23 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterFor someone who purports to "seek Truth", you play extremely fast and loose with it. In your effort to find something disparaging to say, you time and again resort to misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies.
You might find this article interesting. It speculates that the "Cleansing of the Temple" by Jesus was not against moneychangers as it is commonly given, but against blood sacrifice. I haven't researched all the claims but, on balance, the argument seems reasonable and compelling.
------ToOne---------------------
At least you accept that this is e wrath of God was abhorent?
IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
For example you said:
At least you accept that this is speculation and not explicitly stated. I presume that it's Ok for you to speculate about stuff like this but not Ok for me to speculate about Matt26:28?
However , it seems I am not allowed to speculate , but ToOne is.
Interesting.........
What blatantly false innuendo to try to make it appear that I'm guilty of some sort of double standard. I never said nor even remotely implied that you are "not allowed to speculate".
What I said was:
""You can speculate all you want about 'symbolism, but that's all it is is speculation."
It's ludicrous to supersede the explicit teachings of Jesus with speculation.
Like I also said:
"You still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation."
Your entire post is littered with similar false innuendo and ill-thought out tripe.
Anyone who has so little regard for truth cannot be earnestly seeking truth.
23 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIt's remarkable how you cobble together completely unrelated verses taken completely out of context and try to present it as revealing some sort of hidden meaning while missing the meaning of the the passages that you lift them from.
[b]=====================================
Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself.
================================
Jesus taught that He was God and He was man. Here He teaches that He was the God of the Old Testament (Matt. 23:37):
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, h is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:26:27,28)[/b]
As an example:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
When this new covenant is established EVERYONE will have the law written on their heart and He will be their God. EVERYONE will already know the Lord making teaching about the Lord superfluous. Clearly this day has not yet come and this new covenant has not been established.
23 Jan 10
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne======================================
It's remarkable how you cobble together completely unrelated verses taken completely out of context and try to present it as revealing some sort of hidden meaning while missing the meaning of the the passages that you lift them from.
As an example:
[quote] Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “[b]Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new c ...[text shortened]... superfluous. Clearly this day has not yet come and this new covenant has not been established.
It's remarkable how you cobble together completely unrelated verses taken completely out of context and try to present it as revealing some sort of hidden meaning while missing the meaning of the the passages that you lift them from.
As an example:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
========================================
[/b]
Excuse me, but over 2000 years ago these verses were referenced by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to demonstrate they were related to Jesus Christ:
Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:16.
The new covenant, the better covenant of the High Priest Christ, in Hebrews is this covenant quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Please do not give me more credit than I deserve. And I regard the book of Hebrews as the word of God.
=================================
When this new covenant is established EVERYONE will have the law written on their heart and He will be their God. EVERYONE will already know the Lord making teaching about the Lord superfluous. Clearly this day has not yet come and this new covenant has not been established.
=====================================
The word "everyone" I do not see used in the English quotation you quoted. I do see the word "all". But this should be understood as "all" who are in the covenant.
I do not think this is a covenant of God with the whole world if they do not receive Christ. It especially is not a covenant to those who disbelieve in the covenant.
It has been argued that it says the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
And I might regard that as a legitimate complaint except that Christ Himself, being largely rejected by the house of His own, extended this new covenant to whoseoever believes:
"He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him. But AS MANY as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,
who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-13 my emphasis)
24 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat blatantly false innuendo to try to make it appear that I'm guilty of some sort of double standard. I never said nor even remotely implied that you are "not allowed to speculate".
For someone who purports to "seek Truth", you play extremely fast and loose with it. In your effort to find something disparaging to say, you time and again resort to misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies.
For example you said:
[b]At least you accept that this is speculation and not explicitly stated. I presume that it's Ok for you to spec .
Anyone who has so little regard for truth cannot be earnestly seeking truth.
What I said was:
""You can speculate all you want about 'symbolism, but that's all it is is speculation."
It's ludicrous to supersede the explicit teachings of Jesus with speculation.
Like I also said:
"You still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation."
---------------------------------------ToOne----------------------
You clearly devalued the point I was making by implying that my speculation (on matt 26:28) was of little value because it was "just speculation".
Your post clearly took a dim view of "speculation". However , you later said in another post.......................
"You might find this article interesting. It speculates that the "Cleansing of the Temple" by Jesus was not against moneychangers as it is commonly given, but against blood sacrifice. I haven't researched all the claims but, on balance, the argument seems reasonable and compelling. "------------------------------------ToOne----------
Suddenly , it seemed that "speculation" (so long as it is done by ToOne?) is valid again because it supports your views.
Even more interesting , you speculate that Jesus is "against" blood sacrifice , when you know that Jesus explicitly linked his death with that of a blood sacrifice (passover lamb) using the wine (blood) at the last supper. He then went and shed his own blood , and when did he do it ? - at the exact time of the passover festival while lambs were being sacrificed.
Jesus is clearly inviting us to make some symbolic connection and comparison with his death and the whole meaning of Passover. He EXPLICITLY makes the connection himself.
And yet you prefer to speculate that he is somehow is against the whole idea when you know that he EXPLICTLY made this connection at a Passover meal. How hypocritical!
The problem is ToOne , that you cannot tell the difference between loose woolly speculation and logical inferences.
If a man walks into a bar dressed as a bunny rabbit , chews a carrot and says "what's up Doc?" . Is it speculation to say he is making himself out to be Bugs Bunny , or is just plain logical and obvious? It would be dishonest to speculate anything else than a link with Loony Tunes.
Do you really think Jesus didn't know what he was saying and the direct connection he was making with Passover symbolism? You must think he was an idiot. At the very least he must have been hoplessly clumsy.
The fact is that you just refuse to look at Jesus's teachings objectively and honestly. Every can see you doing this. You think it makes your position strong. It does not. The reality is it makes you look foolish and obtuse. I'm glad you do it really , because it robs you of any credibility.
Long may you continue to make an idiot of yourself.
29 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
It's remarkable how you cobble together completely unrelated verses taken completely out of context and try to present it as revealing some sort of hidden meaning while missing the meaning of the the passages that you lift them from.
As an example:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declar will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-13 my emphasis)[/b]
The word "everyone" I do not see used in the English quotation you quoted. I do see the word "all". But this should be understood as "all" who are in the covenant.
I do not think this is a covenant of God with the whole world if they do not receive Christ. It especially is not a covenant to those who disbelieve in the covenant.
C'mon jaywill. If I meant "everyone" to be a quote, I would have put it in quotes.
Jeremiah 31:33-34
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them...
Those in the house of Israel will not teach again saying 'Know the LORD'. Not everyone in the house of Israel has "received Christ", no less stopped saying "Know the LORD". Not even those who have "received Christ" have stopped saying "Know the LORD". It seems like your assertion amounts to those who have "received Christ" will stop saying "Know the LORD" to those who have "received Christ". It doesn’t even make sense for it to have been said. Even if this is what was meant, is it also your contention that all Christians have the law written on their hearts? If so, why is the law still taught and why don’t all Christians agree on what the law is?
Excuse me, but over 2000 years ago these verses were referenced by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to demonstrate they were related to Jesus Christ:
Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:16.
The new covenant, the better covenant of the High Priest Christ, in Hebrews is this covenant quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Please do not give me more credit than I deserve. And I regard the book of Hebrews as the word of God.
Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews, was a bit underhanded in his attempt to make Jeremiah fit his agenda. Look at how he changed the wording.
Hebrews 8:9
NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Jeremiah 31:32
not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD
He changed “although I was a husband to them” to “AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM” to better fit the agenda that “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.”
You should also consider the context of Jeremiah 31:34. The Jews had been taken as slaves and removed from their homeland as punishment for great sins and iniquity including placing other Gods before Him. The breaking of the covenant by the Jews was compared to a wife who had taken other lovers, hence the reference to “husband”. The following generations complained that they were being punished for the sins of their fathers. Yet the Lord promised to free them and return them to their homeland. Jeremiah 31 is largely a description of what life would be like after their return.
Jeremiah 31:27
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.
They will become numerous and prosperous.
Jeremiah 31:29-30
“In those days they will not say again,
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
“But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.
No longer will the children be punished for the sins of their fathers, but only for their own sins.
Jeremiah 31:33
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
In the new covenant, the law will be written on the hearts of the people rather than written down.
Jeremiah 31:34
“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
The sins and iniquities of their fathers will be forgiven and forgotten. There is no reason to believe that this was meant to be taken as all iniquities and sins thereafter would be forgiven and forgotten because Jesus sacrificed himself.
Whoever wrote Hebrews tried to make Jeremiah 31 into something it isn't.
29 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterlol. Like usual, you're even dishonest about your dishonesty. The way you try to twist things to fit your agenda is shameless. You're pathetic.
What blatantly false innuendo to try to make it appear that I'm guilty of some sort of double standard. I never said nor even remotely implied that you are "not allowed to speculate".
What I said was:
""You can speculate all you want about 'symbolism, but that's all it is is speculation."
It's ludicrous to supersede the explicit teachings of dibility.
Long may you continue to make an idiot of yourself.
29 Jan 10
I thought the whole Judaic / Christian belief was based off the redemptive death/sacrifice of Christ? (We can argue on who Christ is in a different thread) The Old testament was a looking forward to the messiah the new testament speaks of the finished work. Even the word testament if I remember correctly means covenant (Promise /Agreement) When Abraham was going to sacrifice his son God stopped him and provided the lamb. That was a diffident foreshadowing of What God was going to do in the future. Christ is the Lamb. Why? He called himself the Lamb. He is portrayed as the risen lamb in the New testament. In the book of revelation he is seen as still bearing the Scars. The lamb=Sacrifice. I think the issues is God wants a repentant heart but the Sacrifice was provided for us. Like I said we can argue on if Christ was God or not in a different thread. I know my friends G75 & RC will differ on this but I think they both agree that Christ was the Sacrifice. I think where did man get the concept that blood was so important as to appease some god(s) I think because there is truth in the idea even if barbaric.
Manny
29 Jan 10
Originally posted by menace71Is it not to do with the concept that blood is symbolic of life?
I thought the whole Judaic / Christian belief was based off the redemptive death/sacrifice of Christ? (We can argue on who Christ is in a different thread) The Old testament was a looking forward to the messiah the new testament speaks of the finished work. Even the word testament if I remember correctly means covenant (Promise /Agreement) When Abraham was ...[text shortened]... as to appease some god(s) I think because there is truth in the idea even if barbaric.
Manny
29 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm so glad you posted something vague and woolly like this because it just proves my point.
lol. Like usual, you're even dishonest about your dishonesty. The way you try to twist things to fit your agenda is shameless. You're pathetic.
It's just the idle words of someone who has run out of ideas.
If you don't have anything to say about the issues themselves or what Jesus EXPLCITLY said or anything relevant to your OWN thread then why bother posting at all?
If I really am a dishonest liar who is talking rubbish then just prove it by using logical argument to pick apart what I am saying. If you had such an argument you would have used it to demolish me. What are you waiting for?
The fact is you can't because you have none. It's obvious you have nowhere to run.
Like I said.........
"If a man walks into a bar dressed as a bunny rabbit , chews a carrot and says "what's up Doc?" . Is it speculation to say he is making himself out to be Bugs Bunny , or is just plain logical and obvious? It would be dishonest to speculate anything else than a link with Loony Tunes. " - KM
..........some speculations are obvious and totally logical.
The facts speak for themselves. Jesus EXPLICITLY linked his blood with the blood of the passover lamb (animal sacrifice). This has to mean something symbolic to do with blood sacrifice otherwise he would not have said it would he. A few days later he was dying on a bloody cross during the passover festival. What a coincidence!
He spelt it out himself in black and white and you choose to ignore this. How does that work? Why should anyone listen to you when you quote Jesus if you ignore his words yourself?
You say ..........
"You still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation." ---ToONE----
..............but the problem is that Jesus is obviously inviting us to speculate because it's illogical to think that he would be so clumsy with his words. Do you really really think he didn't know the context and meaning of the symbolism he was using? Are you making him out to be a bungler???
So , which one of us is trying to twist things eh? I back up my points with logical argument - you ? - well you just don't back up your points with...erm...anything really.
Keep it up ToOne , you just look more and more foolish with each vacuous and unsubstantiated post you make!
29 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterHmmm, well, anyone who understands the difference between speculation and something that is explicitly stated will understand you for what you are. It's quite evident that you still can't wrap your mind around the difference. It's quite evident just how dishonest you are. Likely you can't even manage to be honest with yourself.
I'm so glad you posted something vague and woolly like this because it just proves my point.
It's just the idle words of someone who has run out of ideas.
If you don't have anything to say about the issues themselves or what Jesus EXPLCITLY said or anything relevant to your OWN thread then why bother posting at all?
If I really am a dishon look more and more foolish with each vacuous and unsubstantiated post you make!
29 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnother vacuous waffle ?
Hmmm, well, anyone who understands the difference between speculation and something that is explicitly stated will understand you for what you are. It's quite evident that you still can't wrap your mind around the difference. It's quite evident just how dishonest you are. Likely you can't even manage to be honest with yourself.
There are all kinds of speculations ranging from wild speculations through to logical extrapolations where no other alternative speculation fits the bill. You know that , I know that , others reading this will know that. It's you that can't wrap your mind around these differences.
In the last supper Jesus makes an explicit connection between his own blood an that of the passover lamb (because that was the meal they were having). Saying this in the same sentence as words like "new covenant" and "shed for the remission of sins" is obviously loading things with meaning and gravity.
Given that Jesus was well known for talking metaphorically and symbolically and also well known for alluding to scripture and prophecies about himself , it's not exactly a leap to think that he was refering to Isaiah and also passover symbolism.
Also , given that he died on the passover festival , his timing was also very precise. Of all the days to die ! Did Jesus get lucky?
The most convincing evidence though is that of Jesus's charactor. This is what makes it blindingly obvious that he was indeed talking about his blood in this way. Jesus was highly intelligent and knew scripture and Jewish tradition inside out. He knew that minds of men and was highly perceptive. He was also intensly aware of how he was viewed and was very careful not to buy in to the idea that he was a political figure out to overthrow the Romans (even though some wanted him to be this figure).
So here was an eloquent perceptive man who chose his words very carefully. Is it reasonable to think that he would make such a blunder as this and cause his followers all this confusion by saying such provocative and symbolic things if he had not meant them?
It is obviously not reasonable , and no reasonable person would think this.
It seems you are not interested in reason anymore , so continue with your abuse please , and I will continue with solid argument.
It only serves to show who is speaking truth and who is not.
30 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterlol. You're such a snake. You're free to change that at any time. The truth will make you free.
Another vacuous waffle ?
There are all kinds of speculations ranging from wild speculations through to logical extrapolations where no other alternative speculation fits the bill. You know that , I know that , others reading this will know that. It's you that can't wrap your mind around these differences.
In the last supper Jesus makes an expl e with solid argument.
It only serves to show who is speaking truth and who is not.