changed the topic from you originally saying "who would pay for our sins?" when God (in the OT) said YOU/I do, to Jesus being the Messiah. Which is fine I guess but the problem with that theory (imo) is that the people God sent to save in the OT actually delivered people. They didnt come and get killed then say they'll be back in 2000+ years. Moses delivered people. Joshua delivered people. Samson delivered people. Saul delivered people. Jesus came and said he'll deliver in a future time. Which isnt really something the OT, at least to my understanding, predicted the Messiah doing.

As far as Isaiah 53, theres the interpretation that its about the Messiah, then theres the interpretation that its about Israel as a whole since the book of Isaiah repeatedly mentions Israel as being God's servant. I obviously go with the latter since I see that being more in context with the rest of the book of Isaiah.

God paints a picture in the OT of Him providing His Son as the substitute sacrifice for sins.

You say Jesus Christ did not deliver ? So you don't know that the Name of Jesus even exorcise demons ?

God blinded the Jews from seeing that Jesus Christ is their Messiah... else they probably would not have crucified Him and so there would be no Salvation from sins. I don't see how anybody can interpret Isaiah 53 as Israel unless they are blinded.

All the OT verses posted above tell the story that God has a Son who paid the price for our crimes. Our choice is to repent or reject.

 

[KoncreteMind]

God paints a picture in the OT of Him providing His Son as the substitute sacrifice for sins.

Agree to disagree because the only possible verse that suggests this is Isaiah 53. Out of all the books in the OT, God only clearly explains his full plan of a future human sacrifice in one chapter in Isaiah. And I use clearly, "loosely" in this instance

You say Jesus Christ did not deliver ? So you don't know that the Name of Jesus even exorcise demons ?

He didn't deliver which is why you're waiting for him to come back to do the things the Messiah was supposed to do on his first go around

God blinded the Jews from seeing that Jesus Christ is their Messiah... else they probably would not have crucified Him and so there would be no Salvation from sins. I don't see how anybody can interpret Isaiah 53 as Israel unless they are blinded.

All the OT verses posted above tell the story that God has a Son who paid the price for our crimes. Our choice is to repent or reject.

Ok agree to disagree. My position isn't that the NT doesn't support what you're saying but that the OT doesn't. So when you say there has or had to be some human sacrifice else God couldn't forgive, my position is that the OT doesn't explicitly say that.

I also say the context of Isaiah 53, meaning the whole book, tells us what servant Isaiah was referring to. Repeatedly he names Israel/Jacob as the servant so there's no reason to believe that it would suddenly change when it comes to chapter 53 (remembering that there were no chapters/verses in the originals).

 

[TokiEl]

He didn't deliver which is why you're waiting for him to come back to do the things the Messiah was supposed to do on his first go around

The Messiah has been busy saving sinners for about 2000 years.

And those who are called by His name partake in that work and preach the gospel.

Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Ok agree to disagree. My position isn't that the NT doesn't support what you're saying but that the OT doesn't. So when you say there has or had to be some human sacrifice else God couldn't forgive, my position is that the OT doesn't explicitly say that.

Remember the Messiah had to shed His blood else there would be no salvation for sinners. And so i agree the substitute sacrifice of the Godman is not crystal clear in the OT but plain enough... especially in hindsight.

I also say the context of Isaiah 53, meaning the whole book, tells us what servant Isaiah was referring to. Repeatedly he names Israel/Jacob as the servant so there's no reason to believe that it would suddenly change when it comes to chapter 53 (remembering that there were no chapters/verses in the originals).

If you see Israel in Isaiah 53 so be it but i don't see how it's possible.


Isaiah 53 New King James Version (NKJV)

53 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3
He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4
Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9
And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You 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.
11
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[Yahda]

I think the problem is that we often mesh too many things together.

Imo Isiah 53 is more about Israel/The priest/Levites. I have drawn this conclusion based on precepts that I often post from Malachi 2.

The anointed one/The Holy Spirit of God/ who was there in the beginning/His right hand/Angel of God/proverbs 8.......we tend to lump this entity in with a savior Christ who died for our sins.....

Who will rule on the throne, the descendants of David, (Judah) we lump that in with basically, all of the above...

We tend to mesh many different characters, who have different responsibilities, and duties..... into one. We do this based on assumptions, religion, lack of precepts, and lack of scriptural knowledge, and understanding.

I have noted in the past that these things are just now being revealed and have yet to be revealed.

Do not assume. Do not confuse this with that. Be patient and stick with what you know and can prove. There is no guessing. When The Most High wants you to know something, the scriptures always spell it out clear as day.

 

[KoncreteMind]

The Messiah has been busy saving sinners for about 2000 years.

And those who are called by His name partake in that work and preach the gospel.

Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

My definition of "saving" includes something being done in front of people like it was always done in the OT. I guess yours is something going on in the background while the world gets worse and worse in front of us?

Funnily enough, I kinda sorta agree with your last sentence

Remember the Messiah had to shed His blood else there would be no salvation for sinners. And so i agree the substitute sacrifice of the Godman is not crystal clear in the OT but plain enough... especially in hindsight.

I think thats proof that the NT doesnt go with the OT in the same vein that Christians say the NT/Christianity doesnt go with Islam. Many beliefs in the NT arent really supported when you read the OT alone. So its like the new testament is adding new things to what God said not to add to (Deuteronomy 4:2)

If you see Israel in Isaiah 53 so be it but i don't see how it's possible.

Well if you ignore the context of the book of Isaiah saying the servant was Israel several times while also basing your interpretation of the "chapter" off the NT, then I can see why you dont see it.

 

[TokiEl]

My definition of "saving" includes something being done in front of people like it was always done in the OT. I guess yours is something going on in the background while the world gets worse and worse in front of us?

Yes people are being saved in the background while the world descends into lawlessness.

I think thats proof that the NT doesnt go with the OT in the same vein that Christians say the NT/Christianity doesnt go with Islam. Many beliefs in the NT arent really supported when you read the OT alone. So its like the new testament is adding new things to what God said not to add to (Deuteronomy 4:2)

I can see and many with me that the OT points to a Godman who will redeem people by His blood.

Also i understand that the Jews were not supposed to collectively accept this new Way of redemption before their appointed time.

IWell if you ignore the context of the book of Isaiah saying the servant was Israel several times while also basing your interpretation of the "chapter" off the NT, then I can see why you dont see it.

Again it was crucial that the Jews rejected the Messiah and shed His blood else there would be no opportunity for redemption. And so i agree that God was somewhat ambiguous about His plan for salvation.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Yes people are being saved in the background while the world descends into lawlessness.

I can see and many with me that the OT points to a Godman who will redeem people by His blood.

Well then we might as well put the OT by itself like we do the Quran if we can't support beliefs using it alone.

Or we could superimpose doctrines from the Quran over the NT like we do the NT over OT. But it seems the differences between the Quran and NT are acknowledged while the differences between the OT and NT are ignored or glossed over..

Also i understand that the Jews were not supposed to collectively accept this new Way of redemption before their appointed time.

Based on your NT doctrine sure. Based on the OT? No. They were supposed to believe deliverers sent to them

Again it was crucial that the Jews rejected the Messiah and shed His blood else there would be no opportunity for redemption. And so i agree that God was somewhat ambiguous about His plan for salvation.

It wasn't that crucial or it would have been explained in the OT by God Hisself. Instead He waited until the NT era to let loose on the crucial information which I guess is similar to the position of Islam that God waited until the Islamic era to let loose on Islamic doctrine

 

[Kung Fu]

Instead He waited until the NT era to let loose on the crucial information which I guess is similar to the position of Islam that God waited until the Islamic era to let loose on Islamic doctrine

Islamic doctrine is believing in One God and that He alone is worthy of worship which is the exact message all the prophets brought prior to the Quran being revealed. If anything Islamic doctrine was trying to bring back all of mankind back to the worship of the One God as it originally was with Adam(pbuh) and Eve(pbuh).

 

[enderpotato00]

Islamic doctrine is believing in One God and that He alone is worthy of worship which is the exact message all the prophets brought prior to the Quran being revealed. If anything Islamic doctrine was trying to bring back all of mankind back to the worship of the One God as it originally was with Adam(pbuh) and Eve(pbuh).

So is Christianity, and Judaism.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Islamic doctrine is believing in One God and that He alone is worthy of worship which is the exact message all the prophets brought prior to the Quran being revealed. If anything Islamic doctrine was trying to bring back all of mankind back to the worship of the One God as it originally was with Adam(pbuh) and Eve(pbuh).

Yes I know thats Islam in short for you but at the end of the day you believe things that Christians and Jews dont. And your reasoning for these differences is "the first two faiths are corrupted" and Islam is the final, perfected faith(correct me if Im wrong).

I was pointing out that to Tokel that there are irreconciable differences between Islam and Christianity that most christians wont ever except. They wont accept your explanation of the first two faiths being corrupted as a reason to superimpose doctrine from the Quran over the NT. So I pointed out that this same thinking process should be applied with the OT and NT if doctrines of the NT cannot be supported with the OT.

 

[TokiEl]

Well then we might as well put the OT by itself like we do the Quran if we can't support beliefs using it alone.

The OT is only ment for Israel and not the whole world.

God chose to be born in the line of the Jews and so go global with the NT.

Or we could superimpose doctrines from the Quran over the NT like we do the NT over OT. But it seems the differences between the Quran and NT are acknowledged while the differences between the OT and NT are ignored or glossed over..

The Quran has nothing to do with the OT or NT nor God.

Based on your NT doctrine sure. Based on the OT? No. They were supposed to believe deliverers sent to them

They were supposed to shed the blood of God for remission of sins. Success !

It wasn't that crucial or it would have been explained in the OT by God Hisself. Instead He waited until the NT era to let loose on the crucial information which I guess is similar to the position of Islam that God waited until the Islamic era to let loose on Islamic doctrine

Why do you keep talking about Islam as if it is a religion from God ?

 

[KoncreteMind]

The OT is only ment for Israel and not the whole world.

Disagree....

Exodus 12
49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

The Quran has nothing to do with the OT or NT nor God.

I assume you say that because of differences while the differences between NT and OT, you either ignore or gloss over....

They were supposed to shed the blood of God for remission of sins. Success !

The total plan of all creation and God didnt mention it till the NT came around. That doesnt sound like success to me but like a group of people wishing to add onto what God already commanded instead of leaving it at what He had already said to the prophets...

Why do you keep talking about Islam as if it is a religion from God ?

Hey if you think this convo has ran its course, then by all means let me know so I dont keep inciting you (for lack of a better word) into discussing. But I didnt say Islam was or wasnt a religion from God but just compared the irreconcilable differences between Islam and the NT to the differences of the NT and the OT.

 

[TokiEl]

Disagree....

Exodus 12
49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

The OT is for Israel and that is why Paul reproved Peter for judaization in Galatians 2.

By all means it is fine to read the OT but the laws therein are specific to Israel and not Christians.

Those who are called by the name of Jesus Christ ought to obey what He taught.

The total plan of all creation and God didnt mention it till the NT came around. That doesnt sound like success to me but like a group of people wishing to add onto what God already commanded instead of leaving it at what He had already said to the prophets...

As i've shown He mentioned it ambiguously if you will although i think it's plain enough and especially in hindsight.

Hey if you think this convo has ran its course, then by all means let me know so I dont keep inciting you (for lack of a better word) into discussing. But I didnt say Islam was or wasnt a religion from God but just compared the irreconcilable differences between Islam and the NT to the differences of the NT and the OT.

I am adamant that the Quran is not of God.

Where you see differences between the OT and the NT i see the NT fulfilling the OT.

So we can agree to disagree. I am not going to call you an infidel or behead you just because you don't believe in God.
That is what we have Islam for.

 

[Kung Fu]

Yes I know thats Islam in short for you but at the end of the day you believe things that Christians and Jews dont. And your reasoning for these differences is "the first two faiths are corrupted" and Islam is the final, perfected faith(correct me if Im wrong).

I was pointing out that to Tokel that there are irreconciable differences between Islam and Christianity that most christians wont ever except. They wont accept your explanation of the first two faiths being corrupted as a reason to superimpose doctrine from the Quran over the NT. So I pointed out that this same thinking process should be applied with the OT and NT if doctrines of the NT cannot be supported with the OT.

Wouldn't that be Islam in general and not just for me seeing as the Quran claims numerous times that your Lord is One and that only He is worthy of worship alone?

I completely understand what you're saying and I agree with you. However, what I find funny is that when you examine both the religion of the Israelites and Islam they are far more alike than they are different. Christianity on the other hand is where I can't make sense of anything because of how alien it seems to be on the issue of monotheism and their acceptance of human blood sacrifice.

 

[Kung Fu]

I am adamant that the Quran is not of God.

Where you see differences between the OT and the NT i see the NT fulfilling the OT.

So we can agree to disagree. I am not going to call you an infidel or behead you just because you don't believe in God.
That is what we have Islam for.

Coming from a polytheist who had the Roman man-god lovers compile random Christian works of anonymous authors together and then claim it's from God while claiming all the other works heretical. Buddy, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[KoncreteMind]

The OT is for Israel and that is why Paul reproved Peter for judaization in Galatians 2.

By all means it is fine to read the OT but the laws therein are specific to Israel and not Christians.

Those who are called by the name of Jesus Christ ought to obey what He taught.

As i've shown He mentioned it ambiguously if you will although i think it's plain enough and especially in hindsight.

I am adamant that the Quran is not of God.

Where you see differences between the OT and the NT i see the NT fulfilling the OT.

So we can agree to disagree. I am not going to call you an infidel or behead you just because you don't believe in God.
That is what we have Islam for.

Yea we can agree to disagree. I see the OT as a guideline to guard against false doctrines while you only see it as a support system for your NT.

Your arguments against Islam can be used against the NT too. Where you see differences between the NT and Quran some see the Quran fulfilling the NT. But to you thats not an acceptable argument just as to me, your arguments concerning the NT and OTarent acceptable. All this being in my view of course. Anyways till next time...