The fact is if you go by God's word, you will be Jewish. If you believe that what Paul says is more important than what God says, well, that makes you a Christian. For example, God tells us in Psalms 119:77 that the law is perfect and brings life. And He tells us in Psalms 19:10 that the law is sweeter than honey and more valuable than gold. But Paul lies, he fucking lies, that fucking asshole and says the law is a curse! He is a goddamn fucking liar! That is the exact opposite of what God said!
There are also verses that indicate that YHWH "visits the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children, and the children's children, to the 3rd and 4th generation" - Exo. 20:5 I have found not a few O.T. scriptures that make YHWH out to be a real devil! I don't think we're going to find God in this Bible.
@KayBeeEee1983 Not quite, thankfully! Romans 6 "What shall we say then? Are we to go on sinning that grace may abound? By no means! For we are those who have died to sin. How can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
@madeliinneee WRONG!! Does REAL Scripture teach us that someone other than ourseleves can atone for our sins by dying in our stead? (Deuteronomy 24:16)(Ezekiel 18:3-4)(Exodus 32:33) Is it true that without the shedding of BLOOD; there is no remission of sin? NO. (Leviticus 5:13) (Exodus 30:11-16)(Numbers 17:8-12). Is there an alternative to the SPECIFIC CARNAL sacrifice? YES.(Proverbs 16-6)(1Samuel 15:22)(Hosea 14:3) .You follow a man (Jeremiah 17:5) To be save (Ezekiel 18:27-28)
The blood of Jesus is to protect Christians from the coming wrath of God, just like the Passover story. Why Jesus? Because the lamb sacrificed for Passover had to be without defect (Exodus 12:5)
Paul's idea that everyone is a sinner and the law is impossible to follow comes from his cognitive dissonance over his inability to live righteously and follow the law. In his view, if he wasn't able to keep the law, then NO ONE was able to keep the law.
@profmth - this is beside the issue here, but on another post you mentioned that you liked john dominic crossan. i just got a book called "the birth of christianity" of amazon by him and am loving it so far. about 600 pages. it was under 10 bucks including the shipping and handling - used - but in great condition and hardback. check it out if you haven't seen it. as you said, there is always something you learn from this guy
@cheagan - i am edified by your tone of voice! (made me laugh) you have not addressed the specific scriptures from the video of profmth which contradict your overview. as far as paul is concerned, pre-eminent by what standards? it's amazing how much pauline theology and the actual teachings of jesus differ, especially in regards to the law.
@cheagan- so are you saying that god said to perform blood sacrifice (animal) at the beginning, then said he wasn't pleased with that but with acts of love and mercy and justice, but obeying him in that somehow entails belief in the ultimate sacrifice of jesus that hadn't come yet?
i have read the bible extensively and was actually going to be a minister. you're making judgments that are unfounded. you are the "casual observer". i will look again, but i believe that profmth asked you a yes or no question. do you even know what that question was?
@pinkus44 The question was, "Can there be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood?" If U call yourself a minister, U cannot escape the fact that, at least in the opinion of the pre-eminent OT scholar (the Apostle Paul), all the ordinances in the Mosaic law were but a "shadow" of Christ, who is the substance. The law was a schoolmaster, pointing us to Christ. The law and the prophets were written of Christ. I'll leave it up to U, Bible scholar, to find the verse references.
great points made! @cheagan - you have evaded the question being asked. i think you're hooked on blood. to think that blood would put a smile on god's face is primitive and crude. it's almost anti-christ. "i desire mercy, not sacrifice"
@pinkus44 U gotta see the OT in light of the NT, specifically through the eyes of the Apostle Paul, himself an expert on the Tanakh. Then and only then will U understand the significance of the atonement. As I said before, the truths contained in the Bible are simply NOT AVAILABLE to the casual observer.
It's a funny thing: the Bible is the only book I know of where those who HAVEN'T read it know more about it than those who HAVE.
@cheagan Jesus' death doesn't take away sins. Faith, baptism, confession, and repentance take away sins.
Mark 1:4-5 "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River."
Mark 2:5 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.'"
@KayBeeEee1983 Faith in what, exactly? Baptism into what, exactly? Confession of what, exactly? Repentance on the basis of what, exactly? I'll tell you what: the shed blood of the Son of God, that's what.
@cheagan Faith in God, baptism to ritually "cleanse" their souls, confession of their sins, repentance of their sins. John the baptist did his thing BEFORE Jesus died.
@KayBeeEee1983 How, exactly, does "faith in God" effect one's salvation? Water "ritually cleanses" souls? A mere mental assent of the existence of a Divine creator does not equal a saving faith. I think what you're describing has more to do with the unfortunate mistaking of Arminianism or Pelagianism for true Biblical Christian faith. What you have is the very pernicious and heretical (ana-)baptist adherence to the notion of "free will", which does not exist.
@cheagan Faith is manifested in good deeds and holy living. People need rituals to feel spiritual. Free will does exist. People who believe free will doesn't exist are people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. They're immoral, evil people. Like Paul, they try to justify their lack of self-control. People who think that they don't have to be punished for their wrongdoings are also immoral and evil.
@KayBeeEee1983 One's faith must have in its object something in the way of propitiation on one's behalf, or else it's simply spinning wheels, blowing smoke up your ass. Paul isn't making this up; he quotes none less than the prophet Isaiah when he says, "THERE IS NO ONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD - NO, NOT ONE." The point of the Law of Moses wasn't to show you how to be a good boy - it's to show you that you CANNOT be one. Jesus cleared it up in Mt 5:21-28.
@cheagan Romans 7:17-20 "As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
@KayBeeEee1983 In the Mt passage I quoted above, Jesus makes it clear that the sin occurs not in the action, but in the intent of the heart. One needn't actually act in order to sin: "The heart is deceptive and wicked above all things; who can know it?"
@cheagan "the Bible is the only book I know of where those who HAVEN'T read it know more about it than those who HAVE."
That IS funny, and ironic, because that's what was happening in the early Christian church. Gentiles who had only read the Septuagint believed they understood Jewish prophecy better than Jews who had devoted their lives to studying the scriptures in the original Hebrew language. Pretty arrogant. Christianity became an entirely gentile religion, that should tell you something.
@cheagan "Apostle Paul, himself an expert on the Tanakh"
Why do you think that? Because he SAID he was an expert? If he were an expert, he would know about Deut 30:11 "what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach" Where in the Tanakh does it say that the Law is too difficult to follow? From what I understand, Paul is pulling that straight out of thin air. He tries to reason that the very existence of sin offerings proves that the law is impossible to keep.
Again - wow! U have single-handedly uncovered what has been hidden from Bible commentators for two millennia! These "discrepancies" are so obvious, yet this unfounded "religion" has been allowed to fool people for so long! Good thing we have U, so WISE and KNOWING; and good thing there is Youtube, where U can dispense your "wisdom" ten minutes at a time, without the encumbrances of true scholarly debate.
@cheagan "Again - wow! U have single-handedly uncovered what has been hidden from Bible commentators for two millennia!"
Oh, goodness, no. With a collection of texts as old as the biblical collection, it's unlikely that anyone will find anything new today. That's not my claim at all. But I understand your desire to change the subject and address something I neither said nor believe.
@ProfMTH The requirements of YHWH in the OT were specifically designed to point the way to Christ. In "returning" to YHWH, the penitent one unwittingly, yet hopefully, participated in the One True Sacrifice, which was Christ , by participation in the OT ritual system. This participation didn't annul God's command that one should "do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly" with God (Micah 6:8). Jesus said as much in Mt 23:23. The "righteousness" which was practiced was done in FAITH.
Respond to this video... Perhaps U feel U have exhausted all the channels of truly meaningful discussion; however, I remain at your disposal should U ever want to discuss these issues at length; simply log onto my Youtube channel, and send me a note. Then, we can spend longer than ten minutes - or 500 words - discussing the only story worth telling. And then U can cease and desist with all this rubbish. But for the necessary apologies, you'll be glad U did.
@cheagan "The requirements of YHWH in the OT were specifically designed to point the way to Christ."
So, Old Testaments methods of atonement that did not involve blood "point[ed] the way to Christ," is that correct?
"Perhaps U feel U have exhausted all the channels of truly meaningful discussion...."
Not at all. I'm challenging you to offer a substantive response to the video. You've yet to do so. I'm not interested in a private discussion with you. I'm interested in a public response.
@cheagan I'd like a direct answer to my direct question. Were Old Testament mehthods of atonement that did not involve blood "point[ing] the way to Christ"? A yes or no will be fine. Thanks.
@cheagan I was quite specific. Were Old Testament methods of atonement that did not involve blood--the ones I discussed in the video--"point[ing] the way to Christ"? Yes or no, please. Thanks.
@ProfMTH I suppose a Bible scholar could make an argument for the scapegoat being a type of man, and the goat sacrificed being a type of Christ... but so what? Paul's teaching is that the Law was given to be a standard by which one might judge oneself, then see one's deficiency, then flee to Christ for covering. The Yom Kippur ceremony was, no doubt, intended to give a sense of reality to the concept of judgment. U may speculate as to the reality of God, and His wrath; the dead know for certain.
@ProfMTH Paul's use of the term "the law" is inclusive of the Tanakh as well as the Psalms and Prophets.
So, yes - it ALL points to Christ, IF one comes to it in humility and faith. However, does each element in and of itself presage Jesus Christ in a literal, on-to-one fashion? I can't say (again, I would need U to be more specific). But need it do so?
@ProfMTH By participating in the Yom Kippur ceremony - along with the other OT rites - a Jew was acting in faith and adhering to a prescribed system of worship which would one day - "when the fulness (sic) of time had come" (Gal 4:4) - culminate in the sacrifice that the Father had initiated since prior to the foundation of the world. It is apparent from your posts and responses that there is *much* that U are missing from a complete understanding of Biblical truth; take some time and study it!
@ProfMTH My answer is God's: "And almost all things are by the law purged by blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." I suppose the "almost" gives U pause.... but then again, the creation itself will be purged with fire, not blood (2 Pet 3:12). But any *man* who wishes to stand in the presence of God must be purged with blood... seeing how fire would kinda spoil the whole deal.
@cheagan Is that a yes, there can be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood, or a no, there cannot be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood?
@cheagan "I cannot say whether there *can* be, but the word of God says there *isn't* any."
And yet I showed numerous ones in the video. Moreover, in an earlier comment you said that Old Testament methods of atonement that did not involve blood pointed to Christ, which entails that there *were* such methods. Now you say there were not.
@ProfMTH I answered "yes" to your question, "Does it all point to Christ?" You, sir, were the one who made the assertion that some methods of atonement don't involve blood. Exactly which un-bloody atonements were U referring to?
@cheagan My question was about methods of atoning for sin that didn't involve blood. You know that. And the methods are discussed in the video. So, please, don't waste time going around in circles.
@ProfMTH "He neither needs nor wants any sacrifice in order to forgive sins." Was this quoted correctly, from your video? Jn 1:17 says, "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." He also claims to *be* the "way, and the truth, and the life." There isn't any sacrifice that a *human* can make on his own behalf, but there is one Sacrifice that can, and did, make atonement for all. "Observe all my statutes" means to take seriously the means by which I (YHWH) have provided for you to partake in Him.
@ProfMTH So, you have nothing to say regarding my response? I was hoping to destroy your philosophy before the open-jawed astonishment of millions, but alas, it wasn't the will of God.
@ProfMTH No... U were simply given an answer to the question that you posited, which was not what U wanted or expected to hear. When I debate atheists, it's always the same: they seem to think that their questions regarding the supposed "disconnects" in the Bible are unanswerable; then, when I give them the correct answer, they have NO IDEA how to respond, being that I just introduced a thought into their head that they never had conceived of - an uncomfortable position in which to find oneself
Wow. Such linear thinking. Let me make something clear: If the Son of man had not shed his blood on Calvary there would have been no forgiveness for any - no, not even King David. People take verses out of context to make the scriptures say anything they want but the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ Jesus, the Person of the only wise GOD, was prophecied throughout the Old Testament. Yes, GOD's thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways beyond ours, so why even try to discredit them?
Christians should be in a Blade Movie where all the vampires were assumably being purified in blood thats demonic to me lol! Makes no sense that you need to sacrifice an animal or human being inorder to receive atonement of your sins? Give me a break!
I'm surprised this video didn't mention John the Baptist and his doctrine of water baptism and repentance accomplishing forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4: "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 3:3: "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The Greek word translated 'remission' is also translated 'forgiveness' by NT translators.
@Cathmoytura "I'm surprised this video didn't mention John the Baptist and his doctrine of water baptism and repentance accomplishing forgiveness of sins."
@ProfMTH ...I thought too hard about those verses when I was a believer, and asked around. Best answer I got was that John's baptism was for forgiveness of individual sins, not for remission of Original Sin. Another explanation was the God was proactively applying Jesus' coming vicarious atonement. Another was that John wasn't preaching repentance and baptism accomplished forgiveness of sins; he was preaching for people to get ready for Jesus' coming vicarious atonement.
The Cross of Christ Jesus is central to Christianity - the very heart thereof. Take away the Cross and there is no Christianity. Take away the Cross and there is no salvation. Take away the Cross my friend and you are hopeless and doomed. It is by way of Christ' atoning work on the Cross that man is made right with God. My prayer is that God will open your eyes and heart that you may understand the Gospel that will save your life.
@f3church Do you have anything to say that actually responds to the argument in the video other than merely asserting that "[t]he Cross of Christ Jesus is central to Christianity"?
The Christian answer to why God does not desire sacrifice is easy: Old Testament sacrifice did not atone for sin, but only pointed to Jesus who really atoned for sin. That is why God does not care about actual sacrifices, but faith that he will provide away for salvation.
@ProfMTH The problem is your argument is against the concept of atonement and you quote from Hebrews 9:22 to, but Hebrews 10:1-18 answers all the arguments quoting most of the same verses
"When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
If the next chapter deals specifically with the argument you are making, does it not make sense to address it?
It doesn't make any sense to say, as the Bible says God does not desire symbolic animal sacrifices from insincere people, therefore it must mean he also not desire the genuinely atoning sacrifice of Jesus?
Your taking one verse from Hebrews out of the rest of its argument and trying to force a contradiction, when the next page deals with what you are saying.
If you just read the three chapters of Isaiah before that, it completely explodes your point, in which it describes "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:4-5 ESV)
If you just read all of Hebrews it answers your argument...
@ProfMTH Yes, Jesus was a sacrifice that God desired, but was different to the ineffective animal sacrifices and was the promised effective sacrifice of Isaiah 53. It's contextually ridiculous to take the verses you do, written from a Torah believing Jewish context and try and deny they require sacrifices, Ezekiel 18:21-33 tells the reader to follow all of God's command and statutes in order to live. Do the commands of God in the Torah include animal sacrifice?
@ProfMTH Again the whole point of Hebrews 9 and 10 is that animal sacrifice was simply a shadow of what happened on the cross, so Jesus was the sacrifice God willed and purposed, I wouldn't use the word 'desire' to describe God's attitude to the cross. The Bible is internally consistent on this point and Hebrews 10 answers all your objections, why don't you deal with them?
@Insaneplanetman "I wouldn't use the word 'desire' to describe God's attitude to the cross."
And yet you just did. I'll quote you again: Yes, Jesus was a sacrifice that God DESIRED..." (emphasis mine). Just so I'm clear on your position here, was Jesus a sacrifice that God desired or not?
@ProfMTH Yes, he desired what it would accomplish, but not in a masochistic way. Again, I really don't see what you have to gain by trying to make Hebrews and these Old Testament texts argue with each other when there is no reason to apply a texts which are written within the context of the Jewish sacrificial system, clearly talking about people offering sacrifices with no love for God, to the sacrifice of Jesus in the New Testament, have you read Hebrews 10?
@Insaneplanetman "Yes, he desired what it would accomplish, but not in a masochistic way."
Who said anything about "a mascochistic way"? Not I. I've asked you a simple question, i.e., whether what Jesus did was a sacrifice and, if so, whether God desired it. You answered "yes" on both counts. Then when I pointed out that this means your god *does* desire sacrifice, just a particular one, you turned on a dime and said you wouldn't use the word 'desire' vis-a-vis God's attitude towards...
(con't) @insaneplanetman ...what Jesus did--despite that fact that you already had done done. Now you're trying to finesse the meaning of 'desire'. If Christianity were THE truth, all this back-and-forth, X-and-Not-X, and parsing just wouldn't be necessary. I encourage you to think this through a lot more than your comments thus far indicate you have.
"I really don't see what you have to gain by trying to make Hebrews and these Old Testament texts argue with each other"
(con't) @insaneplanetman ...to do a thing other than put the passages next to one another to show that they don't comport. Your argument is with your scriptures really, not with me.
@ProfMTH I'm just being careful not to be taken out of context with what I mean by desire, but yes God did desire the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, that has no contradiction with Isaiah 55. If the next chapter to what you are reading addresses what you are talking about it, do you not think you should address it?
@Insaneplanetman "I'm just being careful not to be taken out of context with what I mean by desire...."
Taken out of context? Are you serious? 'Desire' means what it means.
"yes God did desire the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross"
Final answer, I hope. Thanks.
"that has no contradiction with Isaiah 55"
The passage I quoted says that a sinner need only call upon Yahweh and give up his/her wicked ways and thoughts in order for Yahweh to have abundant compassion and pardon him. ...
(con't) @Insaneplanetman It does *not* say, "And, oh, by the way, this forgiveness won't be real until I get the bloody human sacrifice of Jesus that I desire at some point in the future."
"Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."
You need to remember in the original scrolls of Isaiah it was not cut up into chapters, but it simply flows as one book and what is Isaiah talking about? He is talking about the Messiah and the triumph of God's people. Just read from 53-56, everything is talking about the Messiah, the New Covenant and people from all nations believing in God.
The only way you can possibly make the argument you are making is to remove things out of their context and try and make them compete.
@ProfMTH I did and you do the exact same thing there, you run from context like a cat from water, if you actually want to demonstrate that these texts are not Messianic then you actually need to walk through the whole texts, not just take snippets out of them. The only thing you provided in way of Isaiah 53 itself was a Jewish guy arguing with a Christian guy, if you want to demonstrate that Jews believed that at the time Jesus was around you need an earlier source.
You took a snippet out of Isaiah 49 to show how its talking about Israel the nation, but if you just read the whole text it is clearly talking about one person called Israel, who will gather the rest of Israel, it uses the word in two different senses in one text, the same with Isaiah 7 if you just keep reading clearly turns into a messianic text if you just follow the theme. Would you like to continue this over skype at some point?
@Insaneplanetman Actually, I talked about how the Servant Songs in Isaiah identify the "servant." I didn't just take a snippet from one passage. Good grief! Either you're not paying attention or you're not being honest. In either case, it's not good.
@ProfMTH You asserted one modern Jewish view on the servant songs and provided out of context snippets for each song, could you please go through the songs verse by verse and demonstrate how they are actually talking about the nation of Israel? I would again point you to the example I cited of Isaiah 49 just down there vvv
Would you be interested in having this conversation on skype at any point? I promise I don't work for a shady internet radio show!
I showed that this "Jewish view" isn't new. See, e.g., my discussion of Origen's "Against Celsus" (3rd century CE) in which he discusses his Jewish interlocutors advocating the postion I set forth. The 3rd century CE isn't modern. Why characterize this longstanding view as modern?
"Would you be interested in having this conversation on skype at any point?"
No. I keep these discussion public in this forum for eveyone's benefit.
@ProfMTH Sorry, I probably didn't phrase that well, modern is the wrong term to use there, what I mean is that Second Temple Judaism is completely different from Judaism post AD 70 and quoting a Rabbi talking to a Christian apologist in the third century doesn't prove anything, what would be significant is if second temple Jews believed this, but the Babylonian talmud considers this to be about the Messiah, so at the time and context of Jesus it was considered a Messianic text.
@Insaneplanetman Is it your understanding that the Babylonian Talmud represented the sole and definitive position of Jews and Judaism at the time? And precisely what does the Bablyonian Talmud say? Perhaps you can quote it for me and cite the pertinent section(s).
@ProfMTH Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b says "The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted" I'm not claiming that the Babylonian Talmud is the sole definitive position of Jews at the time, the Jerusalem Talmud thinks Isaiah 53 is talking about Akiva Ben Joseph, my point is you have asserted Isaiah 53 can't possibly be about Jesus ...
Two major sources dealing with Judaism at the time both have different opinions on what this chapter is talking about, both applying it to an individual and not a nation by the way. So if the Jews at the time could not agree on what it means, how can you assert that your belief that it is talking about the state of Israel is correct?
@Insaneplanetman "I'm not claiming that the Babylonian Talmud is the sole definitive position of Jews at the time, the Jerusalem Talmud thinks Isaiah 53 is talking about Akiva Ben Joseph...."
Thank you.
"my point is you have asserted Isaiah 53 can't possibly be about Jesus Two major sources dealing with Judaism at the time both have different opinions"
Well, 1st, let's be clear that now by your own admission--contrary to what you asserted earlier--the view that Isaiah 53 has nothing...
(con't) @insaneplanetman ...to do with the Messiah is not a late or unusual view. 2nd, after studying this, yes, my conclusion is that it cannot possibly be about Jesus. You've yet to present anything that I haven't seen or that changes my mind. In fact, you've been playing a little loose with facts until I've pushed you for specificity, which, to your credit, you've given.
It's funny that you're now asking me how I could even assert that it's not about Jesus since "the Jews of the time...
(con't) @insaneplanetman "...could not agree on what it means." I wonder, does the disagreement among the Jews of the time cause you to question your assertion that Isaiah 53 *is* about Jesus?
@ProfMTH Right, so you are not convinced, that's fine, but why are you the one who gets to categorically decide what the passage means? If you don't know what it does mean, how could you possibly know it isn't about Jesus?
As for what Jews believed, I agree that this passage is about the Messiah, not because I trust the writers of the Babylonian Talmud over those of a 3rd century apologist, but because I believe in the in gospels and if you believe in divine revelation ....
(Which I'm guessing you don't) Then it makes sense to trust the gospels, because Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem with great specificity and because of him, millions of people from many different nations believe in the God of the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets. Like it or not Jesus altered the face of the earth and at that exact time Judaism changed completely. If I didn't answer your question I'm sorry, I was a little unclear as to what you are asking.
@Insaneplanetman "why are you the one who gets to categorically decide what the passage means?"
I never declared myself "the one who gets to categorically decide what the passage means." I refer you to my previous comment in which I said that "after studying this, yes, my conclusion is that it cannot possibly be about Jesus."
"this passage is about the Messiah ... because I believe in the in gospels"
You believe it's about Jesus because you believe in Jesus.
@ProfMTH I, like a Jew have the assumption of divine revelation, which I take it you don't have?
I'm not basing my belief that Jesus is the Messiah purely on Isaiah 53 though am I?
If Jesus really rose from the dead, do you not think he get's the right to explain what the old testament means? What your saying are inconsistencies are only inconstancies if Jesus did not rise from the dead. Apart from the assumption he did not they all fall flat.
@ProfMTH If you can't tell me what Isaiah meant when he wrote scripture, you can't assert that it's definitely not about Jesus, if Jesus really did rise from the dead and is the same God who revealed the Old Testament scripture then he did know the original intent of what was said was. So for you to try and dissect the Bible up is ridiculous because it just incites your own team and doesn't prove anything to anyone else. This video is the perfect example, the Bible has a perfectly logical ...
(cont) explanation for everything you raised in this passage, in the chapter next to the one you were quoting from, you just don't accept that explanation. Why can't Hebrews 10 explain way everything you have raised in this video?
@Insaneplanetman "If you can't tell me what Isaiah meant when he wrote scripture...."
Are you even paying attention? I already did that. The Servant Songs identify Israel as the servant. Please don't waste my time and yours going in circles. I won't go round and round with you.
"the Bible has a perfectly logical explanation for everything you raised in this passage"
Actually, it doesn't. But we've also covered that already too.
This guy is feeding you a bunch of error! No one on here is good enough to make it to heaven on his own righteousness. If you are a true born again Christian you will know this in your heart. God says our righteousness is as "filthy rags"! " The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it". So our heart is not able to be good enough without Jesus and his precious blood he shed on the cross for our redemption. Beware, dangerous teaching!
It's a sad day when others make light of Jesus when he loves them so much that he died for them! This person is willingly ignorant, a quote from God's Word, in the knowledge of the truth! It won't be funny when they bow before a righteous God! "It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement". Heb. 9:27 You have an appointment in your future , and I suggest you prepare for it! Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice which ended the dispensation of law. Now it is grace!
@rhinestonenana "It's a sad day when others make light of Jesus when he loves them so much that he died for them!"
I didn't "make light" of anything. I simply pointed out what the Bible says about the necessity of blood for atonement (actually, the NON-necessity). Do you deny those passages?
No you are speaking from scripture that dealt with those under the law. We are under grace now. You know the New Testament where it says in Rom. 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, CHRIST DIED FOR US". "Having therefore, brethern, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. "For God sent not his son to condemn the world; but the world through him might be saved". " without shedding of blood is no remission". Heb. 9:22
@rhinestonenana "No you are speaking from scripture that dealt with those under the law. We are under grace now."
It's not at all clear to me how this talking point you keep repeating addresses the point. Is it or is it not the case that blood is necessary for your god to forgive sins?
You are trying to make the case that Jesus' blood is not needed for forgiveness and you are on dangerous ground with how you make light of it!!!! My case is , so you can it, is that in order to become a born again Christian, you have to believe in Jesus,his cross, blood and resurrection!!!! "Jesus is the way the truth and the life". Period. Animal sacrifices under law had to be repeated over and over. But Hallelujah Jesus made one sacrifice and it is finished! I am sad for you!
@rhinestonenana I have asked you a direct question and I would like a direct answer. Is it or is it not the case that blood is necessary for your god to forgive sins?
Hey ProfmTH, I think I have been clear that Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross. His blood paid it for us. Yes it is necessary for you to accept his blood sacrifice to gain forgiveness for your sins. There is no other way to come to him but through the blood! Ain't that great that he paid it and you don't have too!!!!! You are like me, just not good enough to pay it yourself. It's just all him!!!
No they were for that dispensation under law. Like I said we are under GRACE now! (the New Testament). God says to rightly divide the Word, which you are not doing!!! You can't judge us Christians and tell us that or salvation is not real. We know the truth and the change that takes place. Now you on the other hand, are deceived by satan and can't see the truth! Can you drag out a verse from the New Testament that says Jesus' blood was not needed for redemption? cont:
Here a a few verses from the New Testament which proclaim the need for Jesus' blood for redemption. Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, Hebrews 9:14 and Revelations 5: 9..... which I will put on here. "You are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation". Get that in the last book of the Bible , Jesus, slain,redeemed us by his blood! It is finished!
You need to come to Jesus and you will understand all of this instead of trying to discredit it! The animal sacrifices were a covering and it was in anticipation of the coming of Christ to offer his blood. It was a ritual under the law to portray the coming Savior. God looked at it as a covering for their sins. They obeyed and he forgave them. No more animals needed now since Jesus shed his for us in this day of grace!
@rhinestonenana Ma'am, I'd appreciate your answering the direct question I asked you. Could the Old Testament god forgive sins without any blood being shed or was shed blood always necessary (i.e., in both the Old and New Testaments) for Yahweh to forgive sins?
No it took blood to atone for sins. The animal sacrifices pointed to the one sacrifice of Jesus and his one time atonement for us. Now if you don't like how God did it then, and now, you will never become his child! You are mixed up and want to live your life without giving account for your sins. Don't confuse the animals sacrifice ,which had to be done over and over, with the ONE sacrifice Jesus made! His is so powerful it takes only one time. Now you are making me type happy!
If that is true, why does the god who you claim always required blood in order to forgive sins found saying in the Bible--as I showed in the video--that he forgives sins *without* there being any blood shed? *That* is the issue here.
Sir, God says he had no pleasure in the bloody sacrifices and they did not meet the demands of his Holiness.He didn't desire but required. Get the point? Under law they did have to offer sacrifices for sins. But they were a foreshadow of the real sacrifice of Jesus which is able to make us a new creature, which did meet God's holiness! God is Almighty and chose how he wanted to deal with us and that is his business. Being an unbeliever you are cherry picking to mislead!
@rhinestonenana "God says he had no pleasure in the bloody sacrifices and they did not meet the demands of his Holiness.He didn't desire but required. Get the point?"
Yes, I get the point quite well. My question still stands. Why is the god who you claim always required blood in order to forgive sins (even though he didn't like it) found saying in the Bible--as shown in the video--that he forgives sins *without* there being any blood shed, that blood was *not* necessary for forgiveness?
Okay here it is that you are not getting! "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" II Tim. 2:15." Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" I Cor. 2:13 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". II Peter 1:20. cont.....
You are trying to pin God down to just your verses to prove your point. And you are not able to compare spiritual things to spiritual things because you are blinded spiritual. Don't put God in a box with a few Scriptures , but put them together and use your spiritual mind, which you don't have. Your interpretation is from a blinded view. I could take a few verses and prove a point of a private interpretation but I am his child and have his Holy Spirit teaching me. I compare scripture.
@rhinestonenana "You are trying to pin God down to just your verses to prove your point."
My verses? These are verses in the texts that are purported to have been inspired by your god and which claim to quote him. And, as discussed in the video, several portions of these texts have your god saying blood is not necessary to forgive sins. Does one "pin God down" by quoting his written word?
What seems clear is that you have no answer to the question, that the Bible does not entirely...
(con't) @rhinestoneana ...comport with your Christian beliefs. That's not unusual. My challenge to you is to give yourself permission *not* to think the problem is me and my alleged lack of a "spiritual mind," but rather that the problem is you have scriptures that do not agree with one another and a set of religious beliefs that don't entirely comport with those scriptures.
God uses common sense just like us. His so called "contradictions', are where you have to use your common sense and compare scripture and rightly divide it. For instance "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover", is scripture talking about the apostles and what they could to do to confirm the gospel. It was for a specific period. God says "come now let us reason together".
And you don't listen! WHAT DO ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE VERSES THAT TEACH " WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SIN. "But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." I John 1:7.THE BIBLE SAYS IT!" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness unto him:neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
Really? Just a few comments ago, you were insisting that unless one had a "spiritual mind," one could not possibly understand the scriptures. Now it's about common sense.
BTW, Mark 16:17-18, which you quoted, has long been determined not to be original to the Gospel of Mark and even most Christians don't regard it as scripture. Moreover, you've tried to rewrite the passage, trying to make it "about the apostles." The passage itself...
(con't) @rhinestonenana ...says it's about "those who believe" (not solely the apostles). But, of course, since fact does not comport with the prediction, those who regard it as scripture must find a way to interpret the passage that neutralizes it.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...."
Now we're back to that. First the "spiritual mind," then it changed to "common sense," and now this. In addition to not answering questions, you're all over the place.
Sir, a spiritual mind has common sense! We get our spiritual mind when we become born again! "Mark 16:17-18 not determined to be original" quoting you. I have NEVER heard that before and I have been a Christian a long time. Only in your dreams! Yes common sense is something that everyone should have but some just flip it off. You will bow before a righteous God when you have your appointment to meet him!! I hope you get right before you do!!!! This video is sick!!!
I have told you that you are quoting the Old Testament under the law and not rightly dividing the Word! You can not prove your point from the New Testament. I do tremble for you that you could be so brazen to make such a video discrediting the blood of Jesus. I am fearful for you!!! You will have faith in Jesus and his blood, when you meet him, but it will be too late then!!!!
@ProfMTH yes man kinds sin required a blood sacrifice to make man, I believe, see how serious this sin thing is,Jesus said it would be better to cut your own hand off or pluck your own eye out then to enter into Hell !
@ProfMTH I agree with rhinestonenana,here is the deal the sins of man against God are like this we could pay the debt for them and it would be a tough one to pay but Jesus took our debts and said He would take the punishment for our sins,therefore He the Son of God paid a debt He did not owe for a debt man could not pay,and after going through all of that Jesus said those who believe on me shall be saved and those who don't shall be damned,He shed His blood for us and we know it !
@rhinestonenana Yes after suffering and dying for the sins of mankind and that meant a flogging of 39 stripes ,and crucifixion wound to His side and the crown of thorns,He shed all of His precious blood to pay the debt man owed ,I would say if you don't believe it then there is no other sacrifice for us that will pay for our sins ,so don't believe it and then you can take the other route called Hell to pay!
You summed it up perfect major!!! I couldn't have said it better!! This guy will do as the people in Noah's day and scoff and end up in Hell burning throughout eternity! He will see someday how he gambled with the truth and lost! The truth is, LAW says DO, GRACE says done. So it was finished with Jesus shedding his blood.
@rhinestonenana Yes Jesus paid the ultimate price with His suffering on the cross for the sins of mankind and there is no other way to make it out of here and into Heaven!
He sure did and I just said the same thing before reading yours. Some people just want to go their own way thinking they are smarter than our creator!! But I have never seen anyone hang a universe on nothing or breathed life into a body made from dirt. Wow major our God is an awesome God!!!
As an aside 5:45 you do know that that is talking about 2 different gods right. Untill babylon, the jews where polytheistic, and some remained that way up to near jesus time. Yahweh is "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists" and el elohim is "god of powers" they where 2 different deities.
"I'm addressing a particular belief in this video. It's called separating out for purposes of analysis. Is that actually something new and foreign to you?"
Tut Tut Tut, my dear fellow your sarcasm is noted in print, but. as the great Englishman Fredrick Butler stated "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."
“To know the true reality of yourself, you must be aware not only of your conscious thoughts, but also of your unconscious prejudices, bias and habits.
"What can wash away your sins nothing but the blood of Jesus."
What crazy bloody ideas do these Christians believe in.
But I must say that your cherry picking of their beliefs is a little bit suspect. You remind me of a salesman trying to sell ice to the Eskimos.
Just because something is unbelievable does not mean you shouldn't believe it. Put another way, some things are worth believing in whether they're true or not. ~Jeb Dickerson
@steveascension "But I must say that your cherry picking of their beliefs is a little bit suspect."
"Cherry picking?" I'm addressing a particular belief in this video. It's called separating out for purposes of analysis. Is that actually something new and foreign to you?
...I like to watch your videos...they make me look at all sides...the Eastern Church doesn't believe in the blood atonement theory...blood atonement didn't appear until 1100 a.d. under Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury...
u r right. that doctrine is evil satanic vampiric sadistic and rejoyce in the murder & blood of the Messiah just like murderers devils.
Yeshua was necessary though for our Salvation. cuz YHWH´s Word was perverted by traditions & doctrines of the kinda men like paul of tarsus. a pharisee who messed it again.
Yeshua set things in their places & call things their names. then commanded His Message to be Universal. how? sealing it with His life. it proved not selfish interests and made it Universal.
paul of tarsus, muhammad and john calvin r the same person. they perverted the Message of YHWH and Yeshua to straitjacket-crazy lvls.
its very blatant. those who follow them though do it JUST cuz they love SIN and to have a "pious-disguised" excuse to sin is socially acceptable. to be the biggest bastard on the earth but to look and be respected, like a pious men, rocks for them lots.
Love your adept ability to show the abuse of the bible by many Christians to make the verses fit their theological stance. One point though. You mention Ezekiel 18:20 "the son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity …" however Exodus 20:5 says the sins of the father will visit the sons to the fourth generation. Looks like another OT contradicition to me? Exodus says god will, Ezekiel says god will not. What is your take on this please?
@PeteMOBie1 I recall discussing these two passages with someone back when I was a believer and coming to the conclusion that the Ezekiel passage represented "a change in policy" from the Exodus passage--this despite James 1:17 saying that with God "there is no variation or shadow of turning." In any case, it is a contradiction, of course.
It seems to take the stance that generational punishment is how God operates. And, concludes that the passages in Ezekiel like 18:20 are representing or recounting the Law of the Pentateuch.
Ironically this seems to indicate that the Jews are far more fair than the God they worship.
Christian Apologetics Research Ministries says there is no contradiction here. The Exodus verses represent God's views on the topic and the Ezekiel passage represents the "Law of the Pentateuch". It also declares that it doesn't matter if generational punishment is fair or not.
Its not good enough that the human sacrifice nailed to a stick spilled his blood, to be saved you have to drink it (literally if you are catholic) and eat his actual flesh. I always ask christians, when you are pretending to eat the flesh of jesus, exactly which body part do you visualize you are eating? There are not many body parts that look like a cracker. I NEVER get an answer.
The funny thing is, in Psalms 51, right after it says "you do not delight in burnt sacrifices' -- a couple verses later it talks about God delighting in burnt sacrifices. FAIL.
The fact is if you go by God's word, you will be Jewish. If you believe that what Paul says is more important than what God says, well, that makes you a Christian. For example, God tells us in Psalms 119:77 that the law is perfect and brings life. And He tells us in Psalms 19:10 that the law is sweeter than honey and more valuable than gold. But Paul lies, he fucking lies, that fucking asshole and says the law is a curse! He is a goddamn fucking liar! That is the exact opposite of what God said!
MrCope456 2 weeks ago
There are also verses that indicate that YHWH "visits the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children, and the children's children, to the 3rd and 4th generation" - Exo. 20:5 I have found not a few O.T. scriptures that make YHWH out to be a real devil! I don't think we're going to find God in this Bible.
truthbknwn 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Not quite, thankfully! Romans 6 "What shall we say then? Are we to go on sinning that grace may abound? By no means! For we are those who have died to sin. How can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
madeliinneee 2 months ago
@madeliinneee What are you responding to?
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@madeliinneee WRONG!! Does REAL Scripture teach us that someone other than ourseleves can atone for our sins by dying in our stead? (Deuteronomy 24:16)(Ezekiel 18:3-4)(Exodus 32:33) Is it true that without the shedding of BLOOD; there is no remission of sin? NO. (Leviticus 5:13) (Exodus 30:11-16)(Numbers 17:8-12). Is there an alternative to the SPECIFIC CARNAL sacrifice? YES.(Proverbs 16-6)(1Samuel 15:22)(Hosea 14:3) .You follow a man (Jeremiah 17:5) To be save (Ezekiel 18:27-28)
Emet5772 2 months ago
The blood of Jesus is to protect Christians from the coming wrath of God, just like the Passover story. Why Jesus? Because the lamb sacrificed for Passover had to be without defect (Exodus 12:5)
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago in playlist ProfMTH
Paul's idea that everyone is a sinner and the law is impossible to follow comes from his cognitive dissonance over his inability to live righteously and follow the law. In his view, if he wasn't able to keep the law, then NO ONE was able to keep the law.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@profmth - this is beside the issue here, but on another post you mentioned that you liked john dominic crossan. i just got a book called "the birth of christianity" of amazon by him and am loving it so far. about 600 pages. it was under 10 bucks including the shipping and handling - used - but in great condition and hardback. check it out if you haven't seen it. as you said, there is always something you learn from this guy
pinkus44 2 months ago
@pinkus44 Thanks. I will check it out. He's great.
ProfMTH 2 months ago
@cheagan - i am edified by your tone of voice! (made me laugh) you have not addressed the specific scriptures from the video of profmth which contradict your overview. as far as paul is concerned, pre-eminent by what standards? it's amazing how much pauline theology and the actual teachings of jesus differ, especially in regards to the law.
pinkus44 4 months ago in playlist ProfMTH Hits
@cheagan- so are you saying that god said to perform blood sacrifice (animal) at the beginning, then said he wasn't pleased with that but with acts of love and mercy and justice, but obeying him in that somehow entails belief in the ultimate sacrifice of jesus that hadn't come yet?
pinkus44 4 months ago in playlist ProfMTH Hits
i have read the bible extensively and was actually going to be a minister. you're making judgments that are unfounded. you are the "casual observer". i will look again, but i believe that profmth asked you a yes or no question. do you even know what that question was?
pinkus44 4 months ago in playlist ProfMTH Hits
@pinkus44 The question was, "Can there be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood?" If U call yourself a minister, U cannot escape the fact that, at least in the opinion of the pre-eminent OT scholar (the Apostle Paul), all the ordinances in the Mosaic law were but a "shadow" of Christ, who is the substance. The law was a schoolmaster, pointing us to Christ. The law and the prophets were written of Christ. I'll leave it up to U, Bible scholar, to find the verse references.
cheagan 4 months ago
great points made! @cheagan - you have evaded the question being asked. i think you're hooked on blood. to think that blood would put a smile on god's face is primitive and crude. it's almost anti-christ. "i desire mercy, not sacrifice"
pinkus44 4 months ago
@pinkus44 U gotta see the OT in light of the NT, specifically through the eyes of the Apostle Paul, himself an expert on the Tanakh. Then and only then will U understand the significance of the atonement. As I said before, the truths contained in the Bible are simply NOT AVAILABLE to the casual observer.
It's a funny thing: the Bible is the only book I know of where those who HAVEN'T read it know more about it than those who HAVE.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan Jesus' death doesn't take away sins. Faith, baptism, confession, and repentance take away sins.
Mark 1:4-5 "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River."
Mark 2:5 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.'"
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Faith in what, exactly? Baptism into what, exactly? Confession of what, exactly? Repentance on the basis of what, exactly? I'll tell you what: the shed blood of the Son of God, that's what.
cheagan 2 months ago
@cheagan Faith in God, baptism to ritually "cleanse" their souls, confession of their sins, repentance of their sins. John the baptist did his thing BEFORE Jesus died.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 How, exactly, does "faith in God" effect one's salvation? Water "ritually cleanses" souls? A mere mental assent of the existence of a Divine creator does not equal a saving faith. I think what you're describing has more to do with the unfortunate mistaking of Arminianism or Pelagianism for true Biblical Christian faith. What you have is the very pernicious and heretical (ana-)baptist adherence to the notion of "free will", which does not exist.
cheagan 2 months ago
@cheagan Faith is manifested in good deeds and holy living. People need rituals to feel spiritual. Free will does exist. People who believe free will doesn't exist are people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. They're immoral, evil people. Like Paul, they try to justify their lack of self-control. People who think that they don't have to be punished for their wrongdoings are also immoral and evil.
Deuteronomy 30:11 says you can be a good boy.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 One's faith must have in its object something in the way of propitiation on one's behalf, or else it's simply spinning wheels, blowing smoke up your ass. Paul isn't making this up; he quotes none less than the prophet Isaiah when he says, "THERE IS NO ONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD - NO, NOT ONE." The point of the Law of Moses wasn't to show you how to be a good boy - it's to show you that you CANNOT be one. Jesus cleared it up in Mt 5:21-28.
cheagan 2 months ago
@cheagan Romans 7:17-20 "As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
Justification for immoral behavior. Pure evil.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 In the Mt passage I quoted above, Jesus makes it clear that the sin occurs not in the action, but in the intent of the heart. One needn't actually act in order to sin: "The heart is deceptive and wicked above all things; who can know it?"
cheagan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cheagan Did Isaiah write "THERE IS NO ONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD - NO, NOT ONE"?
Jesus didn't say "The heart is deceptive and wicked above all things; who can know it"
In Matthew 5:21-28, Jesus is talking specifically about murder and adultery. Where does Jesus say that sin occurs in the intent, not in the action?
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cheagan "the Bible is the only book I know of where those who HAVEN'T read it know more about it than those who HAVE."
That IS funny, and ironic, because that's what was happening in the early Christian church. Gentiles who had only read the Septuagint believed they understood Jewish prophecy better than Jews who had devoted their lives to studying the scriptures in the original Hebrew language. Pretty arrogant. Christianity became an entirely gentile religion, that should tell you something.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@cheagan "Apostle Paul, himself an expert on the Tanakh"
Why do you think that? Because he SAID he was an expert? If he were an expert, he would know about Deut 30:11 "what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach" Where in the Tanakh does it say that the Law is too difficult to follow? From what I understand, Paul is pulling that straight out of thin air. He tries to reason that the very existence of sin offerings proves that the law is impossible to keep.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
Again - wow! U have single-handedly uncovered what has been hidden from Bible commentators for two millennia! These "discrepancies" are so obvious, yet this unfounded "religion" has been allowed to fool people for so long! Good thing we have U, so WISE and KNOWING; and good thing there is Youtube, where U can dispense your "wisdom" ten minutes at a time, without the encumbrances of true scholarly debate.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan "Again - wow! U have single-handedly uncovered what has been hidden from Bible commentators for two millennia!"
Oh, goodness, no. With a collection of texts as old as the biblical collection, it's unlikely that anyone will find anything new today. That's not my claim at all. But I understand your desire to change the subject and address something I neither said nor believe.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH The requirements of YHWH in the OT were specifically designed to point the way to Christ. In "returning" to YHWH, the penitent one unwittingly, yet hopefully, participated in the One True Sacrifice, which was Christ , by participation in the OT ritual system. This participation didn't annul God's command that one should "do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly" with God (Micah 6:8). Jesus said as much in Mt 23:23. The "righteousness" which was practiced was done in FAITH.
cheagan 4 months ago
Respond to this video... Perhaps U feel U have exhausted all the channels of truly meaningful discussion; however, I remain at your disposal should U ever want to discuss these issues at length; simply log onto my Youtube channel, and send me a note. Then, we can spend longer than ten minutes - or 500 words - discussing the only story worth telling. And then U can cease and desist with all this rubbish. But for the necessary apologies, you'll be glad U did.
Or not.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan "The requirements of YHWH in the OT were specifically designed to point the way to Christ."
So, Old Testaments methods of atonement that did not involve blood "point[ed] the way to Christ," is that correct?
"Perhaps U feel U have exhausted all the channels of truly meaningful discussion...."
Not at all. I'm challenging you to offer a substantive response to the video. You've yet to do so. I'm not interested in a private discussion with you. I'm interested in a public response.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH I will quote Paul: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24)
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan I'd like a direct answer to my direct question. Were Old Testament mehthods of atonement that did not involve blood "point[ing] the way to Christ"? A yes or no will be fine. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH U will have to be more specific than that. Not EVERY detail of the OT is in reference to Jesus Christ, eg, the donkey who spoke to Balaam.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan I was quite specific. Were Old Testament methods of atonement that did not involve blood--the ones I discussed in the video--"point[ing] the way to Christ"? Yes or no, please. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH I suppose a Bible scholar could make an argument for the scapegoat being a type of man, and the goat sacrificed being a type of Christ... but so what? Paul's teaching is that the Law was given to be a standard by which one might judge oneself, then see one's deficiency, then flee to Christ for covering. The Yom Kippur ceremony was, no doubt, intended to give a sense of reality to the concept of judgment. U may speculate as to the reality of God, and His wrath; the dead know for certain.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan So, then, what is your answer to my question?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH Paul's use of the term "the law" is inclusive of the Tanakh as well as the Psalms and Prophets.
So, yes - it ALL points to Christ, IF one comes to it in humility and faith. However, does each element in and of itself presage Jesus Christ in a literal, on-to-one fashion? I can't say (again, I would need U to be more specific). But need it do so?
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan "So, yes - it ALL points to Christ...."
So, then, there *can* be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood, correct?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH By participating in the Yom Kippur ceremony - along with the other OT rites - a Jew was acting in faith and adhering to a prescribed system of worship which would one day - "when the fulness (sic) of time had come" (Gal 4:4) - culminate in the sacrifice that the Father had initiated since prior to the foundation of the world. It is apparent from your posts and responses that there is *much* that U are missing from a complete understanding of Biblical truth; take some time and study it!
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan My question was can there be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood. What is your answer?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH My answer is God's: "And almost all things are by the law purged by blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." I suppose the "almost" gives U pause.... but then again, the creation itself will be purged with fire, not blood (2 Pet 3:12). But any *man* who wishes to stand in the presence of God must be purged with blood... seeing how fire would kinda spoil the whole deal.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan Is that a yes, there can be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood, or a no, there cannot be atonement for sin without the shedding of blood?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH I cannot say whether there *can* be, but the word of God says there *isn't* any.
I get the feeling you've been waiting with baited breath for this...
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan "I cannot say whether there *can* be, but the word of God says there *isn't* any."
And yet I showed numerous ones in the video. Moreover, in an earlier comment you said that Old Testament methods of atonement that did not involve blood pointed to Christ, which entails that there *were* such methods. Now you say there were not.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH I answered "yes" to your question, "Does it all point to Christ?" You, sir, were the one who made the assertion that some methods of atonement don't involve blood. Exactly which un-bloody atonements were U referring to?
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan My question was about methods of atoning for sin that didn't involve blood. You know that. And the methods are discussed in the video. So, please, don't waste time going around in circles.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH "He neither needs nor wants any sacrifice in order to forgive sins." Was this quoted correctly, from your video? Jn 1:17 says, "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." He also claims to *be* the "way, and the truth, and the life." There isn't any sacrifice that a *human* can make on his own behalf, but there is one Sacrifice that can, and did, make atonement for all. "Observe all my statutes" means to take seriously the means by which I (YHWH) have provided for you to partake in Him.
cheagan 4 months ago
@ProfMTH So, you have nothing to say regarding my response? I was hoping to destroy your philosophy before the open-jawed astonishment of millions, but alas, it wasn't the will of God.
cheagan 4 months ago
@cheagan "So, you have nothing to say regarding my response?"
Sure. You went off on a tangent of Christian talking points and avoided what was actually being discussed.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH No... U were simply given an answer to the question that you posited, which was not what U wanted or expected to hear. When I debate atheists, it's always the same: they seem to think that their questions regarding the supposed "disconnects" in the Bible are unanswerable; then, when I give them the correct answer, they have NO IDEA how to respond, being that I just introduced a thought into their head that they never had conceived of - an uncomfortable position in which to find oneself
cheagan 4 months ago
Wow. Such linear thinking. Let me make something clear: If the Son of man had not shed his blood on Calvary there would have been no forgiveness for any - no, not even King David. People take verses out of context to make the scriptures say anything they want but the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ Jesus, the Person of the only wise GOD, was prophecied throughout the Old Testament. Yes, GOD's thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways beyond ours, so why even try to discredit them?
scannerman777 4 months ago
@scannerman777 Do you have anything to say that actually responds to the argument in the video?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
Dude after a while this all just starts sounding like a bunch on nonsense.
There are contradictions that can't be explained no matter how you twist it.
Like god creating a bunch of angels that he new were going to turn on him or making Satan his top angel rite before he fucks heaven and earth all up.
I can't believe how retarded I used to be and how retarded Christians are to look the other way.
Wordoffakes 4 months ago
Christians should be in a Blade Movie where all the vampires were assumably being purified in blood thats demonic to me lol! Makes no sense that you need to sacrifice an animal or human being inorder to receive atonement of your sins? Give me a break!
asayal6 5 months ago
I'm surprised this video didn't mention John the Baptist and his doctrine of water baptism and repentance accomplishing forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4: "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 3:3: "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The Greek word translated 'remission' is also translated 'forgiveness' by NT translators.
Cathmoytura 5 months ago
@Cathmoytura "I'm surprised this video didn't mention John the Baptist and his doctrine of water baptism and repentance accomplishing forgiveness of sins."
Time constraints. But another excellent example.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH ...I thought too hard about those verses when I was a believer, and asked around. Best answer I got was that John's baptism was for forgiveness of individual sins, not for remission of Original Sin. Another explanation was the God was proactively applying Jesus' coming vicarious atonement. Another was that John wasn't preaching repentance and baptism accomplished forgiveness of sins; he was preaching for people to get ready for Jesus' coming vicarious atonement.
Cathmoytura 5 months ago
The Cross of Christ Jesus is central to Christianity - the very heart thereof. Take away the Cross and there is no Christianity. Take away the Cross and there is no salvation. Take away the Cross my friend and you are hopeless and doomed. It is by way of Christ' atoning work on the Cross that man is made right with God. My prayer is that God will open your eyes and heart that you may understand the Gospel that will save your life.
f3church 5 months ago
@f3church Do you have anything to say that actually responds to the argument in the video other than merely asserting that "[t]he Cross of Christ Jesus is central to Christianity"?
ProfMTH 5 months ago
The Christian answer to why God does not desire sacrifice is easy: Old Testament sacrifice did not atone for sin, but only pointed to Jesus who really atoned for sin. That is why God does not care about actual sacrifices, but faith that he will provide away for salvation.
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman So, what Jesus did was not a sacrifice?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH The problem is your argument is against the concept of atonement and you quote from Hebrews 9:22 to, but Hebrews 10:1-18 answers all the arguments quoting most of the same verses
"When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
(Hebrews 10:8-9 ESV)
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
If the next chapter deals specifically with the argument you are making, does it not make sense to address it?
It doesn't make any sense to say, as the Bible says God does not desire symbolic animal sacrifices from insincere people, therefore it must mean he also not desire the genuinely atoning sacrifice of Jesus?
Your taking one verse from Hebrews out of the rest of its argument and trying to force a contradiction, when the next page deals with what you are saying.
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
If you just read the three chapters of Isaiah before that, it completely explodes your point, in which it describes "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:4-5 ESV)
If you just read all of Hebrews it answers your argument...
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman So, is that a "yes" or "no" to the question I asked? Was what Jesus did a sacrifice? And while we're at it, did God desire it?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Yes, Jesus was a sacrifice that God desired, but was different to the ineffective animal sacrifices and was the promised effective sacrifice of Isaiah 53. It's contextually ridiculous to take the verses you do, written from a Torah believing Jewish context and try and deny they require sacrifices, Ezekiel 18:21-33 tells the reader to follow all of God's command and statutes in order to live. Do the commands of God in the Torah include animal sacrifice?
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "Yes, Jesus was a sacrifice that God desired...."
So, God *does* desire sacrifice, just a particular one, namely, a human one.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Again the whole point of Hebrews 9 and 10 is that animal sacrifice was simply a shadow of what happened on the cross, so Jesus was the sacrifice God willed and purposed, I wouldn't use the word 'desire' to describe God's attitude to the cross. The Bible is internally consistent on this point and Hebrews 10 answers all your objections, why don't you deal with them?
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "I wouldn't use the word 'desire' to describe God's attitude to the cross."
And yet you just did. I'll quote you again: Yes, Jesus was a sacrifice that God DESIRED..." (emphasis mine). Just so I'm clear on your position here, was Jesus a sacrifice that God desired or not?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Yes, he desired what it would accomplish, but not in a masochistic way. Again, I really don't see what you have to gain by trying to make Hebrews and these Old Testament texts argue with each other when there is no reason to apply a texts which are written within the context of the Jewish sacrificial system, clearly talking about people offering sacrifices with no love for God, to the sacrifice of Jesus in the New Testament, have you read Hebrews 10?
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "Yes, he desired what it would accomplish, but not in a masochistic way."
Who said anything about "a mascochistic way"? Not I. I've asked you a simple question, i.e., whether what Jesus did was a sacrifice and, if so, whether God desired it. You answered "yes" on both counts. Then when I pointed out that this means your god *does* desire sacrifice, just a particular one, you turned on a dime and said you wouldn't use the word 'desire' vis-a-vis God's attitude towards...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @insaneplanetman ...what Jesus did--despite that fact that you already had done done. Now you're trying to finesse the meaning of 'desire'. If Christianity were THE truth, all this back-and-forth, X-and-Not-X, and parsing just wouldn't be necessary. I encourage you to think this through a lot more than your comments thus far indicate you have.
"I really don't see what you have to gain by trying to make Hebrews and these Old Testament texts argue with each other"
I don't have...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @insaneplanetman ...to do a thing other than put the passages next to one another to show that they don't comport. Your argument is with your scriptures really, not with me.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I'm just being careful not to be taken out of context with what I mean by desire, but yes God did desire the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, that has no contradiction with Isaiah 55. If the next chapter to what you are reading addresses what you are talking about it, do you not think you should address it?
Have you read Hebrews 10?
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "I'm just being careful not to be taken out of context with what I mean by desire...."
Taken out of context? Are you serious? 'Desire' means what it means.
"yes God did desire the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross"
Final answer, I hope. Thanks.
"that has no contradiction with Isaiah 55"
The passage I quoted says that a sinner need only call upon Yahweh and give up his/her wicked ways and thoughts in order for Yahweh to have abundant compassion and pardon him. ...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @Insaneplanetman It does *not* say, "And, oh, by the way, this forgiveness won't be real until I get the bloody human sacrifice of Jesus that I desire at some point in the future."
"Have you read Hebrews 10?"
Many times.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Actually it does say that.
"Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."
(Isaiah 53:10-11 ESV)
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
You need to remember in the original scrolls of Isaiah it was not cut up into chapters, but it simply flows as one book and what is Isaiah talking about? He is talking about the Messiah and the triumph of God's people. Just read from 53-56, everything is talking about the Messiah, the New Covenant and people from all nations believing in God.
The only way you can possibly make the argument you are making is to remove things out of their context and try and make them compete.
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus. Nothing whatsoever. See my "Jesus Was Not the Messiah" series.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I did and you do the exact same thing there, you run from context like a cat from water, if you actually want to demonstrate that these texts are not Messianic then you actually need to walk through the whole texts, not just take snippets out of them. The only thing you provided in way of Isaiah 53 itself was a Jewish guy arguing with a Christian guy, if you want to demonstrate that Jews believed that at the time Jesus was around you need an earlier source.
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
You took a snippet out of Isaiah 49 to show how its talking about Israel the nation, but if you just read the whole text it is clearly talking about one person called Israel, who will gather the rest of Israel, it uses the word in two different senses in one text, the same with Isaiah 7 if you just keep reading clearly turns into a messianic text if you just follow the theme. Would you like to continue this over skype at some point?
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman Actually, I talked about how the Servant Songs in Isaiah identify the "servant." I didn't just take a snippet from one passage. Good grief! Either you're not paying attention or you're not being honest. In either case, it's not good.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH You asserted one modern Jewish view on the servant songs and provided out of context snippets for each song, could you please go through the songs verse by verse and demonstrate how they are actually talking about the nation of Israel? I would again point you to the example I cited of Isaiah 49 just down there vvv
Would you be interested in having this conversation on skype at any point? I promise I don't work for a shady internet radio show!
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "You asserted one modern Jewish view...."
I showed that this "Jewish view" isn't new. See, e.g., my discussion of Origen's "Against Celsus" (3rd century CE) in which he discusses his Jewish interlocutors advocating the postion I set forth. The 3rd century CE isn't modern. Why characterize this longstanding view as modern?
"Would you be interested in having this conversation on skype at any point?"
No. I keep these discussion public in this forum for eveyone's benefit.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Sorry, I probably didn't phrase that well, modern is the wrong term to use there, what I mean is that Second Temple Judaism is completely different from Judaism post AD 70 and quoting a Rabbi talking to a Christian apologist in the third century doesn't prove anything, what would be significant is if second temple Jews believed this, but the Babylonian talmud considers this to be about the Messiah, so at the time and context of Jesus it was considered a Messianic text.
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman Is it your understanding that the Babylonian Talmud represented the sole and definitive position of Jews and Judaism at the time? And precisely what does the Bablyonian Talmud say? Perhaps you can quote it for me and cite the pertinent section(s).
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b says "The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted" I'm not claiming that the Babylonian Talmud is the sole definitive position of Jews at the time, the Jerusalem Talmud thinks Isaiah 53 is talking about Akiva Ben Joseph, my point is you have asserted Isaiah 53 can't possibly be about Jesus ...
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
Two major sources dealing with Judaism at the time both have different opinions on what this chapter is talking about, both applying it to an individual and not a nation by the way. So if the Jews at the time could not agree on what it means, how can you assert that your belief that it is talking about the state of Israel is correct?
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "I'm not claiming that the Babylonian Talmud is the sole definitive position of Jews at the time, the Jerusalem Talmud thinks Isaiah 53 is talking about Akiva Ben Joseph...."
Thank you.
"my point is you have asserted Isaiah 53 can't possibly be about Jesus Two major sources dealing with Judaism at the time both have different opinions"
Well, 1st, let's be clear that now by your own admission--contrary to what you asserted earlier--the view that Isaiah 53 has nothing...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @insaneplanetman ...to do with the Messiah is not a late or unusual view. 2nd, after studying this, yes, my conclusion is that it cannot possibly be about Jesus. You've yet to present anything that I haven't seen or that changes my mind. In fact, you've been playing a little loose with facts until I've pushed you for specificity, which, to your credit, you've given.
It's funny that you're now asking me how I could even assert that it's not about Jesus since "the Jews of the time...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @insaneplanetman "...could not agree on what it means." I wonder, does the disagreement among the Jews of the time cause you to question your assertion that Isaiah 53 *is* about Jesus?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Right, so you are not convinced, that's fine, but why are you the one who gets to categorically decide what the passage means? If you don't know what it does mean, how could you possibly know it isn't about Jesus?
As for what Jews believed, I agree that this passage is about the Messiah, not because I trust the writers of the Babylonian Talmud over those of a 3rd century apologist, but because I believe in the in gospels and if you believe in divine revelation ....
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
(Which I'm guessing you don't) Then it makes sense to trust the gospels, because Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem with great specificity and because of him, millions of people from many different nations believe in the God of the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets. Like it or not Jesus altered the face of the earth and at that exact time Judaism changed completely. If I didn't answer your question I'm sorry, I was a little unclear as to what you are asking.
Insaneplanetman 6 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "why are you the one who gets to categorically decide what the passage means?"
I never declared myself "the one who gets to categorically decide what the passage means." I refer you to my previous comment in which I said that "after studying this, yes, my conclusion is that it cannot possibly be about Jesus."
"this passage is about the Messiah ... because I believe in the in gospels"
You believe it's about Jesus because you believe in Jesus.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I, like a Jew have the assumption of divine revelation, which I take it you don't have?
I'm not basing my belief that Jesus is the Messiah purely on Isaiah 53 though am I?
If Jesus really rose from the dead, do you not think he get's the right to explain what the old testament means? What your saying are inconsistencies are only inconstancies if Jesus did not rise from the dead. Apart from the assumption he did not they all fall flat.
Insaneplanetman 5 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "I, like a Jew have the assumption of divine revelation, which I take it you don't have?"
Right. I'm of the view that there is no such thing as divine revelation.
"I'm not basing my belief that Jesus is the Messiah purely on Isaiah 53 though am I?"
I suspect not. But I hardly see what that has to do with ANYTHING we've discussed thus far.
"What your saying are inconsistencies are only inconstancies if Jesus did not rise from the dead."
What?!
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH If you can't tell me what Isaiah meant when he wrote scripture, you can't assert that it's definitely not about Jesus, if Jesus really did rise from the dead and is the same God who revealed the Old Testament scripture then he did know the original intent of what was said was. So for you to try and dissect the Bible up is ridiculous because it just incites your own team and doesn't prove anything to anyone else. This video is the perfect example, the Bible has a perfectly logical ...
Insaneplanetman 5 months ago
(cont) explanation for everything you raised in this passage, in the chapter next to the one you were quoting from, you just don't accept that explanation. Why can't Hebrews 10 explain way everything you have raised in this video?
Insaneplanetman 5 months ago
@Insaneplanetman "If you can't tell me what Isaiah meant when he wrote scripture...."
Are you even paying attention? I already did that. The Servant Songs identify Israel as the servant. Please don't waste my time and yours going in circles. I won't go round and round with you.
"the Bible has a perfectly logical explanation for everything you raised in this passage"
Actually, it doesn't. But we've also covered that already too.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
This guy is feeding you a bunch of error! No one on here is good enough to make it to heaven on his own righteousness. If you are a true born again Christian you will know this in your heart. God says our righteousness is as "filthy rags"! " The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it". So our heart is not able to be good enough without Jesus and his precious blood he shed on the cross for our redemption. Beware, dangerous teaching!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "This guy is feeding you a bunch of error!"
Care to be specific?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
It's a sad day when others make light of Jesus when he loves them so much that he died for them! This person is willingly ignorant, a quote from God's Word, in the knowledge of the truth! It won't be funny when they bow before a righteous God! "It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement". Heb. 9:27 You have an appointment in your future , and I suggest you prepare for it! Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice which ended the dispensation of law. Now it is grace!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "It's a sad day when others make light of Jesus when he loves them so much that he died for them!"
I didn't "make light" of anything. I simply pointed out what the Bible says about the necessity of blood for atonement (actually, the NON-necessity). Do you deny those passages?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
No you are speaking from scripture that dealt with those under the law. We are under grace now. You know the New Testament where it says in Rom. 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, CHRIST DIED FOR US". "Having therefore, brethern, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. "For God sent not his son to condemn the world; but the world through him might be saved". " without shedding of blood is no remission". Heb. 9:22
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "No you are speaking from scripture that dealt with those under the law. We are under grace now."
It's not at all clear to me how this talking point you keep repeating addresses the point. Is it or is it not the case that blood is necessary for your god to forgive sins?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
You are trying to make the case that Jesus' blood is not needed for forgiveness and you are on dangerous ground with how you make light of it!!!! My case is , so you can it, is that in order to become a born again Christian, you have to believe in Jesus,his cross, blood and resurrection!!!! "Jesus is the way the truth and the life". Period. Animal sacrifices under law had to be repeated over and over. But Hallelujah Jesus made one sacrifice and it is finished! I am sad for you!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana I have asked you a direct question and I would like a direct answer. Is it or is it not the case that blood is necessary for your god to forgive sins?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
Hey ProfmTH, I think I have been clear that Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross. His blood paid it for us. Yes it is necessary for you to accept his blood sacrifice to gain forgiveness for your sins. There is no other way to come to him but through the blood! Ain't that great that he paid it and you don't have too!!!!! You are like me, just not good enough to pay it yourself. It's just all him!!!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "Yes it is necessary for you to accept his blood sacrifice to gain forgiveness for your sins."
So, the portions of your scriptures that say blood is *not* necessary for your god to forgive sins are incorrect?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
No they were for that dispensation under law. Like I said we are under GRACE now! (the New Testament). God says to rightly divide the Word, which you are not doing!!! You can't judge us Christians and tell us that or salvation is not real. We know the truth and the change that takes place. Now you on the other hand, are deceived by satan and can't see the truth! Can you drag out a verse from the New Testament that says Jesus' blood was not needed for redemption? cont:
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana
Here a a few verses from the New Testament which proclaim the need for Jesus' blood for redemption. Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, Hebrews 9:14 and Revelations 5: 9..... which I will put on here. "You are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation". Get that in the last book of the Bible , Jesus, slain,redeemed us by his blood! It is finished!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "No they were for that dispensation under law."
So, the Old Testament god could forgive sins without any blood being shed, is that correct?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
You need to come to Jesus and you will understand all of this instead of trying to discredit it! The animal sacrifices were a covering and it was in anticipation of the coming of Christ to offer his blood. It was a ritual under the law to portray the coming Savior. God looked at it as a covering for their sins. They obeyed and he forgave them. No more animals needed now since Jesus shed his for us in this day of grace!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana Ma'am, I'd appreciate your answering the direct question I asked you. Could the Old Testament god forgive sins without any blood being shed or was shed blood always necessary (i.e., in both the Old and New Testaments) for Yahweh to forgive sins?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
No it took blood to atone for sins. The animal sacrifices pointed to the one sacrifice of Jesus and his one time atonement for us. Now if you don't like how God did it then, and now, you will never become his child! You are mixed up and want to live your life without giving account for your sins. Don't confuse the animals sacrifice ,which had to be done over and over, with the ONE sacrifice Jesus made! His is so powerful it takes only one time. Now you are making me type happy!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "No it took blood to atone for sins."
If that is true, why does the god who you claim always required blood in order to forgive sins found saying in the Bible--as I showed in the video--that he forgives sins *without* there being any blood shed? *That* is the issue here.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
Sir, God says he had no pleasure in the bloody sacrifices and they did not meet the demands of his Holiness.He didn't desire but required. Get the point? Under law they did have to offer sacrifices for sins. But they were a foreshadow of the real sacrifice of Jesus which is able to make us a new creature, which did meet God's holiness! God is Almighty and chose how he wanted to deal with us and that is his business. Being an unbeliever you are cherry picking to mislead!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "God says he had no pleasure in the bloody sacrifices and they did not meet the demands of his Holiness.He didn't desire but required. Get the point?"
Yes, I get the point quite well. My question still stands. Why is the god who you claim always required blood in order to forgive sins (even though he didn't like it) found saying in the Bible--as shown in the video--that he forgives sins *without* there being any blood shed, that blood was *not* necessary for forgiveness?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
Okay here it is that you are not getting! "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" II Tim. 2:15." Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" I Cor. 2:13 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". II Peter 1:20. cont.....
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
You are trying to pin God down to just your verses to prove your point. And you are not able to compare spiritual things to spiritual things because you are blinded spiritual. Don't put God in a box with a few Scriptures , but put them together and use your spiritual mind, which you don't have. Your interpretation is from a blinded view. I could take a few verses and prove a point of a private interpretation but I am his child and have his Holy Spirit teaching me. I compare scripture.
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "You are trying to pin God down to just your verses to prove your point."
My verses? These are verses in the texts that are purported to have been inspired by your god and which claim to quote him. And, as discussed in the video, several portions of these texts have your god saying blood is not necessary to forgive sins. Does one "pin God down" by quoting his written word?
What seems clear is that you have no answer to the question, that the Bible does not entirely...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @rhinestoneana ...comport with your Christian beliefs. That's not unusual. My challenge to you is to give yourself permission *not* to think the problem is me and my alleged lack of a "spiritual mind," but rather that the problem is you have scriptures that do not agree with one another and a set of religious beliefs that don't entirely comport with those scriptures.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
God uses common sense just like us. His so called "contradictions', are where you have to use your common sense and compare scripture and rightly divide it. For instance "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover", is scripture talking about the apostles and what they could to do to confirm the gospel. It was for a specific period. God says "come now let us reason together".
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
And you don't listen! WHAT DO ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE VERSES THAT TEACH " WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SIN. "But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." I John 1:7.THE BIBLE SAYS IT!" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness unto him:neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "God uses common sense just like us."
Really? Just a few comments ago, you were insisting that unless one had a "spiritual mind," one could not possibly understand the scriptures. Now it's about common sense.
BTW, Mark 16:17-18, which you quoted, has long been determined not to be original to the Gospel of Mark and even most Christians don't regard it as scripture. Moreover, you've tried to rewrite the passage, trying to make it "about the apostles." The passage itself...
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @rhinestonenana ...says it's about "those who believe" (not solely the apostles). But, of course, since fact does not comport with the prediction, those who regard it as scripture must find a way to interpret the passage that neutralizes it.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...."
Now we're back to that. First the "spiritual mind," then it changed to "common sense," and now this. In addition to not answering questions, you're all over the place.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
Sir, a spiritual mind has common sense! We get our spiritual mind when we become born again! "Mark 16:17-18 not determined to be original" quoting you. I have NEVER heard that before and I have been a Christian a long time. Only in your dreams! Yes common sense is something that everyone should have but some just flip it off. You will bow before a righteous God when you have your appointment to meet him!! I hope you get right before you do!!!! This video is sick!!!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana "I have NEVER heard that before and I have been a Christian a long time."
Then you haven't been keeping up with some very basic biblical scholarship. Verses 9 through 20 are regarded as probably not original.
"This video is sick!!!"
You've yet to refute a word of it. But we've already established that. Thanks for your comments.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH
I have told you that you are quoting the Old Testament under the law and not rightly dividing the Word! You can not prove your point from the New Testament. I do tremble for you that you could be so brazen to make such a video discrediting the blood of Jesus. I am fearful for you!!! You will have faith in Jesus and his blood, when you meet him, but it will be too late then!!!!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@ProfMTH yes man kinds sin required a blood sacrifice to make man, I believe, see how serious this sin thing is,Jesus said it would be better to cut your own hand off or pluck your own eye out then to enter into Hell !
majorl311 6 months ago
@majorl311 " yes man kinds sin required a blood sacrifice"
But as I showed in the video, the Bible says otherwise.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Jesus shed all His blood on the cross for the sins of mankind ,the last thing He said is it is finished!
majorl311 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I agree with rhinestonenana,here is the deal the sins of man against God are like this we could pay the debt for them and it would be a tough one to pay but Jesus took our debts and said He would take the punishment for our sins,therefore He the Son of God paid a debt He did not owe for a debt man could not pay,and after going through all of that Jesus said those who believe on me shall be saved and those who don't shall be damned,He shed His blood for us and we know it !
majorl311 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana Yes after suffering and dying for the sins of mankind and that meant a flogging of 39 stripes ,and crucifixion wound to His side and the crown of thorns,He shed all of His precious blood to pay the debt man owed ,I would say if you don't believe it then there is no other sacrifice for us that will pay for our sins ,so don't believe it and then you can take the other route called Hell to pay!
majorl311 6 months ago
@majorl311
You summed it up perfect major!!! I couldn't have said it better!! This guy will do as the people in Noah's day and scoff and end up in Hell burning throughout eternity! He will see someday how he gambled with the truth and lost! The truth is, LAW says DO, GRACE says done. So it was finished with Jesus shedding his blood.
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana Yes Jesus paid the ultimate price with His suffering on the cross for the sins of mankind and there is no other way to make it out of here and into Heaven!
majorl311 6 months ago
@majorl311
He sure did and I just said the same thing before reading yours. Some people just want to go their own way thinking they are smarter than our creator!! But I have never seen anyone hang a universe on nothing or breathed life into a body made from dirt. Wow major our God is an awesome God!!!
rhinestonenana 6 months ago
@rhinestonenana Yes our God is amazing hanging the universe on nothing is incredible !
majorl311 6 months ago
Why do you think Vampires are so popular? THEY DRINK NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD....
MrWill7980 7 months ago
As an aside 5:45 you do know that that is talking about 2 different gods right. Untill babylon, the jews where polytheistic, and some remained that way up to near jesus time. Yahweh is "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists" and el elohim is "god of powers" they where 2 different deities.
TheCaptainLulz 8 months ago
Doesn't god KILL David's son because of the sin? That is not blood?
bmwm3cs 8 months ago
profmyth
"I'm addressing a particular belief in this video. It's called separating out for purposes of analysis. Is that actually something new and foreign to you?"
Tut Tut Tut, my dear fellow your sarcasm is noted in print, but. as the great Englishman Fredrick Butler stated "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."
“To know the true reality of yourself, you must be aware not only of your conscious thoughts, but also of your unconscious prejudices, bias and habits.
have a nice day
thomasascension 9 months ago
"What can wash away your sins nothing but the blood of Jesus."
What crazy bloody ideas do these Christians believe in.
But I must say that your cherry picking of their beliefs is a little bit suspect. You remind me of a salesman trying to sell ice to the Eskimos.
Just because something is unbelievable does not mean you shouldn't believe it. Put another way, some things are worth believing in whether they're true or not. ~Jeb Dickerson
steveascension 9 months ago
@steveascension "But I must say that your cherry picking of their beliefs is a little bit suspect."
"Cherry picking?" I'm addressing a particular belief in this video. It's called separating out for purposes of analysis. Is that actually something new and foreign to you?
ProfMTH 9 months ago
...I like to watch your videos...they make me look at all sides...the Eastern Church doesn't believe in the blood atonement theory...blood atonement didn't appear until 1100 a.d. under Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury...
XDragasesX 10 months ago
@XDragasesX "I like to watch your videos...they make me look at all sides."
Excellent. Thanks.
"The Eastern Church doesn't believe in blood atonement theory."
Correct.
"blood atonement didn't appear until 1100 a.d. under Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury"
Oh, it appeared LONG before that. See, e.g., Romans 3:25, "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood."
ProfMTH 10 months ago
PAST - PRESENT - FUTURE . . FATHER - SON - HOLY SPIRIT
GOD in flesh was sacrificed for me
vizulfun 11 months ago
u r right. that doctrine is evil satanic vampiric sadistic and rejoyce in the murder & blood of the Messiah just like murderers devils.
Yeshua was necessary though for our Salvation. cuz YHWH´s Word was perverted by traditions & doctrines of the kinda men like paul of tarsus. a pharisee who messed it again.
Yeshua set things in their places & call things their names. then commanded His Message to be Universal. how? sealing it with His life. it proved not selfish interests and made it Universal.
SuperBoomboon 1 year ago
paul of tarsus, muhammad and john calvin r the same person. they perverted the Message of YHWH and Yeshua to straitjacket-crazy lvls.
its very blatant. those who follow them though do it JUST cuz they love SIN and to have a "pious-disguised" excuse to sin is socially acceptable. to be the biggest bastard on the earth but to look and be respected, like a pious men, rocks for them lots.
SuperBoomboon 1 year ago
G'Day ProfMTH,
Love your adept ability to show the abuse of the bible by many Christians to make the verses fit their theological stance. One point though. You mention Ezekiel 18:20 "the son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity …" however Exodus 20:5 says the sins of the father will visit the sons to the fourth generation. Looks like another OT contradicition to me? Exodus says god will, Ezekiel says god will not. What is your take on this please?
Thanks
PeteMOBie1 1 year ago
@PeteMOBie1 I recall discussing these two passages with someone back when I was a believer and coming to the conclusion that the Ezekiel passage represented "a change in policy" from the Exodus passage--this despite James 1:17 saying that with God "there is no variation or shadow of turning." In any case, it is a contradiction, of course.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH - You may have read it before but I'll provide a link to CARM's take on this contradiction.
Link: carm . org / bible-difficulties / genesis-deuteronomy / do-sons-bear-sins-fathers-or-not
It seems to take the stance that generational punishment is how God operates. And, concludes that the passages in Ezekiel like 18:20 are representing or recounting the Law of the Pentateuch.
Ironically this seems to indicate that the Jews are far more fair than the God they worship.
lobothesacred3 10 months ago
@PeteMOBie1 - If you haven't read it before here is a link to the CARM article on this topic.
Link: carm . org / bible-difficulties / genesis-deuteronomy / do-sons-bear-sins-fathers-or-not
Christian Apologetics Research Ministries says there is no contradiction here. The Exodus verses represent God's views on the topic and the Ezekiel passage represents the "Law of the Pentateuch". It also declares that it doesn't matter if generational punishment is fair or not.
lobothesacred3 10 months ago
Its not good enough that the human sacrifice nailed to a stick spilled his blood, to be saved you have to drink it (literally if you are catholic) and eat his actual flesh. I always ask christians, when you are pretending to eat the flesh of jesus, exactly which body part do you visualize you are eating? There are not many body parts that look like a cracker. I NEVER get an answer.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
THIS IS WHY THE NEW NEW NEW TESTAMENT IS A BIG BIG BIG LIE...... ROMAN PISO FAMILY WROTE IT LOL
bbadweb 1 year ago
The funny thing is, in Psalms 51, right after it says "you do not delight in burnt sacrifices' -- a couple verses later it talks about God delighting in burnt sacrifices. FAIL.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree Yep. Contradictions all over the place.
ProfMTH 1 year ago