# Back to basics



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

I thought that in light of the upcoming holiday season, it might be nice if we could have a discussion on one of the most difficult things for non-Christians to accept... the virgin birth. 

We have talked about this before on the forum, but there are a lot of new people here now, and the question never really gets answered, so maybe we can talk about it and maybe someone can show me what I am missing when it comes to the prophecy of the virgin birth.

If anyone is interested, I'm opening it for discussion.  I would like for this to be an honest, open discussion... I really do want to know how the prophecy works for Christianity.  This is one of the questions/problems I had that caused me to leave the church, so if someone has the answer, I would love to hear it.  

The way I see it, the virgin birth is one of the main key necessities of Jesus if he is God in the flesh.  If the virgin birth is not valid, then none of the rest of it matters.

To have a productive discussion, we need to make clear what exactly we believe to be the prophecy, in it's entirety.  So to start with, what exactly, word for word, verse for verse, is the prophecy of the virgin birth, as you understand it.  (and, since it is a prophecy, it needs to be from the Old Testament.)  From everything I have ever known, there is only one mention of the virgin birth in the Old Testament, in the book of Isaiah.  What exactly are the verses of the virgin birth prophecy?

If anyone would like to discuss this, I will be respectful of you and would appreciate the same in return.  If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine and I certainly understand. It's a difficult concept to grasp... that and the resurrection.  Although I find the idea of the resurrection easier to accept than the virgin birth, truth be known.


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 7, 2008)

But D.D. - the question HAS been answered.It's in God's Word.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 7, 2008)

Sorry! Won't take the bait. You set the rules to favor your position. And while that is not a significant problem, "debating" such will not achieve any useful purpose. In the end, nothing will be awarded to either side, nothing will be settled. Tilting at windmills is a fool's folly.

I pray that God will remove your heart of stone and give you one of flesh, that you might come to believe what you can't rationally understand: The truth of who Jesus is and what He has done for you!

Peace unto you and your daughter.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 7, 2008)

You must find the virgin birth in the Torah, and even if you do I will deny it just like the trinity.....


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 7, 2008)

DD:

The question is always a good one.  But I would suggest you have the wrong starting point.  I think the whole Incarnation issue begins with the resurrection and works backwards.  If Jesus rose from the dead, then we need to give some attention to the other things He said and that the Bible says about Him.  If He didn't rise, then anything else is moot.  

Having said that, the only overt prophecy about the VB is indeed Isaiah 7:14.  The key word in the prophecy is the the Hebrew word, 'almah', normally translated 'maiden' with the connotation of virginity being strong.  The passage was widely accepted by the ancients as what's called a "dual" prophecy.  It had a meaning for the current generation and a longer term implication, this one being messianic.  The Hebrews understood the Messianic implications from the outset and when Isaiah was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC, the translators chose the Greek work, "parthenos" (virgin) for the word 'almah'.

Mary's declaration in Luke, "How can this be since I've never been with a man?"  gives us a clue to her surprise at the announcement of her pregnancy.  Joseph's surprise in Matthew's Gospel is also illustrative and enlightening.  He takes pains to point out that the couple did not have relations prior to Jesus' birth.  

If Isaiah's prophecy NOT been generally understood as a Messianic understanding of a literal virgin birth, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been immediately rejected by the largely Jewish Christian audience.  

Again, the virgin birth has no merit or even substance apart from the resurrection.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 7, 2008)

I said in another post I was done,but you appear to either be truly seeking,or trying to draw a conflict,from true believers.IMO the virgin Birth of our Lord(We who Believe).Can be explained in several ways starting with Joseph,who was a devout Jew,before you counter that,even those who are not devout,follow the traditions.Had Mary become pregnant before they were married,both she and Joseph would have been stoned to death,Divine intervention!
Joseph not excepting anything to do with it,but yet having the Word
of GOD coming to him,and telling him what Mary said was true,kept him from having her stoned,or put away privately,not to expose her shame.Divine intervention!
You say you are studying to become a psychologist,you quote from the OT a lot.Read the scriptures.It would and has been proven,that it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE,for our LORD to have faked who he was,because of all of the prophesy that pointed to HIM,and all that HE did,with hundreds,and sometimes Thousands of Witnesses.
You say you believe in GOD,that is "politically correct",but when you mention The name JESUS,things become controversial in the secular world.People still deny HIM 2000 years later,as did the scribes,and pharisees,and saducees the so called Religious leaders of the day.If HE was,and Is not who HE said,He was,why the conflict,It is simple,JESUS,Was,IS,and Always will be GOD In The Flesh.HE is LORD.Merry Christmas!


----------



## farmasis (Nov 7, 2008)

I am sure DD is trying to trap as many as she can into saying that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about a virgin birth of the Messiah, so she can pounce out verses 15-16 so show that the prophecy is not talking about Jesus, but about king Ahaz.

It is a dual prophecy and was messanic and repeated by a heavenly vision in Matthew 1:23.

Either you believe all of that or you don't.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie,

Do you just want to see them (the ones who will even attempt a logical discussion) flounder around trying to explain the unexplainable?    Can't believe you've been asking them the same questions and having the same debates with them for so long.   I've just gotten here and am already tired of their "debate".     What else are they going to say other than "Its true because the Bible said it is."    I think they might be onto something when they say that you spend so much time here because you are being "worked on", but I think you might be working on yourself.    All those years tied up in "believing" must have left some marks that you're trying to reconcile.    I don't think they can help you.    You'll get the same old tired lines that drove you away in the first place.    Have fun with them (if you can) or at best try to get one or two of them to think.    Good luck.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 7, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Dixie,
> 
> Do you just want to see them (the ones who will even attempt a logical discussion) flounder around trying to explain the unexplainable?    Can't believe you've been asking them the same questions and having the same debates with them for so long.   I've just gotten here and am already tired of their "debate".     What else are they going to say other than "Its true because the Bible said it is."    I think they might be onto something when they say that you spend so much time here because you are being "worked on", but I think you might be working on yourself.    All those years tied up in "believing" must have left some marks that you're trying to reconcile.    I don't think they can help you.    You'll get the same old tired lines that drove you away in the first place.    Have fun with them (if you can) or at best try to get one or two of them to think.    Good luck.



Your question, acerbic as it comes across, is a different one.  DD's question is about Biblical Interpretation, yours is about using the Bible as the basis for argument in the first place. 

If the Bible is established as a reliable source, then "The Bible Says So" is a valid argument.  May be right, may be wrong, but still valid.  DD's question, as written, assumes a Biblical authority on the subject.

If you wish to discuss the Bible as an authoritative document, well that's an interesting proposition.  Hard to do in a forum because of the length of time it takes to do posts. 

The discussion of the virgin birth without assuming Biblical authority is an act of futility.  We can't go back and do an obgyn exam on Mary.  The Bible openly declares it to be a Miracle.  

Now, what DD wants to do is use a partial understanding of Isaiah's prophecy to undermine the authority of the NT accounts.  Unfortunately, as I demonstrated in a very abbreviated fashion, was that the Jews always viewed Isaiah's prophecy as multi layered.  It was not until well after Christianity was established that any Jewish scholar tried to separate Isaiah 7:14 from a Messianic understanding.  The very language chosen by the translators of the Septuagint is illustrative of that.  

Still, the virgin birth is a meaningless doctrine apart from the resurrection.  If Jesus is raised, then other pieces begin to fall nicely into place.  If He is not raised, then who the heck cares.  There is no Christianity apart from the Resurrection.

Ah.... I have found myself yet again, violating my pledge to avoid this part of Woody's.  Turns out I'm as weak as any other man.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I am sure DD is trying to trap as many as she can into saying that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about a virgin birth of the Messiah, so she can pounce out verses 15-16 so show that the prophecy is not talking about Jesus, but about king Ahaz.
> 
> It is a dual prophecy and was messanic and repeated by a heavenly vision in Matthew 1:23.
> 
> Either you believe all of that or you don't.




It wasn't a trap.  It was a question.
And yes, I do believe the prophecy had more than verse 14.  What do you mean by dual prophecy?


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 7, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Dixie,
> 
> Do you just want to see them (the ones who will even attempt a logical discussion) flounder around trying to explain the unexplainable?    Can't believe you've been asking them the same questions and having the same debates with them for so long.   I've just gotten here and am already tired of their "debate".     What else are they going to say other than "Its true because the Bible said it is."    I think they might be onto something when they say that you spend so much time here because you are being "worked on", but I think you might be working on yourself.    All those years tied up in "believing" must have left some marks that you're trying to reconcile.    I don't think they can help you.    You'll get the same old tired lines that drove you away in the first place.    Have fun with them (if you can) or at best try to get one or two of them to think.    Good luck.




The difference between the two of you is that Dixie, while convinced of her beliefs, is open to the possibility that she may not know the answer to every question....

That is not true in your case.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Sorry! Won't take the bait. You set the rules to favor your position.





farmasis said:


> You must find the virgin birth in the Torah, and even if you do I will deny it just like the trinity.....



If a virgin birth were one of the signs of the messiah, it should be easily found in the Old Testament.  I don't see why my question is considered 'trickery' or deceptive, either the Old Testament says it or it doesn't.  



Dogmusher said:


> DD:
> Having said that, the only overt prophecy about the VB is indeed Isaiah 7:14.  The key word in the prophecy is the the Hebrew word, 'almah', normally translated 'maiden' with the connotation of virginity being strong.  The passage was widely accepted by the ancients as what's called a "dual" prophecy.  It had a meaning for the current generation and a longer term implication, this one being messianic.  The Hebrews understood the Messianic implications from the outset and when Isaiah was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC, the translators chose the Greek work, "parthenos" (virgin) for the word 'almah'.
> 
> If Isaiah's prophecy NOT been generally understood as a Messianic understanding of a literal virgin birth, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been immediately rejected by the largely Jewish Christian audience.



The virgin birth idea was rejected by most of the Jews, which is why they began recruiting the pagan gentiles 

As far as the translation in the Septuagint, that would take another thread for discussion... but for now I'll just say that except for the Pentateuch there is no way to know when the other books of the Septuagint were translated to Greek and added in, it could have been anywhere from around 3 BC to 1BC, which is a difference of 300 years.  Again, that is a very different and much more in-depth discussion, but suffice it to say that Jews don't read the Septuagint, they read the Hebrew.

At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by dual prophecy for this verse and how it had meaning for the current generation and longer term implication.  Could you explain it a bit more?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> The difference between the two of you is that Dixie, while convinced of her beliefs, is open to the possibility that she may not know the answer to every question....



You're absolutely right, I sure don't know the answer to every question!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

farmasis said:


> You must find the virgin birth in the Torah, and even if you do I will deny it just like the trinity.....



Who is Jesus?  Is he the Wonderful Counselor, or is he the Mighty God?  Or is he the Son?   Or is he the Alpha and the Omega?  Or is he the Lamb of God?  Or is he the Savior? Or is he the Word?


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If a virgin birth were one of the signs of the messiah, it should be easily found in the Old Testament.



Why?


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Who is Jesus?  Is he the Wonderful Counselor, or is he the Mighty God?  Or is he the Son?   Or is he the Alpha and the Omega?  Or is he the Lamb of God?  Or is he the Savior? Or is he the Word?



Yes...yes he is.

Are you Dixie, or Kerri, or Mom, or whatever your job is?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Why?



Because that is where the prophecies for the messiah are.  That's where the blueprint of who the messiah is.  That's where the Jews were supposed to be able to find the tools to know who the messiah was.  If it didn't say so in the Old Testament, then it wasn't a sign to the Jews.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Yes...yes he is.
> 
> Are you Dixie, or Kerri, or Mom, or whatever your job is?



Yes, I am.  And you said it perfectly there... those are my JOBS.  They are not my 'natures'.  I am one being,with one nature, with many different titles and jobs. God is one being, with one nature, not three.  When the Old Testament talks about different jobs/aspects of God, it isn't done so for anyone to try and break him apart into three different beings made up into one.  There is no father, son and holy spirit... there is just God, who has the role of father and who is spirit.

But now I'm derailing my own thread


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 7, 2008)

But....could he have been born of a virgin and still been the Messiah?  That's my question.  Does that EXCLUDE him from qualification?

I think it IS there.  But that's not the point.  Why does the virgin birth have to be one of the listed prophecies?  Could that not have just been something God chose to do?  See what I'm getting at


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 7, 2008)

So WHO is he?  He has the ROLE of Father and his FORM is spirit.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> But....could he have been born of a virgin and still been the Messiah?  That's my question.  Does that EXCLUDE him from qualification?
> 
> I think it IS there.  But that's not the point.  Why does the virgin birth have to be one of the listed prophecies?  Could that not have just been something God chose to do?  See what I'm getting at



I think I know what you're saying, but then again I don't.  

The Christian view is that Jesus was born of a virgin because the sacrifice had to be without the sin nature of Adam being passed on to the messiah.  They say that this was  prophesied in the Old Testament and that God said this was how it was going to be.

God would be the one to list the ways for the Jews to know who the messiah was. Otherwise, how would they know who the true messiah was?  As you can tell from reading the Old Testament, the Jews had their fair share of straying from God and following pagan religions.  The Old Testament and the prophecies were given to them by God to give the Jews a way to check themselves before they wrecked themselves (   sorry, couldn't resist) and to give them a check point to know if something was of God or if it was of a pagan nature.

The pagans were big on virgin births... do a Google for pagan gods and see how many are said to have been born of a virgin.   

So, no, given the history of what God said in the bible, to think that he just 'threw in' a virgin birth is not how God seems to work.  Everything else in the bible shows that God has a plan, and has given the outline of his plan so that his people know what to look for, where they are going and how to get there.  Otherwise, how would anyone know what was the truth and what wasn't?  Does that make sense?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> So WHO is he?  He has the ROLE of Father and his FORM is spirit.



This is really a hard topic to discuss in writing 

I'll cut it down a little to try and make it easier to explain where I'm coming from.

Christians say that Jesus is the Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Does that mean that Jesus is three separate entities/natures that form one Jesus?  That the Way is one part, The Truth is another, and The Life yet a separate one?  Can The Way send The Life to one place and have it doing something while The Truth is off doing something else?  Does The Way know when something is going to happen, but keeps it a secret from the Truth and The Life, but they're all still 100% Jesus?

All of those descriptions/names that I posted are talking about God... the one and only God, not a trinity, just one.  God has those titles because they describe who he is.  He is God and he is alone... he says so many times over in the Old Testament. 

I hope I'm explaining how I see things here... even if you don't agree, I hope you can get what I'm trying to say 

Now stop enabling me to derail my own thread!!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2008)

Dogmusher said:


> Your question, acerbic as it comes across, is a different one.  DD's question is about Biblical Interpretation, yours is about using the Bible as the basis for argument in the first place.
> 
> If the Bible is established as a reliable source, then "The Bible Says So" is a valid argument.  May be right, may be wrong, but still valid.  DD's question, as written, assumes a Biblical authority on the subject.




Absolutely correct.    I am no authority on the Bible and therefore am unqualified to enter this discussion.


----------



## Randy (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The way I see it, the virgin birth is one of the main key necessities of Jesus if he is God in the flesh.  If the virgin birth is not valid, then none of the rest of it matters.



Actually I don't feel it has any validity to who Christ was and if He was.  It has no bearing on my belief in Christ that He was born to a virgin mother.  Maybe he wasn't maybe the Christians said that because Zeus (the Greek's God) was also to have been born of a Virgin mother.  I don't know and it really is not important to me.

The fact is he was here, there is historical proof of His life, He was killed and there is historical proof of that and he rose again.  This is what matters.  As far as I am concerned everything else in the Bible can be wholey or partly true.  I will not argue any other parts.  I have my beliefs but they are just that.

In fact, that is all I need to know and believe to get to Heaven!  Even Jesus said that.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 7, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Dixie,
> 
> Do you just want to see them (the ones who will even attempt a logical discussion) flounder around trying to explain the unexplainable? Can't believe you've been asking them the same questions and having the same debates with them for so long. I've just gotten here and am already tired of their "debate". What else are they going to say other than "Its true because the Bible said it is." I think they might be onto something when they say that you spend so much time here because you are being "worked on", but I think you might be working on yourself. All those years tied up in "believing" must have left some marks that you're trying to reconcile. I don't think they can help you. You'll get the same old tired lines that drove you away in the first place. Have fun with them (if you can) or at best try to get one or two of them to think. Good luck.


 
Are you saying spiritual things should be explained with unspiritual reasoning?

OK, try this on, a little reversal. Prove evolution without using science.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It wasn't a trap. It was a question.
> And yes, I do believe the prophecy had more than verse 14. What do you mean by dual prophecy?


 
Dual prophecy meaning dual purpose and used for two totally seperate occurances. It was originally given to king Azah, but also as fortelling of the Messiah to come from a virgin later.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If a virgin birth were one of the signs of the messiah, it should be easily found in the Old Testament. I don't see why my question is considered 'trickery' or deceptive, either the Old Testament says it or it doesn't.


 
It is Isaiah 7:14.




> The virgin birth idea was rejected by most of the Jews, which is why they began recruiting the pagan gentiles


 
Did they accept anything of Jesus? No.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Dual prophecy meaning dual purpose and used for two totally seperate occurances. It was originally given to king Azah, but also as fortelling of the Messiah to come from a virgin later.



I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really don't understand what you're saying.  Are you saying that it applied to someone in Ahaz's time, and again for the messiah?


----------



## farmasis (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that it applied to someone in Ahaz's time, and again for the messiah?


 
Yes, exactly.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 7, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Absolutely correct.    I am no authority on the Bible and therefore am unqualified to enter this discussion.



I was talking about the Bible's authority, not yours.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The virgin birth idea was rejected by most of the Jews, which is why they began recruiting the pagan gentiles
> 
> NOT!
> 
> As far as the translation in the Septuagint, that would take another thread for discussion... but for now I'll just say that except for the Pentateuch there is no way to know when the other books of the Septuagint were translated to Greek and added in, it could have been anywhere from around 3 BC to 1BC, which is a difference of 300 years.  Again, that is a very different and much more in-depth discussion, but suffice it to say that Jews don't read the Septuagint, they read the Hebrew.



Actually, the Septuagint was pretty much completed by 285 BC, and certainly Isaiah was.  

The Virgin Birth does not stand or fall on Isaiah 7.  It stands or falls on the Resurrection.  The Virgin Birth is claimed by the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke as a fact.  They tell it as narrative.  Matthew points to it as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.  It is not unusual for the NT writers to see in Jesus fulfillment of prophecy.  If the Holy Spirit is inspiring them, as I believe, then their statements are accurate, even if the Jews didn't expect a Virgin Birth.  But without a resurrection attested to by "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1), then stating Jesus was born of a virgin is not even interesting.  It's just a wild claim.

I don't want to get sidetracked by the subject of Biblical Inspiration, so let me just add that without the resurrection the entire new testament falls to dust.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2008)

Dogmusher said:


> I was talking about the Bible's authority, not yours.



And I said, I cannot enter the discussion (in regards to the original question) because I am unwilling to refer to the Bible as a credible source.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 7, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> And I said, I cannot enter the discussion (in regards to the original question) because I am unwilling to refer to the Bible as a credible source.



Fair enough.  Perhaps some day we will have that discussion.  But I won't pursue in now.  That would take this thread


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Are you saying spiritual things should be explained with unspiritual reasoning?
> 
> OK, try this on, a little reversal. Prove evolution without using science.




Exactly the opposite.    

Firstly,  spiritual things are not subject to reason.

Secondly,   evolution describes a scientific theory based on data.     It doesn't need anyone to say: " I just know it in my heart that evolution is working.   If you could just open your heart you can see the shining truth of it's wondrous power and it will work for you.    I just want to share the joy and peace that believing in evolution has given me."   It has been tested and continues to be tested everyday.   

There are scientists that truly accept evolution as a scientific theory and base their research on it's principles, yet they continue to ask questions about it's validity and refine their methods of testing it.    Not so in religion.     As a matter of fact, asking questions about religion will get you


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 7, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly the opposite.
> 
> Firstly,  spiritual things are not subject to reason.
> 
> ...



Dude, you move in the wrong circles.  I know plenty of Christians who don't talk the way you describe.  In fact, I consider myself one of those.  I know excellent scientists who are creationists.  My faith is founded on good solid evidence.  Faith goes beyond evidence, to be sure.  It is a step into the unknown based on what is known.  You will never hear that, "I just know in my heart" baloney come from my lips (or keyboard).  

And to try and drag my response here back on topic, Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection.  The physical resurrection of Jesus.  Dead, buried, alive again.  If that is a real event, then what He has to say on other topics would be worth paying attention to.  If his skeleton is lying in the ground somewhere then the whole Christianity thing is done.  The Bible itself, says so.  Read I Corinthians 15.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2008)

Dogmusher said:


> Dude, you move in the wrong circles.  I know plenty of Christians who don't talk the way you describe.  In fact, I consider myself one of those.  I know excellent scientists who are creationists.  My faith is founded on good solid evidence.  Faith goes beyond evidence, to be sure.  It is a step into the unknown based on what is known.  You will never hear that, "I just know in my heart" baloney come from my lips (or keyboard).



That's cool, man.    I gather from your post that you are a thinking person.    I would love to hear how your science friends reconcile creationist theory with scientific evidence.    I'd also like to hear more about that concept of "stepping into the unknown based on the known".  Maybe a PM?


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 7, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes, I am.  And you said it perfectly there... those are my JOBS.  They are not my 'natures'.  I am one being,with one nature, with many different titles and jobs. God is one being, with one nature, not three.  When the Old Testament talks about different jobs/aspects of God, it isn't done so for anyone to try and break him apart into three different beings made up into one.  There is no father, son and holy spirit... there is just God, who has the role of father and who is spirit.
> 
> But now I'm derailing my own thread



Kerri,
Why ask of The Virgin birth,if you don't believe in The Triune GOD HEAD?
JESUS The Messiah,that has come,IS THE LAMB OF GOD!
JESUS THE Messiah,that will come again,IS THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH!
There is your answer to the dual prophesy,Gentiles as well as the 1st century Jews who believed,accepted and saw HIM as The Lamb OF GOD.
Devout Jews who study and live by the law,and The Torah,are waiting and looking for The Lion Of The Tribe Of Judah,Who will be their GOD,and sit in The Throne of David,and HE will And HIS name is JESUS.To The Jews HIS name is YESHUA HOO HA Massiach,JESUS THE MESSIAH.In the OT,and the New Testament HE was referred to as EMMANUEL (GOD with us).To Moses I'AM THAT I'AM,JEHOVAH,YAHWEH.THE ONE TRUE GOD.

Michael


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> Kerri,
> Why ask of The Virgin birth,if you don't believe in The Triune GOD HEAD?
> JESUS The Messiah,that has come,IS THE LAMB OF GOD!
> JESUS THE Messiah,that will come again,IS THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH!
> ...




ABSOLUTELY NOT.
You need to brush up on Judaism if you think that they are waiting for any man to worship as God.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Dogmusher said:


> And to try and drag my response here back on topic, Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection.  The physical resurrection of Jesus.  Dead, buried, alive again.  If that is a real event, then what He has to say on other topics would be worth paying attention to.  If his skeleton is lying in the ground somewhere then the whole Christianity thing is done.  The Bible itself, says so.  Read I Corinthians 15.



And if the virgin birth is not true, then he was a mere man like any other man on earth, and his death on the cross meant nothing.  That's why I started there.  Life comes before death.  Physically, anyway


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

Dogmusher said:


> Actually, the Septuagint was pretty much completed by 285 BC, and certainly Isaiah was.




Where are you getting your information from?
That's not what my studies have found. I'd like to see yours.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 7, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Yes, exactly.



So there were two virgin births?  One in Ahaz's time and then Jesus?


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 8, 2008)

I'll bite....chomp chomp....pretty tasty. 

If God created the heaven and the earth then He can do anything....is that back to basics enough?

If He can heal someone of cancer or run the demons out, or lead the jews on a 12 mile trip that took 40 years then yeah, He can artificially inseminate  someone by His power.

Heck a virgin can have a baby now by artificial insemination even without God's help.  I have no problemo with that. Ever heard, "nothing new under the sun"?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 8, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> I'll bite....chomp chomp....pretty tasty.
> 
> If God created the heaven and the earth then He can do anything....is that back to basics enough?
> 
> ...



I don't believe I asked if God 'could' do it.
I asked where and what the prophecy of the virgin birth from the Old Testament was. 
Somehow you started 'chomping' at the wrong plate... 

An artificial insemination today would not be a sufficient virgin birth, because the sperm used would still have come from a human male, and the whole point of the virgin birth, at least according to Christianity, is so that Jesus would not have the 'sin nature' of Adam and could be a pure sacrifice for your sins.  Or do you not believe in that in your Christian faith?


----------



## jason4445 (Nov 8, 2008)

The virgin birth alone does not eliminate Jesus from the burden of the original sin.  You have to go back one more step to the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This whole business of Jesus having to be pure and free from sin is 100% Catholic concept.  

The virgin Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, conceived Mary in the usual fashion and she would normally be tainted with the Adam sin.  But God, knowing Mary was going to be Jesus's mother filled Anna's womb "full of Grace" and at conception Mary was cleansed immaculately and freed not only of the Original Sin, but as the Catholics believe, of any sin she might comment during her life. (By the way for  all you anti abortion people against it cause the Bible says it is wrong - this is just about the only part of the Bible that many believe dictates that life starts at conception.)

Okay, now that Mary is full of grace and sin free we now have to turn to Jesus.  The Holy Spirit  conceives the egg of Mary with the Holy Seed and now you have the Virgin Birth.  Which makes Jesus free of the original sin and pure as the driven snow.  For those that believe Jesus was a God at conception and birth this makes a nice story to prove that, for those that think Jesus did not become a God until he went up to heaven  it is just a bunch of Catholic hooey.

Should we believe in all of that? Well why not?  It is a nice sweet story, you can base a dozen or more of Catholic/Conservative Christian concepts on it, and it does make a wonderful addition to the lyrics of many Christmas Carols.

Do I believe in all of that?  Sort of I guess, but what difference does it make?  If all of the sudden it was definitely proven that the Virgin birth was all made up how in any way would that change Jesus's message and miracles - would you believe less in Jesus if he did not come from a virgin?


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 8, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And if the virgin birth is not true, then he was a mere man like any other man on earth, and his death on the cross meant nothing.  That's why I started there.  Life comes before death.  Physically, anyway



I don't disagree that the Virgin Birth is an important doctrine of Christianity.  But it is not the evidential starting point of the Divinity or Messiahship of Jesus.  He never claimed that, nor did the Apostles.  The validity of Jesus claims about Himself and the New Testament claims about Him flow backwards from the Resurrection.  The virgin birth is a moot point if there is no resurrection.  That is Step 1.  Step 2, as Abush80 has alluded to is the authoritative nature of the NT writings.  Because while I am convinced that the first century Jews were not surprised by the Gospel account of the Virgin Birth, even if they were, and Matthew is giving a new twist to the understanding, then it is an Inspired interpretation, and the 'new' interpretation can only be accepted as authoritative based on the Fact of the resurrection.

So, we may be at an impasse.  If you 1. accept as fact the physical resurrection of Jesus and 2 accept as authoritative the New Testament scriptures, then we can go forward.  If not, then the discussion only spins in circles making everyone dizzy.

Regarding the LXX, I will work on a bibliography.  But probably not this weekend.  Today is my anniversary and we have a ton of stuff on at Church tomorrow.  In the meantime, consider this.  The Septuagint was the common, most widely used version of the Old Testament used during the first century A.D. and before.  It was not Hebrew.  There is essentially a 1000 year gap between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text for Hebrew OT.  But there are tons of copies of the LXX.  Until the discovery of the DSS, the majority of translation work was done from the Septuagint.  That's a whole other interesting historical study.   The NT writers primarily used the Septuagint as their OT, as did all people.  Josephus, for example, the great Jewish historian of the first century.

But, the LXX is a rabbit trail.  An interesting one, to be sure, but the question at hand is the validity of the Virgin Birth.  So let's go to the Empty Grave and get started.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 8, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> That's cool, man.    I gather from your post that you are a thinking person.    I would love to hear how your science friends reconcile creationist theory with scientific evidence.    I'd also like to hear more about that concept of "stepping into the unknown based on the known".  Maybe a PM?



Will do.  Won't promise a time table, but I won't forget.  I actually hope to get some hunting done this fall and winter.  Crazy concept, I know.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 8, 2008)

Dixie, this is a very good challenge to those that believe the translated word is just that, and trust vehamently those "Humans" that translated it.

Here's her challenge, the word Almah literally translated from Hebrew means young girl, but for many generations of Bible the word Virgin was used instead of the true translation.

Thus our quandry.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 8, 2008)

The Protevangelium

The first hint in the Old Testament that the coming Christ would be born of a virgin occurs right at the beginning.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:15

This prophecy, known as the Protevangelium, comes from the most ancient oracle known to man, from the oracle that the Lord pronounced when He found our first parents, Adam and Eve, guilty of sin. The Lord is speaking to Satan, who has enticed "the woman," Eve, into disobeying the Lord's command against eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is saying that Satan will someday be crushed and thereby utterly defeated by the seed of the woman.

The pronoun used to designate the seed is "his" (in "his heel"). In place of "it" (in "it shall bruise"), the more accurate translation is "he" (1). Therefore, the coming conqueror must be a single man. But why is He called the seed of a woman? A child is ordinarily regarded as the seed of his father and forefathers. The striking and unnatural character of the expression "her seed" suggests that it is a uniquely fitting name for the victor over Satan. Unlike other men, He would be the seed of a woman only. He would not be a man's seed. A virgin would conceive Him without losing her virginity.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 8, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So there were two virgin births? One in Ahaz's time and then Jesus?


 
no, one was symbolic, the other actual.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 8, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly the opposite.
> 
> Firstly, spiritual things are not subject to reason.
> 
> ...


 
Not true for everyone.
Just as those who accept evolution because man said so, that are those who accept spiritual things because God said so.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 8, 2008)

What about the prophecy in Jeremiah?

 22 How long will you wander, 
       O unfaithful daughter? 
       The LORD will create a new thing on earth— 
       a woman will surround a man."


----------



## jason4445 (Nov 8, 2008)

It has always been funny to me how if things in the Bible make sense it is the true word of God.  Then if things don't gee-haw at all then they are all suddenly representational and symbolic.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 8, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
> You need to brush up on Judaism if you think that they are waiting for any man to worship as God.



Evidently you do,David The king of Israel,said in one of his Psalms."My LORD is sitting at the right hand of My LORD."
They have been waiting for The Messiah for 1000's of years.
You are most definitely wrong,and I'm sorry,but you are wrong on everything you post on this forum.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 8, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> Evidently you do,David The king of Israel,said in one of his Psalms."My LORD is sitting at the right hand of My LORD."
> They have been waiting for The Messiah for 1000's of years.
> You are most definitely wrong,and I'm sorry,but you are wrong on everything you post on this forum.



 

Sorry, but... no.
The messiah is NOT going to be 'God in the flesh'.  The Jews have NOT been waiting for God to come to earth in human form.  EVER.  Don't take my word for it... next Friday, go to any shul in your area and ask a Jew for yourself... 'Is the messiah you are waiting for going to be God in the flesh?'  Or, if you don't feel like getting shot down in person, head on over to www.AskMoses.com  and speak to a Jewish Rabbi via live chat... ask them if the messiah they are waiting for is going to be God in the flesh or if he will be a regular man, just like you, one who wasn't born of a virgin or immaculately conceived. 

And while you're there... ask them about the Psalm you quoted.  Maybe you can have them explain it to you in the Hebrew.  Although even then you would not understand.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 8, 2008)

farmasis said:


> no, one was symbolic, the other actual.



So you're saying that the verse in Isaiah... that talks about a virgin being pregnant and giving birth... there was an actual woman there with Ahaz who was pregnant and gave birth, was referred to as a 'virgin' even though she was not, and it was symbolic of what would happen later with Mary?     I am really trying to get what you're saying here, but I'm not sure how you get that from the passages in Isaiah.

Are there any other verses that Christians claim are 'dual prophecies'?


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Sorry, but... no.
> The messiah is NOT going to be 'God in the flesh'.  The Jews have NOT been waiting for God to come to earth in human form.  EVER.  Don't take my word for it... next Friday, go to any shul in your area and ask a Jew for yourself... 'Is the messiah you are waiting for going to be God in the flesh?'  Or, if you don't feel like getting shot down in person, head on over to www.AskMoses.com  and speak to a Jewish Rabbi via live chat... ask them if the messiah they are waiting for is going to be God in the flesh or if he will be a regular man, just like you, one who wasn't born of a virgin or immaculately conceived.
> 
> And while you're there... ask them about the Psalm you quoted.  Maybe you can have them explain it to you in the Hebrew.  Although even then you would not understand.



A devout Jew is blinded to the Fact,of GOD incarnate.A Jew
unless they are Messianic Jews,who practice the rituals and laws of Judaism and Christianity,and accept YESHUA(JESUS),believe GOD is ONE,and HE IS ONE,but and yet THREE distinct PERSONS.If you want me to explain THE TRINITY,I can't.In Genesis when GOD said,"Let US create man in OUR Image,HE wasn't talking to the angels.
Salvation is a gift,obtained by faith through grace.You say you believe in GOD,ask GOD in faith nothing wavering to show you the truth,be open minded with no doubt,ask in all sincerity I challenge you to do this,nothing about this is funny,and I see your little Icons as a childish gesture.You either have faith or you don't,but if you ask The True GOD,what I asked you above.You are no exception to the rule,if you don't get saved,you were not sincere.It is the simpelist thing in the world to do,and yet some people make it so hard.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> A devout Jew is blinded to the Fact,of GOD incarnate.



Wrong.
God made it VERY clear to the Jews that He has no form.  Read Deuteronomy chapter 4.  He expresses it over and over again how He purposely took no form so that they would not be able to make an image of His form to worship.  He didn't do it before Jesus, and since the bible says that God does not change, he didn't do it as Jesus either.

Please show me one time where God 'became' or morphed into anything in the Old Testament.




> Salvation is a gift,obtained by faith through grace.You say you believe in GOD,ask GOD in faith nothing wavering to show you the truth,be open minded with no doubt,ask in all sincerity I challenge you to do this,nothing about this is funny,and I see your little Icons as a childish gesture.You either have faith or you don't,but if you ask The True GOD,what I asked you above.You are no exception to the rule,if you don't get saved,you were not sincere.It is the simpelist thing in the world to do,and yet some people make it so hard.



I have already done this, many times over.  I did it even when I was a believing Christian.  I prayed, begged, pleaded with God to show me the truth. I believe God gave me his answer... he brought me out of the church.  Just because it wasn't the answer you want (or the answer I wanted, for that matter) doesn't mean it's not the TRUTH.

And I didn't use any icons in that reply, so I don't know what you're referring to.  I'm always amused by people who complain about smilies, etc. yet their use of grammar, spelling and punctuation makes it difficult to sometimes even read their posts.   Often it is difficult to express yourself on forums, and smilies are merely an aid to help get the 'feel' of the post across.  Smilies should be the least of your worries.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 9, 2008)

Ah, the paradox of the ages.  Two pray, "show me".  One gets one feeling, one another.  To whom did God speak?  Since God is not the author of confusion, someone must be wrong.  I have never been very fond of "I know it in my heart because God revealed it to me...." as a useful argument to present to the unbeliever or the unconvinced.  It is impossible to debate.  There is no refutation or rebuttal for feelings.  But there is no pursuasion either. Therefore, we must return to the evidence.  Let us leave philosophy and existentialism for a moment and play a little CSI.  The ground rules of NT Christianity insist on the bodily resurrection of Jesus being the, pardon the pun, crux of the Faith.  Without it, there is no Christianity so other doctrinal talk is pointless.  Those discussions are a bridge to nowhere.  The resurrection is the focal point of every sermon described with any detail in the Book of Acts.  For the Jew the the resurrection was support for Jesus claims as Messiah.  For the Gentile, the Resurrection was the evidence of Jesus' Deity and the hope for life after death. The 15th chapter of I Corinthians is a clear explanation of the place Jesus' resurrection plays in the doctrine and hope of Christians.  

For everyone genuinely interested in discovering the TRUTH, I urge you to go to the empty grave and as Grissom would say, "Follow the Evidence."  For those who want to dance around with peripheral issues, enjoy yourselves.  I don't have time to play in that game.  

One of the frustration points of the Spiritual Forum is that there are so many different starting points, sources of authority and premises.  There are no 'rules of engagement'.  Its like taking a day tour of the tower of Babel.   I don't say that to upset anyone, I'm just wired a certain way when it comes to debate.  Sounding off on a subject is a different story.  I love talking baloney as much as anyone. That's why I love the Political and Campfire forums.  I have no expectations.  In this place I do have expectations and sadly, my patience wears thin, so I have to retreat to my cave from time to time for a coke and a smile.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Wrong.
> destroy'kGod made it VERY clear to the Jews that He has no form.  Read Deuteronomy chapter 4.  He expresses it over and over again how He purposely took no form so that they would not be able to make an image of His form to worship.  He didn't do it before Jesus, and since the bible says that God does not change, he didn't do it as Jesus either.
> 
> Please show me one time where God 'became' or morphed into anything in the Old Testament
> ...



When GOD and 2 of HIS Angels ate supper with Abraham,just before HE destroyed Sodom and Gammora.When Shadrach,Meshach,and Abednigo were in the firey furnace,and he saw a fourth MAN in the furnace as if HE were THE SON OF GOD.There are other scriptures besides these,as when Moses saw His Glory,from HIS hind side,If HE had no form,how could HE have a hind side?
There is also Melchesidic KING OF SALEM(PEACE)with no beginning and no end,whom Abraham gave a 10th of his belongings to.I'll admit some preachers don't know if HE was GOD incarnate or not,but why would GOD allow,a man to have one of HIS titles KING OF SALEM(SHALOM)Peace?


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So you're saying that the verse in Isaiah... that talks about a virgin being pregnant and giving birth... there was an actual woman there with Ahaz who was pregnant and gave birth, was referred to as a 'virgin' even though she was not, and it was symbolic of what would happen later with Mary?  I am really trying to get what you're saying here, but I'm not sure how you get that from the passages in Isaiah.
> 
> Are there any other verses that Christians claim are 'dual prophecies'?


 
It is a dual prophecy because originally Isaiah prophesied about a woman who was a virgin who would give birth to a son named Immanuel and before the child was old enough to know right from wrong the plan of Israel and Syria to conquer Judah would result in the destruction of those forces.
Then, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and repeated the prophesy to him, giving it a dual nature (Matt 1:23)

Another dual prophesy is also found in 2 Samuel 7 when an angel came to David (through a vision of Nathan) predicting the kingdom of Solomon and also later to Jesus.

12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took _it_ from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you.<SUP>[b]</SUP> Your throne shall be established forever.”’”


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> It is a dual prophecy because originally Isaiah prophesied about a woman who was a virgin who would give birth to a son named Immanuel and before the child was old enough to know right from wrong the plan of Israel and Syria to conquer Judah would result in the destruction of those forces.
> Then, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and repeated the prophesy to him, giving it a dual nature (Matt 1:23)



So how was this virgin birth different from Jesus?  If they were both born of virgins, then Immanuel was also sinless?  I don't get it....



> Another dual prophesy is also found in 2 Samuel 7 when an angel came to David (through a vision of Nathan) predicting the kingdom of Solomon and also later to Jesus.
> 
> 12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took _it_ from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you.<SUP>[b]</SUP> Your throne shall be established forever.”’”



How could that possibly relate to Jesus?


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> When GOD and 2 of HIS Angels ate supper with Abraham,just before HE destroyed Sodom and Gammora.When Shadrach,Meshach,and Abednigo were in the firey furnace,and he saw a fourth MAN in the furnace as if HE were THE SON OF GOD.There are other scriptures besides these,as when Moses saw His Glory,from HIS hind side,If HE had no form,how could HE have a hind side?
> There is also Melchesidic KING OF SALEM(PEACE)with no beginning and no end,whom Abraham gave a 10th of his belongings to.I'll admit some preachers don't know if HE was GOD incarnate or not,but why would GOD allow,a man to have one of HIS titles KING OF SALEM(SHALOM)Peace?


 
Great answer CH.

Let us not also forget who Jacob wrestled with, God appearing in a burning bush to Moses, and before Joshua as the commander of the army of the Lord.

Yes, Jesus appears many times in the OT and I feel that Jesus was one of the three that appeared to Abraham on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Who else would Abraham be referring to as the Lord?


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So how was this virgin birth different from Jesus? If they were both born of virgins, then Immanuel was also sinless? I don't get it....


 
No, the birth originally referred to was from a woman who was a virgin at the present time, not when she concieved. It was not an immaculate conception. It was to show Azah that it would be very soon.



> How could that possibly relate to Jesus?


 
It doesn't. That part refers to Solomon, just as some parts in Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. And before I am accused of convienantly picking and choosing which would refer to Jesus and which was not, I am only quoting what was recorded by Matthew that applies to Jesus.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Sorry, but... no.
> The messiah is NOT going to be 'God in the flesh'.  The Jews have NOT been waiting for God to come to earth in human form.  EVER.  Don't take my word for it... next Friday, go to any shul in your area and ask a Jew for yourself... 'Is the messiah you are waiting for going to be God in the flesh?'  Or, if you don't feel like getting shot down in person, head on over to www.AskMoses.com  and speak to a Jewish Rabbi via live chat... ask them if the messiah they are waiting for is going to be God in the flesh or if he will be a regular man, just like you, one who wasn't born of a virgin or immaculately conceived.
> 
> And while you're there... ask them about the Psalm you quoted.  Maybe you can have them explain it to you in the Hebrew.  Although even then you would not understand.



Understanding cuts both ways. The most plausible explanation for the Jews still looking for the Messiah's first appearing is that most missed His arrival some 2000 years ago. Why? Because, while their Hebrew may have been impeccable, their understanding of what God planned as  the means for redeeming and reconciling all mankind to Himself was incomplete or incorrect. Knowing Hebrew is not now, nor ever has been the key to knowing God. Knowing Hebrew is an acquired language skill. Knowing and being known by God is a relationship only achievable through Jesus Christ. Those Jews who have not and will not find the messiah in the person of Jesus are welcome to whatever human shows up and fills their expectations.

Psalms 20:7
John 8:16
John10:30

Peace.


----------



## redwards (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> ...
> To have a productive discussion, we need to make clear what exactly we believe to be the prophecy, in it's entirety. So to start with, what exactly, word for word, verse for verse, is the prophecy of the virgin birth, as you understand it. (and, since it is a prophecy, it needs to be from the Old Testament.) From everything I have ever known, there is only one mention of the virgin birth in the Old Testament, in the book of Isaiah. What exactly are the verses of the virgin birth prophecy?
> .......


In addition to 


> Isaiah 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


There are these that point to the virgin birth of the Savior...




> Gen 3:15
> And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
> 
> Gen 12:3
> ...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> When GOD and 2 of HIS Angels ate supper with Abraham,just before HE destroyed Sodom and Gammora.When Shadrach,Meshach,and Abednigo were in the firey furnace,and he saw a fourth MAN in the furnace as if HE were THE SON OF GOD.There are other scriptures besides these,as when Moses saw His Glory,from HIS hind side,If HE had no form,how could HE have a hind side?



It doesn't say God and 2 angels ate supper with Abraham.  It says three men did.  I agree that the angels were in the form of men... but they are  messengers of God, not God Himself.  

The verses about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo are no different... it was not God in human form, it was an angel, and the bible even states so:  Daniel 3:28  	[Then] Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed [be] the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

God doesn't have a hind side.  Anything that talks about any body parts of God's in the bible is figurative...  kind of like the dragon with ten heads etc. in the book of Revelation is figurative.  

God was pretty adamant about Him not having a form.

Deuteronomy Deu 4:12  	And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only [ye heard] a voice.
	Deu 4:13 	And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
	Deu 4:14 	And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
	Deu 4:15 	Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day [that] the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
	Deu 4:16 	Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

Not only is God reminding them here that He has no form, but he's telling them to 'take heed'... expressing the importance of the point he is making.   He repeats again and again that he has no form. 



> There is also Melchesidic KING OF SALEM(PEACE)with no beginning and no end,whom Abraham gave a 10th of his belongings to.I'll admit some preachers don't know if HE was GOD incarnate or not,but why would GOD allow,a man to have one of HIS titles KING OF SALEM(SHALOM)Peace?



Where does the Old Testament give God the title of King of Peace?

Aside from that... pretty much ALL Hebrew names have meaning in them.  For example:

Hezekiah - The Mighty God
Immanuel - God Is With Us
Tovia - Goodness of God
Elienai - God Is My Eyes
Jehoiada - Knowledge of God
Hananiah - Gracious Lord
Elisha - God Is Salvation
Elijah - Yhwh God
Gedalia - Great God
Jesse - The Lord Is
Elihu - God Is He
Eliab - God Is Father
Eli - God Is
Eliezer - Help of God
Netanyahu - God Gives

There's nothing here about anyone having any 'title' of God.  And Melchizidek had a beginning and an end... he was a human, he had a birth and a death. Where did you get the idea he was anything other than a human?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No, the birth originally referred to was from a woman who was a virgin at the present time, not when she concieved. It was not an immaculate conception. It was to show Azah that it would be very soon.



Well there are two problems with this... first, the verse doesn't say that it's talking about a woman who WILL become pregnant... it's talking about a woman who already IS pregnant.  And, if you read the rest of the chapter in Isaiah, it is clear that he is referring to his wife, who had already had a child and clearly was not a virgin. That's why the word used is 'almah', for 'young woman', and not 'betulah' which means specifically 'virgin'.

Second... if that is the case, it could refer to pretty much every single female ever created, since all females are virgins until they have intercourse for the first time. 

So does this mean that there are no verses from the Old Testament that prophecy the immaculate conception?



> It doesn't. That part refers to Solomon, just as some parts in Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. And before I am accused of convienantly picking and choosing which would refer to Jesus and which was not, I am only quoting what was recorded by Matthew that applies to Jesus.



I appreciate your honesty.
The verses were picked and chosen, because it's not a messianic prophecy.  It doesn't matter if they were picked and chosen by Matthew or whoever, the fact is that they weren't a prophecy of the messiah, which is why none of the rest of the prophecy applies or fits Jesus.


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 9, 2008)

Mize well give up,y'all - she ain't budgin'!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Understanding cuts both ways. The most plausible explanation for the Jews still looking for the Messiah's first appearing is that most missed His arrival some 2000 years ago. Why? Because, while their Hebrew may have been impeccable, their understanding of what God planned as  the means for redeeming and reconciling all mankind to Himself was incomplete or incorrect. Knowing Hebrew is not now, nor ever has been the key to knowing God. Knowing Hebrew is an acquired language skill. Knowing and being known by God is a relationship only achievable through Jesus Christ. Those Jews who have not and will not find the messiah in the person of Jesus are welcome to whatever human shows up and fills their expectations.
> 
> Psalms 20:7
> John 8:16
> ...



Their understanding of God and His plan was and is not incorrect or incomplete at all.  My mention of anything about the Hebrew language is because that is the means by which Christians have twisted the Jewish faith into something that it was never meant to be, by incorrectly translating words to fit their agenda.  The Jews knew (and know) God without any help from Jesus.  He spoke to them directly all throughout the Old Testament.  He warned them not to believe in any 'likeness' or form, because he had none.

The purpose of the Law was not to reconcile humanity to God.  God says what the purpose of his law is,  many times over in the Old Testament:

Lev 26:3  	If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
	Lev 26:4 	Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.

Deu 4:1  	Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do [them], that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Deu 4:5  	Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
	Deu 4:6 	Keep therefore and do [them]; for this [is] your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation [is] a wise and understanding people.


I could go on and on, but there are way too many to list here.  The purpose of the law was NOT to show them their sin... it was for PHYSICAL blessings:  good harvest, rain, health, land, etc.  The punishment for breaking the law was that they would be overcome by their enemies, lose their land, be slaves to other nations and countries.  It had nothing to do with the salvation of their soul, and was never intended to be that way.  It was not a prophecy or blueprint of Jesus, or anything else.  It was for the prosperity of themselves, their people, their nation, in the physical world.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Great answer CH.
> 
> Let us not also forget who Jacob wrestled with, God appearing in a burning bush to Moses, and before Joshua as the commander of the army of the Lord.
> 
> Yes, Jesus appears many times in the OT and I feel that Jesus was one of the three that appeared to Abraham on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Who else would Abraham be referring to as the Lord?



Jacob wrestled with an angel.  God did not appear to Moses in a burning bush... an angel did, and God specifically said that His voice came from the heavens to speak to Moses.   As far as the angels with Abraham... he refers to them as Lord, not LORD.   There is a difference.  Angels are messengers of God.  They are not God incarnate.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> Mize well give up,y'all - she ain't budgin'!



I would gladly admit 'defeat' if there was anything to admit I was wrong about.... but all arguments given have required a lot of insinuation, a stretch of the imagination, picking verses out of context, and ignoring the repeated warnings and instructions from God all throughout the Old Testament.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well there are two problems with this... first, the verse doesn't say that it's talking about a woman who WILL become pregnant... it's talking about a woman who already IS pregnant. And, if you read the rest of the chapter in Isaiah, it is clear that he is referring to his wife, who had already had a child and clearly was not a virgin. That's why the word used is 'almah', for 'young woman', and not 'betulah' which means specifically 'virgin'.
> 
> Second... if that is the case, it could refer to pretty much every single female ever created, since all females are virgins until they have intercourse for the first time.
> 
> So does this mean that there are no verses from the Old Testament that prophecy the immaculate conception?


 
Almah means young woman and it can also mean virgin. Like I said, it originally was a prophesy about an event 2500 years before Christ, but God used it as a reference to Christ. He clearly meant it to mean virgin, because Mary was.

So, this is still one of the three verses that prophesy the virgin birth.




> I appreciate your honesty.
> The verses were picked and chosen, because it's not a messianic prophecy. It doesn't matter if they were picked and chosen by Matthew or whoever, the fact is that they weren't a prophecy of the messiah, which is why none of the rest of the prophecy applies or fits Jesus.


 
Yes, it was messianic. God chose the parts that did apply and repeated them as such.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I would gladly admit 'defeat' if there was anything to admit I was wrong about.... but all arguments given have required a lot of insinuation, a stretch of the imagination, picking verses out of context, and ignoring the repeated warnings and instructions from God all throughout the Old Testament.


 
No you won't because the prophesy of the virgin birth has been demonstrated, also God taking human form in the OT as well as the trinity in the OT.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Jacob wrestled with an angel. God did not appear to Moses in a burning bush... an angel did, and God specifically said that His voice came from the heavens to speak to Moses. As far as the angels with Abraham... he refers to them as Lord, not LORD. There is a difference. Angels are messengers of God. They are not God incarnate.


 
Not an angel....

29 Then Jacob asked, saying, “Tell _me_ Your name, I pray.” 
And He said, “Why _is_ it _that_ you ask about My name?” And He blessed him there. 
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:<SUP>[c]</SUP> “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Genesis 32)

Not an angel...

2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush _was_ not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
4 So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” 
And he said, “Here I am.” 
5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand _is_ holy ground.” 6 Moreover He said, “I _am_ the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It doesn't say God and 2 angels ate supper with Abraham. It says three men did. I agree that the angels were in the form of men... but they are messengers of God, not God Himself.


 
Not an angel....
 1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre,<SUP>[a]</SUP> as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw _them,_ he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, 
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. ....
33 So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.




> Where does the Old Testament give God the title of King of Peace?


 
Prince of peace was given to Jesus, in the OT of course.

  Unto us a Son is given; 
      And the government will be upon His shoulder. 
      And His name will be called 
      Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, 
      Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9)


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No you won't because the prophesy of the virgin birth has been demonstrated, also God taking human form in the OT as well as the trinity in the OT.



It hasn't been demonstrated.  You have to do a lot of stretching and assuming to get your faith to fit, sorry.  And God has NEVER taken on human form in the OT.  I don't even see that in Christianity.  The most Christians can claim in the OT is that God appeared as an angel... but even that is not a valid conclusion since God Himself says he doesn't have form.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Almah means young woman and it can also mean virgin. Like I said, it originally was a prophesy about an event 2500 years before Christ, but God used it as a reference to Christ. He clearly meant it to mean virgin, because Mary was.
> 
> So, this is still one of the three verses that prophesy the virgin birth.



Your logic doesn't add up.... according to your dual prophecy understanding, how could the first one with Isaiah have been a virgin birth, if there was no immaculate conception? She may have been a virgin at the time Isaiah got the prophecy, but in order for her to conceive, there would have been sex... so when the birth happened, she was not a virgin.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It hasn't been demonstrated. You have to do a lot of stretching and assuming to get your faith to fit, sorry. And God has NEVER taken on human form in the OT. I don't even see that in Christianity. The most Christians can claim in the OT is that God appeared as an angel... but even that is not a valid conclusion since God Himself says he doesn't have form.


 
God has 3 forms, the Father, Son and the Spirit.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Your logic doesn't add up.... according to your dual prophecy understanding, how could the first one with Isaiah have been a virgin birth, if there was no immaculate conception? She may have been a virgin at the time Isaiah got the prophecy, but in order for her to conceive, there would have been sex... so when the birth happened, she was not a virgin.


 
I am not saying she gave an immaculate conception. She had already had a son at the time of the prophesy. She was a young woman, but Mary would be a virgin. That is why almah is the perfect word for the dual prophecy.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Not an angel....
> 
> 29 Then Jacob asked, saying, “Tell _me_ Your name, I pray.”
> And He said, “Why _is_ it _that_ you ask about My name?” And He blessed him there.
> 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:<SUP>[c]</SUP> “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Genesis 32)



Another glaring example of the differences in Jewish understanding and Christian assumption.

You might be surprised to learn that Judaism sees this as a struggle between Jacob (Israel) and the Adversary (Satan).  "This confrontation was a cosmic event in Jewish history. The Rabbis explain that this 'man' was the guardian angel of Esau in a human guise.  The Sages teach that every nation has an angel that guides it's destiny as an 'intermediary' between it and God.  Two nations, however, are unique: Israel is God's own people and just as Esau epitomizes evil, so his angel is the prime spiritual force of evil - Satan himself.  Thus the battle was the eternal struggle between good and evil, between man's capacity to perfect himself and Satan's determination to destroy him spiritually." (Tanakh)

But you wouldn't understand that because you don't understand that Satan is merely an angel of God, doing the work God has assigned him to do.

He is a representative of God, just as all angels are.  



> Not an angel...
> 
> 2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush _was_ not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
> 4 So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
> ...



Deu 4:36  	Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.

God's angels represent Him and do His work.  They are not God incarnate.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No, the birth originally referred to was from a woman who was a virgin at the present time, not when she concieved.





farmasis said:


> I am not saying she gave an immaculate conception. She had already had a son at the time of the prophesy. She was a young woman, but Mary would be a virgin. That is why almah is the perfect word for the dual prophecy.





First you said it was for a woman who was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but then you say she had already had a son, so she wasn't a virgin.  Which is it?

If she had already had a son at the time of the prophecy, then she wasn't a virgin.  There is nothing 'dual' about this and Mary.  I seriously don't know how you actually can wrap your mind around this and the hoops you have to jump through to make this fit.

Although I will say this... you are probably the only Christian I have ever heard that admits that this passage in Isaiah is talking about a woman who already had a son and was not a virgin.   Although a few posts ago, you said she was a virgin.  So I'm still not sure exactly where you stand.  

I am willing to admit this misunderstanding could be on my part.  It could be that lack of 'spiritual discernment' that I keep getting told I don't have... but honestly, it seems that you keep changing back and forth on your answers.  I know you say this is a 'dual prophecy', but regardless of Mary, either the young woman with Isaiah was a virgin at the time of Isaiah's prophecy or she wasn't.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Not an angel....
> 1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre,<SUP>[a]</SUP> as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw _them,_ he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
> 22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. ....
> 33 So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.


You've skipped a lot of verses there 
It said that the men went away, it didn't say that any of the men stayed behind, or even how many men went away.  And it never said that the LORD was there in any form in front of Abraham.




> Prince of peace was given to Jesus, in the OT of course.
> 
> Unto us a Son is given;
> And the government will be upon His shoulder.
> ...



The original quote said King of Peace, not Prince of Peace.  

And your quote from Isaiah 9 is yet one more example of mistranslation in order to further the Christian belief.  The Hebrew translation is:

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-Shalom (Prince of Peace); upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless pace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of Hashem, Master of Legions, will accomplish this."

This is referring to the son of Ahaz, Hezekiah, who would become king. This is clear if you read the verse in context with the chapters... including chapter 7 that talks about the 'virgin birth'.  It is God giving Isaiah prophecies about the future and the children he has... even Isaiah says this flat out:

Isaiah 8:18 "Behold, I and the children whom Hashem has given me are signs and symbols for Israel, from Hashem. Master of Legions, who dwells in Mount Zion."

If you read the bible in context, like the historical book it was meant to be instead of some sort of messianic code, it makes perfect sense without having to assume, insinuate or twist anything around.


----------



## leroy (Nov 9, 2008)

I was thinking today wonder how many people have been swayed the other way toward DD's side for instance away from Jesus's way by some of these debates? I hope and pray some have went Jesus's way! just a thought makes you  wonder sometimes is it worth it.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> First you said it was for a woman who was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but then you say she had already had a son, so she wasn't a virgin. Which is it?


 
I knew the prophesy came before the birth of Immanuel, but forgot he was thier second child.



> If she had already had a son at the time of the prophecy, then she wasn't a virgin. There is nothing 'dual' about this and Mary. I seriously don't know how you actually can wrap your mind around this and the hoops you have to jump through to make this fit.


 
That is why I now see the beauty of the worls almah and how it further adds to the dual prophecy. Brilliant.



> Although I will say this... you are probably the only Christian I have ever heard that admits that this passage in Isaiah is talking about a woman who already had a son and was not a virgin. Although a few posts ago, you said she was a virgin. So I'm still not sure exactly where you stand.
> 
> I am willing to admit this misunderstanding could be on my part. It could be that lack of 'spiritual discernment' that I keep getting told I don't have... but honestly, it seems that you keep changing back and forth on your answers. I know you say this is a 'dual prophecy', but regardless of Mary, either the young woman with Isaiah was a virgin at the time of Isaiah's prophecy or she wasn't.


 
See above.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I knew the prophesy came before the birth of Immanuel, but forgot he was thier second child.
> 
> That is why I now see the beauty of the worls almah and how it further adds to the dual prophecy. Brilliant.



So you're saying that the prophecy of the virgin birth was made originally for a woman who wasn't a virgin at all, in fact she had already given birth to another child.  Wow... you Christians really can make the bible say whatever you want it to.  Unbelievable!  And tragic.  Although I'm not sure how many of your brethren agree with your interpretation of the prophecy.....


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You've skipped a lot of verses there
> It said that the men went away, it didn't say that any of the men stayed behind, or even how many men went away. And it never said that the LORD was there in any form in front of Abraham.


 
The Lord was in the 3 men. That is why he went away at the end. He was very much present.




> The original quote said King of Peace, not Prince of Peace.


 
If Jesus is the Prince of peace, and is God's son, then would God be King of peace?




> And your quote from Isaiah 9 is yet one more example of mistranslation in order to further the Christian belief. The Hebrew translation is:
> 
> For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-Shalom (Prince of Peace); upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless pace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of Hashem, Master of Legions, will accomplish this."
> 
> ...


 
It doesn't matter what the original prophecy fortold, when God uses it again to announce the virgin birth of his son like he did in Matthew 1:23.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

leroy said:


> I was thinking today wonder how many people have been swayed the other way toward DD's side for instance away from Jesus's way by some of these debates? I hope and pray some have went Jesus's way! just a thought makes you  wonder sometimes is it worth it.



I don't have a side.
I'm not a Christian and I'm not a Jew.  I'm a person who can read and comprehend the written word.  I believe in the bible as far as it's historical content, but I don't accept everything in it as infallible truth, even in the Old Testament.  For example, I'm not convinced that the story of Noah is 100% accurate as documented.

The Old Testament is the testimony of the Jews and their faith in God.  I admire the Jews and respect their history.  And I think it's a shame it has been adulterated, twisted and stripped of it's core, and then those people tell the Jews they don't understand their own testimony.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So you're saying that the prophecy of the virgin birth was made originally for a woman who wasn't a virgin at all, in fact she had already given birth to another child. Wow... you Christians really can make the bible say whatever you want it to. Unbelievable! And tragic. Although I'm not sure how many of your brethren agree with your interpretation of the prophecy.....


 

No what is wonderful is how scripture is fullfilled. It is amazing how non-Christians can cut out those things that they do not want to hear.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't have a side.
> I'm not a Christian and I'm not a Jew. I'm a person who can read and comprehend the written word.


 
So, did you read and comprehend God appearing incarnate in the texts sited as well as the trinity?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> The Lord was in the 3 men. That is why he went away at the end. He was very much present.



The men had already went away. Abraham was still there in the presence of God.





> If Jesus is the Prince of peace, and is God's son, then would God be King of peace?



1. Prince of Peace was not used in the Old Testament to refer to Jesus or the messiah.
2. The original post said that Melchezidek was Jesus, given the title King of Peace.  Not the Prince of Peace.




> It doesn't matter what the original prophecy fortold, when God uses it again to announce the virgin birth of his son like he did in Matthew 1:23.



It is very apparent that to Christians, it doesn't matter what the original prophecy foretold. They pull things out of thin air, even things that aren't even remotely close.  To make a prophecy about a virgin, using a woman who is not a virgin, would be comical if I didn't know you were absolutely serious.

God never gave prophecies like that in the Old Testament.  He said what would happen, and it happened.  He didn't make it a riddle or something to figure out, or two things that were totally unrelated.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No what is wonderful is how scripture is fullfilled. It is amazing how non-Christians can cut out those things that they do not want to hear.



I haven't cut anything out... you yourself admitted that the writer of Matthew cut out what he didn't want to hear, in order to make it fit Jesus.



farmasis said:


> So, did you read and comprehend God appearing incarnate in the texts sited as well as the trinity?



No, because it's not there.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The men had already went away. Abraham was still there in the presence of God.


 
So, Abraham stood before the Lord, and the Lord later went his way, but Abraham was standing before just a voice and the voice walked away?



> It is very apparent that to Christians, it doesn't matter what the original prophecy foretold. They pull things out of thin air, even things that aren't even remotely close. To make a prophecy about a virgin, using a woman who is not a virgin, would be comical if I didn't know you were absolutely serious.
> 
> God never gave prophecies like that in the Old Testament. He said what would happen, and it happened. He didn't make it a riddle or something to figure out, or two things that were totally unrelated.


 
It was God, not I, that linked Isaiah 7:14 with Jesus.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 9, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I haven't cut anything out... you yourself admitted that the writer of Matthew cut out what he didn't want to hear, in order to make it fit Jesus.


 
You have cut out the whole NT because it doesn't fit you.
Matthew gives account of God who cut out the part of Isaiah that fit Jesus.



> No, because it's not there.


 
So, why did Jacob say he wrestled with God and saw him face to face?

Why did the bush say it was God and Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look on the face of God?


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 9, 2008)

leroy said:


> I was thinking today wonder how many people have been swayed the other way toward DD's side for instance away from Jesus's way by some of these debates? I hope and pray some have went Jesus's way! just a thought makes you  wonder sometimes is it worth it.



I wouldn't worry too much about that happening.  DD makes it very clear in her reasoning that she does the very thing she accuses Christians of doing...... she ignores the obvious in order to stand by her interpretation of the scriptures.  If a particular scriptures points in a direction that isn't her interpretation, she rewrites the original text.  She actually doesn't do a very good job of doing either.... 
(1) proving Christianity false. or (2)  upholding Judaism after the coming of the Messiah.

Farmasis, in this thread, has her on the ropes.  She's going to toss in the towel pretty soon.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about that happening.  DD makes it very clear in her reasoning that she does the very thing she accuses Christians of doing...... she ignores the obvious in order to stand by her interpretation of the scriptures.  If a particular scriptures points in a direction that isn't her interpretation, she rewrites the original text.  She actually doesn't do a very good job of doing either....
> (1) proving Christianity false. or (2)  upholding Judaism after the coming of the Messiah.
> 
> Farmasis, in this thread, has her on the ropes.  She's going to toss in the towel pretty soon.



  

That is not likely to happen anytime soon 

What original text have I rewritten?????


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> So, Abraham stood before the Lord, and the Lord later went his way, but Abraham was standing before just a voice and the voice walked away?



The verse did not say that the Lord 'walked' away. You are seeing what you want to see.





> It was God, not I, that linked Isaiah 7:14 with Jesus.



It wasn't God.  It was the men who came up with the New Testament.  Not God.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> You have cut out the whole NT because it doesn't fit you.
> Matthew gives account of God who cut out the part of Isaiah that fit Jesus.



I cut out the whole NT because it doesn't fit God.
The god of the NT is not the God who is described in the Old Testament.  The God in the Old Testament said what he meant, and meant what he said.  Nobody had to go through the Old Testament and pick out verses of scripture to figure out what God was trying to say.  Anything God said, he made it perfectly clear what his expectations were so that they could be followed.

The god you try to show through the NT is a deceiving god.  The god of the NT says that you must figure out the code of his 'plan' of salvation by taking things out of context in the Old Testament, twisting them around and making them say something that they didn't originally say.  The god of the NT says that if you don't figure out that code, you're doomed to an eternity of torture and torment.

Now, using your way of obtaining biblical prophecy, I can 'prove' that Jesus has commanded his followers to commit suicide.

Matthew 27:5  And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37  Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

There is nothing to creating something after the fact and then going back through the scriptures and picking verses out to fit your own cause.  By doing this, yes, you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say.

But God didn't work like that.  Show me ANYWHERE in the Old Testament where God was ambiguous about prophecy and what He wanted or intended to do.  There isn't anywhere, because God didn't WANT his people to fail, he wanted them to succeed.  He didn't make it a test or a quiz to figure out what he wanted.



> So, why did Jacob say he wrestled with God and saw him face to face?
> 
> Why did the bush say it was God and Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look on the face of God?



Why do people say they have seen the face of God in their children?  Why do people who have walked away from horrific circumstances say that they have seen the face of death? Does death have a face?  Christians say they wrestle with satan every day... do you actually SEE satan?!?  What does he look like?   People who wrestle with their conscience, wrestle with temptation, do those things have a form?  

God has made it clear that he has no form, and it is shown time after time in the Old Testament that every time the Jews tried to give him a form, they were punished for it.


----------



## Lowjack (Nov 9, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Dual prophecy meaning dual purpose and used for two totally seperate occurances. It was originally given to king Azah, but also as fortelling of the Messiah to come from a virgin later.


Dual Prophecies are also based on the Book of Solomon, where he says what was yesterday will be tomorrow, nothing is new" In Other words things that are prophesied can be fulfilled More than once.
Great things that happen can happened more than one time etc.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The verse did not say that the Lord 'walked' away. You are seeing what you want to see.


 
departed, went his way, left.



> It wasn't God. It was the men who came up with the New Testament. Not God.


 
It most certanily was God.

Here are a few more prophecies about Jesus from the OT.
<TABLE cellPadding=10><TBODY><TR><TD>His pre-existence</TD><TD>Micah 5:2</TD><TD>John 1:1, 14</TD></TR><TR><TD>Born of the seed of a woman</TD><TD>Genesis 3:15</TD><TD>Matthew 1:18</TD></TR><TR><TD>Of the seed of Abraham</TD><TD>Genesis 12:3</TD><TD>Matthew 1:1-16</TD><TR><TD>All nations blessed by Abraham's seed</TD><TD>Genesis 12:3</TD><TD>Matthew 8:5, 10</TD></TR><TR><TD>God would provide Himself a Lamb as an offering</TD><TD>Genesis 22:8</TD><TD>John 1:29 </TD></TR><TR><TD>From the tribe of Judah</TD><TD>Genesis 49:10</TD><TD>Matthew 1:1-3</TD></TR><TR><TD>Heir to the throne of David</TD><TD>Isaiah 9:6-7</TD><TD>Matthew 1:1</TD></TR><TR><TD>Called "The mighty God, The everlasting Father"</TD><TD>Isaiah 9:6</TD><TD>Matthew 1:23</TD></TR><TR><TD>Born in Bethlehem </TD><TD>Micah 5:2</TD><TD>Matthew 2:1</TD></TR><TR><TD>Born of a virgin</TD><TD>Isaiah 7:14 </TD><TD>Matthew 1:18</TD></TR><TR><TD>His name called Immanuel, "God with us"</TD><TD>Isaiah 7:14</TD><TD>Matthew 1:23</TD></TR><TR><TD>Declared to be the Son of God</TD><TD>Psalm 2:7</TD><TD>Matthew 3:17</TD></TR><TR><TD>His messenger before Him in spirit of Elijah</TD><TD>Malachi 4:5-6</TD><TD>Luke 1:17</TD></TR><TR><TD>Preceded by a messenger to prepare His way</TD><TD>Malachi 3:1</TD><TD>Matthew 11:7-11</TD></TR><TR><TD>Messenger crying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord"</TD><TD>Isaiah 40:3</TD><TD>Matthew 3:3</TD></TR><TR><TD>Would be a Prophet of the children of Israel</TD><TD>Deuteronomy 18:15</TD><TD>Matthew 2:15</TD></TR><TR><TD>Called out of Egypt</TD><TD>Hosea 11:1</TD><TD>Matthew 2:15</TD></TR><TR><TD>Slaughter of the children</TD><TD>Jeremiah 31:15</TD><TD>Matthew2:18</TD></TR><TR><TD>Would be a Nazarene</TD><TD>Judges 13:5; Amos 2:11;
Lam. 4:7
</TD><TD>Matthew 2:23</TD></TR><TR><TD>Brought light to Zabulon & Nephthalm, Galilee of the Gentiles</TD><TD>Isaiah 9:1-2</TD><TD>Matthew 4:15</TD></TR><TR><TD>Presented with gifts</TD><TD>Psalm 72:10</TD><TD>Matthew 2:1, 11</TD></TR><TR><TD>Rejected by His own</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:3</TD><TD>Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31, 12:10; Luke 9:22, 17:25</TD></TR><TR><TD>He is the stone which the builders rejected which became the headstone</TD><TD>Psalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16</TD><TD>Matthew 21:42; I Peter 2:7</TD></TR><TR><TD>A stone of stumbling to Israel</TD><TD>Isaiah 8:14-15</TD><TD>I Peter 2:8</TD></TR><TR><TD>He entered Jerusalem as a king
riding on an Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----
</TD><TD>Zechariah 9:9</TD><TD>Matthew 21:5</TD></TR><TR><TD>Betrayed by a friend</TD><TD>Psalms 41:9</TD><TD>John 13:21</TD></TR><TR><TD>Sold for 30 pieces of silver</TD><TD>Zechariah 11:12</TD><TD>Matthew 26:15; Luke 22:5</TD></TR><TR><TD>The 30 pieces of silver given for the potter's field</TD><TD>Zechariah 11:12</TD><TD>Matthew 27:9-10</TD></TR><TR><TD>The 30 pieces of silver thrown in the temple</TD><TD>Zechariah 11:13</TD><TD>Matthew 27:5</TD></TR><TR><TD>Forsaken by His disciples</TD><TD>Zechariah 13:7</TD><TD>Matthew 26:56</TD></TR><TR><TD>Accused by false witnesses</TD><TD>Psalm 35:11</TD><TD>Matthew 26:60</TD></TR><TR><TD>Silent to accusations</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:7</TD><TD>Matthew 27:14</TD></TR><TR><TD>Heal blind/deaf/lame/dumb</TD><TD>Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 29:18</TD><TD>Matthew 11:5</TD></TR><TR><TD>Preached to the poor/brokenhearted/captives</TD><TD>Isaiah 61:1</TD><TD>Matthew 11:5</TD></TR><TR><TD>Came to bring a sword, not peace</TD><TD>Micah 7:6</TD><TD>Matthew 10:34-35</TD></TR><TR><TD>He bore our sickness</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:4</TD><TD>Matthew 8:16-17</TD></TR><TR><TD>Spat upon, smitten and scourged</TD><TD>Isaiah 50:6, 53:5</TD><TD>Matthew 27:26, 30</TD></TR><TR><TD>Smitten on the cheek</TD><TD>Micah 5:1</TD><TD>Matthew 27:30</TD></TR><TR><TD>Hated without a cause</TD><TD>Psalm 35:19</TD><TD>Matthew 27:23</TD></TR><TR><TD>The sacrificial lamb</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:5</TD><TD>John 1:29</TD></TR><TR><TD>Given for a covenant</TD><TD>Isaiah 42:6; Jeremiah 31:31-34</TD><TD>Romans 11:27/Galatians 3:17, 4:24/Hebrews 8:6, 8, 10; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20</TD></TR><TR><TD>Would not strive or cry</TD><TD>Isaiah 42:2-3</TD><TD>Mark 7:36</TD></TR><TR><TD>People would hear not and see not</TD><TD>Isaiah 6:9-10</TD><TD>Matthew 13:14-15</TD></TR><TR><TD>People trust in traditions of men</TD><TD>Isaiah 29:13</TD><TD>Matthew 15:9</TD></TR><TR><TD>People give God lip service</TD><TD>Isaiah 29:13</TD><TD>Matthew 15:8</TD></TR><TR><TD>God delights in Him</TD><TD>Isaiah 42:1</TD><TD>Matthew 3:17, 17:5</TD></TR><TR><TD>Wounded for our sins</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:5</TD><TD>John 6:51</TD></TR><TR><TD>He bore the sins of many</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:10-12</TD><TD>Mark 10:45</TD></TR><TR><TD>Messiah not killed for Himself</TD><TD>Daniel 9:26</TD><TD>Matthew 20:28</TD></TR><TR><TD>Gentiles flock to Him</TD><TD>Isaiah 55:5, 60:3, 65:1; Malachi 1:11;
II Samuel 22:44-45; Psalm 2:7-8
</TD><TD>Matthew 8:10</TD></TR><TR><TD>Crucified with criminals</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:12</TD><TD>Matthew 27:35</TD></TR><TR><TD>His body was pierced</TD><TD>Zechariah 12:10; Ps. 22:16</TD><TD>John 20:25, 27</TD></TR><TR><TD>Thirsty during execution</TD><TD>Psalm 22:16</TD><TD>John 19:28</TD></TR><TR><TD>Given vinegar and gall for thirst</TD><TD>Psalm 69:21</TD><TD>Matthew 27:34</TD></TR><TR><TD>Soldiers gambled for his garment</TD><TD>Psalm 22:18</TD><TD>Matthew 27:35</TD><TR><TD>People mocked, "He trusted in God, let Him deliver him!" </TD><TD>Psalm 22:7-8</TD><TD>Matthew 27:43</TD></TR><TR><TD>People sat there looking at Him</TD><TD>Psalm 22:17</TD><TD>Matthew 27:36</TD></TR><TR><TD>Cried, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" </TD><TD>Psalm 22:1</TD><TD>Matthew 27:46</TD></TR><TR><TD>Darkness over the land</TD><TD>Amos 8:9</TD><TD>Matthew 27:45</TD></TR><TR><TD>No bones broken</TD><TD>Psalm 34:20, Numbers 9:12</TD><TD>John 19:33-36</TD></TR><TR><TD>Side pierced</TD><TD>Zechariah 12:10</TD><TD>John 19:34</TD></TR><TR><TD>Buried with the rich</TD><TD>Isaiah 53:9</TD><TD>Matthew 27:57, 60</TD></TR><TR><TD>Resurrected from the dead</TD><TD>Psalm 16:10-11; 49:15</TD><TD>Mark 16:6</TD></TR><TR><TD>Priest after the order of Melchizedek</TD><TD>Psalm 110:4</TD><TD>Hebrews 5:5-6; 6:20; 7:15-17</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ascended to right hand of God</TD><TD>Psalm 68:18</TD><TD>Luke 24:51</TD></TR><TR><TD>LORD said unto Him, "Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool</TD><TD>Psalm 110:1</TD><TD>Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36;, 16:19; Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13</TD></TR><TR><TD>His coming glory</TD><TD>Malachi 3:2-3</TD><TD>Luke 3:17</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## farmasis (Nov 10, 2008)

and more...


 
Gen. 3:15.....He will bruise Satan's head.....Heb. 2:14, 1 Jn. 3:18
Gen. 9:26,27...The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem...Lu. 3:36
Gen. 12:3...As Abraham's seed,will bless all nations...Acts. 3:25,26
Gen. 12:7...*The Promise made to Abraham's Seed*...Gal. 3:16
Gen. 14:18...A priest after Melchizedek...Heb. 6:20
Gen. 14:18........A King also........Heb. 7:2
Gen. 14:18...The Last Supper foreshadowed...Mt. 26:26-29
Gen. 17:19.......*The Seed of Isaac*.......Rom. 9:7
Gen. 22:8...The Lamb of God promised...Jn. 1:29
Gen. 22:18...As Isaac's seed, will bless all nations...Gal. 3:16
Gen.26:2-5..The Seed of Isaac promised as the Redeemer..Heb.11:18
Gen. 49:10...The time of His coming...Lu. 2:1-7; Gal. 4:4
Gen. 49:10.......*The Seed of Judah*.......Lu. 3:33
Gen. 49:10......Called Shiloh or One Sent......Jn. 17:3
Gen. 49:10...To come before Judah lost identity...Jn. 11:47-52
Gen. 49:10...To Him shall the obedience of the people be...Jn. 10:16
Ex. 3:13,14........The Great "I Am".......Jn. 4:26
Ex. 12:5...A Lamb without blemish...1 Pet. 1:19
Ex. 12:13...The blood of the Lamb saves from wrath...Rom. 5:8
Ex. 12:21-27...Christ is our Passover...1 Cor. 5;7
Ex. 12:46...*Not a bone of the Lamb to be broken*...Jn. 19:31-36
Ex. 15:2...His exaltation predicted as Yeshua...Acts 7:55,56
Ex. 15:11...His Character-Holiness...Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27
Ex. 17:6...The Spiritual Rock of Israel...1 Cor. 10;4
Ex. 33:19...His Character-Merciful...Lu. 1:72
Lev.14:11..The leper cleansed-Sign to priesthood..Lu.5:12-14; Acts 6:7
Lev.16:15-17...Prefigures Christ's once-for-all death...Heb. 9:7-14
Lev.16:27...Suffering outside the Camp...Mt. 27:33; Heb. 13:11, 12
Lev.17:11...The Blood-the life of the flesh...Mt. 26;28; Mk. 10:45
Lev.17:11...*It is the blood that makes atonement*...1 Jn. 3:14-18
Lev.23:36-37...The Drink-offering: "If any man thirst." ..Jn. 19:31-36
Num. 9:12...*Not a bone of Him broken*...John 19:31-36
Num. 21:9...The serpent on a pole-Christ lifted up...Jn. 3:14-18
Num. 24:17...Time: "I shall see him, but not now."...Gal. 4:4
Deut. 18:15..."This is of a truth that prophet."...Jn. 6:14
Deut. 18:15-16..."Had ye believed Moses, ye would believe me."...Jn. 5:45-47
Deut. 18:18...Sent by the Father to speak His word...Jn. 8:28, 29
Deut. 18:19...Whoever will not hear must bear his sin...Jn. 12:15,
Deut. 21:23...Cursed is he that hangs on a tree...Gal. 3:10-13
Ruth 4:4-9...Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed us...Eph. 1:3-7
1 Sam. 2:10...Shall be an anointed King to the Lord...Mt. 28:18; Jn. 12:15
2 Sam. 7:12...*David's Seed*...Mt. 1:1
2 Sam. 7:14a...The Son of God... Lu. 1:32
2 Sam. 7:16...David's house established forever...Lu. 3:31; Rev. 22:16
2 Ki. 2:11...The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated...Lu. 24:51
1 Chr. 17:11...David's Seed...Mt. 1:1; 9:27
1 Chr. 17:12, 13a...To reign on David's throne forever...Lu. 1:32, 33
1 Chr. 17:13a..."I will be His Father, He...my Son."...Heb. 1:5
Job 19:23-27...The Resurrection predicted...Jn. 5:24-29
Psa. 2:1-3...The enmity of kings foreordained...Acts 4:25-28
Psa. 2:2...To own the title, Anointed (Christ)...Acts 2:36
Ps. 2:6...His Character-Holiness...Jn. 8:46; Rev. 3:7
Ps. 2:6...To own the title King...Mt. 2:2
Ps. 2:7...*Declared the Beloved Son*...Mt. 3;17
Psa. 2:7, 8...The Crucifixion and Resurrection intimated...Acts 13:29-33
Psa. 2:12...Life comes through faith in Him...Jn. 20:31
Psa. 8:2...The mouths of babes perfect His praise...Mt. 21:16
Psa. 8:5, 6...His humiliation and exaltation...Lu. 24:50-53; 1 Cor. 15:27
Psa. 16:10...*Was not to see corruption*...Acts 2:31
Psa. 16:9-11...*Was to arise from the dead*...Jn. 20:9
Psa. 17;15...The resurrection predicted...Lu. 24:6
Psa. 22:1...*Forsaken because of sins of others*...2 Cor. 5:21
Psa. 22:1...*Words spoken from Calvary, "My God*..." Mk. 15:34
Psa. 22:2...*Darkness upon Calvary*...Mt. 27:45
Psa. 22:7...*They shoot out the lip and shake the head*...Mt. 27:39
Psa. 22:8..*"He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"*...Mt. 27:43
Psa. 22:9......*Born the Saviour*......Lu. 2:7
Psa. 22:14...*Died of a broken (ruptured)heart*...Jn. 19:34
Psa. 22:14,15...*Suffered agony on Calvary*...Mk. 15:34-37
Psa. 22:15........*He thirsted*........Jn. 19:28
Psa. 22:16...*They pierced His hands and His feet*....Jn. 19:34,37;20:27
Psa. 22:17,18...*Stripped Him before the stares of men*...Lu. 23:34,35
Psa. 22:18.....*They parted His garments*.....Jn. 19:23,24
Psa. 22:20,21...*He committed Himself to God*...Lu.23:46
Psa. 22:20,21..*Satanic power bruising the Redeemer's heel*..Heb. 2:14
Psa. 22:22.....*His Resurrection declared*.....Jn. 20:17
Psa. 22:27...*He shall be the governor of the nations*...Col 1:16
Psa. 22:31......*"It is finished"*......Jn. 19:30
Psa. 23:1...."I am the Good Shephard"....Jn. 10:11
Psa. 24:3......His exaltation predicted......Acts 1:11; Phil. 2:9
Psa. 30:3......His resurrection predicted......Acts 2:32
Psa. 31:5...*"Into thy hands I commit my spirit"*...Lu. 23:46
Psa. 31:11...His acquaintances fled from Him...Mk. 14:50
Psa. 31:13...They took counsel to put Him to death...Jn. 11:53
Psa. 31:14,15..." He trusted in God, let Him deliver him"...Mt. 27:43
Psa. 34:20.....Not a bone of Him broken.....Jn 19:31-36
Psa. 35:11....False witnesses rose up against Him....Mt. 26:59
Psa. 35:19...He was hated without a cause...Jn. 15:25
Psa. 38:11.....His friends stood afar off.....Lu. 23:49
Psa. 40:2-5...The joy of His resurrection predicted...Jn. 20:20
Psa. 40:6-8....His delight-the will of the Father....Jn. 4:34
Psa. 40:9....He was to preach the Righteousness in Israel....Mt. 4:17
Psa. 40:14...Confronted by adversaries in the Garden...Jn. 18:4-6
Psa. 41:9.....Betrayed by a familiar friend.....Jn. 13:18
Psa. 45:2...Words of Grace come from His lips...Lu. 4:22
Psa. 45:6...To own the title, God or Elohim...Heb. 1:8
Psa. 45:7...A special anointing by the Holy Spirit...Mt.3:16; Heb.1:9
Psa. 45:7,8...Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed)...Lu. 2:11
Psa. 55:12-14...Betrayed by a friend, not an enemy...Jn. 13:18
Psa. 55:15...Unrepentant death of the Betrayer...Mt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-19
Psa. 68:18...To give gifts to men...Eph. 4:7-16
Psa. 68:18...Ascended into Heaven...Lu. 24:51
Psa. 69:4...Hated without a cause...Jn. 15:25
Psa. 69:8...A stranger to own brethren...Lu. 8;20,21
Psa. 69:9...Zealous for the Lord's House...Jn. 2:17
Psa. 69:14-20...Messiah's anguish of soul before crucifixion...Mt. 26:36-45
Psa. 69:20..."My soul is exceeding sorrowful."...Mt. 26:38
Psa. 69:21...Given vinegar in thirst...Mt. 27:34
Psa. 69:26...The Saviour given and smitten by God...Jn. 17:4; 18:11
Psa. 72:10,11...Great persons were to visit Him...Mt. 2:1-11
Psa. 72:16...The corn of wheat to fall into the Ground...Jn. 12:24
Psa. 72:17...His name, Yinon, will produce offspring...Jn. 1:12,13
Psa. 72:17...All nations shall be blessed by Him...Acts 2:11,12,41
Psa. 78:1.2...He would teach in parables...Mt. 13:34-35
Psa. 78:2b...To speak the Wisdom of God with authority...Mt. 7:29
Psa. 88:8...They stood afar off and watched...Lu. 23:49
Psa. 89:27...Emmanuel to be higher than earthly kings...Lu. 1:32,33
Psa. 89:35-37...David's Seed, throne, kingdom endure forever...Lu. 1:32,33
Psa. 89:36-37...His character-Faithfulness...Rev. 1:5
Psa. 90:2...He is from everlasting (Micah 5:2)...Jn. 1:1
Psa. 91:11,12...Identified as Messianic; used to tempt Christ...Lu. 4;10,11
Psa. 97:9...His exaltation predicted...Acts 1:11;Eph. 1:20
Psa. 100:5...His character-Goodness...Mt. 19:16,17
Psa. 102:1-11...The Suffering and Reproach of Calvary...Jn. 21:16-30
Psa. 102:25-27...Messiah is the Preexistent Son...Heb. 1:10-12
Psa. 109:25...Ridiculed...Mt. 27:39
Psa. 110:1...Son of David...Mt. 22:43
Psa. 110:1...To ascend to the right-hand of the Father...Mk.16:19
Psa. 110:1...David's son called Lord...Mt. 22:44,45
Psa. 110:4...A priest after Melchizedek's order...Heb. 6:20
Psa. 112:4...His character-Compassionate, Gracious, et al... Mt. 9;36
Psa. 118:17,18...Messiah's Resurrection assured...Lu. 24:5-7;1 Cor. 15:20
Psa. 118:22,23...The rejected stone is Head of the corner...Mt. 21:42,43
Psa. 118:26a...The Blessed One presented to Israel...Mt. 21:9
Psa. 118:26b...To come while Temple standing...Mt. 21;12-15
Psa. 132:11...The Seed of David(the fruit of His Body)...Lu. 1:32
Psa. 138:1-6...The supremacy of David's Seed amazes kings... Mt. 2:2-6
Psa. 147:3,6...The earthly ministry of Christ described...Lu. 4:18
Psa. 1:23...He will send the Spirit of God... Jn. 16;7
Song. 5;16...The altogether lovely One...Jn. 1:17
Isa. 6:1...When Isaiah saw His glory... Jn. 12:40-41
Isa. 6:9-10...Parables fall on deaf ears...Mt. 13:13-15
Isa. 6:9-12...Blinded to Christ and deaf to His words...Acts. 28:23-29
Isa. 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Lu. 1:35
Isa. 7:14...To be Emmanuel-God with us... Mt. 1:18-23
Isa. 8:8...Called Emmanuel...Mt. 28:20
Isa. 8:14...A stone of stumbling, a Rock of offense... 1 Pet. 2:8
Isa. 9:1,2...His ministry to begin in Galilee...Mt. 4:12-17
Isa. 9:6...A child born-Humanity...Lu. 1:31
Isa. 9:6...A Son given-Deity...Lu. 1:32; Jn. 1;14; 1 Tim. 3:16
Isa. 9:6...Declared to be the Son of God with power... Rom. 1:3,4
Isa. 9:6...The Wonderful One, Peleh...Lu. 4:22
Isa. 9:6...The Counsellor, Yaatz...Mt. 13:54
Isa. 9:6...The Mighty God, El Gibor...Mt. 11:20
Isa. 9:6...The Everlasting Father, Avi Adth...Jn. 8:58
Isa. 9:6...The Prince of Peace, Sar Shalom...Jn . 16:33
Isa. 9:7...To establish an everlasting kingdom...Lu. 1:32-33
Isa. 9:7...His Character-Just...Jn. 5:30
Isa. 9:7...No end to his Government, Throne, and Peace...Lu. 1:32-33
Isa. 11:1...Called a Nazarene-the Branch, Netzer...Mt. 2:23
Isa. 11:1...A rod out of Jesse-Son of Jesse...Lu. 3:23,32
Isa. 11:2...The anointed One by the Spirit...Mt. 3;16,17
Isa. 11:2...His Character-Wisdom, Understanding, et al....Jn. 4:4-26
Isa. 11:4...His Character-Truth...Jn. 14:6
Isa. 11:10...The Gentiles seek Him...Jn. 12:18-21
Isa. 12:2...Called Jesus-Yeshua...Mt. 1:21
Isa. 25:8...The Resurrection predicted...I Cor. 15:54
Isa. 26:19...His power of Resurrection predicted...Jn. 11:43,44
Isa. 28:16...The Messiah is the precious corner stone...Acts 4:11,12
Isa. 29:13...He indicated hypocritical obedience to His Word...Mt. 15:7-9
Isa. 29:14...The wise are confounded by the Word...I Cor. 1:18-31
Isa. 32:2...A Refuge-A man shall be a hiding place...Mt. 23:37
Isa. 35:4...He will come and save you...Mt. 1:21
Isa. 35:5...To have a ministry of miracles...Mt. 11:4-6
Isa. 40:3,4...Preceded by forerunner...Jn. 1:23
Isa. 40:9..."Behold your God."...Jn. 1:36;19:14
Isa. 40:11...A shepherd-compassionatelife-giver...Jn. 10:10-18
Isa. 42:1-4...The Servant-as a faithful, patient redeemer... Mt.12:18-21
Isa. 42:2...Meek and lowly... Mt. 11:28-30
Isa. 42:3...He brings hope for the hopeless... Jn. 4
Isa. 42:4...The nations shall wait on His teachings... Jn. 12:20-26
Isa. 42:6...The Light (salvation) of the Gentiles...Lu. 2:32
Isa. 42:1,6...His is a Worldwide compassion... Mt. 28:19,20
Isa. 42:7...Blind eyes opened... Jn. 9:25-38
Isa. 43:11...He is the only Saviour... Acts. 4:12
Isa. 44:3...He will send the Spirit of God... Jn. 16:7,13
Isa. 45:23...He will be the Judge... Jn. 5:22;Rom. 14:11
Isa. 48:12...The First and the Last...Jn. 1:30;Rev. 1:8,17
Isa. 48:17...He came as a Teacher...Jn. 3:2
Isa. 49:1...Called from the womb-His humanity...Mt. 1:18
Isa. 49:5...A Servant from the womb...Lu. 1:31;Phil. 2:7
Isa. 49:6...He is Salvation for Israel...Lu. 2:29-32
Isa. 49:6...He is the Light of the Gentiles...Acts 13:47
Isa. 49:6...He is Salvation unto the ends of the earth... Acts 15:7-18
Isa. 49:7...He is despised of the Nation... Jn. 8:48-49
Isa. 50:3...Heaven is clothed in black at His humiliation... Lu. 23:44,45
Isa. 50:4...He is a learned counsellor for the weary... Mt. 11:28,29
Isa. 50:5...The Servant bound willingly to obedience... Mt. 26:39
Isa. 50:6a..."I gave my back to the smiters."... Mt. 27:26
Isa. 50:6b...He was smitten on the cheeks... Mt. 26:67
Isa. 50:6c...He was spat upon... Mt. 27:30
Isa. 52:7...To publish good tidings of peace... Lu. 4:14,15
Isa. 52:13...The Servant exalted...Acts 1:8-11; Eph. 1:19-22
Isa. 52:13...Behold, My Servant... Mt. 17:5; Phil. 2:5-8
Isa. 52:14...The Servant shockingly abused... Lu. 18:31-34; Mt. 26:67,68
Isa. 52:15...Nations startled by message of the Servant... Rom. 15:18-21
Isa. 52:15...His blood shed to make atonement for all... Rev. 1:5
Isa. 53:1...His people would not believe Him... Jn. 12:37-38
Isa. 53:2a...He would grow up in a poor family.... Lu. 2:7
Isa. 53:2b...Appearance of an ordinary man... Phil. 2:7-8
Isa. 53:3a...Despised.... Lu. 4:28-29
Isa. 53:3b...Rejected... Mt. 27:21-23
Isa. 53:3c...Great sorrow and grief... Lu. 19:41-42
Isa. 53:3d...Men hide from being associated with Him... Mk. 14:50-52
Isa. 53:4a...He would have a healing ministry... Lu. 6:17-19
Isa. 53:4b...He would bear the sins of the world... 1 Pet. 2:24
Isa. 53:4c...Thought to be cursed by God... Mt. 27:41-43
Isa. 53:5a...Bears penalty for mankind's transgressions... Lu. 23:33
Isa. 53:5b...His sacrifice would provide peace between man and God... Col. 1:20
Isa. 53:5c...His back would be whipped... Mt. 27:26
Isa. 53:6a...He would be the sin-bearer for all mankind...Gal. 1:4
Isa. 53:6b...God's will that He bear sin for all mankind... 1 Jn. 4:10
Isa. 53:7a...Oppressed and afflicted... Mt. 27:27-31
Isa. 53:7b...Silent before his accusers... Mt. 27:12-14
Isa. 53:7c...Sacrificial lamb... Jn. 1:29
Isa. 53:8a...Confined and persecuted... Mt. 26:47-27:31
Isa. 53:8b...He would be judged... Jn. 18:13-22
Isa. 53:8c...Killed.... Mt. 27:35
Isa. 53:8d...Dies for the sins of the world... 1 Jn. 2:2
Isa. 53:9a...Buried in a rich man's grave... Mt. 27:57
Isa. 53:9b...Innocent and had done no violence... Mk. 15:3
Isa. 53:9c...No deceit in his mouth... Jn. 18:38
Isa. 53:10a...God's will that He die for mankind... Jn. 18:11
Isa. 53:10b...An offering for sin... Mt. 20:28
Isa. 53:10c...Resurrected and live forever.... Mk. 16:16
Isa. 53:10d...He would prosper... Jn. 17:1-5
Isa. 53:11a...God fully satisfied with His suffering... Jn. 12:27
Isa. 53:11b...God's servant... Rom. 5:18-19
Isa. 53:11c...He would justify man before God... Rom. 5:8-9
Isa. 53:11d...The sin-bearer for all mankind... Heb. 9:28
Isa. 53:12a...Exalted by God because of his sacrifice... Mt. 28:18
Isa. 53:12b...He would give up his life to save mankind... Lu. 23:46
Isa. 53:12c...Grouped with criminals... Lu. 23:32
Isa. 53:12d...Sin-bearer for all mankind... 2 Cor. 5:21
Isa. 53:12e...Intercede to God in behalf of mankind... Lu. 23:34
Isa. 55:3...Resurrected by God... Acts 13:34
Isa. 55:4...A witness... Jn. 18:37
Isa. 59:15-16a...He would come to provide salvation... Jn. 6:40
Isa. 59:15-16b...Intercessor between man and God... Mt. 10:32
Isa. 59:20...He would come to Zion as their Redeemer... Lu. 2:38
Isa. 61:1-2a...The Spirit of God upon him... Mt. 3:16-17
Isa. 61:1-2b...The Messiah would preach the good news... Lu. 4:17-21
Isa. 61:1-2c...Provide freedom from the bondage of sin and death... Jn. 8:31-32
Isa. 61:1-2...Proclaim a period of grace... Jn. 5:24 
Jer.23:5-6a...Descendant of David...Lu. 3:23-31
Jer. 23:5-6b...The Messiah would be God... Jn. 13:13
Jer. 23:5-6c...The Messiah would be both God and Man... 1 Tim. 3:16
Jer. 31:22...Born of a virgin... Mt. 1:18-20
Jer. 31:31...The Messiah would be the new covenant... Mt. 26:28
Jer. 33:14-15...Descendant of David... Lu. 3:23-31
Eze.17:22-24...Descendant of David... Lk. 3:23-31
Eze.34:23-24...Descendant of David... Mt. 1:1
Dan. 7:13-14a...He would ascend into heaven... Acts 1:9-11
Dan. 7:13-14b...Highly exalted... Eph. 1:20-22
Dan. 7:13-14c...His dominion would be everlasting... Lu. 1:31-33
Dan. 9:24a...To make an end to sins... Gal. 1:3-5
Dan. 9:24b...He would be holy... Lu. 1:35
Dan. 9:25...Announced to his people 483 years, to the exact day, after the decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem... Jn. 12:12-13
Dan. 9:26a...Killed... Mt. 27:35
Dan. 9:26b...Die for the sins of the world... Heb. 2:9
Dan. 9:26c...Killed before the destruction of the temple... Mt. 27:50-51
Dan. 10:5-6...Messiah in a glorified state... Rev. 1:13-16
Hos. 13:14...He would defeat death... 1 Cor. 15:55-57
Joel 2:32...Offer salvation to all mankind... Rom. 10:12-13
Mic. 5:2a...Born in Bethlehem... Mt. 2:1-2
Mic. 5:2b...God's servant... Jn. 15:10
Mic. 5:2c...From everlasting... Jn. 8:58
Hag. 2:6-9...He would visit the second Temple... Lu. 2:27-32
Hag. 2:23...Descendant of Zerubbabel... Lu. 3:23-27 
Zech. 3:8...God's servant... Jn. 17:4
Zech. 6:12-13...Priest and King... Heb. 8:1
Zech. 9:9a...Greeted with rejoicing in Jerusalem... Mt. 21:8-10
Zech. 9:9b...Beheld as King... Jn. 12:12-13
Zech. 9:9c...The Messiah would be just... Jn. 5:30
Zech. 9:9d...The Messiah would bring salvation... Luke 19:10
Zech. 9:9e...The Messiah would be humble... Mt. 11:29
Zech. 9:9f...Presented to Jerusalem riding on a donkey... Mt. 21:6-9
Zech. 10:4...The cornerstone... Eph. 2:20
Zech. 11:4-6a...At His coming, Israel to have unfit leaders... Mt. 23:1-4
Zech. 11:4-6b...Rejection causes God to remove His protection.. Lu. 19:41-44
Zech. 11:4-6c...Rejected in favor of another king... Jn. 19:13-15
Zech. 11:7...Ministry to "poor," the believing remnant... Mt. 9:35-36
Zech. 11:8a...Unbelief forces Messiah to reject them... Mt. 23:33
Zech. 11:8b...Despised... Mt. 27:20
Zech. 11:9...Stops ministering to the those who rejected Him... Mt. 13:10-11
Zech. 11:10-11a...Rejection causes God to remove protection... Lu. 19:41-44
Zech. 11:10-11b...The Messiah would be God... Jn. 14:7
Zech. 11:12-13a...Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver... Mt. 26:14-15
Zech. 11:12-13b...Rejected... Mt. 26:14-15
Zech. 11:12-13c...Thirty pieces of silver thrown into the house of the Lord... Mt. 27:3-5
Zech. 11:12-13d...The Messiah would be God... Jn. 12:45
Zech. 12:10a...The Messiah's body would be pierced... Jn. 19:34-37
Zech. 12:10b...The Messiah would be both God and man... Jn. 10:30
Zech. 12:10c...The Messiah would be rejected... Jn. 1:11
Zech. 13:7a...God's will He die for mankind... Jn. 18:11
Zech. 13:7b...A violent death... Mt. 27:35
Zech. 13:7c...Both God and man.. Jn. 14:9
Zech. 13:7d...Israel scattered as a result of rejecting Him... Mt. 26:31-56
Mal. 3:1a...Messenger to prepare the way for Messiah... Mt. 11:10
Mal. 3:1b...Sudden appearance at the temple... Mk. 11:15-16
Mal. 3:1c...Messenger of the new covenant... Lu. 4:43
Mal. 4:5...Forerunner in the spirit of Elijah... Mt. 3:1-2
Mal. 4:6...Forerunner would turn many to righteousness... Lu. 1:16-17 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm


----------



## farmasis (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I cut out the whole NT because it doesn't fit God.
> The god of the NT is not the God who is described in the Old Testament. The God in the Old Testament said what he meant, and meant what he said. Nobody had to go through the Old Testament and pick out verses of scripture to figure out what God was trying to say. Anything God said, he made it perfectly clear what his expectations were so that they could be followed.


 
Matt 1:23 is prefectly clear.



> The god you try to show through the NT is a deceiving god. The god of the NT says that you must figure out the code of his 'plan' of salvation by taking things out of context in the Old Testament, twisting them around and making them say something that they didn't originally say. The god of the NT says that if you don't figure out that code, you're doomed to an eternity of torture and torment.


 
Salvation is crystal clear in the NT.



> But God didn't work like that. Show me ANYWHERE in the Old Testament where God was ambiguous about prophecy and what He wanted or intended to do. There isn't anywhere, because God didn't WANT his people to fail, he wanted them to succeed. He didn't make it a test or a quiz to figure out what he wanted.


 
I never said the prophecies were ambigous. Most prophecies revealed in the NT state they did so in the verse when fulfilled.



> Why do people say they have seen the face of God in their children? Why do people who have walked away from horrific circumstances say that they have seen the face of death? Does death have a face? Christians say they wrestle with satan every day... do you actually SEE satan?!? What does he look like? People who wrestle with their conscience, wrestle with temptation, do those things have a form?


 
ahhh, now who is reaching and trying to make the OT say something other than it did?



> God has made it clear that he has no form, and it is shown time after time in the Old Testament that every time the Jews tried to give him a form, they were punished for it.


 
When man gives God form, but not when God does it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 10, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Matt 1:23 is prefectly clear.
> 
> Salvation is crystal clear in the NT.
> 
> I never said the prophecies were ambigous. Most prophecies revealed in the NT state they did so in the verse when fulfilled.



Exactly my point.  In fact, it is quite suspicious that in each prophecy, the 'fulfilled' verse is listed, and it even spells out that it was done SO THAT the 'prophecy' would be fulfilled.   In other words, things were done so that it would appear to be the fulfillment of a 'prophecy'.  In other words, planted.

  Mat 1:22  	Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 2:17  	Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
Mat 2:18 	In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping [for] her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not

Mat 2:23  	 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Incidentally, there is NO scriptural prophecy of this in the Old Testament, it is fabricated.)

Mat 4:14  	That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Mat 4:15 	The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, [by] the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 

Mat 8:17  	 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our] sicknesses. 

Mat 12:17  	That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Mat 12:18 	Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Mat 13:14  	 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 

Mat 13:35  	 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. 

Mat 21:4  	All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Mat 21:5 	Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, and a colt the foal of an Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.


Mat 26:56  	But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Mat 27:9  	Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;  (And why does this say it is a prophecy in Jeremiah, when the prophecy is Zechariah??)

Mat 27:35  	And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Mar 15:28  	 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. 

Jhn 12:38  	 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 

Jhn 13:18  	 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. 

Jhn 15:25  	 But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. 

Jhn 17:12  	While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 

Jhn 18:9  	 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 

Jhn 18:32  	 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Jhn 19:24  	They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. 

Jhn 19:28  	 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. 

Jhn 19:36  	 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 

Act 13:29  	 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre. 

All of these things were put together after the fact.  If these were really messianic prophecies, the Jews would have been all over it... oh yes! We have been waiting for the messiah to come riding in on a donkey! We have been waiting for the messiah to be born of a virgin!  But it didn't happen... because these weren't messianic prophecies.

Not to mention that there are 'prophecies' that don't even have any verses corresponding to them in the Old Testament... completely fabricated.  Or they are attributed to the wrong prophet... as though the supposedly devout Jews who were disciples did not know their own Jewish religion.

You don't see any of the prophets doing this in the Old Testament... writing something and then saying 'so that it may be fulfilled that.... _____".  The only time anything is stated in the bible like that is in Daniel, where the prophecy was given and fulfilled in the same hour, in Ezra, where the prophecy was spelled out in Jeremiah and 1 Chronicles, and the prophecy in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles.  The Old Testament is not littered with meaningless 'prophecies' that aren't prophecies at all.

Given the way the NT has validated Jesus' divinity by using these 'prophecies'... heck, anyone could be the messiah.  I could go through a whole day of my own activities and find verses to pick out and say 'oh, this day was prophesied in the bible, the proof is in these verses!!"

I suspect that this picking of verses and trying to make them messianic was an issue back in the early days of the church, because 2 Peter says:

2Peter 1:15  	Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
2Peter 1:16	For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The writings of the NT were done decades, sometimes more than a century after the fact, and there is no way to know who actually wrote them.  Since Peter was illiterate, it is unlikely that he wrote any of the epistles named after him.  Two of the gospels are so close in content that it is likely one was written using the other as a guide.  And they don't all even have the same story.  In the Old Testament, the prophecies all line up with the story that they prophesied. The facts are all the same.



> ahhh, now who is reaching and trying to make the OT say something other than it did?



Not me.  I read the bible from front to back. I see the nature of God throughout the bible, what he said to his people, and the punishments he gave them for their disobedience.

The God of the Old Testament punished the Hebrews for worshiping pagan gods which had form. Over and over again he tells them that he has no form, that he purposely never appeared to them in any form or similtude so that they would not make an image of him and worship it, like the pagans did.  Many times they backslid and made an image of God and worshiped it, and they were punished severely.

So after all the times they were punished for worshiping images of gods, being told over and over again that God has no image, being warned against following any false gods, you expect that God would then come to earth as a man and REQUIRE them to believe it was him???  Isn't that a bit like the boy who cried wolf??




> When man gives God form, but not when God does it.


 See above.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 10, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Great answer CH.
> 
> Let us not also forget who Jacob wrestled with, God appearing in a burning bush to Moses, and before Joshua as the commander of the army of the Lord.
> 
> Yes, Jesus appears many times in the OT and I feel that Jesus was one of the three that appeared to Abraham on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Who else would Abraham be referring to as the Lord?



AMEN,Brother,AMEN,Praise HIS HOLY NAME.There is no other name Higher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It doesn't say God and 2 angels ate supper with Abraham.  It says three men did.  I agree that the angels were in the form of men... but they are  messengers of God, not God Himself.
> 
> The verses about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo are no different... it was not God in human form, it was an angel, and the bible even states so:  Daniel 3:28  	[Then] Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed [be] the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
> 
> ...



Immanuel GOD with us,implies HE Dwelt with us,why would Abraham refer to an angel as LORD,they would have rebuked him if he had,only GOD is LORD.Melchesidic in my Bible said HE had no beginning nor end,Pardon my error,King of Salem,for Melchesidic,Prince of Peace for THE LORD,GOD didn't give a mortal man a title higher than HIS!
Kerri, I have done nothing for you,nor has anyone else who has posted,to anything you've posted,but you have strengthened my Faith immensely.Prophesy said all throughout The Old Testament,HE (YESHUA)would be rejected by HIS own people,No name in HISTORY has caused more controversy,No Name in HISTORY has changed more lives,The FATHER says in The OLD Testament,That "HE will make HIS enemies HIS footstool". In one way,in some manner,you fulfill prophesy,in some of your posts."Every Knee will bow,and tounge confess,that JESUS CHRIST is LORD".Praise HIS HOLY NAME,THERE IS NO NAME HIGHER.The mortal "messiah" is going to be The abomination of Desolation,and he is coming,he is the anti-christ,he will rule for 7 years,but THE KING of kings,and THE LORD of lords,will cast him into the lake of fire,read The book of Daniel,thats in the OT.GOD will not allow IMO any of us to change you,we would get puffed up and prideful,as long as you argue,and try to disprove us who believe,I hope,if it is HIS will,and I know it is,HE would that everyone could be saved,if they will accept HIM.THE HOLY SPIRIT may just convert you for real this time.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Their understanding of God and His plan was and is not incorrect or incomplete at all.  My mention of anything about the Hebrew language is because that is the means by which Christians have twisted the Jewish faith into something that it was never meant to be, by incorrectly translating words to fit their agenda.  The Jews knew (and know) God without any help from Jesus.  He spoke to them directly all throughout the Old Testament.  He warned them not to believe in any 'likeness' or form, because he had none.
> 
> The purpose of the Law was not to reconcile humanity to God.  God says what the purpose of his law is,  many times over in the Old Testament:
> 
> ...



Recheck my post. I said nothing about the law. Salvation is a spiritual position given by Jesus to those who believe, repent, and confess that He is the Son of God, the risen Lord and it (salvation) is sustained by the promise of God the Father for eternity. It is the necessary result of a personal relationship with Jesus, something which you deny because " no one cometh to the Father but by me (Jesus)". As long as Kerri lives for Kerri and the things of Kerri, you are lost. Debate and argument will not save you. Knowing Hebrew will not save you. Being as good as you may be will not save you.

You seem to like the OT. When the death angel passed through all of Egypt and the children of Israel placed the blood on the door posts, don't you find it curious that they did this thing which they had never done before? The result was that upon seeing the "sign", the angel passed over the Jewish homes sparing the first born male, not just the youngest first born, but every first born. Without having all the answers, without understanding all that was to take place, the Hebrew slaves, by faith were obedient. Without that faith, they would not have been sacrificing, there would be no blood for the frame of the door, there would be no salvation for first born males. God has seen fit to give "pictures" of Himself, to reveal His character, His essence, throughout the OT. We have such a poor grasp of spirit, that He has taken the responsibility for showing Himself to us. His very being is revealed in three personalities (all 100% God): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no difference in those personalities. They are identical, they are one. Only in our perception does man distinguish between those personalities, so that we can understand Him in human terms. 

Jesus is pictured in the slain lamb in Egypt, He is pictured in the blood on the wooden beams above and on each side of the door, His salvation is pictured just beyond the threshold, His willingness to accept is pictured in the open door of refuge, and He is pictured in the closed door as the death angel passes judgment on the first born who remained outside because they placed no faith in Him.

Jesus is all over the OT. As certain as I am of the Divine authorship of the OT by inspiration (Holy Spirit), I am also certain of God's revelation (in the OT) of His Son's arrival and mission as recorded in the NT. I am placing everything I am in the hands of the One who died and arose to ascend to the right hand of God , the Father. 

But He has not done all this just for me (though He would have). He did it for you, even if you were the only one in need. If you kick against the grace of Jesus, you have rejected the Son. How do you think the Father in heaven will deal with those who have rejected His Son?

Peace unto you and yours.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 10, 2008)

> God doesn't have a hind side. Anything that talks about any body parts of God's in the bible is figurative... kind of like the dragon with ten heads etc. in the book of Revelation is figurative.



DD, are you referencing NT scripture to support your view of  OT passages? Then you apparently see portions of NT scripture as authoritative. Which portions do you find acceptable and why?   



> God was pretty adamant about Him not having a form.
> 
> Deuteronomy Deu 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only [ye heard] a voice.
> Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
> ...



If God chooses to withhold something from mankind for a period of time, does that mean that it does not exist? If He purposes for the Israelites to wander in the desert because of their disobedience, does that mean there is no promised land or that God's promises are not to be trusted? Is it OK with you if sovereign God waits till the time of His choosing to reveal Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son? At what point did you assume authority over God so as to say what He can and cannot do?

Your problem at its very root is that you have never completely yielded to God. You have reserved a portion of yourself over which you will not relinquish control. In essence, you make yourself god of that portion and that is something with which He will not put up. You are at odds with God and if you continue, you will most certainly lose.

Again, prayers are raised for your salvation.

Peace.


----------



## leroy (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't have a side.





Really could have fooled me.


----------



## leroy (Nov 10, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Recheck my post. I said nothing about the law. Salvation is a spiritual position given by Jesus to those who believe, repent, and confess that He is the Son of God, the risen Lord and it (salvation) is sustained by the promise of God the Father for eternity. It is the necessary result of a personal relationship with Jesus, something which you deny because " no one cometh to the Father but by me (Jesus)". As long as Kerri lives for Kerri and the things of Kerri, you are lost. Debate and argument will not save you. Knowing Hebrew will not save you. Being as good as you may be will not save you.
> 
> You seem to like the OT. When the death angel passed through all of Egypt and the children of Israel placed the blood on the door posts, don't you find it curious that they did this thing which they had never done before? The result was that upon seeing the "sign", the angel passed over the Jewish homes sparing the first born male, not just the youngest first born, but every first born. Without having all the answers, without understanding all that was to take place, the Hebrew slaves, by faith were obedient. Without that faith, they would not have been sacrificing, there would be no blood for the frame of the door, there would be no salvation for first born males. God has seen fit to give "pictures" of Himself, to reveal His character, His essence, throughout the OT. We have such a poor grasp of spirit, that He has taken the responsibility for showing Himself to us. His very being is revealed in three personalities (all 100% God): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no difference in those personalities. They are identical, they are one. Only in our perception does man distinguish between those personalities, so that we can understand Him in human terms.
> 
> ...




GREAT POST!!!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 10, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> Immanuel GOD with us,implies HE Dwelt with us,



No, if you read the chapter, the name Immanuel (meaning God Is With Us) referred to God being with Ahaz and his armies when they defeated the two kings who came up against them.  The chapter is very clear on this.



> why would Abraham refer to an angel as LORD,they would have rebuked him if he had,only GOD is LORD.



Abraham didn't refer to the angel as LORD.  He said Lord.  There is a difference.  Look it up.




> Melchesidic in my Bible said HE had no beginning nor end,Pardon my error,King of Salem,for Melchesidic,Prince of Peace for THE LORD,GOD didn't give a mortal man a title higher than HIS!



Verse? I don't see any verse that says Melchizedek had no beginning or no end.




> Kerri, I have done nothing for you,nor has anyone else who has posted,to anything you've posted,but you have strengthened my Faith immensely.Prophesy said all throughout The Old Testament,HE (YESHUA)would be rejected by HIS own people,No name in HISTORY has caused more controversy,No Name in HISTORY has changed more lives,The FATHER says in The OLD Testament,That "HE will make HIS enemies HIS footstool". In one way,in some manner,you fulfill prophesy,in some of your posts."Every Knee will bow,and tounge confess,that JESUS CHRIST is LORD".Praise HIS HOLY NAME,THERE IS NO NAME HIGHER.The mortal "messiah" is going to be The abomination of Desolation,and he is coming,he is the anti-christ,he will rule for 7 years,but THE KING of kings,and THE LORD of lords,will cast him into the lake of fire,read The book of Daniel,thats in the OT.GOD will not allow IMO any of us to change you,we would get puffed up and prideful,as long as you argue,and try to disprove us who believe,I hope,if it is HIS will,and I know it is,HE would that everyone could be saved,if they will accept HIM.THE HOLY SPIRIT may just convert you for real this time.



Right... because obviously my first conversion was 'fake'. 

You're right, you haven't 'done anything for me', but I wasn't expecting you to.  I never rule out that there is the possibility that someday someone might show me something or explain something in a way that I will have the same "aha!!" moment that I did when I realized Christianity wasn't true... but I don't expect it.  

Regardless of what some people on here think, I don't have any hidden motive or reason for getting into these discussions. I enjoy it.  I like the debate, I like looking things up, and like I said, I always learn something new.  For example, farmasis has shown me something new this time about 'dual prophecy'.  I don't have to agree with it, but I hadn't heard his version of it before, so it was interesting and new to me.  If these debates/discussions strengthen your faith, then that's great.

Again... believe it or not, I would like nothing more than for Christianity to be true.  I would love to believe again and go back to church, to put my faith into the NT and be able to give a reason for my faith.  But in order to do that, I would have to forget everything that the Old Testament said and taught... and I can't do that.  They just don't mesh.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I never rule out that there is the possibility that someday someone might show me something or explain something in a way that I will have the same "aha!!" moment that I did when I realized Christianity wasn't true... but I don't expect it.


 
It is easy to feel offended as a Christian when confronted. I have trouble with that sometimes. I am reminded that there was a time that I could not see the things that I do now. I think that is key when we as Christians debate things like this with others who are not. I am not saying that I have found something persay, that make me more enlightened than non-believers because were it not for Jesus's mercy on my wretched soul, I would be in the dark and as equally confused by spiritual mysteries. DD and others bring challenges to our thinking and sometimes it is hard to reason with things unreasonable. I enjoy debating, eventhough I am probably not the best to do so, but do feel compelled to defend my faith to the best of my ability.



> Again... believe it or not, I would like nothing more than for Christianity to be true. I would love to believe again and go back to church, to put my faith into the NT and be able to give a reason for my faith. But in order to do that, I would have to forget everything that the Old Testament said and taught... and I can't do that. They just don't mesh.


 
DD, there are over 360 prophecies from the OT that Jesus fulfilled (or that the NT claims he did, if you will.). I believe the OT points to the Messiah, the trinity and God incarnate. I too hope that one day Jesus will become real for you. Until then, I will try my best to give the best case for my faith that I can and try not to let my pride hold angst or enmity for anyone who does not or cannot see it my way.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Recheck my post. I said nothing about the law.



I wasn't referring to that post, I was continuing the earlier discussion on what the purpose of the law was. Sorry for the confusion.




> Salvation is a spiritual position given by Jesus to those who believe, repent, and confess that He is the Son of God, the risen Lord and it (salvation) is sustained by the promise of God the Father for eternity. It is the necessary result of a personal relationship with Jesus, something which you deny because " no one cometh to the Father but by me (Jesus)". As long as Kerri lives for Kerri and the things of Kerri, you are lost. Debate and argument will not save you. Knowing Hebrew will not save you. Being as good as you may be will not save you.
> 
> You seem to like the OT. When the death angel passed through all of Egypt and the children of Israel placed the blood on the door posts, don't you find it curious that they did this thing which they had never done before? The result was that upon seeing the "sign", the angel passed over the Jewish homes sparing the first born male, not just the youngest first born, but every first born. Without having all the answers, without understanding all that was to take place, the Hebrew slaves, by faith were obedient. Without that faith, they would not have been sacrificing, there would be no blood for the frame of the door, there would be no salvation for first born males. God has seen fit to give "pictures" of Himself, to reveal His character, His essence, throughout the OT. We have such a poor grasp of spirit, that He has taken the responsibility for showing Himself to us. His very being is revealed in three personalities (all 100% God): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no difference in those personalities. They are identical, they are one. Only in our perception does man distinguish between those personalities, so that we can understand Him in human terms.
> 
> ...



Since we are all sons and daughters of God, I'm not worried about it.  I'm not worried about how God will feel that I have read the Original Testament and understand that he has no form, and that he warned the Jews (take HEED) over and over again, explaining that he didnt' have any form so that they wouldn't be swayed into following other gods.

If things are as you say they will be in the end, I'm not worried about what will happen when I stand before God. I know what I  have been through the last 8 years, and I know that God has seen my struggles as well.  I would be more worried to present myself as something I'm not, and then be held accountable for that when it comes to my judgment.   I could go back to church, I could say that I believe, I could do everything I am supposed to do as a Christian, but God would know what my true heart believed.  So what good would it do me to lie or pretend?

You make it sound like I have a choice here on whether to believe in Jesus or not.  I don't have a choice.  I know it's difficult for you to believe, but when I first began to go through this experience, I begged and pleaded with God to show me the truth.  I wanted to believe it, more than anything in the entire world, I wanted it to stay true, to prove itself that it was the truth and that nothing could ever show it to be wrong.  I prayed, I begged, I pleaded with God to show me how Jesus overcame all of these questions I had, doubts that were plaguing me.  It didn't happen.  And, it seems, now I see why.

So, you see, I don't just live for me.  I believe that there is something greater than us.  But I think that you are wrong. I think it DOES matter how 'good' you are... in as much as how you give to others while on this earth.  I'm not perfect... as I said before, I have broken all ten of the popular commandments.  I sure ain't bragging about that... I'm admitting that I'm nowhere near perfect.  But I try.  I have my weaknesses.  I do what I can to try and help other people.  I have lied in my life, but I try to be honest.  I'm no different than any other human on this earth with my faults or my 'sins'.  You say that you're not perfect, just forgiven.  Well, guess what, me too.    It's ok if you don't agree.  I have read the Original Testament, and if any part of the bible at all is true, then I have done what needed to be done to be forgiven.

None of this may matter anyway.  You know what the bible says happens after this life?

Ecclesiastes 9:5  	 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I have read the Original Testament, and if any part of the bible at all is true, then I have done what needed to be done to be forgiven.



And what would that be? I'd be interested to find out what is needed, according to the old testament what needs to be done to be forgiven. Yom kappur, day of atonement...you do all that? or what?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> And what would that be? I'd be interested to find out what is needed, according to the old testament what needs to be done to be forgiven. Yom kappur, day of atonement...you do all that? or what?



Ironically, some of it is the same thing that is required in the New Testament (minus Jesus).   Prayer and repentance.  But also charity and works.

Hosea 14:2  	Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. (ie: prayer)


Micah 6:6  	Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
	Mic 6:7 	Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul?
	Mic 6:8 	He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Proverbs 10:2  Treasures of wickedness will not avail, but charity will save from death.

Proverbs 11:4  Riches will not avail on the day of wrath, but charity will save from death.

Proverbs 16:6  With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated, and through fear of the Lord one turns away from evil.

Proverbs 21:3  Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice.

Hosea 6:6  For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Daniel 4:27 (christian bible)  Nevertheless, o king, let my advice be agreeable to you.  Redeem your error with charity, and your sin through kindness to the poor, so that their will be an extension to your tranquility.


1Kings 8:46  	If they sin against thee, (for [there is] no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;	1Ki 8:47 	[Yet] if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness;	1Ki 8:48 	And [so] return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name:	1Ki 8:49 	Then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause,	1Ki 8:50 	And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them:





So, you see? A mediator was never needed. Blood was never required.   Prayer, repentance.  God didn't make it complicated.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

gtparts said:


> DD, are you referencing NT scripture to support your view of  OT passages? Then you apparently see portions of NT scripture as authoritative. Which portions do you find acceptable and why?



No, I wasn't using NT scripture to support OT passages.  I don't see any of it as authoritative.  But, you do.  My purpose in referencing the Revelations passage is to show you that the NT does use imagery, so I know you're familiar with the concept.  Just as the beast in the NT is not meant to be taken literal, any 'form' of God is not to be taken literal.

Let me ask you something.... if you met a man who said he was Jesus returned, would you believe it was him?  What if he performed miracles, raised people from the dead, etc.  Would you believe it was really Jesus?  I'm guessing probably not... because you have a specific expectation of prophecy that you're waiting for so that you know who the 'real' Jesus is, right?

Well it's no different than the Jews.  They were warned over and over again by God that he has no form.  He warned them in Deut. that he had no form.  Then he warned them in Deut. 13 that he would allow men to have the power to perform magic and miracles to test and see if the Jews would be faithful to him or go off with pagans.  

So, a man claiming to be God in the flesh? No, they wouldn't accept that.





> If God chooses to withhold something from mankind for a period of time, does that mean that it does not exist? If He purposes for the Israelites to wander in the desert because of their disobedience, does that mean there is no promised land or that God's promises are not to be trusted? Is it OK with you if sovereign God waits till the time of His choosing to reveal Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son? At what point did you assume authority over God so as to say what He can and cannot do?



I never said God couldn't do it.  I said, based on His words in the Old Testament, that he wouldn't do it.  There's a difference.



> Your problem at its very root is that you have never completely yielded to God. You have reserved a portion of yourself over which you will not relinquish control. In essence, you make yourself god of that portion and that is something with which He will not put up. You are at odds with God and if you continue, you will most certainly lose.Again, prayers are raised for your salvation.
> 
> Peace.



Well thank you for the evaluation, Dr. Freud.  

Unfortunately, you're incorrect.  I'm nowhere near being a god, nor would I want to be.  If I wanted to be a god, I would have stayed with the Mormon church.  I would have even had my own planet to control.

I have given up plenty of myself for my faith in the past.  One thing I always had was logic and common sense.  I think those things are a gift of God, and I think he would expect us to use the gifts that he gave us.


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 11, 2008)

Logic and common sense are wonderful things,but they won't save your soul.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 11, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Dixie Dawg
> Let me ask you something.... if you met a man who said he was Jesus returned, would you believe it was him? What if he performed miracles, raised people from the dead, etc. Would you believe it was really Jesus? I'm guessing probably not... because you have a specific expectation of prophecy that you're waiting for so that you know who the 'real' Jesus is, right?



I know Him and He knows me. I also know the manner in which He will return. Given the assumption that I was alive at the time, I would rise to meet Him in the air. What you propose is silly, clutching at straws.



> Originally Posted by Dixie Dawg
> Well it's no different than the Jews. They were warned over and over again by God that he has no form. He warned them in Deut. that he had no form. Then he warned them in Deut. 13 that he would allow men to have the power to perform magic and miracles to test and see if the Jews would be faithful to him or go off with pagans.
> 
> So, a man claiming to be God in the flesh? No, they wouldn't accept that.



Preaching to the choir here, young lady. God is a calling out a remnant of Israel for His purpose during the last days.
 Besides, God never said He had no form. As God, He can take on any form He chooses. He merely told the Jews His reason for not doing so, that they were prone to idolatry. One would have thought the warning would have been enough, but the Jews are a stubborn and stiff-necked people, and a little slow and forgetful......just like all of mankind.



> Well thank you for the evaluation, Dr. Freud.
> 
> Unfortunately, you're incorrect. I'm nowhere near being a god, nor would I want to be. If I wanted to be a god, I would have stayed with the Mormon church. I would have even had my own planet to control.
> 
> I have given up plenty of myself for my faith in the past. One thing I always had was logic and common sense. I think those things are a gift of God, and I think he would expect us to use the gifts that he gave us.



Seems to me that you should have used the plural, as by your own admission, you have dabbled in several constructs of "religious" people. What you have now is a buffet from which to choose the various beliefs that suit you. How convenient! "Create your own religion" is a poor disguise for "be your own god".

Prov. 3:7
Prov. 9:12
Prov. 12:15



As for NT logic and common sense, Paul explains it in Romans 1:


18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 
19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 
20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 
21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 
24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 
25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 

The obvious question is, "Whom do you worship and serve?"

Grace and peace to you and your daughter, Ms. Dawg.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Ironically, some of it is the same thing that is required in the New Testament (minus Jesus).   Prayer and repentance.  But also charity and works.
> 
> Hosea 14:2  	Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. (ie: prayer)
> 
> ...



Dear, one can not claim the promises that God made to the Jews without being a Jew. You stated above in an earlier post that, "Since we are all sons and daughters of God, I'm not worried about it." 

While it is true that we are all God's creation, where do you find in the OT or NT that we are "all sons and daughters of God"? While God has a covenant relationship with the nation of Israel, that would not apply to you or me. How is it then, that either of us might be a son or daughter of God?

I base my claim to "son-ship" on the adoption papers signed by God in the blood of His SON, Jesus Christ. By the power of the blood of Christ, my spiritual position is secured. I am a son and joint heir with Christ, because He has graced me with faith and a new heart to seek His will and be obedient to it, for it is no longer I that lives, but Christ in me. 

And............. He will do the same for you. The prayer that God desires from you is that of desperation, not for salvation, though He wants that for you, but pray for the faith that expresses total dependence on Him, even when it defies human sight, experience, or wisdom. 

I pray that you will find Him today, that He may pour out grace, and blessing and peace upon you, and when the world comes against you, and it will, that you find refuge and strength in Him, rather than relying on yourself.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

gtparts said:


> I know Him and He knows me. I also know the manner in which He will return. Given the assumption that I was alive at the time, I would rise to meet Him in the air. What you propose is silly, clutching at straws.



But it's not silly.  You believe you will 'meet him in the air'.  Why do you believe that?  Because it is prophesied in your New Testament.  So anyone claiming to be Christ who didn't 'meet you in the air', you would not believe was the true Christ.   The same goes for the Jews.  Jesus preached something other than what the Torah taught.  They were told what to look for.  Jesus wasn't it.





> Preaching to the choir here, young lady. God is a calling out a remnant of Israel for His purpose during the last days.
> Besides, God never said He had no form. As God, He can take on any form He chooses. He merely told the Jews His reason for not doing so, that they were prone to idolatry. One would have thought the warning would have been enough, but the Jews are a stubborn and stiff-necked people, and a little slow and forgetful......just like all of mankind.



Exactly.  So, after all of the warnings and punishments, you believe God would then REQUIRE them to believe he was the very thing he warned them against?  What kind of God do you believe in?





> Seems to me that you should have used the plural, as by your own admission, you have dabbled in several constructs of "religious" people. What you have now is a buffet from which to choose the various beliefs that suit you. How convenient! "Create your own religion" is a poor disguise for "be your own god".



 
Well that's quite the Pot calling the Kettle 'black'!  

Christians have created their own religion, only they have twisted and manipulated another religion to do so.  The Trinity was introduced centuries after Jesus, and was voted on by the church.  If you did a little history on the development of your own religion, I think you would be surprised at exactly what was created and from where.  

And for the record, the only 'religion' I ever claimed was Christianity.  I have been through just about every denomination, but they all call themselves 'Christian'. If you don't agree that they're Christian, that's not my problem.  




> As for NT logic and common sense, Paul explains it in Romans 1:
> 
> 
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
> ...




Ummm.... this passage only seems to support my argument!!   See the part I underlined for you?  Changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man.  Worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.   Seems that Paul still stuck to his Jewish roots on this one.  




gtparts said:


> Dear, one can not claim the promises that God made to the Jews without being a Jew. You stated above in an earlier post that, "Since we are all sons and daughters of God, I'm not worried about it."
> 
> While it is true that we are all God's creation, where do you find in the OT or NT that we are "all sons and daughters of God"? While God has a covenant relationship with the nation of Israel, that would not apply to you or me. How is it then, that either of us might be a son or daughter of God?



Because we are all His creations.  Where do you get the idea that God is only for the Jews? Even the Jews don't believe that.  Even Melchizedek is said to be a priest of the 'most High God', yet he is a gentile.  The Jews were given the charge to bring the Torah to the gentiles (nations).  It was and is for everyone.  If you need scriptures to support that, I'll be happy to look them up, but I think even you know that's what the bible said.

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

This doesn't say exclusively the Jew, or even the House of David or the House of Judah.  It says 'O man'... meaning everyone.



> I base my claim to "son-ship" on the adoption papers signed by God in the blood of His SON, Jesus Christ. By the power of the blood of Christ, my spiritual position is secured. I am a son and joint heir with Christ, because He has graced me with faith and a new heart to seek His will and be obedient to it, for it is no longer I that lives, but Christ in me.
> 
> And............. He will do the same for you. The prayer that God desires from you is that of desperation, not for salvation, though He wants that for you, but pray for the faith that expresses total dependence on Him, even when it defies human sight, experience, or wisdom.
> 
> I pray that you will find Him today, that He may pour out grace, and blessing and peace upon you, and when the world comes against you, and it will, that you find refuge and strength in Him, rather than relying on yourself.



I'm not relying on myself.  I'm relying on a God that knows my heart and my intentions.  I have already prayed the prayer you described... the one of desperation for the faith that is totally dependent on Him.  And that's what I have.  My faith is not dependent on a book.  It's not dependent on translations, interpretations, revisions, traditions, ceremonies, commentaries or anything else.  I believe in a God who created me, who knows me and knows my heart.  I rely on nothing but that.


----------



## Dogmusher (Nov 11, 2008)

*Keeping a Promise*

Over the weekend I took some time to research the dating of the Septuagint.  And I think I found the discrepency between my sources of dating of the LXX and DD's.  I was only concerned with the regular OT books of Genesis - Malachi.  Those were all completed early.  The books of the Apocrypha were translated much later, some maybe as late as very near the birth of Christ.  

So we were comparing apples and oranges.  How many disagreements have happened as a result of that on this forum?  

Looking through my Library and doing a thorough Google search, I discovered a consensus that Isaiah included in the Septuagint no later than 250 B.C.  Even the loathsome Wikipedia agrees, though I could not find the entry this evening.  I read it several times over the weekend, but forgot to bookmark it.   Hey, I'm old.  Cut me some slack.

Anyway, I promised to come back to that topic and I consider my promise fulfilled. 

Now I'm going back to my nap.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> No, I wasn't using NT scripture to support OT passages.  I don't see any of it as authoritative.  But, you do.  My purpose in referencing the Revelations passage is to show you that the NT does use imagery, so I know you're familiar with the concept.  Just as the beast in the NT is not meant to be taken literal, any 'form' of God is not to be taken literal.
> 
> Let me ask you something.... if you met a man who said he was Jesus returned, would you believe it was him?  What if he performed miracles, raised people from the dead, etc.  Would you believe it was really Jesus?  I'm guessing probably not... because you have a specific expectation of prophecy that you're waiting for so that you know who the 'real' Jesus is, right?
> 
> ...



Now that explains it all,if you have been with a Cult,no wonder you are confused about JESUS.When you said you went to Church I thought you meant a real Church.That explains it all you have had your mind filled with so many lies,and deception,how can you understand?
The mormon  church is not Christian,its a wonder you are not more confused,than you already are.How much of the book of mormon do you still base your life on?
Kerri when some people call on god,they are not talking to the true GOD.Buddah,Allah,Harry Krishna,Baal,the jehovah 
witnesses,the mormons.They are not talking to GOD.They are speaking into the air.What Bible are you reading,the jehovah witness bible,reads in a way like the BIBLE,but the words are changed to satisfy their beliefs.This explains a lot.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> That's cool, man.    I gather from your post that you are a thinking person.    I would love to hear how your science friends reconcile creationist theory with scientific evidence.    I'd also like to hear more about that concept of "stepping into the unknown based on the known".  Maybe a PM?



I'm not one of his scientist friends, but I AM a scientist, and one who has read enough of the data (trust me you don't wanna go there) to believe that evolution is how many species were formed into what they are now.  That does not preclude me being a creationist.  In fact, from my view, it DEMANDS it!  The theories used by scientists to describe the origin of life (how it was created, not how it has changed since creation) are pretty crummy.  If you don't believe me, start looking some things up about the RNA world hypothesis. 

And trust me when I tell you that if ours was an RNA world, it didn't last very long.  RNA is so unstable that it's hard to keep around long enough to run on a gel, let alone long enough to allow the formation of catalytic activity in the absence of a cell.

So to me, science has strengthened my convictions of a Creator God.  I don't believe in 7 day creation, but I think that when Moses wrote Genesis, he was writing an account of creation that the people of that time could understand well.  And it accomplished its job: it told us that the world was created in exquisite detail by a loving Creator.  

Now, the "rub" with my line of reasoning is how to explain Adam and Eve. Were they metaphorical or real?  I believe they were real, and thus must have been created specially by God apart from the evolutionary process.  Though humans share much homology genetically with apes, rats, and fruit flies, their behavior patterns are too complex to have resulted from any evolutionary process.  

For those who claim that if Genesis isn't literal then neither are the gospels: get real.  The gospels are 4 separate "blogs" of Christ followers who walked with, prayed with, and ate with Jesus for the duration of his ministry.  They don't tell a metaphorical tale, they give a Cliff's Notes version of the life and times of the Savior, complete with quotes (in red if you're reading the King James )  Almost all credible historians agree that Jesus lived on the earth around 2000 years ago and was crucified thirty-some years into his life.  

The historicity of Christ is an aspect of Christology that many non-believers choose to ignore, as it among the most persuasive arguments as to His divinity.  He appeared to literally hundreds of His followers in the weeks after His resurrection!  Sure it takes some faith to believe in someone you've never met face to face.  Just know that the apostles, who did meet Him face to face, were so convinced of His Lordship that they died horrible deaths proclaiming Him as God.  Luke was a doctor.  Paul was a rabbi.  Peter a fisherman (thought you guys might like that one).    These were well-respected, mostly learned men who left what they were doing when Christ called.  The strength of their faith is very convincing to me.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> Now that explains it all,if you have been with a Cult,no wonder you are confused about JESUS.When you said you went to Church I thought you meant a real Church.That explains it all you have had your mind filled with so many lies,and deception,how can you understand?
> The mormon  church is not Christian,its a wonder you are not more confused,than you already are.How much of the book of mormon do you still base your life on?
> Kerri when some people call on god,they are not talking to the true GOD.Buddah,Allah,Harry Krishna,Baal,the jehovah
> witnesses,the mormons.They are not talking to GOD.They are speaking into the air.What Bible are you reading,the jehovah witness bible,reads in a way like the BIBLE,but the words are changed to satisfy their beliefs.This explains a lot.



Christianity in a whole is a cult... but that's for another thread.

Anyway, to correct your mistake, I did go to a 'real' church.  I was not in the Mormon church for very long... I had the required sessions with the missionaries, I was baptized and then went three times to their service... that's when things started to get weird.  They started talking about Jesus and Satan being brothers, everyone becoming gods of their own planets, etc. and I said, I'm outta here.  So, you are wrong in your assumption of my background.

Most of my time in church has been in the baptist denomination or non-denominational churches.  However, I have been to probably all different denominations.... from the pentecostal holy rollers (who really got to me with the music, which I loved) to the catholic church (who got me with the history... 'nuff said) and everything in between.  I have attended two churches since I moved here to Georgia 9 years ago... Grove Level up in Commerce and a methodist church.  So, unless you consider all churches 'cults', I'm afraid you are incorrect in your assumptions.  Sorry if this comes across as blunt, but I know how you just hate those nice smilies.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

Dogmusher said:


> Over the weekend I took some time to research the dating of the Septuagint.  And I think I found the discrepency between my sources of dating of the LXX and DD's.  I was only concerned with the regular OT books of Genesis - Malachi.  Those were all completed early.  The books of the Apocrypha were translated much later, some maybe as late as very near the birth of Christ.
> 
> So we were comparing apples and oranges.  How many disagreements have happened as a result of that on this forum?



I wouldn't even want to guess!  
Thanks for your diligence!


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Because there is so much text, so much we should and shouldn't do. Because we can't explain or interpret all of it or even come close to comprehending it. It is so complex, way above my ability to comprehend how even the world began, how even a baby is formed, how someone can die and be raised again.....I am saved by faith. Not saved by reading, understanding, comprehending or calculating....but by faith and grace.

By the Holy Spirit only,  I have enough insight to even get a clue. It is too simple...too simple that folks have to make it complex. So complex in fact that they themselves are going in circles trying to figure it out.  I could read the entire OT and the entire NT and still have a diffence of opinion from someone else.  That's why God put it more or less that we would understand it in the sweet by and by.
Jesus says 'my yoke, my teaching, the burden I put on you is light' compared to the rabbis in the OT.

Whenever I get into one of these long drawn out twisted up debates about Jesus, my mind takes me to His word....My yoke is light, I won't put on you more than you can handle, more than you can accomplish, more than you can endure, more than you can understand. 

Matthew 11:29-30 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 

 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Jesus did not dismiss the OT teaching, He simply made it simple for us by taking our penalty upon Himself.
And I gotta thank ya Jesus...thank ya God for your Son Jesus...thank ya because I don't have the answers but you do. I put my life and hope in Your hands...Ye knock and I let You in, and I have peace.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Mtnwoman, I agree that it's simple enough for a child to understand.  But at the same, God makes the wise foolish!  We should try to learn and understand all we can about Him and His world.  In the end, I think the world (science) points me the same place as the Word: straight to a loving, all-powerful God.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Because there is so much text, so much we should and shouldn't do. Because we can't explain or interpret all of it or even come close to comprehending it. It is so complex, way above my ability to comprehend how even the world began, how even a baby is formed, how someone can die and be raised again.....I am saved by faith. Not saved by reading, understanding, comprehending or calculating....but by faith and grace.
> 
> By the Holy Spirit only,  I have enough insight to even get a clue. It is too simple...too simple that folks have to make it complex. So complex in fact that they themselves are going in circles trying to figure it out.  I could read the entire OT and the entire NT and still have a diffence of opinion from someone else.  That's why God put it more or less that we would understand it in the sweet by and by.
> Jesus says 'my yoke, my teaching, the burden I put on you is light' compared to the rabbis in the OT.
> ...




Umm... 'Rabbis' didn't put anything in the "OT".  If you believe in the OT, then you must believe it was dictated by God Himself.  Moses didn't create the Law, the Rabbis didn't create the Law, it was dictated by God.  And God said it wasn't hard, it wasn't confusing, and it was able to be done.

Deuteronomy 30:11  	For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.
	Deu 30:12 	It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
	Deu 30:13 	Neither [is] it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
	Deu 30:14 	But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

There are other verses where God says it is not hard to follow His law or His instructions, and that they are able to be done, but I won't go through the trouble to look them up unless you really want to know them.  I have a feeling it isn't going to matter to you anyway, you believe what you believe, and that's fine.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Are you saying that rabbis weren't "in charge" in the OT. I didn't say they put anything in the Bible, but they were the spiritual leaders were they not?, I'm saying they were hard on the people. Everyone went by their interpretation since no one had a personal saviour. They had to abide by and depend on the rabbis to show them, or lead them in the right direction. Just like the priests are the go between the Catholics and Jesus/God
Jesus is My personal saviour, He is MY rabbi, and His yoke is light.
Read about yoke in the OT and you will see what I mean...you may not get it, but hopefully you can relate the two together.

What do you think the rabbis did?  Just curious.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> There are other verses where God says it is not hard to follow His law or His instructions, and that they are able to be done, but I won't go through the trouble to look them up unless you really want to know them.  I have a feeling it isn't going to matter to you anyway, you believe what you believe, and that's fine.




I agree and the same goes for you.
I choose the way that I can accomplish. No way in heck can anyone live by the OT.
I can't provide myself a lamb, I can't take grain to the storehouse. I CAN however believe that Jesus is who He says He is by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, my comforter.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> There are other verses where God says it is not hard to follow His law or His instructions, and that they are able to be done, but I won't go through the trouble to look them up unless you really want to know them. *And name one who abided by that...just one and I'm not talking about "trying" to do it...I'm talking about WHO accomplished it that you know of?* I have a feeling it isn't going to matter to you anyway, you believe what you believe, and that's fine.


*Oh but it does matter to me....Jesus working in me and thru me trying to reach those that are blind to Him. Personally yes, it doesn't matter, but gees I have no control of WHO I am letting work thru me....believe it or not*


----------



## farmasis (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So, you see? A mediator was never needed. Blood was never required. Prayer, repentance. God didn't make it complicated.


 
Blood was always required to atone for sins.


*Leviticus <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:time Minute="11" Hour="17">17:11</st1:time>(KJV) - "…for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."*

*I believe you will be judged by the law or grace. Grace is so much easier and provides assurance.*

*Dixie, since the OT was given to the Jewish nation, can a gentile be saved by obeying the law given to Jews? (I assume you are not an ethnic Jew.)*


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Blood was always required to atone for sins.
> 
> 
> *Leviticus <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:time Minute="11" Hour="17">17:11</st1:time>(KJV) - "…for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."*
> ...



Yes you either follow the OT to the t....or you don't or can't.
Not sure I could even slaughter a lamb, or grow grain.  But by faith, and mercy and grace am I saved by the Lamb of God, by the blood of the lamb....that's the clue.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

farmasis said:


> *Dixie, since the OT was given to the Jewish nation, can a gentile be saved by obeying the law given to Jews? (I assume you are not an ethnic Jew.)*



Ephesians 2:7-9 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 

 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 

 9Not of works, lest any man should boast


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Are you saying that rabbis weren't "in charge" in the OT. I didn't say they put anything in the Bible, but they were the spiritual leaders were they not?, I'm saying they were hard on the people. Everyone went by their interpretation since no one had a personal saviour. They had to abide by and depend on the rabbis to show them, or lead them in the right direction.



Where are you getting this info from??
What 'rabbi' in the bible are you talking about? Who?
Who said they were hard on the people?  And nobody interpreted anything... God spelled it all out in the first 5 books of the bible (Torah).   As far as 'personal saviors', God was their personal savior.  They heard his voice on Mt. Sinai. They were given his law personally. It doesn't get much more personal than that.  They didn't have to rely on or depend on the rabbis.  They had God's law.  And still do.  They have NEVER been punished for following the Law.  They are only punished when they stray from it, when they accept things like Christianity that teaches things that are not in the Torah, or tells them that their law is null and void.



> Jesus is My personal saviour, He is MY rabbi, and His yoke is light.
> Read about yoke in the OT and you will see what I mean...you may not get it, but hopefully you can relate the two together.



What verses are you referring to? If you tell me what verses, I can look them up and respond much better.  



mtnwoman said:


> I agree and the same goes for you.
> I choose the way that I can accomplish. No way in heck can anyone live by the OT.
> I can't provide myself a lamb, I can't take grain to the storehouse. I CAN however believe that Jesus is who He says He is by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, my comforter.





mtnwoman said:


> *Oh but it does matter to me....Jesus working in me and thru me trying to reach those that are blind to Him. Personally yes, it doesn't matter, but gees I have no control of WHO I am letting work thru me....believe it or not*




If you say 'no way in heck can anyone live by the OT', then you must not believe in what God said in the Old Testament, or you think he is lying?

1Kings 3:14  	 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days. 

1Kings 11:34  	 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: 

1Kings 14:8  	 And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and [yet] thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do [that] only [which was] right in mine eyes; 


1Kings 11:38  	And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do [that is] right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did

2Chronicles 7:17  	 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments;

David was but one who God said kept His law... God also said that Asa, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others kept the law just like David did.

I know what you're probably going to say... the bible shows where David murdered, etc. How could he have kept the law perfectly? Well, part of 'keeping' the law perfectly was that when you sinned, you repented and asked for forgiveness.  David did this. Therefore, he kept the law perfectly.     I didn't say it.... God did.  It's right there in your bible.



mtnwoman said:


> Yes you either follow the OT to the t....or you don't or can't.
> Not sure I could even slaughter a lamb, or grow grain.  But by faith, and mercy and grace am I saved by the Lamb of God, by the blood of the lamb....that's the clue.



See above.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Blood was always required to atone for sins.


 
That's not true.
I listed above many verses that show where prayer, repentance and charity is atonement for sins.  If you choose to ignore that, I can't help it.

But the law even says blood is not required.

Lev 5:11  	But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.



> *I believe you will be judged by the law or grace. Grace is so much easier and provides assurance.*
> 
> *Dixie, since the OT was given to the Jewish nation, can a gentile be saved by obeying the law given to Jews? (I assume you are not an ethnic Jew.)*



Again, as I have said before, the Jews don't see 'salvation' the same way that Christians do.  The law wasn't given for spiritual salvation.  It was given for blessings while on this earth.  I have already given you verses to show exactly what the Torah says the law was for (if you follow my statutes and my commandments, then _____) but if you need me to repost them, I'll be glad to.

The Jews don't worry much about the afterlife.  Their concern is doing the best that they can while on this earth.

And I'll post again what God said about what he wants.... not just for the Jew but for all 'man'...

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Christianity in a whole is a cult... but that's for another thread.
> 
> Anyway, to correct your mistake, I did go to a 'real' church.  I was not in the Mormon church for very long... I had the required sessions with the missionaries, I was baptized and then went three times to their service... that's when things started to get weird.  They started talking about Jesus and Satan being brothers, everyone becoming gods of their own planets, etc. and I said, I'm outta here.  So, you are wrong in your assumption of my background.
> 
> Most of my time in church has been in the baptist denomination or non-denominational churches.  However, I have been to probably all different denominations.... from the pentecostal holy rollers (who really got to me with the music, which I loved) to the catholic church (who got me with the history... 'nuff said) and everything in between.  I have attended two churches since I moved here to Georgia 9 years ago... Grove Level up in Commerce and a methodist church.  So, unless you consider all churches 'cults', I'm afraid you are incorrect in your assumptions.  Sorry if this comes across as blunt, but I know how you just hate those nice smilies.



So - you quit the Mormon church because they started telling you Jesus and Satan were brothers,but in another thread,you say you could be working for God by working for Satan??? You ARE confused,to say the least.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 12, 2008)

Kerri,
It appears to me(no accusation,assumption)that you think a Christian dismisses the OT,and only embraces the NT.All scripture is essential for us to even try to fathom who GOD is,from Genesis to Revelation if you don't believe one word,you dismiss The TRUTH.The LORD JESUS preached from THE OT,HE IS THE OT,and THE NT,HE IS THE LIVING WORD OF GOD.Who were The prophets testifying about,Who were David,Ezekiel,and Isaiah talking about to name a few?
You say you are studying to be a psychologist,I knew a Christian Psychologist once,I was talking to him about my divorce 20+ years ago and not being able to see my son.He gave me an analogy that I think may apply to you.You are standing in the middle of a bridge,holding a rope that reaches all of the way to the ground,you keep standing there holding the rope,not moving forwards or backwards,you have two choices,let go of the rope,and move back or forward,or keep standing there holding the rope!Who are you trying to convince those of us who are believers,and are sending up prayers,for your eternal soul,or yourself? If I disbelieved something as adamantly as you say you do,I would move forward or backwards,but you keep standing there in the middle of the bridge holding the rope.You said if someone tells you something,that makes you go aha,as when you got out of Church,you might change. When you get saved,you don't see lightening bolts,or hear voices from Heaven,you are changed from within,eternally.You say you don't need JESUS,are you keeping The Ten Commandments?
Even that is not enough!
You say that you get on here,because you like to debate,I don't,and nobody else should either,arguing is debates ugly cousin.
JESUS was,and IS real!
HE is who HE said HE was,The ETERNAL GOD,THE ALPHA AND OMEGA.I'm not arguing or trying to convince you of anything,its a faith thing,you either have it,obtain it, or never get it,in a sense of the word,because GOD said"Every man is born with a measure of faith."Your eternity is in your hands,and your mind,I sure hope you make this life count.
Michael


----------



## farmasis (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That's not true.
> I listed above many verses that show where prayer, repentance and charity is atonement for sins. If you choose to ignore that, I can't help it.
> 
> But the law even says blood is not required.
> ...


 
Am I not correct by assuming that this was brought to the alter and put with the blood offerings? God is gracious to provide provisions to those unable to attain what was required. It is not blood he is after, it is obedience. If you have the ability to obey God's commandments and do not, he is not obligated to accept your offering...see Cain and Abel. So, if he makes salvation available through his son's blood, and you decide to try another way-- let us hope you find favor.





> Again, as I have said before, the Jews don't see 'salvation' the same way that Christians do. The law wasn't given for spiritual salvation. It was given for blessings while on this earth. I have already given you verses to show exactly what the Torah says the law was for (if you follow my statutes and my commandments, then _____) but if you need me to repost them, I'll be glad to.
> 
> The Jews don't worry much about the afterlife. Their concern is doing the best that they can while on this earth.
> 
> ...


 
Again, are you an ethnic Jew? Are you sure that asking for forgiveness is all that a gentile needs to do?

You are correct that most of the punishment given by Moses of not obeying God's commands were immediate and did not deal with salvation, but to keep God's chosen people with him.

However, eternal salvation through obedience of the law is not lost in the OT.

*Ezekiel 18:21 *
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
*Psalm 24:4 *
He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
*2 Samuel 23:5*
"Is not my house right with God? Has he not made with me an everlasting covenant, arranged and secured in every part? Will he not bring to fruition my *salvation* and grant me my every desire?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 12, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> You say that you get on here,because you like to debate,I don't,and nobody else should either,arguing is debates ugly cousin.



What is the name of this forum again?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Exactly my point.  In fact, it is quite suspicious that in each prophecy, the 'fulfilled' verse is listed, and it even spells out that it was done SO THAT the 'prophecy' would be fulfilled.   In other words, things were done so that it would appear to be the fulfillment of a 'prophecy'.  In other words, planted.
> 
> Mat 1:22  	Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
> 
> ...



DD, 

Are you so dull that when NT scripture "connects the dots" over and over and over, you say "conspiracy to deceive"?

The more the evidence of divine revelation, the more you refuse to see?

Now, that's logical!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 12, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> I'm not one of his scientist friends, but I AM a scientist, and one who has read enough of the data (trust me you don't wanna go there) to believe that evolution is how many species were formed into what they are now.  That does not preclude me being a creationist.  In fact, from my view, it DEMANDS it!  The theories used by scientists to describe the origin of life (how it was created, not how it has changed since creation) are pretty crummy.
> 
> I would never argue about "who" put the system in place.   It doesn't matter to me.  Call it Ganesh, Allah, whatever.  No one can prove it and there doesn't need to be one.  If your best "evidence" is Intelligent Design, I would suggest that you use that as a "loose" operating theory.  Something else may come along that's better.
> 
> ...



Thanks for engaging me in conversation.   I hope we can discuss this further.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Where are you getting this info from??
> What 'rabbi' in the bible are you talking about? Who?
> Who said they were hard on the people?  And nobody interpreted anything... God spelled it all out in the first 5 books of the bible (Torah).   As far as 'personal saviors', God was their personal savior.  They heard his voice on Mt. Sinai. They were given his law personally. It doesn't get much more personal than that.  They didn't have to rely on or depend on the rabbis.  They had God's law.  And still do.  They have NEVER been punished for following the Law.  They are only punished when they stray from it, when they accept things like Christianity that teaches things that are not in the Torah, or tells them that their law is null and void.
> 
> ...




DD, 

Are you saying David got a pass from God as regards adultery, conspiracy to comit murder, and murder?

What about his instructions to move the Ark of the Covenant after it was returned to the Jews, using a ox cart rather than Levites and poles? Either the OT is contradicting itself or someone has a problem interpreting the verses she is quoting.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That's not true.
> I listed above many verses that show where prayer, repentance and charity is atonement for sins.  If you choose to ignore that, I can't help it.
> 
> But the law even says blood is not required.
> ...



You argue against Christianity from the position of Judaisn.

Henceforth, if you will not accept scripture from the NT as God-given and authoritative, then I will not accept your arguments based on Judaism, which you hold in some regard, but have not committed to by their process of conversion. Even Sammy Davis Jr. had the guts to get off the fence.

Just because there are obvious differences in the Christian perspective of OT scripture and that of the Jews, does not necessarily mean that either is wrong ( or either is right, for that matter)

Many "fairy tales" that have been told for centuries have moral lessons which are not directed at children alone and were not inteneded for their mere amusement. Biting political commentary  has been cloaked in many of those stories. Not everyone was or is aware of this simple truth. 
Likewise, God concealed many things in the OT until such time as Jesus and, later, the Holy Spirit would reveal them to 1st century contemporaries and even beyond to the present day. 

It is possible that, having rejected Christ, God may well have decided to allow you to remain "blinded" to the truth of His Word. Many on this forum will continue to daily intercede for you in prayer at the very throne of God, that He may have mercy upon you.

I pray grace to you, that you will find in Him the peace that exceeds all understanding.


----------



## z71gacowboy (Nov 12, 2008)

well if we are talking about the virgin birth being difficult to accept....i think your starting at the wrong place....I think you have to understand and believe in God. If you understand and believe God and his Word...then you also entertain the possibility that "hey, if God is in everything and made everything, and has ownership over all....then it is definantly possible that his "word became man"." I think of it this way...if the "word of God" became man then it couldn't have been through natural conception, just like the gift of the Spirit isn't through natural birth. There's a starting point for everything and if you don't start from the beginning, then obviously you have no basis on which to understand or believe something towards the end. Its like when you over hear someones conversation right in the middle and listen to the end of the conversation....do you not ask or wonder what was at the start?

And on another topic in here....I myself used to wonder why Jews didnt believe in Jesus...still to this day. Ill have to look the scripture back up, but I happened upon a few verses that said something to this effect "Jesus would be set up as a stumbling block to many of the Jews that they will not believe in him, yet God has and will keep his promise to them"


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 12, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> What is the name of this forum again?



Debate out of hand,discussing different thoughts and beliefs are one thing.Those of us who Truly believe are making DD say more and more things she shouldn't say,which could even possibly lead to Blasphemy which will not be forgiven in this world or the next.Thats what I'm getting at.I know what the forum says,but I repeat,arguing is debates ugly cousin,just sugar coated,as is the nature of man!

Michael


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Am I not correct by assuming that this was brought to the alter and put with the blood offerings? God is gracious to provide provisions to those unable to attain what was required. It is not blood he is after, it is obedience. If you have the ability to obey God's commandments and do not, he is not obligated to accept your offering...see Cain and Abel. So, if he makes salvation available through his son's blood, and you decide to try another way-- let us hope you find favor.



How can you make this statement and then say that there is no forgiveness without blood?  You are contradicting yourself.  You are right, God did make provisions for when sacrifices (blood or otherwise) were not possible.  It's called prayer and repentance... His chosen method of atonement.  Cain's offering was not accepted because of the manner in which he gave it. He didn't give his best, and he didn't do it with the right intentions.  That held true then, it held true in the Law, and it still holds true today.  If you haven't read the Law, then you really should.  Sin sacrifices were ONLY allowed for non-intentional sins.  If you sinned knowingly, there was no sacrifice you could give for atonement, repentance was the only way to be forgiven.  I didn't say that, God did.  The flour offering was sufficient in and of itself.  It had nothing to do with blood at all, and if you want to start another thread on that topic I will be glad to.




> Again, are you an ethnic Jew? Are you sure that asking for forgiveness is all that a gentile needs to do?



As far as I know, no, I'm not.  But, as with anyone, no one can be sure if they are an ethnic Jew or not if you don't know your complete family history.  There is a chance that in my genealogy I have Jewish genes.  I've been tracing my tree for a while now, it's a work in progress.



> You are correct that most of the punishment given by Moses of not obeying God's commands were immediate and did not deal with salvation, but to keep God's chosen people with him.
> 
> However, eternal salvation through obedience of the law is not lost in the OT.
> 
> ...



None of those verses say they are talking about eternal spiritual salvation.  Especially when you read them in context. 



gtparts said:


> DD,
> 
> Are you so dull that when NT scripture "connects the dots" over and over and over, you say "conspiracy to deceive"?
> 
> ...



I suppose so.  Especially when there was never any need in any of the Old Testament prophecies to 'connect the dots'.  The NT doesn't just connect the dots.  It makes up the puzzle, puts the dots there and then connects them.



gtparts said:


> DD,
> 
> Are you saying David got a pass from God as regards adultery, conspiracy to comit murder, and murder?



What do you mean by 'pass'?
Don't you as Christians believe you have a 'pass'???  I know of many Christian adulterers, murderers, etc. that say they have been given a 'pass' because they have Jesus.

And, for the record, *I* didn't say it... God did.   Are you questioning God, or are you questioning the validity of the Old Testament?



> What about his instructions to move the Ark of the Covenant after it was returned to the Jews, using a ox cart rather than Levites and poles? Either the OT is contradicting itself or someone has a problem interpreting the verses she is quoting.



The OT does contradict itself at times, just like the NT does.   But I have no problem 'interpreting' any of the verses I quoted.  GOD is the one who said that David kept the law.  Again, as I stated before, David DID keep the law, according to God.  The law said that when you sin (for there is no man who does not sin), you repent and ask for forgiveness.  David did that.  Therefore, he kept the law.  He did what God instructed.  How much more clear need it be?  Just because it doesn't add up to what the NT taught, doesn't mean it isn't still written there in black and white. 



gtparts said:


> You argue against Christianity from the position of Judaisn.
> 
> Henceforth, if you will not accept scripture from the NT as God-given and authoritative, then I will not accept your arguments based on Judaism, which you hold in some regard, but have not committed to by their process of conversion. Even Sammy Davis Jr. had the guts to get off the fence.



 
Ok gtparts... you of course don't have to accept any of my arguments based on Judaism.    But don't think that I came up with any of this on my own.  My arguments ARE of Judaism.  So just because I haven't converted doesn't mean that my arguments are not the same as the Jewish argument.  My reasons for not converting are many... but the bottom line is, I haven't converted because I realize that being Jewish is not just a religion, it is an entire heritage.  If I were to find somewhere in my genealogy that I came from Jewish roots, then I probably would convert.  But until then, there is no reason for me to convert.  I have talked with many rabbis about conversion.  The Jews actually discourage conversions, and will turn you down for conversion at least three times, because they don't take it lightly.  This has been since the days of the bible, go back and take a look at Ruth. 

You see my reluctance to convert to Judaism as 'sitting on the fence', when, in reality, it is because of my respect for the Jewish faith and it's people that I don't convert, as I see it as a birthright.  They don't say anyone has to convert in order to accept the same God as they do, or in order to have a place in the world to come.  I realize that is a foreign concept to you, but it's the way it is. 



> Just because there are obvious differences in the Christian perspective of OT scripture and that of the Jews, does not necessarily mean that either is wrong ( or either is right, for that matter)



Yes, it does.  Would you take criticism of the NT from a Jew? I doubt it, you would tell him that he didn't understand your scripture because he didn't accept Jesus, because he didn't have "spiritual discernment."  Because it's YOUR book.  The Old Testament is the JEW'S book... they wrote it, they know what it says and what it means, God gave it to them and gave THEM the charge of bringing it to the gentiles (you).   God tells the Jews point blank that the gentiles (you) will come to them (the Jews) to learn about and follow God, not the other way around.




> It is possible that, having rejected Christ, God may well have decided to allow you to remain "blinded" to the truth of His Word.



I already accepted it as 'truth' once... even with all of the questions I had.  I beat myself up because I thought it was just that I didn't have enough 'faith'.  I don't beat myself up anymore, now that God has taken off the blinders and allowed me to see the truth.  Maybe someday He will do the same for you.



> Many on this forum will continue to daily intercede for you in prayer at the very throne of God, that He may have mercy upon you.



And I'll do the same for you.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> So - you quit the Mormon church because they started telling you Jesus and Satan were brothers,but in another thread,you say you could be working for God by working for Satan??? You ARE confused,to say the least.





I'm not confused at all.  

Yes, I quit the Mormon church because they believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.  I was a Christian when I joined the Mormon church, so it went against my Christian faith to think that Jesus and satan were brothers.

I'm not a Christian now.  I understand that satan is nothing more than an angel of God who does his job. And what I said in the other post is that IF I were working for satan, in essence it would be working for God, since satan is in God's 'employ'.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 12, 2008)

Satan is exiled and bound for H_ll.He was a messenger at one time but no more.He is not the opposite of GOD,because he would have to be equal to be opposite.He is the enemy,and adversary,and he knows his time is short.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> But it's not silly.  You believe you will 'meet him in the air'.  Why do you believe that?  Because it is prophesied in your New Testament.  So anyone claiming to be Christ who didn't 'meet you in the air', you would not believe was the true Christ.   The same goes for the Jews.  Jesus preached something other than what the Torah taught.  They were told what to look for.  Jesus wasn't it.



 Of course, it is silly. Your initial proposition calls for me to assume certain hypotheticals which you knew could only result in my rejection of the claims made by this "person". It is called "begging the question". If your premise is false, which it is, then any logical conclusions drawn from it are invalid.






> Exactly.  So, after all of the warnings and punishments, you believe God would then REQUIRE them to believe he was the very thing he warned them against?  What kind of God do you believe in?



Last questions first, I worship the true and living God, Elohim, YHWH, the great I AM, Jesus Christ.

First question last, to those who see an injunction by God against worshiping any part of creation or the whole for that matter (including natural and man-made objects), clearly the issue is idolatry. To those who recognize that God's injunction does not apply to man worshiping Him, then the question is, "Is Jesus God?" 

And here is where we will not agree, as everything I know of Jesus says that He is God. Moreover, having studied this from many directions, both OT and NT, there is sufficient proof that the resurrection took place as described in the NT. And beyond that is the confirmation of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the truth of which no one can disprove. I would also point to the countless millions whose lives have been forever changed by their relationship with Jesus, their risen Lord. And then there are all the heavenly hosts who sing His praises from eternity to eternity, whom you also can not disprove.

I and others can lead you to the Living Water, but ultimately the decision to drink deeply of Jesus, the Christ, is yours to make. And while you say you have done so, it is clear to those who know Him, that you have not.





> Well that's quite the Pot calling the Kettle 'black'!
> 
> Christians have created their own religion, only they have twisted and manipulated another religion to do so.  The Trinity was introduced centuries after Jesus, and was voted on by the church.  If you did a little history on the development of your own religion, I think you would be surprised at exactly what was created and from where.
> 
> And for the record, the only 'religion' I ever claimed was Christianity.  I have been through just about every denomination, but they all call themselves 'Christian'. If you don't agree that they're Christian, that's not my problem.



Why do you deny that the OT is not an integral part of Christianity? While the use of the word "Trinity " may not have come into use until centuries after Christ walked this earth in human form, all the references to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are found in scripture. People of the Way were not called Christians until sometime past the middle of the 1st century, and then in Antioch in Asia Minor, now Turkey. 

As for denominations, I think all Christians have problems with what many times is no more than misunderstandings, the over emphasis and perhaps under emphasis of some doctrines and their importance, and the traditions of men, to some degree. Would that such passion were reserved for spreading the Gospel.




> Ummm.... this passage only seems to support my argument!!   See the part I underlined for you?  Changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man.  Worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.   Seems that Paul still stuck to his Jewish roots on this one.



I shall not speak for Paul. God has already spoken most effectively through him. I can not add to the truth of what he has written under divine inspiration.

And you would be right, IF Jesus was corruptible, or created, or mere man and not God. 
Paul has stated his take on the subject. 
I have stated my take on the subject. 
And you have stated your take on the subject. 

The difference is that you hope Jesus is not who He said He is and I know that He is exactly who He said He is.






> Because we are all His creations. So are rocks and glaciers. Doesn't make them sons and daughters.
> 
> Where do you get the idea that God is only for the Jews? Never got that idea. If you assumed it from any post of mine, you assumed incorrectly.
> 
> ...







> Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> 
> This doesn't say exclusively the Jew, or even the House of David or the House of Judah.  It says 'O man'... meaning everyone.



And so Micah was a prophet to the.........??? Thought you didn't interpret scripture, that you took it literally to mean exactly what was written. I see "man".....singular , male, human. How do you get "everyone" out of "man"?





> I'm not relying on myself.  I'm relying on a God that knows my heart and my intentions.  I have already prayed the prayer you described... the one of desperation for the faith that is totally dependent on Him.  And that's what I have.  My faith is not dependent on a book.  It's not dependent on translations, interpretations, revisions, traditions, ceremonies, commentaries or anything else.  I believe in a God who created me, who knows me and knows my heart.  I rely on nothing but that.


 I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you cannot be good enough or compile enough "atta girls" to find acceptance by a Holy, Righteous God. No one can, but God has provided one and only one way to be judged as righteous in that final day. And you know what that way is. In your heart, you know that your life has missed the mark. DD, you are right, God does know your heart. He knows mine also. Now, I love to be the bearer of the Good News. What He wants to hear from every one of us is "Create in me a new heart, O God. Give me the mind of Christ and the heart of the Savior. Help me to die to self daily and be resurrected to the new life Jesus lives in me." Why do you fight so hard against what you know deep inside is true? As fantastic as it sounds, it is spiritual reality, not fantasy. It's the ultimate do-over and it can still be yours.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> David was but one who God said kept His law... God also said that Asa, Josiah, Hezekiah, and others kept the law just like David did.
> 
> I know what you're probably going to say... the bible shows where David murdered, etc. How could he have kept the law perfectly? Well, part of 'keeping' the law perfectly was that when you sinned, you repented and asked for forgiveness.  David did this. Therefore, he kept the law perfectly.     I didn't say it.... God did.  It's right there in your bible.
> 
> ...



By jove, I think you've got it.  You are correct God forgives you if you ask for forgiveness. And since David ask for forgiveness for not being able to live up to the Law, that he did sin by killing someone...but was forgiven.....only by forgiveness could he live by the law....that is exactly what the NT teaches. The parts of the law that we are released from is killing a lamb, and taking wheat to the storehouse....we take money instead which is sort of the same thing.

Same thing the NT teaches....if we ask for forgiveness then He is faithful to forgive us. THe jews believed in sacrificing a lamb for there sins, and so do I. There is no difference, except I don't have to kill a lamb every year for my sins.....I ask God in the name of Jesus to forgive me...Jesus is my Lamb.

David is one of the reasons that Christ took the keys of hades and opened the gate and let God's people out...the ones that were awaiting judgement. They were set free by the blood of the lamb. And the rest of us don't have to go thru that process....we will however be judged...we will ALL be judged.
The only thing between how I live and how David lived is that I don't sacrifice a lamb for forgiveness....my lamb has already been sacrificed once and for all. I, just like David ask for forgiveness for murder, lying, stealing, whatever it is. So even David couldn't live within the law without the benefit of forgiveness. Same as Christians.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 12, 2008)

This is more or less expressing why put 'the heavy yoke our fathers (jews that were OT)put on us' when Jesus said my yoke is light....in other words....God knew that even His best, David, could not live by the law without messing up...requiring forgiveness....so once and for all said God, I will provide myself a Lamb...His own son. And thus the story of Abraham and Isaac was fully understand of how hard it would be for anyone to sacrifice their child....and yet God sacrificed His only begotten son for us and how it must hurt Him for us to deny that and turn away from that.



Acts 15:9-13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 

 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 

 11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

ADDED
Psalm 51:9-11 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 

 10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. 

 11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> By jove, I think you've got it.  You are correct God forgives you if you ask for forgiveness. And since David ask for forgiveness for not being able to live up to the Law, that he did sin by killing someone...but was forgiven.....only by forgiveness could he live by the law....that is exactly what the NT teaches. The parts of the law that we are released from is killing a lamb, and taking wheat to the storehouse....we take money instead which is sort of the same thing.
> 
> Same thing the NT teaches....if we ask for forgiveness then He is faithful to forgive us. THe jews believed in sacrificing a lamb for there sins, and so do I. There is no difference, except I don't have to kill a lamb every year for my sins.....I ask God in the name of Jesus to forgive me...Jesus is my Lamb.
> 
> ...



Well, apparently I've 'got it', but you still don't.
Where did you ever get the idea that God expected people to not sin?
God KNEW that people would sin.  He KNEW that they would screw up.  Repentance and asking for forgiveness is not something you do BECAUSE you 'broke' the law.  It is PART of the Law.  I can tell from your post that you still don't get it.
David lived up to every letter of the law according to God.  And so did many of his sons.  And so did Abraham.

I really don't know how to explain it to you because obviously you have your Christian blinders on. The best I can do to help you understand is to try and put it into something you could relate to. While it's not exactly the same, I think the principle still applies.  You have traffic laws. If you run a red light, you get a ticket.  You have transgressed the law.  Part of the law is for you to pay the ticket you got.  If you pay the ticket, you have 'fulfilled' the law.  If you don't pay the ticket, you are still guilty and can go to jail.  This is very simplistic and like I said, it's difficult to explain it to you because you have one mindset and you can't see the whole law for what God intended it to be, because you have this big cross in the way (that God didn't put there).



mtnwoman said:


> This is more or less expressing why put 'the heavy yoke our fathers (jews that were OT)put on us' when Jesus said my yoke is light....in other words....God knew that even His best, David, could not live by the law without messing up...requiring forgiveness....so once and for all said God, I will provide myself a Lamb...His own son. And thus the story of Abraham and Isaac was fully understand of how hard it would be for anyone to sacrifice their child....and yet God sacrificed His only begotten son for us and how it must hurt Him for us to deny that and turn away from that.



Again, God never expected anyone to never mess up, which is why part of keeping the law is repentance and atonement.

But since you brought it up, if Jesus was the end-all for your sins, why do you still need to ask for forgiveness.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, apparently I've 'got it', but you still don't.
> Where did you ever get the idea that God expected people to not sin?
> God KNEW that people would sin.  He KNEW that they would screw up.  Repentance and asking for forgiveness is not something you do BECAUSE you 'broke' the law.  It is PART of the Law.  I can tell from your post that you still don't get it.
> David lived up to every letter of the law according to God.  And so did many of his sons.  And so did Abraham.
> ...





Mtnwoman I hope you are grounded well enough in God's expectations concerning obedience, disobedience, repentance, sin and forgiveness to realize that DixieDawg's comments again illustrate how an unbeliever shouldn't be trying to teach a believer about living in covenant with God.  Her comments missed the mark.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 12, 2008)

No it's you that doesn't get it....
Maybe God didn't want to sacrifice millions of lambs every year....I dunno.
God expected everyone to sin, thus forgiveness.
We just don't have to go to the holding tank and wait when we die.
We either sleep until 'kingdom come' or we go straight to heaven.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 12, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Mtnwoman I hope you are grounded well enough in God's expectations concerning obedience, disobedience, repentance, sin and forgiveness to realize that DixieDawg's comments again illustrate how an unbeliever shouldn't be trying to teach a believer about living in covenant with God.  Her comments missed the mark.



I know.
Thanks.
I post for others on the fence and could go either way. Some young person, newbie or someone seeking the word and hear the wrong thing and base their life on that. I'm just trying to balance the scales by posting another point of view, like almost everyone else here does...some good points, too. By the Holy Spirit we have discerning of spirits, someone who is curious may not have that and could be convinced to not even check into it. Once the light comes on, you cannot even make yourself walk back into that darkness...I've got a whole lifetime of testimony on that. I've been exactly where Dixie is.

Many Blessings.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

gtparts said:


> First question last, to those who see an injunction by God against worshiping any part of creation or the whole for that matter (including natural and man-made objects), clearly the issue is idolatry. To those who recognize that God's injunction does not apply to man worshiping Him, then the question is, "Is Jesus God?"



God's 'injunction' is against making Him into any sort of tangible creation, including man.  God went through a lot of trouble in Deuteronomy 4 listing everything He purposely did not appear as, INCLUDING male or female.   His warning was lost on you.  

You have said many times over that God is a jealous God.  How do you think that jealous God feels about velvet Jesus paintings, statues of Jesus in churches that people kneel and pray in front of, etc.?  THAT is exactly why He said He would not do it.  When God has no form, you cannot make an idol of Him.  Man has form, God does not.



> And here is where we will not agree, as everything I know of Jesus says that He is God. Moreover, having studied this from many directions, both OT and NT, there is sufficient proof that the resurrection took place as described in the NT. And beyond that is the confirmation of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the truth of which no one can disprove. I would also point to the countless millions whose lives have been forever changed by their relationship with Jesus, their risen Lord. And then there are all the heavenly hosts who sing His praises from eternity to eternity, whom you also can not disprove.



Countless numbers of people have had their lives changed by their relationship with Buddah, Allah, Mohammed, and other religious icons as well.  

There is no proof of a resurrection.
There aren't any proofs of 'heavenly hosts' doing any singing either.



> I and others can lead you to the Living Water, but ultimately the decision to drink deeply of Jesus, the Christ, is yours to make. And while you say you have done so, it is clear to those who know Him, that you have not.




Cult tactic.  "Anyone who would leave the church clearly was never a true member."



> And you would be right, IF Jesus was corruptible, or created, or mere man and not God.
> Paul has stated his take on the subject.
> I have stated my take on the subject.
> And you have stated your take on the subject.
> ...



Jesus was created. He was born of a woman.  He was a man. And the bible says that all men sin.  Therefore, Jesus could not have been 100% God.  And he wasn't.

It doesn't really matter to me who Jesus was.  What I am 100% sure of is who he wasn't.  He was not God in the flesh.

You know, I was watching a show the other day about a man who gets hired by families to go in and try and rescue their loved ones from cults like the Davidians, etc.  He was talking to a woman who had been in some cult in Texas for 7 years, and the leader made claims that there was going to be the beginning of the tribulation on a specific date in June 2008.  He asked the woman, if that date came and passed and nothing happened, did that mean her leader was a false prophet?  She said no, and made some sort of excuse as to why the prophet would still be 'real'.

Christianity does the same thing.  When Jesus' prophecies didn't come true, excuses were made and still are.  He said that the generation that was there with him when he was crucified would not pass away before he returned.  They clearly believed he would be back in their lifetime, you can see this from the way they lived.  Yet when it didn't happen, then you even try to twist Jesus' words around, saying that that's not what Jesus meant, he meant ___.  Christianity is no different than the Davidians or any other cult.  If it doesn't fit your theology, you switch it up so that it does.



> so Micah was a prophet to the.........??? Thought you didn't interpret scripture, that you took it literally to mean exactly what was written. I see "man".....singular , male, human. How do you get "everyone" out of "man"?



Unfortunately for you, 'man' is a word that can be used in the singular or the plural   No interpretation needed 





> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you cannot be good enough or compile enough "atta girls" to find acceptance by a Holy, Righteous God. No one can, but God has provided one and only one way to be judged as righteous in that final day. And you know what that way is. In your heart, you know that your life has missed the mark. DD, you are right, God does know your heart. He knows mine also. Now, I love to be the bearer of the Good News. What He wants to hear from every one of us is "Create in me a new heart, O God. Give me the mind of Christ and the heart of the Savior. Help me to die to self daily and be resurrected to the new life Jesus lives in me." Why do you fight so hard against what you know deep inside is true? As fantastic as it sounds, it is spiritual reality, not fantasy. It's the ultimate do-over and it can still be yours.



No, I know in my heart that Jesus was just a mortal man like everyone else.  I haven't missed the mark at all.  And yes, God DOES accept those who do their best. That is all that he asks for.

Not all of your replies showed up here because you put them in my quotes, but you mentioned something about how the Jews didn't bring the Torah to the world and still don't.  You are so wrong.  They did and do bring the Torah to the world.  You have stolen it and twisted it into your own religion.

That movie I watched the other night, "God on Trial" had some very good quotes in it about this very thing.  Jews are one of the smallest groups in the entire world. Yet, for thousands of years, they have overcome all sorts of adversity, taken on punishments that they did not deserve, been killed, tested, and tried, and yet THEIR Torah is still here, still valid, still THEIRS.  Their light still shines as bright as ever, no matter how much you wish that cross could shut it out.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I really don't know how to explain it to you because obviously you have your Christian blinders on. The best I can do to help you understand is to try and put it into something you could relate to. While it's not exactly the same, I think the principle still applies.  You have traffic laws. If you run a red light, you get a ticket.  You have transgressed the law.  Part of the law is for you to pay the ticket you got.  If you pay the ticket, you have 'fulfilled' the law.  If you don't pay the ticket, you are still guilty and can go to jail.  This is very simplistic and like I said, it's difficult to explain it to you because you have one mindset and you can't see the whole law for what God intended it to be, because you have this big cross in the way (that God didn't put there).



But that example is of the flesh. The Bible teaches us what we sow in the flesh we reap in the flesh, and what we sow in the Spirit we reap in the Spirit. I have the blood of Jesus to cover my transgressions. Render unto caesar(laws, state,gov) what is caesars and render to God what is God's which is our spirit.

Just like the passover....all of the Jews that had the blood of the lamb on their doorposts were passed over by the angels of death. Wouldn't you imagine that God knew who those people were and could just beam them up and save them? No they had to put blood to cover them, because it wasn't God that came but Angels and the Angels were the messengers and were told to pass over the houses with blood on the door post....even though they were sinless and maybe hadn't been forgiven for the year.
Jesus' blood is on my doorpost and is my salvation, my redemption, my sins too are covered under the blood. Do I need to repent, just like the Jews did.....of course I do.
It's just that 'life is in the blood'...eternal life.
One cell of the blood of Jesus got into me just like pacman and ate up all the bad things I had in there....created in me a clean heart. Do I mess up....yes everyday. But my sins are forgiven when I ask I don't have to go down to the "courthouse" of God to pay my fine.....Jesus already paid my fine.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> God's 'injunction' is against making Him into any sort of tangible creation, including man.  God went through a lot of trouble in Deuteronomy 4 listing everything He purposely did not appear as, INCLUDING male or female.   His warning was lost on you.
> 
> You have said many times over that God is a jealous God.  How do you think that jealous God feels about velvet Jesus paintings, statues of Jesus in churches that people kneel and pray in front of, etc.?  THAT is exactly why He said He would not do it.  When God has no form, you cannot make an idol of Him.  Man has form, God does not.
> 
> ...



John Chapter 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

Jesus referred to Himself as the Word on a number of occasions as seen by his apostles. So He wasn't created.  He just always was. And is.  And will be.

I find verse 5 especially appropriate, Dixie.  I am not writing that to slight you, but I am saying that none of us would ever come to know Christ without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to change us.  So, since I like you so much, I'm going to pray that you see The Light, not in a metaphorical, but in a tangible, real sense.  I don't think it's beyond possibility for Jesus to come to you directly and convince you that He is who the Bible says.  

He convinced Paul of His messianity, didn't He?  Maybe you're just one of those like Thomas who needs a little extra push.  I'll pray God gives it to you


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> But that example is of the flesh. The Bible teaches us what we sow in the flesh we reap in the flesh, and what we sow in the Spirit we reap in the Spirit.



No, the New Testament teaches that.  



> I have the blood of Jesus to cover my transgressions. Render unto caesar(laws, state,gov) what is caesars and render to God what is God's which is our spirit.
> 
> Just like the passover....all of the Jews that had the blood of the lamb on their doorposts were passed over by the angels of death. Wouldn't you imagine that God knew who those people were and could just beam them up and save them? No they had to put blood to cover them, because it wasn't God that came but Angels and the Angels were the messengers and were told to pass over the houses with blood on the door post....even though they were sinless and maybe hadn't been forgiven for the year.



The Passover didn't have anything to do with sin or sin sacrifice.  I'm not sure where you're coming from here.




> Jesus' blood is on my doorpost and is my salvation, my redemption, my sins too are covered under the blood. Do I need to repent, just like the Jews did.....of course I do.
> It's just that 'life is in the blood'...eternal life.
> One cell of the blood of Jesus got into me just like pacman and ate up all the bad things I had in there....created in me a clean heart. Do I mess up....yes everyday. But my sins are forgiven when I ask I don't have to go down to the "courthouse" of God to pay my fine.....Jesus already paid my fine.



If you still need to repent and ask forgiveness, then Jesus did nothing for you.  The Jews dont' have to go down to the courthouse of God to pay a fine either.  Sacrifices were not required for atonement.  They still aren't.  I have posted many times over all of the verses where God said what he prefers for atonement over sacrifice, and what to do for atonement when the temple is not available.  Sacrifice was never preferred by God for atonement of sin. AND, it was only accepted for UNINTENTIONAL sins.  God warns against putting too much emphasis on the sacrificial system... it isn't blood he wants. It's repentance.  You don't have to have blood for that.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

> The Passover didn't have anything to do with sin or sin sacrifice. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.



No, DD, you are right. It does have everything to do with Jesus, salvation, and faith. But then, I expect that you can't see that either.


----------



## Big7 (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And I didn't use any icons in that reply, so I don't know what you're referring to.  I'm always amused by people who complain about smilies, etc. yet their use of grammar, spelling and punctuation makes it difficult to sometimes even read their posts.   Often it is difficult to express yourself on forums, and smilies are merely an aid to help get the 'feel' of the post across.  Smilies should be the least of your worries.



I'm always amazed by that simple little truth.

We have so many Biblical Scholars on here
that can't even spell, much less put
together a complete sentence.

Then there is that little matter of punctuation  !


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 12, 2008)

There's good reason why those who don't believe in Jesus as the Christ get so confused in their thinking.  They are full of themselves rather than full of God.

"1 Cor 1:18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written,
         "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
         AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,


----------



## farmasis (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If you still need to repent and ask forgiveness, then Jesus did nothing for you. The Jews dont' have to go down to the courthouse of God to pay a fine either. Sacrifices were not required for atonement. They still aren't. I have posted many times over all of the verses where God said what he prefers for atonement over sacrifice, and what to do for atonement when the temple is not available. Sacrifice was never preferred by God for atonement of sin. AND, it was only accepted for UNINTENTIONAL sins. God warns against putting too much emphasis on the sacrificial system... it isn't blood he wants. It's repentance. You don't have to have blood for that.


 
In the OT, just as the NT, confession of sin, repentance and sacrifice was required.

In the NT, God provided the blood sacrifice in a perfect form that takes away the sins forever. The only sin that prevents salvation is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is rejection of God's calling. That only needs to be done once. Then, all other sins which still require repentance, does not take salvation away. That is the difference. In the OT, the atonement needed to be done over and over.
Yes, blood was required, but God made provision for the poor because of his mercy. Just as he made provision with us now. The flour was an offering for atonement and had to be mixed on the altar with the rest.
Unintentional sins were not forgiven, without a guilt offering. (Lev 6:1-7) Unintentional sins were specifically directed to the nation of Israel at that time, not you and I.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Matthew 10:17-20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 

 18And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 

 19But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 

 20For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If you still need to repent and ask forgiveness, then Jesus did nothing for you.  The Jews dont' have to go down to the courthouse of God to pay a fine either.*Really, well through out the years I think they have paid a HUGE price. *  Sacrifices were not required for atonement.  They still aren't.  I have posted many times over all of the verses where God said what he prefers for atonement over sacrifice, and what to do for atonement when the temple is not available.*Right, God said that but the Jews still didn't get it...so they still sacrificed a lamb for atonement.*  Sacrifice was never preferred by God for atonement of sin. AND, it was only accepted for UNINTENTIONAL sins.  God warns against putting too much emphasis on the sacrificial system... it isn't blood he wants. It's repentance.  You don't have to have blood for that.



Leviticus 4:35
And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
Leviticus 4:34-35 (in Context) Leviticus 4 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 5:6
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
Leviticus 5:5-7 (in Context) Leviticus 5 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 14:19
And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering:
Leviticus 14:18-20 (in Context) Leviticus 14 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 16:30
For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
Leviticus 16:29-31 (in Context) Leviticus 16 (Whole Chapter) 


Yeah well I guess the Jews were wrong in what they did/believed in the OT, then.

Exodus 29:36
And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
Exodus 29:35-37 (in Context) Exodus 29 (Whole Chapter) 
Exodus 29:37
Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
Exodus 29:36-38 (in Context) Exodus 29 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 8:34
As he hath done this day, so the LORD hath commanded to do, to make an atonement for you.
Leviticus 8:33-35 (in Context) Leviticus 8 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 16:30
For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
Leviticus 16:29-31 (in Context) Leviticus 16 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 23:27
Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Leviticus 23:26-28 (in Context) Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 23:28
And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
Leviticus 23:27-29 (in Context) Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 25:9
Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
Leviticus 25:8-10 (in Context) Leviticus 25 (Whole Chapter) 
Numbers 6:11
And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.
Numbers 6:10-12 (in Context) Numbers 6 (Whole Chapter) 

I believe you are right...the jews didn't really have to do this, it was them that was wrong....so I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think that the jews had it right in the OT and the Christians have it wrong in the NT.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

gtparts said:


> No, DD, you are right. It does have everything to do with Jesus, salvation, and faith. But then, I expect that you can't see that either.



Nope, I can't.
You believe the blood over the doorpost was a precursor of Jesus.  I see it as a token of obedience.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> There's good reason why those who don't believe in Jesus as the Christ get so confused in their thinking.  They are full of themselves rather than full of God.



Well, Ronnie, that might be a good explanation, if it weren't for the fact that the first 32 years of my life I DID believe in Jesus and still was confused.  Now, the only thing that confuses me is how intelligent people can throw all logic and reason out the window when it comes to their 'faith'.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

farmasis said:


> In the OT, just as the NT, confession of sin, repentance and sacrifice was required.
> 
> In the NT, God provided the blood sacrifice in a perfect form that takes away the sins forever. The only sin that prevents salvation is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is rejection of God's calling. That only needs to be done once. Then, all other sins which still require repentance, does not take salvation away. That is the difference. In the OT, the atonement needed to be done over and over.
> Yes, blood was required, but God made provision for the poor because of his mercy. Just as he made provision with us now. The flour was an offering for atonement and had to be mixed on the altar with the rest.
> Unintentional sins were not forgiven, without a guilt offering. (Lev 6:1-7) Unintentional sins were specifically directed to the nation of Israel at that time, not you and I.



Well, first of all, the ENTIRE Torah was specifically directed to the nation of Israel.  You can't separate one part from the rest, it was ALL given to them.

Secondly no, blood was not required.  You repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.  I have given you numerous verses from the Old Testament that show blood was not required, NOR was it preferred.

Thirdly, the blood was not mixed with the flour, and there is nowhere in the Torah that says it was.  That's the only way Christians can explain why this verse says flour could possibly atone for sins, and it falls apart on assumption.

Yes, God is merciful, and that is why He gave ways of forgiveness through repentance and atonement that did not require sacrifice, because He knew that there would be times when there was no temple and therefore no sacrifice could be offered.  He specifically states what the Jews are to do when there is no temple, or when they are captives in another nation and cannot do animal sacrifices.  And he warns against them time and time again to not rely on animal sacrifice for atonement... that He prefers their repentance, charity, etc. over blood sacrifice.

There is one verse in the entire Torah that says anything about blood and atonement (and is misinterpreted by Christians).  Yet there are dozens of verses that talk about God preferring repentance, charity, etc. as means of atonement.  It's amazing that you ignore all of those and only focus on what fits your agenda.  How do you do it?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Right, God said that but the Jews still didn't get it...so they still sacrificed a lamb for atonement.



What?
They did animal sacrifices when the temple was standing.  
When there is no temple, God told them what they needed to do then.  Repent, pray, charity.  See what I put in the post prior to this... otherwise I'm just repeating it.



> I believe you are right...the jews didn't really have to do this, it was them that was wrong....so I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think that the jews had it right in the OT and the Christians have it wrong in the NT.



They weren't wrong... I'm thinking we have a failure to communicate here, and it is not going to be solved until you read the Old Testament or learn something about Judaism.  If you have never studied how the Law worked, (or, works), how can you argue against it?


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Nope, I can't.
> You believe the blood over the doorpost was a precursor of Jesus.  I see it as a token of obedience.



I see it as a token of salvation.
So God killed all those that were disobedient in Egypt just to see who was obedient and who wasn't? No other reason? It all had to do with God's wrath on Egypt not obedience. Didn't God tell Moses to pass the word that whoever had the blood on the doorpost would be spared? And the curse of God was on the Egyptians that if they didn't let HIS people go, that they would die.
Are you saying God did all that just to see who was obedient...uh I don't think so. That blood saved them. Everyone else died including the Pharoahs son.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What?
> They did animal sacrifices when the temple was standing.
> When there is no temple, God told them what they needed to do then.  Repent, pray, charity.  See what I put in the post prior to this... otherwise I'm just repeating it.
> 
> ...



How can you argue against it when you say that you aren't an expert on interpretation and don't try to be?
Yes I study the text and how it relates to the NT. I believe everything in the OT, but I don't believe that we are old testament followers of God. I believe the new covenant was given to us by mercy and grace by a God that knew we could never uphold the law. And did God know that from the foundation of the earth...yes of course He did.
The OT totally relates to the NT...the NT is just OT prophesy fulfilled. And the NT totally relates to the OT. I can read both and together they both make perfect sense, to me.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> I see it as a token of salvation.
> So God killed all those that were disobedient in Egypt just to see who was obedient and who wasn't? No other reason? It all had to do with God's wrath on Egypt not obedience. Didn't God tell Moses to pass the word that whoever had the blood on the doorpost would be spared? And the curse of God was on the Egyptians that if they didn't let HIS people go, that they would die.
> Are you saying God did all that just to see who was obedient...uh I don't think so. That blood saved them. Everyone else died including the Pharoahs son.



Yes, it was for obedience.  If one of the Hebrews had neglected to put the blood over the doorpost (disobedient), he would have died too, right along with the Egyptians.  It was their obedience that saved them.  It was God showing them that if they were obedient and followed his instruction, he would keep them safe.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> How can you argue against it when you say that you aren't an expert on interpretation and don't try to be?
> Yes I study the text and how it relates to the NT.



Well, that's the problem.  You try and make it fit with the NT.  If you would just read it as it is, you would see it has nothing to do with the NT.  And doesn't require any interpretation.



> I believe everything in the OT



Apparently not, because you ignore all of the verses where God explains that sacrifice is not required for atonement.  You ignore the parts that say God didn't appear as any form so no one would make an idol of  him.  You ignore the parts that say Israel is the Servant.  You ignore a lot.  



> but I don't believe that we are old testament followers of God. I believe the new covenant was given to us by mercy and grace by a God that knew we could never uphold the law.



If you say that God knew we could never 'uphold the law', then you are calling God a liar.  He said that it COULD be upheld and done.  If you believe God to be a liar in the Old Testament, then how can he be your savior in the NT?


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes, it was for obedience.  If one of the Hebrews had neglected to put the blood over the doorpost (disobedient), he would have died too, right along with the Egyptians.  It was their obedience that saved them.  It was God showing them that if they were obedient and followed his instruction, he would keep them safe.



It was their belief that saved them, the belief in taking God at His word, even though some people thought, what the heck?....blood over the doorpost will save you?....yeah ok. And that is where I am. I believe in ridiculous things that some other people don't.
I take God at His word. I take His word that the blood of Jesus covers my sin, just like the blood of the lambs on the doorpost covered and protected the Jews. If they didn't do it, yes they would die like the rest. Just like me, no matter how ridiculous it sounds if I'm not covered under the blood on my doorpost, the blood of Jesus then I am doomed.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> If you say that God knew we could never 'uphold the law', then you are calling God a liar.  He said that it COULD be upheld and done.  If you believe God to be a liar in the Old Testament, then how can he be your savior in the NT?



Didn't you just say that David upheld the law, but by forgiveness...so which is it? So who upheld the law that you know of, without forgiveness, since God said the law COULD be upheld....who did it?


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

And I agree with David, with all my sin, with all my weaknesses I know my Lord and His Mercy and His Grace. To completely understand scripture, I may never be able to. His yoke is light and simple and that is what I need. I'll never comprehend it all nor am I expected to, I am saved by grace and mercy.
Thank you God for your son Jesus who took the penalty for my sins. Paid my dues, my fines and set me free from bondage.  And like David, this is all I need.
Psalm 23
 1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 

 2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 

 3He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 

 4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 

 5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 

 6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Didn't you just say that David upheld the law, but by forgiveness...so which is it? So who upheld the law that you know of, without forgiveness, since God said the law COULD be upheld....who did it?



You still don't understand the law.
Here's a quick 'Reader's Digest" condensed version, maybe this will help.

To Follow the Law Perfectly:

1. Don't lie.
2. If you lie, repent and ask for forgiveness.

You lie.
You repent and ask forgiveness.

You have followed the law perfectly.

If you lied and didn't repent or ask for forgiveness, then you didn't follow the law perfectly. You left out a part.

David sinned.  He repented and asked for forgiveness of his sin. Therefore, he followed the Law perfectly.  Repentance is part of the law.  I just don't understand how you don't get this.

God did not lie when he said that he law could be followed perfectly.  And he didn't lie when he said David or Hezekiah or any of the others he lists in the Old Testament followed it perfectly.  It is your misunderstanding, not God's.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, first of all, the ENTIRE Torah was specifically directed to the nation of Israel. You can't separate one part from the rest, it was ALL given to them.


 
True.



> Secondly no, blood was not required. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. I have given you numerous verses from the Old Testament that show blood was not required, NOR was it preferred.


 
 11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Lev 11)


 15And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD. 
 16And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation: 
 17And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail. 
 18And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 
 19And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar.  20And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Lev 4)

10"Aaron shall <SUP>(A)</SUP>make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD." (Ex. 30)

 24The priests slaughtered them and purged the altar with their blood <SUP>(W)</SUP>to atone for all Israel, for the king ordered the burnt offering and the sin offering for all Israel. (2 Cron.)



> Thirdly, the blood was not mixed with the flour, and there is nowhere in the Torah that says it was. That's the only way Christians can explain why this verse says flour could possibly atone for sins, and it falls apart on assumption.


 

 11'But <SUP>(L)</SUP>if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an <SUP>[a]</SUP>ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; <SUP>(M)</SUP>he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering.  12'He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial portion and offer it up in smoke on the altar, with the offerings of the LORD by fire: it is a sin offering.



> Yes, God is merciful, and that is why He gave ways of forgiveness through repentance and atonement that did not require sacrifice, because He knew that there would be times when there was no temple and therefore no sacrifice could be offered. He specifically states what the Jews are to do when there is no temple, or when they are captives in another nation and cannot do animal sacrifices. And he warns against them time and time again to not rely on animal sacrifice for atonement... that He prefers their repentance, charity, etc. over blood sacrifice.


 
What atonement occured without a sacrifice, based on repentance alone?



> There is one verse in the entire Torah that says anything about blood and atonement (and is misinterpreted by Christians). Yet there are dozens of verses that talk about God preferring repentance, charity, etc. as means of atonement. It's amazing that you ignore all of those and only focus on what fits your agenda. How do you do it?


 
How? I read it in context without an agenda.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You still don't understand the law.
> Here's a quick 'Reader's Digest" condensed version, maybe this will help.
> 
> To Follow the Law Perfectly:
> ...



I totally agree. You just said that God said someone could follow the law completely....yes they can with forgiveness. I've agreed with you about that part. No one can follow the law without forgiveness for their sins.
The NT just lets everyone off the hook of providing or having to provide a "sacrifice" of a lamb every year...what part of that don't you understand. God said He would provide himself a lamb once and for all...that people didn't have to keep sacrificing lambs for atonement.

We just don't have to do all this anymore in the NT....Jesus is the sacrifice....Lord help me get that point across. All we have to do is believe that the sacrifice once and for all has been given.

Exodus 29:36
And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
Exodus 29:35-37 (in Context) Exodus 29 (Whole Chapter) 
Exodus 29:37
Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
Exodus 29:36-38 (in Context) Exodus 29 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 8:34
As he hath done this day, so the LORD hath commanded to do, to make an atonement for you.
Leviticus 8:33-35 (in Context) Leviticus 8 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 16:30
For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
Leviticus 16:29-31 (in Context) Leviticus 16 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 23:27
Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Leviticus 23:26-28 (in Context) Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 23:28
And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
Leviticus 23:27-29 (in Context) Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter) 
Leviticus 25:9
Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
Leviticus 25:8-10 (in Context) Leviticus 25 (Whole Chapter) 
Numbers 6:11
And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

farmasis said:


> What atonement occured without a sacrifice, based on repentance alone?



I already posted numerous verses in this thread showing where atonement was made without sacrifice and only on repentance, charity, etc.





> How? I read it in context without an agenda.



Apparently not.  


Leviticus 17:10  	And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
	Lev 17:11 	For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
	Lev 17:12 	Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
	Lev 17:13 	And whatsoever man [there be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
	Lev 17:14 	For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


If you had read it in context, you would have seen clearly that God is talking about eating blood and  the prohibition of it.   The verse, in context, explains that the blood is ONLY to be put on the altar for the sin offering... not eaten or drank (like the pagans did) or used in any other manner for sin offerings.  Which also meant that blood sacrifices could not be done if there was no altar to put the blood on, since the only way it was to be used was put on the altar.  Which would also make Jesus' sacrifice for naught, because the temple was standing at the time of Jesus' death, yet his blood was not put on the altar, as the instructions above require.  But that point is moot anyway, since God did not allow vicarious atonement (as proven with Moses) nor did he allow human sacrifice (as proven with Abraham).


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> I totally agree. You just said that God said someone could follow the law completely....yes they can with forgiveness. I've agreed with you about that part. No one can follow the law without forgiveness for their sins.
> The NT just lets everyone off the hook of providing or having to provide a "sacrifice" of a lamb every year...what part of that don't you understand. God said He would provide himself a lamb once and for all...that people didn't have to keep sacrificing lambs for atonement.
> 
> We just don't have to do all this anymore in the NT....Jesus is the sacrifice....Lord help me get that point across. All we have to do is believe that the sacrifice once and for all has been given.



:sigh:
You never had to do it in the first place.  You're not a Jew.

But regardless... it seems I'm not able to get my point across as to the way the Law works, so I'll just ask you this.

If Jesus' death did away with the need for sacrifices, then why does Ezekiel say that when the third temple is built and the messiah comes, the sacrifices will begin again?


----------



## Sterlo58 (Nov 13, 2008)

*Lighten up*

Do ya'll ever spend anytime in the hunting forums ???


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I already posted numerous verses in this thread showing where atonement was made without sacrifice and only on repentance, charity, etc.


 
I went back through the pages and could not find them. Give me a few.





> Apparently not.
> 
> 
> Leviticus 17:10     And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
> ...


 
I know why it was brought up, but the fact remains it is the blood that God uses to atone the soul.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> :sigh:
> You never had to do it in the first place.  You're not a Jew.
> 
> But regardless... it seems I'm not able to get my point across as to the way the Law works, so I'll just ask you this.
> ...



No I'm not a Jew and never had to do it...when I say we I'm talking about believers in God. So you can drop that little tidbit of argument that I've heard a million times in my life, because I do actually have sense enough to know I didn't live in the OT and didn't kill any lambs. 

What's the sigh for...you tired of posting in the thread? or just being condescending? There's nothing that you can say that will change my mind about what I believe, I've studied the Bible for nearly 50 yrs and have gone thru every circle and every argument that is possible, including thinking like you. I used to say the same things to my father that you are saying here. So I know your angle exactly. I argued tooth and nail against the OT and the NT as far as that goes.

The sacrifices will begin again.....what did they stop? Uh yeah they did you are right on that point. They will start again because the rapture happens before the rebuilding of the temple and the Holy Spirit will not be here to woe anyone to Himself. There are people ready and waiting with everything to rebuild the temple now. They have been prepared for many years...just waiting...waiting for the messiah, who will come again and then they will know it was Jesus all along...but for now they are temp. blinded.

The sacrifices will begin again because the Christians will be gone and it will revert back to saving the Jews by atonement by sacrifice. They have to 'do something' (works) for that atonement unless they have become messianic jews then they will be taken up with the sinless lamb of God into the kingdom during the rapture.

The scales will then fall away from the temporarily blinded Jews and they will then believe. Because the Holy Spirit will be gone, they have to deal directly with God, who requires a blood atonement, once again just like in the OT. Because they aren't saved by the blood of Jesus. I do believe that all the Jews that believe and worship God will be saved and taken into heaven, but first a sacrifice, so you are spot on in your statement. The gentiles never had to have a blood sacrifice, so God provided a blood sacrifice so that we (the gentiles) could be grafted into the vine.

I think you're missing the point that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient enough for those who BELIEVE. For those who do not believe in Jesus like the Jews, yes sacrifice will begin again once the Holy Spirit, Lamb of God, has been taken away.
Woe be to the world when the Holy Spirit is removed. He is all we have to fight against evil here on earth. Evil will run amuke then. But I'll be gone and everyone who has taken the gift of Jesus Christ our redeemer, our saviour, our sacrificial Lamb of God, Son of God. We (christians) never had to do a blood sacrifice...Jesus did it for us....just like the blood of an innocent lamb was atonement for the Jews. Same process, basically. They were atoned by the blood and so are the Christians.

Hallelujah and Praise to God who offered His son's blood for my atonement...thank you God, thank you Jesus, thank you Holy Spirit, who is my comforter and friend.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I went back through the pages and could not find them. Give me a few.



Hosea 14:2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. (ie: prayer)


Micah 6:6 Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
Mic 6:7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul?
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Proverbs 10:2 Treasures of wickedness will not avail, but charity will save from death.

Proverbs 11:4 Riches will not avail on the day of wrath, but charity will save from death.

Proverbs 16:6 With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated, and through fear of the Lord one turns away from evil.

Proverbs 21:3 Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Daniel 4:27 (christian bible) Nevertheless, o king, let my advice be agreeable to you. Redeem your error with charity, and your sin through kindness to the poor, so that their will be an extension to your tranquility.


1Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for [there is] no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; 1Ki 8:47 [Yet] if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; 1Ki 8:48 And [so] return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: 1Ki 8:49 Then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause, 1Ki 8:50 And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them:





> I know why it was brought up, but the fact remains it is the blood that God uses to atone the soul.



:sigh:
We are still light years apart.
Yes, out of all of the process of sacrificing animals, putting the blood on the altar (instead of drinking it as the pagans did) is the part that atones for the unintentional sin.  

Now please show how this verse says that blood is the only means of atonement.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> nor did he allow human sacrifice (as proven with Abraham).



This was something that I struggled with for many years. I did not want to believe in a God who would ask someone to actually sacrifice their only son. I ran away from God because I was afraid He would ask me to do something with or about my only child that I wouldn't be able to do.
I thought God was horrible for asking anyone to give their only son as a sacrifice.

Finally ding ding ding...it dawned on me the meaning behind this story.
What I realized was that, God in the end didn't allow it to happen...so ok...maybe just asking for proof of trust or faith....I still didn't grasp the whole story, because I lived far away from Bible and anyone who knew anything about the Bible.

Then the big ding ding ding, happened. That God loved us enough  to give His only begotten Son for the atonement of sins...everyones sins if they believe that. Something that I my own self thought was horrible and very mean for God to ask someone to do.....but He Himself used Abraham as an example so we could see and understand how hard it is to blood sacrifice your own child. 

People in the OT that sacrificed lambs for atonement, BELIEVED that would wash their sins away, and all they had to do was to believe that, and they did it because they believed it. Same with Jesus, I don't have to sacrifice a lamb, God once and for all provided for Himself a Lamb that washed away my sins. So I like the Jews in the OT, believe in blood atonement.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Now please show how this verse says that blood is the only means of atonement.



What other means of atonement was there, that you know of? Blood is the only one I know of. But that's just me, you must know of another way, and I'd truly like to know what that is/was.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> The sacrifices will begin again.....what did they stop?



For someone who claims they have studied the bible for 50 years, you sure don't seem to know much about Jewish history.




> Uh yeah they did you are right on that point. They will start again because the rapture happens before the rebuilding of the temple and the Holy Spirit will not be here to woe anyone to Himself. There are people ready and waiting with everything to rebuild the temple now. They have been prepared for many years...just waiting...waiting for the messiah, who will come again and then they will know it was Jesus all along...but for now they are temp. blinded.
> 
> The sacrifices will begin again because the Christians will be gone and it will revert back to saving the Jews by atonement by sacrifice. They have to 'do something' (works) for that atonement unless they have become messianic jews then they will be taken up with the sinless lamb of God into the kingdom during the rapture.



I am well aware of the plans to rebuild the temple, which the bible says will be done by the messiah.  The sacrifices will begin again when the temple is built, because that's what God's law said.  The law has not been done away with, as much as you wish it were.  The messiah will be the one to prepare the burnt offerings and the sin offerings (the sheep), peace offerings, etc.  The messiah will be here, on earth, doing all of these things in the temple. Since you said that Jesus (your messiah) won't be here, then your version can't be correct.



> The scales will then fall away from the temporarily blinded Jews and they will then believe. Because the Holy Spirit will be gone, they have to deal directly with God, who requires a blood atonement, once again just like in the OT. Because they aren't saved by the blood of Jesus. I do believe that all the Jews that believe and worship God will be saved and taken into heaven, but first a sacrifice, so you are spot on in your statement. The gentiles never had to have a blood sacrifice, so God provided a blood sacrifice so that we (the gentiles) could be grafted into the vine.



Verses? And I mean from the OT, of course.  

God never said that the Jews would be looking to the gentiles for the messiah, or for the truth.  He said it is the other way around.

Zechariah 8:23  	Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you. 

Jeremiah 16:19  	O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and [things] wherein [there is] no profit.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Then the big ding ding ding, happened. That God loved us enough  to give His only begotten Son for the atonement of sins...everyones sins if they believe that. Something that I my own self thought was horrible and very mean for God to ask someone to do.....but He Himself used Abraham as an example so we could see and understand how hard it is to blood sacrifice your own child.



Wrong.  He used Abraham as an example to show that he does not want human sacrifice.  The pagans sacrificed humans. It was an abomination to God.



> People in the OT that sacrificed lambs for atonement, BELIEVED that would wash their sins away, and all they had to do was to believe that, and they did it because they believed it.



Wrong again.  They didn't do it because they 'believed' it would 'wash their sins away'.  They did it because God told them to do it for UNINTENTIONAL sins, when they had the altar and the temple to do it on.  It didn't take any 'believing' at all.  God told them to do it, so they did it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> What other means of atonement was there, that you know of? Blood is the only one I know of. But that's just me, you must know of another way, and I'd truly like to know what that is/was.



See post 184.
And that is only a few of the verses that show blood is not the only means of atonement.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Wrong again.  They didn't do it because they 'believed' it would 'wash their sins away'.  They did it because God told them to do it for UNINTENTIONAL sins, when they had the altar and the temple to do it on.  It didn't take any 'believing' at all.  God told them to do it, so they did it.



Oh so they didn't know why they were doing it? They just did because God said to do it? I don't get your point. They didn't do it for atonement on purpose...it was God's secret and if they did it they had atonement, but didn't know they had atonement, but they knew at least they were obedient. Ok...whateva....LOL

Gosh they were blindly following God. So what did they 'believe in'....just anybody that came along and told them to do something without reason they did it? Sheesh...ok


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Oh so they didn't know why they were doing it? They just did because God said to do it? I don't get your point. They didn't do it for atonement on purpose...it was God's secret and if they did it they had atonement, but didn't know they had atonement, but they knew at least they were obedient. Ok...whateva....LOL
> 
> Gosh they were blindly following God. So what did they 'believe in'....just anybody that came along and told them to do something without reason they did it? Sheesh...ok




What???

Of course they did it for atonement, because God told them to.  You said they had to 'believe' in it.  My point was, they didn't have to 'believe' in it, like a Christian has to 'believe' in jesus' sacrifice in order to receive forgiveness.

And as far as 'blindly' following God... are you serious????


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Wrong.  He used Abraham as an example to show that he does not want human sacrifice.  The pagans sacrificed humans. It was an abomination to God.


Never heard anything like that in my life as many times as I was taught and preached to about that story. Never did it ever come up that it was to show it was an abomination. What I always thought and heard a million times, was it was about obedience.....just like you mentioned. God said do it and Abraham did it, or was just a test of obedience....man you sure jump around on who did what for what reason. Here it's obedience, there it's to show abomination, not the Abraham couldn't have figured that out on his own...he obeyed God and passed that test.

For me what I get out of it, cannot be wrong. Everyone gets something different out of the story. I was saying what I thought about God asking someone to do that, and yet He did it himself. It taught ME personally of the depth of Gods love for us, since...ME personally could not sacrifice my own child. And how I could never have that much obedience. Surely I already know thou shalt not kill..couldn't have been that.
The Bible is quite complex and can mean different things to different people, depending on their circumstances...and I'm not talking about interpreting anyway you want to.

Take the story of David and Goliath....do I really have a giant in my life...no, it isn't a tall man that wants to kill me, it is a disability that I ask God for the strength, braveness, and the tools to overcome that. My disability is my Goliath, but with God's help I can defeat that Goliath, I can overcome something that is trying to kill me, something that is trying to take away everything I have. With the "slingshot and the stone" (weapon) that God has provided to me, I can conquer my giant.

You can say that's wrong too, just like what the story of Abraham means, and what I get out of it...but for me those stories are for us to get a message out of.

But hey that's just me, just how I get my healing, my strength, my longsuffering, my patience, my peace is by understanding how all the people in the Bible got theirs.
What tools they used, how they trusted God and it worked out, how God saved them from this or that, how the Holy Spirit worked in people.

Create in me a clean heart...and include ME...and I pray for that. That's not just a verse for David to use ya know? It's all teaching us something, all of it.

You can drink the milk and interpret or understand it just exactly as it says, or you can get to the meat and by the Holy Spirit, understand it on a whole other level. No amount of studying will ever get me to the point that I know everything, I really only know how it applies to me...I hunger and thirst for the word.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What???
> 
> Of course they did it for atonement, because God told them to.  You said they had to 'believe' in it.  My point was, they didn't have to 'believe' in it, like a Christian has to 'believe' in jesus' sacrifice in order to receive forgiveness.
> 
> And as far as 'blindly' following God... are you serious????




Well just read your post, you said they didn't believe, they just did what God told them to do. I'm saying they did believe  and knew it was for atonement, they didn't just do it because God said to, thus making them obedient....they were obedient but they also did it for atonement, not just for obedience.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Wrong again.  They didn't do it because they 'believed' it would 'wash their sins away'.  They did it because God told them to do it for UNINTENTIONAL sins, when they had the altar and the temple to do it on.  It didn't take any 'believing' at all.  God told them to do it, so they did it.



You said right here it didn't take any believing, they just did it because God  said to do it.

I personally find it hard they did what someone said to do just because they said to do it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> See post 184.
> And that is only a few of the verses that show blood is not the only means of atonement.



Well the Jews shoulda been doing that all along, then.
At least Jesus preached that, because He understood it.
It took 'Him' to actually drive that point home in the NT. Because the people in the OT obviously ran around trying to do all kinds of things to apease their God.

Romans 13:10 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.


10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law


And truly love does it all...love keeps us from a lot of sins....I could list them, but I'm pretty sure it's obvious.
Do no harm and if you love you will do no harm or at least try not to. JMHO


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Never heard anything like that in my life as many times as I was taught and preached to about that story. Never did it ever come up that it was to show it was an abomination. What I always thought and heard a million times, was it was about obedience.....just like you mentioned. God said do it and Abraham did it, or was just a test of obedience....man you sure jump around on who did what for what reason. Here it's obedience, there it's to show abomination, not the Abraham couldn't have figured that out on his own...he obeyed God and passed that test.



Wow... either I am really bad at explaining my side, or you are reading my posts like you read the bible, interpreting what you want into them.  It could be me, I guess I assume that with your 50 years of bible study, you know more than you really do about the Old Testament.  I'll try to be more specific from now on.

Yes, the story of Abraham teaches many things... obedience and faith are definitely in there.  Abraham trusted (had faith) that God would not have him go through with killing his son, because he knew that human sacrifice was an abomination to God. 

If God wanted to show how 'hard it is to blood sacrifice your own child', then he would have had Abraham actually do it.  It wasn't hard at all for Abraham, because Abraham didn't have to do it, and he knew that he wouldn't have to because he had faith that God wouldn't make him do something that was a sin.

Deuteronomy 18:9  	When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
	Deu 18:10 	There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
	Deu 18:11 	Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
	Deu 18:12 	For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.


That is but only one of the places in the Old Testament where God forbids human sacrifice.  So if God sacrificed his own son, then he did what he considers an abomination?  Is it, do as deity says, not as deity do?  I don't think so.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> You said right here it didn't take any believing, they just did it because God  said to do it.
> 
> I personally find it hard they did what someone said to do just because they said to do it.



 
Are you serious??!?  You find it hard that the Jews did what GOD said to do, just because HE said to do it???   

How much stuff from the NT do you do and follow, just because Jesus said it??

You aren't understanding my use of the word 'believe'.   They didn't do it because they 'believed' it would atone for their sins, they did it because GOD SAID IT WOULD... in other words, they didn't have to just 'believe' it... they KNEW it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Well the Jews shoulda been doing that all along, then.



They did do it all along (when there was no temple), and they still do it even today.




> At least Jesus preached that, because He understood it.
> It took 'Him' to actually drive that point home in the NT. Because the people in the OT obviously ran around trying to do all kinds of things to apease their God.



  I thought you knew the OT from your 50 years of studying?

The Jews did stray, they followed the man-gods and other gods that the pagans gave form to, and God punished them each and every time, until they put away their idols and likenesses and returned to Him.

And as far as Jesus in the NT, apparently he didn't understand it or 'drive that point home', since you still believe that blood is the only means AND preferred means of atonement.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Are you serious??!?  You find it hard that the Jews did what GOD said to do, just because HE said to do it???
> 
> How much stuff from the NT do you do and follow, just because Jesus said it??
> 
> You aren't understanding my use of the word 'believe'.   They didn't do it because they 'believed' it would atone for their sins, they did it because GOD SAID IT WOULD... in other words, they didn't have to just 'believe' it... they KNEW it.




HUH?

The thing about it is I know "why" Jesus is asking us to do certain things. And I believe that the Jews did believe that a blood sacrifice was atonement for sins because God said it did and for them to do it.
I don't know why they would do it if they didn't believe it was atonement...since God said it was for atonement.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> HUH?
> 
> The thing about it is I know "why" Jesus is asking us to do certain things. And I believe that the Jews did believe that a blood sacrifice was atonement for sins because God said it did and for them to do it.
> I don't know why they would do it if they didn't believe it was atonement...since God said it was for atonement.





I seriously have to wonder if you are just messing with me at this point...


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The Jews did stray, they followed the man-gods and other gods that the pagans gave form to, and God punished them each and every time, until they put away their idols and likenesses and returned to Him.
> 
> And as far as Jesus in the NT, apparently he didn't understand it or 'drive that point home', since you still believe that blood is the only means AND preferred means of atonement.



The Jews strayed just like we stray. And God still brings us to our knees until we return to Him.

OMGOSH...talk about sigh....

The Jews followed Gods rule about atonement, right? With a blood sacrifice, right or not? and other things...but for sure we know blood, right?

So instead of the blood sacrifice of the lambs God offered His son's blood for atonement for sins once and for all. Do we have to repent, yes, do we have to love and help others and be kind to others, yes we are called to do that, just like the verses in the OT that you posted, and also in the NT.
That was God's ultimate sacrifice for atonement.....Jesus. No more lambs the ultimate lamb took the sins.
The Jews STILL did not get it and still don't.  So they continue waiting for the messiah that will save them once and for all. My messiah is Jesus, I'm saved once and for all. Even if I sin, I can repent and get forgiveness, just like the Jews in the OT...they repented by doing certain things that God ask them to do and they were forgiven.

Same God....just a lighter yoke that we can actually bear.
Jesus said His yoke was light, unlike the other Rabbis who put a heavy yoke on their students.
Since there is no way that I could get to heaven if I had to live by the OT, then this is my way...the New Convenant.
And besides I'm not a Jew, the OT was for the Jews, the NT is for everyone. We were considered dirty dogs in the OT...in the new testament we(gentiles) are adopted in, grafted into the vine. And are also forgiven with a blood sacrifice, just like the Jews were forgiven. I'm not a Jew, I'm not called to live by their laws....wonder what the preacher would say if I brought in a pile of straw to the storehouse for my tithes and offerings?


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 13, 2008)

The "first" blood (of lambs, etc.) was the picture of what was _to come_.

The "final" sacrifice of Christ did an atoning work _once for all_, because those under the old had to return every year to fallable priests who were in as much a need for atonement as the people coming to the temple at that time. (Our need is the same as thiers).  The power of Christ's ongoing, indestructable life is the assurance that the atoning work "is finished".

Hebrews 2:17-18


17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

and...

Hebrews 7:23-25

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I seriously have to wonder if you are just messing with me at this point...



No seriously I believe that they believed that if they obeyed God that their sins were atoned....I really believe they believed that and didn't do just out of obedience because God said to do it. Sorry.

I do not believe that God said go kill a lamb and they did, not knowing why. I believe they believe it would atone them.

I don't know how many other ways I can say that. 

How about they obeyed because they believed God's word...


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 13, 2008)

Sorry, I guess I said the same points as mtnwoman, I just can't type as fast


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

StriperAddict said:


> The "first" blood (of lambs, etc.) was the picture of what was _to come_.
> 
> The "final" sacrifice of Christ did an atoning work _once for all_, because those under the old had to return every year to fallable priests who were in as much a need for atonement as the people coming to the temple at that time. (Our need is the same as thiers).  The power of Christ's ongoing, indestructable life is the assurance that the atoning work "is finished".
> 
> ...



Nice post...makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

StriperAddict said:


> Sorry, I guess I said the same points as mtnwoman, I just can't type as fast



LOL

Hey can I get a witness!!!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> The Jews followed Gods rule about atonement, right? With a blood sacrifice, right or not? and other things...but for sure we know blood, right?
> 
> So instead of the blood sacrifice of the lambs God offered His son's blood for atonement for sins once and for all. Do we have to repent, yes, do we have to love and help others and be kind to others, yes we are called to do that, just like the verses in the OT that you posted, and also in the NT.
> That was God's ultimate sacrifice for atonement.....Jesus. No more lambs the ultimate lamb took the sins.



Animal sacrifice was but ONE way to atone for sins.  How many verses in the Old Testament show that God doesn't want blood sacrifice?!??! Do I need to go through and list them all, or do you know them from your 50 years of studying and just ignore them??

You say that Jesus' blood atoned for ALL sins.  That would be INCORRECT, even going by the blood sacrifices of the Law.  The Law only allowed blood sacrifice for sins that you committed and didn't realize you were doing it. UNINTENTIONAL sins.  NEVER FOR ALL SINS!

If you can show me one verse... one single verse in the entire Old Testament that says blood was the only way for atonement, then maybe I can see where you are coming from, but because there IS NO verse that says that, the rest of your argument falls apart.

Have you read Leviticus? Do you know all of the strict steps that had to be taken to offer up an animal for sin sacrifice?  Were these things done with Jesus' body?  Was his blood taken to the temple altar? Was the fat from his body burned as well? I sure don't remember seeing anything about that in the NT.

Do you partake of the Lord's supper at your church?  Do you realize that in symbolically drinking the 'blood', you are symbolically committing an abomination of God?  I already gave the verses in Leviticus, ironically the same verse that the Christians use to 'prove' that blood is required (even though the verse says nothing of the sort) is located right in the middle of God's admonishment for drinking blood.

Christianity adopted pagan symbolism and doctrine because they weren't getting across to the Jews, so they went out to recruit Gentiles.  Circumcision was not attractive to the gentiles, so they miraculously had a vision from God that circumcision wasn't necessary for converts to Christianity (kind of like the vision the Mormon prophet had about caffeine when they bought stock in Pepsi).  Gentiles liked eating their pork and other 'unclean' foods, so miraculously Peter had a vision that all foods were ok. 

I don't believe that Jesus ever said he was God... nor do I believe that he taught that... that was all added later in the doctrine, because the pagans believed in man-gods and it appealed to them.  Along with a lot of other pagan beliefs...  Easter... you know where that comes from, right? The Goddess Ishtar... goddess of fertility,hence the bunnies and eggs... all pagan... why is Jesus' birthday celebrated on Dec. 25... again, because that's when the winter solstice was, and followers of popular pagan gods celebrated their birthdays, ie: Mithras, Attis, Dionysys/Bacchus,  Krishna...  




> The Jews STILL did not get it and still don't.



What exactly is it that you think the Jews didn't and still don't get?




> So they continue waiting for the messiah that will save them once and for all. My messiah is Jesus



And you're still waiting on him too... that 'generation' has passed hundreds of times over, and still, nothing!!



> Same God....just a lighter yoke that we can actually bear.
> Jesus said His yoke was light, unlike the other Rabbis who put a heavy yoke on their students.



Go back through your Old Testament and see where God says that his 'yoke' is easy to bear.  Go see where David sings praises of the Law and how it is not a burden, it is a delight.  You ignore that because it is in direct conflict with the catch phrases you've been trained to memorize.

I asked you this before, and you didn't answer... what Rabbis are you talking about in the Old Testament who put a 'heavy yoke' on their students?




> Since there is no way that I could get to heaven if I had to live by the OT, then this is my way...the New Convenant.
> And besides I'm not a Jew, the OT was for the Jews, the NT is for everyone.



The Jews were charged to bring the OT to the nations, to show them God.



> We were considered dirty dogs in the OT...



Please give me a verse from the OT that says this?
The only place I recall seeing a Jew call a gentile a dirty dog, was from your beloved Jesus.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 13, 2008)

> Posted by DD
> The Jews were charged to bring the OT to the nations, to show them God.



Can you say that you honestly believe the Jews have made a concerted effort to "bring the OT to the nations"?  Was this a command of God or just a suggestion?

Just trying to fit all the pieces together, thank you.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Can you say that you honestly believe the Jews have made a concerted effort to "bring the OT to the nations"?  Was this a command of God or just a suggestion?
> 
> Just trying to fit all the pieces together, thank you.



God said that the Jews were to be a light to the nations. Yes, I believe they have been...

Our democratic system is largely based on concepts from the Torah.  Here's a good link for insight into that:  http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...+Our+Land-+Democracy+and+Jewish+Tradition.htm

They were the first known to introduce a monotheistic faith.

They are one of the smallest religious groups (according to the latest numbers, there are even more atheists in the world than there are Jews), yet the two largest religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, both have swiped the Torah and use it as a basis for their own religions.

This is but only a couple of examples, and I'm sure there are many more, but yes... the Jews have been a light to the nations, and continue to be so.


----------



## ToLog (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> They were the first known to introduce a monotheistic faith.



i dunno. maybe they were, maybe they weren't? 

i'm thinking that Akenaten was the first to point to one God, the Sun. then it became the Sun of God later on, and so on and so forth?? 

i could be wrong, but i think that particular Pharaoh was pretty much ahead of his time in speaking of the "One God." Later, that particular theological concept was rejected, but then re-emerged later on??


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, Ronnie, that might be a good explanation, if it weren't for the fact that the first 32 years of my life I DID believe in Jesus and still was confused.  Now, the only thing that confuses me is how intelligent people can throw all logic and reason out the window when it comes to their 'faith'.




I proudly throw human logic out the window in order to trust in the wisdom of God Himself.  But that didn't turn me into a brain-dead follower of a nobody.  
At some point my submission by faith turned into total logic.  While many still wonder why God allowed HIS temple to be destroyed without giving the people of Israel instructions regarding a replacement for it, I, through faith, have come to understand the purpose of it not having a use anymore.
I now walk in faith, not in Jesus along, but in faith that Almighty God is still there, and that He's now made available something Israel never had.

I do it all by faith.
Some things I understand.
Some things only God understands.
I use to spend a lot of time trying to understand the things God never revealed.  I don't do that anymore.  One of my most frequent answers is:  "I don't know!"

What if Abraham  had always followed logic?
What if Noah also had?
I'm not sure there's much logic left.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

roothog said:


> i dunno. maybe they were, maybe they weren't?
> 
> i'm thinking that Akenaten was the first to point to one God, the Sun. then it became the Sun of God later on, and so on and so forth??
> 
> i could be wrong, but i think that particular Pharaoh was pretty much ahead of his time in speaking of the "One God." Later, that particular theological concept was rejected, but then re-emerged later on??



Hmmmm... point taken.... I should have narrowed my point to say first organized monotheistic religion? Oldest monotheistic religion still being practiced? 

However, I suppose it could be argued as well, that Adam (believed to be the first man) was monotheistic.  But I think that opens up a whole other can of worms


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> While many still wonder why God allowed HIS temple to be destroyed without giving the people of Israel instructions regarding a replacement for it,



In what sense?  God did give the people instructions on what to do when there was no temple...


----------



## ToLog (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> However, I suppose it could be argued as well, that Adam (believed to be the first man) was monotheistic.  But I think that opens up a whole other can of worms




as a serious student of the human condition, i've often wondered, in quiet times, why we haven't placed more emphasis on the Adam & Eve reality?

that is to say, we discuss Adam as the first human, and Eve as his mate......then we jump to Noah, Abraham, etc.  then David, and of course Jesus, and others.  Soloman, Jacob, Bin Laden, etc. etc.

the point is, why in the world don't we put "all" of our emphasis on the First Human and his role and responsibilities?  but, i diverge from the thread at hand, and step aside, in order for the main discussion to move forward.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

roothog said:


> as a serious student of the human condition, i've often wondered, in quiet times, why we haven't placed more emphasis on the Adam & Eve reality?
> 
> that is to say, we discuss Adam as the first human, and Eve as his mate......then we jump to Noah, Abraham, etc.  then David, and of course Jesus, and others.  Soloman, Jacob, Bin Laden, etc. etc.
> 
> the point is, why in the world don't we put "all" of our emphasis on the First Human and his role and responsibilities?  but, i diverge from the thread at hand, and step aside, in order for the main discussion to move forward.



Open another thread!  I'd love to hear your thoughts!


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> In what sense?  God did give the people instructions on what to do when there was no temple...




During His earthly ministry, Jesus informed the people of Israel that the temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left in place.  It's recorded in the what we now refer to as the New Testament.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> During His earthly ministry, Jesus informed the people of Israel that the temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left in place.  It's recorded in the what we now refer to as the New Testament.



I'm still not sure of what you mean.  Jesus didn't come up with that prophecy on his own... if he were Jewish, then he of course knew of the Ezekiel teachings of the third temple, yes?

The prophet Hosea also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed...

Hosea 3:4  	For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and [without] teraphim:

God did tell the Jews what to do when there was no temple.  Unless you're talking about something else?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> During His earthly ministry, Jesus informed the people of Israel that the temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left in place.  It's recorded in the what we now refer to as the New Testament.



Oh... and there are still stones left in their place.  In fact, there's a whole wall... on the Western side... Jews go there to pray every day 

In fact, you can see it on live webcam too   http://www.aish.com/wallcam/


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Oh... and there are still stones left in their place.  In fact, there's a whole wall... on the Western side... Jews go there to pray every day
> 
> In fact, you can see it on live webcam too   http://www.aish.com/wallcam/



Are you serious?  Are they sure it's the West wall of the temple itself and not one of the outer buildings.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> God said that the Jews were to be a light to the nations. Yes, I believe they have been...
> 
> Our democratic system is largely based on concepts from the Torah.  Here's a good link for insight into that:  http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...+Our+Land-+Democracy+and+Jewish+Tradition.htm
> 
> ...



Sounds like the Jews were more intent on keeping the Torah for themselves if the Muslims and Christians had to "swipe" it. If atheist outnumber Jews sounds like even the atheist are doing a better job of disseminating their "faith" than they are.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Hosea 14:2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. (ie: prayer)


 
Hosea is asking God to forgive them and accept their repentance. God has told them how to atone, and it is through sacrifice. Nowhere in this verse does God change the means of salvation.




> Micah 6:6 Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
> Mic 6:7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul?
> Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?


 
The Lord requires that we do what is right and walk with him. Thou salt not....ect. But, he does provide a means of repentance with sacrifice if we do not.



> Proverbs 10:2 Treasures of wickedness will not avail, but charity will save from death.
> 
> Proverbs 11:4 Riches will not avail on the day of wrath, but charity will save from death.
> 
> Proverbs 21:3 Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice.


 
I am not sure what version of Bible you use, but the versions that I have show righteousness, not charity.



> Proverbs 16:6 With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated, and through fear of the Lord one turns away from evil.
> 
> Hosea 6:6 For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


 
Loving kindness or mercy is the only way we will be forgiven. It is sacrifice that God has required for mercy. It is God's loving-kindness, not ours.




> Daniel 4:27 (christian bible) Nevertheless, o king, let my advice be agreeable to you. Redeem your error with charity, and your sin through kindness to the poor, so that their will be an extension to your tranquility.


 
 27Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. 

Break off the circle of sinning by doing right. 




> 1Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for [there is] no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; 1Ki 8:47 [Yet] if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; 1Ki 8:48 And [so] return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: 1Ki 8:49 Then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause, 1Ki 8:50 And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them:


 
None of these verses are from God to have sacrifice replaced by repentance. Sacrifice was a part of repentance. It was man's payment and obedience that showed repentance. Most of these verses say that God desires just living compared to sacrifices. Of course he does. He desires us to not sin, than to sin and have to be atoned. As in 1 Kings, sacrifice was part of making supplication to thee.



> :sigh:
> We are still light years apart.
> Yes, out of all of the process of sacrificing animals, putting the blood on the altar (instead of drinking it as the pagans did) is the part that atones for the unintentional sin.
> 
> Now please show how this verse says that blood is the only means of atonement.


 
It doesn't include any other means, so show me another way in the Torah where God recanted what he required.


----------



## ToLog (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Open another thread!  I'd love to hear your thoughts!



i'll think on it, and might just do that.   Thank you for your Most Kind Invite. 

of course, i'd want anyone to respond, especially if they're unpaid spiritual seekers.  

that is, if they're paid Preachers, then their comments might be a bit suspect, but, they'd still be welcomed. i'd like to hear everyone's comments, biased or not.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 13, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Are you serious?  Are they sure it's the West wall of the temple itself and not one of the outer buildings.



As I understand it, it is a supporting wall that predates the temple and not part of the actual temple that Solomon  was instrumental in building, just pre-existing foundation for the outer wall. However, I don't remember the exact details. Perhaps someone with a better memory or more current info will contribute. Of course it may be part of the expanded work on the Temple done by Herod the Great which started approx. 20 BC and continued even after his death, perhaps as late as 63 AD, just 7 yrs. before the Temples destruction.

Ding Ding Ding........ We have a winner!!! ( Love that Google, and no, I don't consider Wikipedia a completely reliable site.)

 " Herodian retaining wall that once enclosed and supported the Second Temple and date from 20 BC"

So, there you have it. No charge!

Peace.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

gtparts said:


> As I understand it, it is a supporting wall that predates the temple and not part of the actual temple that Solomon was instrumental in building, just pre-existing foundation for the outer wall. However, I don't remember the exact details. Perhaps someone with a better memory or more current info will contribute. Of course it may be part of the expanded work on the Temple done by Herod the Great which started approx. 20 BC and continued even after his death, perhaps as late as 63 AD, just 7 yrs. before the Temples destruction.
> 
> Ding Ding Ding........ We have a winner!!! ( Love that Google, and no, I don't consider Wikipedia a completely reliable site.)
> 
> ...


 
When Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., only one outer wall remained standing. The Romans probably would have destroyed that wall as well, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them; it was not even part of the Temple itself, just an outer wall surrounding the Temple Mount.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Western_Wall.html

The Western Wall of the Temple Mount
The Western Wall is a one quarter mile long retaining wall that today forms the western boundary of the Temple Mount. A 185 foot section that is exposed is an open air prayer area, Ha Kotel - known in earlier times as the Wailing Wall. The Western Wall was not part of either Temple. Rather it was one of the four retaining walls that surrounded the Temple Mount supporting the platform on which the Temple formerly stood. 

http://www.templemount.org/visittemp.html


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Hosea is asking God to forgive them and accept their repentance. God has told them how to atone, and it is through sacrifice. Nowhere in this verse does God change the means of salvation.



Wrong.
Sacrifice is not the only means of atonement.  The verse says 'render the calves of our lips'.  Their repentance and prayers were their atonement.  And God accepted it.

And, as an aside... the law was not given for spiritual salvation.  It was for physical salvation... blessings, land, health, etc.



> The Lord requires that we do what is right and walk with him. Thou salt not....ect. But, he does provide a means of repentance with sacrifice if we do not.



Repentance with sacrifice or atonement with sacrifice?
Well, the answer is that repentance is accepted as atonement by God.  These verses clearly show that. I'm sorry if it puts a kink in your (wrong) Christian belief that blood is the only way, but God said it.

I'm not sure why you're trying to separate atonement from forgiveness.  If God forgives, what more 'atonement' is needed?  To make reconciliation with God is to have atonement.  God says this can be done (and is preferred to be done) with repentance and prayer.  



> I am not sure what version of Bible you use, but the versions that I have show righteousness, not charity.



The main bible I use is the Hebrew bible. The Hebrew says charity.





> Loving kindness or mercy is the only way we will be forgiven. It is sacrifice that God has required for mercy. It is God's loving-kindness, not ours.



Umm... it is God speaking... it is He that desires loving-kindness.  I guess you didn't read it.






> 27Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.
> 
> Break off the circle of sinning by doing right.



No, but even with your mistranslated verse, it says that iniquity is atoned with mercy to the poor.






> None of these verses are from God to have sacrifice replaced by repentance. Sacrifice was a part of repentance. It was man's payment and obedience that showed repentance. Most of these verses say that God desires just living compared to sacrifices. Of course he does. He desires us to not sin, than to sin and have to be atoned. As in 1 Kings, sacrifice was part of making supplication to thee.



No, sacrifice was not a required part of repentance.  And no verse says that, anywhere.  

Did you read the verse in 1 Kings?  It asks God to forgive the Hebrews when they are not able to come to the temple, and take their prayers and repentance in place of sacrifices... and God agrees.

2Chronicles 7:14  	If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.





> It doesn't include any other means, so show me another way in the Torah where God recanted what he required.



I have.  All in my last post.  I'm sorry if it doesn't mesh up with your Christian theology... but God's ways are not your ways.  God forgives with repentance.  Repentance is the atonement.  He didn't require blood.  With repentance, God forgets all transgressions (Ezekiel 18:21-23).  So simple.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

gtparts said:


> As I understand it, it is a supporting wall that predates the temple and not part of the actual temple that Solomon  was instrumental in building, just pre-existing foundation for the outer wall. However, I don't remember the exact details. Perhaps someone with a better memory or more current info will contribute. Of course it may be part of the expanded work on the Temple done by Herod the Great which started approx. 20 BC and continued even after his death, perhaps as late as 63 AD, just 7 yrs. before the Temples destruction.
> 
> Ding Ding Ding........ We have a winner!!! ( Love that Google, and no, I don't consider Wikipedia a completely reliable site.)
> 
> ...





farmasis said:


> When Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., only one outer wall remained standing. The Romans probably would have destroyed that wall as well, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them; it was not even part of the Temple itself, just an outer wall surrounding the Temple Mount.
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Western_Wall.html
> 
> The Western Wall of the Temple Mount
> ...



Mat 24:1  	And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
	Mat 24:2 	And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Jesus didn't specify only the inner temple buildings.  He said 'there shall not be left here one stone upon another'.  But you can spin it however you need to make it work


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Wrong.
> Sacrifice is not the only means of atonement. The verse says 'render the calves of our lips'. Their repentance and prayers were their atonement. And God accepted it.


 
Where does it say God accepted it? Hosea is pleading for God to recieve their repentance.



> And, as an aside... the law was not given for spiritual salvation. It was for physical salvation... blessings, land, health, etc.


 
Wrong! Salvation was also promised through the law:

*Psa 119:155 *
Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.
*Psalm 24:4 *
He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.



> Repentance with sacrifice or atonement with sacrifice?
> Well, the answer is that repentance is accepted as atonement by God. These verses clearly show that. I'm sorry if it puts a kink in your (wrong) Christian belief that blood is the only way, but God said it.
> 
> I'm not sure why you're trying to separate atonement from forgiveness. If God forgives, what more 'atonement' is needed? To make reconciliation with God is to have atonement. God says this can be done (and is preferred to be done) with repentance and prayer.


 
No, he does not say atonement can be made without sacrifice. He can, and has, but only by way of his mercy. Sorry if that puts a kink in your religion that you have made.



> The main bible I use is the Hebrew bible. The Hebrew says charity.


 
The point is the Hebrew word is synonomus with mercy.




> Umm... it is God speaking... it is He that desires loving-kindness. I guess you didn't read it.


 
Yes God desires mercy rather than sacrifice. He would rather we not sin.



> No, but even with your mistranslated verse, it says that iniquity is atoned with mercy to the poor.


 
Of course. Had it not been for mercy, God would not even accept sacrifices for sin.



> No, sacrifice was not a required part of repentance. And no verse says that, anywhere.


 
Sacrifice is requires for forgiveness and so is repentance.



> Did you read the verse in 1 Kings? It asks God to forgive the Hebrews when they are not able to come to the temple, and take their prayers and repentance in place of sacrifices... and God agrees.


 
I am missing that page where God agrees.



> 2Chronicles 7:14     If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


 
12 Then the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said to him: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice.

19 “But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them, 20 then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them

So, even though 2 verses earlier, God accepted the temple Solomon built as a house of sacrifice, he didn't require sacrifice? Maybe that was part of the turning from their wicked ways and keeping his commandments and statues?



> I have. All in my last post. I'm sorry if it doesn't mesh up with your Christian theology... but God's ways are not your ways. God forgives with repentance. Repentance is the atonement. He didn't require blood. With repentance, God forgets all transgressions (Ezekiel 18:21-23). So simple.


 
Of course it doesn't mesh up with my Christian theology, because it is Judiasm. It is however, in line with the need for repentance and sacrifice.

As far as Ezekiel....
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Mat 24:1     And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
> Mat 24:2     And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
> 
> Jesus didn't specify only the inner temple buildings. He said 'there shall not be left here one stone upon another'. But you can spin it however you need to make it work


 
No spin zone.
It was not a part of the temple or any of it's buildings according to Jewish sources. It is not even a wall of an outer temple building. It partly encased the mount the temple was built on.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You ignore that because it is in direct conflict with the catch phrases you've been trained to memorize.



That statement is so condescending, ya know that?
How do you know I was trained to memorize anything?
I haven't ignored things. Actually you skew things so much, even contradicting your ownself depending on the moment, that there is no way to answer your question or even debate with you. It's just impossible.
You are not consistant in your comments enough.

Everyone else seems to stick to their story no matter how many times they tell it, probably because most of them have a good understanding of what they are saying.   You change it up and oppose everything someone says, even if it's directly contradicting something else you've posted.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Rabbis in the Bible picked children that they wanted to teach. OT and NT. This is just Jewish history, this is what they practiced according to the Jew of today. It may not all be in the Bible but that's how it worked. Rabbis were teachers.

Rabbis were strict and each kid had to memorize the torah, and still may have to...I don't know I don't study them that much. But the yoke that they put on the boys was heavy. Asking them to do things that no one can do...obviously most people in the OT sinned, too.
What Jesus as a Rabbi is saying is that His yoke is light, because He doesn't expect and pound into our brains all the things that the OT says we should do. We(believers) could never do it, the Jews could never do it.
So Jesus' yoke is light, much lighter than memorizing the torah, much lighter than dragging stuff to the storehouse, much lighter than have to sacrifice a lamb or do anything else for atonement. Where as the other rabbis put a heavy burden on the people....I thought that was pretty common knowledge of how strict the Jews were in the OT....that is a heavy yoke.

1 Kings 12:4-5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain


 4Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. 

 5And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed.

Isaiah 10:26-28 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
26And the LORD of hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb: and as his rod was upon the sea, so shall he lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 

 27And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing. *IT SHALL COME TO PASS...SEE THAT?*


 Matthew 11:29-30 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 

 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.




John 14:9 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

   9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Where does it say God accepted it? Hosea is pleading for God to recieve their repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> That statement is so condescending, ya know that?
> How do you know I was trained to memorize anything?
> I haven't ignored things. Actually you skew things so much, even contradicting your ownself depending on the moment, that there is no way to answer your question or even debate with you. It's just impossible.
> You are not consistant in your comments enough.
> ...



I say it because that's all you ever say... the Rabbi's yoke (whatever that is) is heavy, Jesus' yoke is light.

What have I posted that contradicts something else I posted?  If I have done this, please show me the error of my ways.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Rabbis in the Bible picked children that they wanted to teach. OT and NT. This is just Jewish history, this is what they practiced according to the Jew of today. It may not all be in the Bible but that's how it worked. Rabbis were teachers.



I know what a rabbi is.
Please give some sort of reference as to what you are speaking.  "According to the Jew of today" just doesn't cut it for me, sorry.  Because you are incorrect.  ALL Jews are required to be taught the Torah.  It's not a matter of pick and choose.  But, maybe I'm not understanding what you're talking about, so if you could give me some sort of reference to look at, I'll be glad to take a look at it.




> Rabbis were strict and each kid had to memorize the torah, and still may have to...I don't know I don't study them that much. But the yoke that they put on the boys was heavy.



God is the one in the Old Testament who commands the Jews to meditate on the Torah and imprint it into their hearts and minds, so that they may do it.  The 'Rabbi's' didn't come up with this on their own, God commanded it.  David wrote many Psalms about how it was a delight to meditate on the Torah, never did he say it was a heavy burden.. in fact, just the opposite.



> Asking them to do things that no one can do...



Like what?



> obviously most people in the OT sinned, too.



"most people"?  The Old Testament says that there is no one who does not sin.



> What Jesus as a Rabbi is saying is that His yoke is light, because He doesn't expect and pound into our brains all the things that the OT says we should do.



This is contradictory, because you say that Jesus is God... yet it is God who wrote the Law and wanted it 'pounded into their brains'.  Maybe you don't believe in the Old Testament.  Tell me, who do you think dictated the Torah?  Do you think God told Moses what to write, or do you think that Moses just made this stuff up on his own?  (hint: it might help for you to read the Torah and see all the places where it specifies that God is telling Moses what to write).




> We(believers) could never do it, the Jews could never do it.



As I showed you yesterday, God says that it could be done, and was done.



> So Jesus' yoke is light, much lighter than memorizing the torah, much lighter than dragging stuff to the storehouse, much lighter than have to sacrifice a lamb or do anything else for atonement. Where as the other rabbis put a heavy burden on the people....I thought that was pretty common knowledge of how strict the Jews were in the OT....that is a heavy yoke.



So, basically what you're saying is that as a gentile, you think it's too much 'work' to follow God's law.  You think God prefers for his people to be lazy and take the easy way out.  I guess so... since you seem to think that one (unbiblical and ungodly) sacrifice wipes out everything forever.  

Why did God give the Jews the Torah?  Did he do it for his own amusement? No, he did it for their own good.  It wasn't to show them their sin, it was to help them prosper and thrive.  By your comments, you think it's ok to be lazy when it comes to God.  He obviously disagrees.




> 1 Kings 12:4-5 (King James Version)
> King James Version (KJV)
> Public Domain
> 
> ...



Did you read this in context?  Who's father is it talking about here?  And what kind of yoke is it talking about?  It has nothing to do with sin or sacrifice... you need to go back and read it in context and see if you still think this supports your argument.  If so, then we can discuss it.




> Isaiah 10:26-28 (King James Version)
> King James Version (KJV)
> Public Domain
> 26And the LORD of hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb: and as his rod was upon the sea, so shall he lift it up after the manner of Egypt.
> ...




YES I SEE IT!!  
Do you?  See above... go back and read it in context and see what 'yoke' they're talking about.


----------



## leroy (Nov 14, 2008)

233 posts and nothing has been accomplished. Also alot of posts and debate from someone who says they have NO side.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 14, 2008)

> Posted by DD
> Animal sacrifice (blood) is not required for forgiveness, and you will find nowhere in the Old Testament that say so. I gave you plenty of verses from the Old Testament that showed God forgave their sins with no sacrifice.



This was an accommodation by God for the poor. In fact, God has given instruction in animal sacrifice to the Jews and allowed for the impoverished to receive mercy by other means. God also mercifully gave temporary relief from making animal sacrifice in the case of there being no temple and special instructions for cleansing the temple( if desecrated) before they were allowed to resume any of the sacrifices.



> Posted by DD
> Start at 2 Chronicles chapter 6 where Solomon begins his dedication. He prays and asks God that if His people are take captive or away from the temple, that if they turn their hearts back to God (repent) and ask for forgiveness, that God will forgive them of their sins. Following into the next chapter, God answers Solomon and says yes, I will hear their prayer and forgive them.



DD, you missed the key.
Part of "turning their hearts back to God" is to resume being obedient to His laws and statutes, including animal sacrifice. Repentance is not just saying one is sorry, but also is manifested by an internal change resulting in different behavior; in this case, doing what God says rather than what we want to do that is contrary to His will.

Grace and peace unto you and yours.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 14, 2008)

> Finally, someone admits that Judaism is nothing like Christianity!! Which in turn means that you have changed God's word... something that was forbidden by him.



Actually, Christians, in general, do regard the OT as the Word of God, or I more correctly should say the first part of God's Word. We recognize it as being written to the Jews but for the benefit of all, Jew and gentile. The greatest difference is in how Christians view the OT, for it is from the perspective of the NT that we come to understand the things God has "hidden" in the OT. But we also recognize that the NT is the continuation of the OT. It is not a sequel, but the rest of the story as Paul Harvey says.

Being a Christian:
It is quite like having binoculars and training them across the Grand Canyon. The truth of what is on the other side is fixed, and yet the one with the binoculars sees fantastic detail and nuance while the one without binoculars gets less detail in the unaided visual image they see. You, my dear have held the binoculars without properly using them and decided to put them down. My tendency would be to fault the one who failed to teach (disciple) you in the proper use, but it could just be that, that stubborn independence you have become famous for on this forum has not served you well as regards receiving instruction.

It is extremely rare that anyone has told you anything here that you did not reject out of hand, so you probably will not give this any consideration either. 

One can be greatly impoverished by always maintaining such an attitude.

Grace and peace to you, DD.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> That statement is so condescending, ya know that?
> You change it up and oppose everything someone says, even if it's directly contradicting something else you've posted.



Oh! Didn't you know it.  DD's favorite part it getting to be condescending to the lowly Christians.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What have I posted that contradicts something else I posted?  If I have done this, please show me the error of my ways.



You are incapible of see any error in your ways.  You always have an "if" or a "but" or another comment about how we just aren't able to see the truth.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 14, 2008)

> Where does that say spiritual salvation?


 
174 I long for Your salvation, O LORD,
         And Your law _is_ my delight.
 175 Let my soul live, and it shall praise You;
         And let Your judgments help me. (Ps 119)



> Yes, he does... and it's not in a religion I have made, it's in the Original Testament.


 
So is the trinity, prophecy of the Messiah, the new covenant, salvation of the gentiles, prophecy of the virgin birth and many other things you are blind to.




> What's that got to do with anything? Charity is charity, and in the context of those verses, it makes perfect sense.


 
because you are using the hebrew word translated to 'charity' and equating it to putting money in a Salvation Army pot and not with mercy. It just ain't the same.




> Animal sacrifice (blood) is not required for forgiveness, and you will find nowhere in the Old Testament that say so. I gave you plenty of verses from the Old Testament that showed God forgave their sins with no sacrifice.


 
How many verses do you want?

*Leviticus 17:11 *
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

*Leviticus 4:13 *
And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance...
15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
20 ...and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

*Leviticus 4:35 *
35 He shall remove all its fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering. Then the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the LORD. So the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

*Leviticus 5:10*
10 And he shall offer the second _as_ a burnt offering according to the prescribed manner. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him. 

*Leviticus 16:15*
15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which _is_ for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat.




> Why do you chop out the other verses? Do you have something against reading the scriptures in context?


 
No. They were not necessary for my point.



> And no, he didn't require sacrifice. Start at 2 Chronicles chapter 6 where Solomon begins his dedication. He prays and asks God that if His people are take captive or away from the temple, that if they turn their hearts back to God (repent) and ask for forgiveness, that God will forgive them of their sins. Following into the next chapter, God answers Solomon and says yes, I will hear their prayer and forgive them.


 
The dedication of the temple was probably the largest sacrifice ever recorded!!!

1 When Solomon had finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the temple.......
4 Then the king and all the people offered sacrifices before the LORD. 5 King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand bulls and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep......




> Psalms 40:6     Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.


 
Why did he not require them? Because blessed is the man who remains just!! Keep it in context.

4 Blessed _is_ that man who makes the LORD his trust,
      And does not respect the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.




> The Old Testament is full of verses that show blood sacrifice was not required for forgiveness of sin. But you ignore those, just as you ignore the numerous verses that say vicarious atonement is not allowed and human sacrifice is not allowed.


 
God has made provisions outside sacrifice when sacrifice was not available, but it has always been required for forgiveness as it is now.



> The verse in Leviticus is speaking of the prohibition of eating blood. If you read past that verse, you will see that God considers eating blood to be an abomination (you know, like Christians remind the homosexuals about it being an abomination). Yet Jesus tells his disciples to drink the wine as his blood in remembrance of him... supposed God in the flesh is telling his followers to do something that represents an abomination?? And yet Christians do it regularly in church services, thinking that it's pleasing to God.


 
As a Christian, I am not bound to Jewish food laws.




> Finally, someone admits that Judaism is nothing like Christianity!! Which in turn means that you have changed God's word... something that was forbidden by him.


 
Christianity is not Judiasm. I don't know who told you it was. Judiasm is based on the old covenant, Christianity on the new. I didn't change God's word it is God's word.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Well I can tell y'all this.

Most of us have the discerning of spirits and are quite friendly with the Holy Ghost...more like in love with the Holy Ghost. We feel Him and we know He is real. If you don't have that then you'll never understand. We also know satan and his legion of demons when we see them.  Most of us don't know each other in the flesh, most of us went to different churches and have different backgrounds, yet we all agree on one thing that our eternity relies on...and we are all connected to that same Holy Spirit and that's why we think alike and interpret alike and "see" alike.

John 3:16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That is the light yoke...

The heavy yoke IS the torah.


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 14, 2008)

Sterlo58 said:


> Do ya'll ever spend anytime in the hunting forums ???



Yep - and many others,too!


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> That statement is so condescending, ya know that?
> How do you know I was trained to memorize anything?
> I haven't ignored things. Actually you skew things so much, even contradicting your ownself depending on the moment, that there is no way to answer your question or even debate with you. It's just impossible.
> You are not consistant in your comments enough.
> ...



AMEN to that,mtnwoman! You have stated my opinion of this person exactly.
Dixie Dawg - why do you even bother coming on this part of Woody's? You seem to be absolutely convinced that your "religion" is right and everybody else's is wrong. You seem to be making yours up as you go.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Do not mock God..that is dangerous territory to trod on.

Isaiah 28:21-23 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 21For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. 

 22Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth. 

 23Give ye ear, and hear my voice; hearken, and hear my speech.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 14, 2008)

Here's an important question from me to DixieDawg:

You've stated that you believe in God and that you love to debate.  That's why you are here.  Why don't you find an atheist forum and debate with unbelievers so that you can at least have a positive attitude rather than risking your eternal future.  You certainly cannot believe that you are totally, absolutely, no doubt about it right and all Christians are wrong.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 14, 2008)

Purposely went to a Jewish forum just to observe what was going on there and DD's male counterpart was giving the Jews (he being a former Jew, if that is possible) h-e-double hockey sticks from his atheist point of view. Sometimes very abrasive and definitely not seeking to gain any understanding that had eluded him when he was "kosher". So it appears Woody's ain't alone in having quite a mix of folks. Reminds me of the story of the two old codgers sitting and rocking on the porch out west 40+ years ago , when a hippie with all the trappings of a Tim Leary love child passed by. The first old dude says, "Well, I guess it takes all kinds." To which his fellow rocker responded after spittin' an amber stream of Redman into the dirt street just off the front steps, "Nope, it don't. We just GOT all kinds."

Peace.


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 14, 2008)

How bout giving DD that web address.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 14, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> How bout giving DD that web address.



I better not................you'd    , I'd    , and everyone would be     at both of us. 

Besides, I like her in a perverse kinda way. It's how I know my BP meds are working.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> The verse in Leviticus is speaking of the prohibition of eating blood. If you read past that verse, you will see that God considers eating blood to be an abomination (you know, like Christians remind the homosexuals about it being an abomination). Yet Jesus tells his disciples to drink the wine as his blood in remembrance of him... supposed God in the flesh is telling his followers to do something that represents an abomination?? And yet Christians do it regularly in church services, thinking that it's pleasing to God.





farmasis said:


> As a Christian, I am not bound to Jewish food laws.



Really....???   So if you showed up at church one morning and the pastor said, you know, today instead of wine, we are actually going to use real human blood for communion... you wouldn't have a problem with it?  If yes, then why?   

Eating blood has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jewish food laws.  If you don't know this, then you probably should go back and review the Torah again.  In fact, it's right there in Leviticus 11, completely surrounding the verse you use as proof of the (non) requirement for blood sacrifice.



Ronnie T said:


> Here's an important question from me to DixieDawg:
> 
> You've stated that you believe in God and that you love to debate.  That's why you are here.  Why don't you find an atheist forum and debate with unbelievers so that you can at least have a positive attitude rather than risking your eternal future.  You certainly cannot believe that you are totally, absolutely, no doubt about it right and all Christians are wrong.



Nope, in fact there was something someone posted on here in the last 3 days that really has me thinking about some things, and I'm going to have to do some more studying and praying to be able to work it out and see where it takes me.



Ronnie T said:


> How bout giving DD that web address.



Ronnie, if you don't like my posts, then why do you keep reading them? There's a thing called 'ignore' that will make it so you don't have to read a thing I post.  You don't post much scripture with your opinions, you just like to post a lot of attacks... at least I post the scriptures that I get my ideas and understandings from.  You accused me of switching things up and changing the original text of a verse on this thread more than once, but never did you back it up with any example of what you were talking about.

I'm not perfect nor do I know everything there is to know, and I've never stated otherwise.  But at the very least, at least when I make a statement I attempt to support it with some sort of reference as to why I made the statement in the first place.

If my posts make you nervous, or if you just don't like me, then don't read what I post, it's pretty simple


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> AMEN to that,mtnwoman! You have stated my opinion of this person exactly.
> Dixie Dawg - why do you even bother coming on this part of Woody's? You seem to be absolutely convinced that your "religion" is right and everybody else's is wrong. You seem to be making yours up as you go.



I don't see it as making it up as I go... I see it as similar to how I am in my political views... I can't commit to either Democrat or Republican because neither one do I agree with 100%... so I'm Independent   

And no, I'm not absolutely convinced... as I said in the previous post, there is something that was posted within the last 3 days that has me re-thinking a few things and having to do more reading and prayer about.  So I always learn something new from these discussions, that's why I come on this part of the forum.



gtparts said:


> I better not................you'd    , I'd    , and everyone would be     at both of us.
> 
> Besides, I like her in a perverse kinda way. It's how I know my BP meds are working.



   


I'm heading out of town tonight for the weekend and then next week I have clinicals, so I probably won't be on much or posting much, so the rest of the things that were posted (like by farmasis) I'll have to read more and can talk about when I have more time if I don't get to them tonight.  Just didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring anything     God bless!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Deuteronomy 32:13-14
 13He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock; 


Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Deuteronomy 32:13-14
> 13He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
> 
> 
> Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


>



Why am I not surprised?

Come on now, you know our preachers aren't going to ask us to drink real blood.
We drink grape juice, some drink wine...that is the blood of the grape...just symbolic.

It is symbolic to be buried in Christ and resurrected with Him, in Baptism.
Most of us are not Jews, but we symbolically follow some of the traditions in the OT in the new convenant.  

Christmas, is symbollic of the 3 wisemen bearing gifts and God giving us the gift of His Son, and yes I know all about it was "stolen" from pagans..celebration of the winter solstice.

That is the yoke that is light....we don't have to sacrifice a lamb for atonement, the blood of Jesus, just like the blood of the innocent lamb in the OT atones the Jews. 
Other things, too. Yes. 
Bring your tithes and offerings into the storehouse...those offerings were to keep up the temple and to help the poor. So I don't have to take grain to the storehouse/church in obedience....because of Jesus, I can take a turkey to my starving neighbors and that is obedience.

You take all that stuff in the OT and it would be a heavy burden to uphold.
That's why Jesus says my yoke is light....in other words He gives us an easier path to salvation.....but still with obedience. There are certain things we have to do and things that we should do and things that we wouldn't do without the Holy Spirit, but because of the HS we do it anyway.
Jesus loves you or whoever thru me, in other words.

My church has a great Bible teacher for a pastor. He doesn't preach he teaches. 
He takes things in the OT and directly relates them to things in the NT. Sometimes we just study the OT. Sometimes it's from front to back.
I probably really only have a minute understanding of the Bible. Something dawns on me everyday that I never understood and can't for the life of me figure out how I missed it before.
That's how the HS works. God is our hightower according to David, He can see what is ahead for us and prepares us with His word, the Living Word, not the old word, not the new word, but the Living Word. The word that we can go to everyday and find what we need. He searches our hearts.

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

When we don't even know what to pray for or how to pray. All we can do is groan and moan, oh help me Lord, like David....He knows us. We are His.
When we wax faint, like David did in battle, we do the same thing...so far down, so weak, we can barely breath....God knows where we are and He comes to get us.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Why am I not surprised?



I don't know... if you expected me to read your mind, I don't know you that well yet 

There are a number of different discussions going on in this thread... it started out about the virgin birth and pretty much everything in between has been discussed.

I'm sorry I can't assume which topic you're referring to with your 'sucking honey out of a rock' verse...  you'll have to just bring yourself down to my level and point it out to me, like I was a child


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know... if you expected me to read your mind, I don't know you that well yet
> 
> There are a number of different discussions going on in this thread... it started out about the virgin birth and pretty much everything in between has been discussed.
> 
> I'm sorry I can't assume which topic you're referring to with your 'sucking honey out of a rock' verse...  you'll have to just bring yourself down to my level and point it out to me, like I was a child



Here we go with that condecending attitude of yours.


I will see if I can find out the honey sucking thing though...LOL


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Yes I did go back and edit the..why am i not surprised post....out of conviction.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> you'll have to just bring yourself down to my level and point it out to me, like I was a child



I did, I revised it....LOL


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 14, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Come on now, you know our preachers aren't going to ask us to drink real blood.



Why not? I  mean, according to farmasis, you're not under the 'dietary' laws of the Jews, so this should be ok, shouldn't it?

And Jesus wasn't talking about the 'blood' of the grape (juice)... he said specifically that it represented his own blood.



mtnwoman said:


> Yes I did go back and edit the..why am i not surprised post....out of conviction.



And I apologize for my 'condescending attitude'.  



mtnwoman said:


> I did, I revised it....LOL



Thanks... sometimes I need a little help, you know... I'm apparently void of that spiritual discernment thing


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Why not? I  mean, according to farmasis, you're not under the 'dietary' laws of the Jews, so this should be ok, shouldn't it?*What do you mean why not? LOL...pretty much for obvious reasons...YUCK....remember the yoke being light...LOL..it doesn't include blood drinking.*
> 
> And Jesus wasn't talking about the 'blood' of the grape (juice)... he said specifically that it represented his own blood.*Right on...represented, symbolic*
> 
> ...




Annie


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

Blood is symbolic of the sacrificial lamb in the OT...Jesus became the lamb that was spoken about in the Abraham and Isaac story...I will provide myself a Lamb...do not slay Isaac.

I know it's weird to think about drinking the blood, and eating His flesh...but what Jesus is saying is let Him become part of you. But it's symbolic only just like baptism...dunk...buried in Christ...out of the water...raised in the resurrection.

I guess I just can't explain it correctly, and I'm sorry.


John 6
 1After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. 

 2And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. 

 3And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. 

 4And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. 

 5When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? 

 6And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. 

 7Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. 

 8One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, 

 9There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? 

 10And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 

 11And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. 

 12When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. 

 13Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. 

 14Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 

 15When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. 

 16And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea, 

 17And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them. 

 18And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew. 

 19So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid. 

 20But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid. 

 21Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went. 

 22The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone; 

 23(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks 

 24When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. 

 25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? 

 26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 

 27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 

 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 

 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 

 30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 

 31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 

 32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 

 33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 

 34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 

 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 

 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 

 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 

 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 

 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 

 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

 41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 

 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 

 43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 

 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 

 46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 

 47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 

 48I am that bread of life. 

 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 

 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 

 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 

 52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 

 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 

 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 

 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 

 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 

 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 

 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 14, 2008)

Because the devout Jews do not believe The LORD JESUS,is the messiah they are waiting for,but they will find out HE is.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 14, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> Because the devout Jews do not believe The LORD JESUS,is the messiah they are waiting for,but they will find out HE is.



Yes they will. They are temp. blinded so's that us'ns the unclean gentiles can be grafted into the vine. Not because they are stupid, not because of anything....that's the way God worked it.

Short version.

Acts 10:27-29 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 27And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. 

 28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 

Romans 11:18-20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 

 19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 

 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:


John 12:39-41 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



 39Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 

 40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 

 41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 16, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Really....??? So if you showed up at church one morning and the pastor said, you know, today instead of wine, we are actually going to use real human blood for communion... you wouldn't have a problem with it? If yes, then why?


 
No, because that is nasty.



> Eating blood has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jewish food laws. If you don't know this, then you probably should go back and review the Torah again. In fact, it's right there in Leviticus 11, completely surrounding the verse you use as proof of the (non) requirement for blood sacrifice.


 
I don't remember what I was thinking when I responded about food laws to that part of the quote. Maybe I didn't read it all the way and just saw the eating and drinking part? I dunno.

I do not eat Jesus or drink his blood at communion. No offense to by Catholic brethern, but I think Jesus makes it pretty clear it is symbolic.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 16, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And Jesus wasn't talking about the 'blood' of the grape (juice)... he said specifically that it represented his own blood.


 
No, I think he makes it pretty clear what is actually in the cup.


 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave _it_ to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new<SUP>[c]</SUP> covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 16, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No, I think he makes it pretty clear what is actually in the cup.
> 
> 
> 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave _it_ to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new<SUP>[c]</SUP> covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”




Great way to put it.

I guess what boggles my mind is that salvation is basically handed to us on a silver platter. We don't really have to do all that much.
The OT is made up of so many things to do that it makes me dizzy just even trying to comprehend it.
Mostly what I get from the OT though is the pathway to Jesus. Jesus makes it too easy to love Him, too easy to follow and believe in Him that I just can't help myself.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 16, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No, I think he makes it pretty clear what is actually in the cup.
> 
> 
> 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave _it_ to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new<SUP>[c]</SUP> covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”



I guess Jesus forgot about his promise....  

John 19:29  	Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put [it] on hyssop, and put [it] to His mouth.

John 19:30 	So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

I'm heading to the mountains for the day... y'all have fun!


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 16, 2008)

"Light,in the absence of sight,illuminates nothing.Many have eyes,but do not have sight."
Your signature!
How ironic,or is it?
JESUS is the light of the world,He illuminates Heaven!
Many have eyes,but do not have sight.Very close to what He said to the religious leaders,who mocked HIM,2000 years ago,and carries over until this day.You have really answered all of your own questions,with your signature,and you just can't see the LIGHT.
I pray that you do.
The vinegar was used for medicinal purposes then,one of them pain,to prolong HIS suffering,as it is still used for ailments today by some people.
I pray that you see the light,and enjoy the mountains that JESUS created,because" Nothing was created,that was not created by HIM."
Michael


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 16, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No, I think he makes it pretty clear what is actually in the cup.
> 
> 
> 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave _it_ to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new<SUP>[c]</SUP> covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”



"Symbolic" and "representative" - those are the key words in understanding the Welch's grape juice and the little cracker.Pretty simple,actually.


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 16, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't see it as making it up as I go... I see it as similar to how I am in my political views... I can't commit to either Democrat or Republican because neither one do I agree with 100%... so I'm Independent
> 
> And no, I'm not absolutely convinced... as I said in the previous post, there is something that was posted within the last 3 days that has me re-thinking a few things and having to do more reading and prayer about.  So I always learn something new from these discussions, that's why I come on this part of the forum.
> 
> ...



God bless you,too,D.D. May you have safe travel - spiritual AND automotive!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 16, 2008)

christianhunter said:


> Also show me the verse,where HE received it,my BIBLE says he didn't.




I did.... right under the first verse. John 19:30
Not sure which version your bible is, but every version at Blueletterbible.org said he received it.  And they have every version from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, Youngs Literal Translation, etc.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 16, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> God bless you,too,D.D. May you have safe travel - spiritual AND automotive!



Thank you! It was a gorgeous day and we had a great time 
I can't stay on much tonight to reply to much else,  my clinicals start in the morning so I've got to turn in 'early' tonight 

I'll try and bounce in and out when I can this week 
Hope y'all have a good one!


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 16, 2008)

I'm ashamed,I made a statement without checking first,thats what the verse says,and I will not twist words,and change the meaning.May The LORD JESUS forgive me,for misquoting The Holy Word,it was not intentional,and I publicly ask HIS forgiveness!
You still remain very selective,as to what you quote,I promise I will never rebuke again,without first checking.FATHER forgive me.I also deleted the error from the previous post.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 18, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I did.... right under the first verse. John 19:30
> Not sure which version your bible is, but every version at Blueletterbible.org said he received it. And they have every version from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, Youngs Literal Translation, etc.


 
I don't want to be nickpicking, but we do not know that Jesus drank it. John said he recieved it. That could mean that he drank, or simply that he recieved the offer, but not that he had to accept it. He could have taken it in the mouth and tasted it, and spit it out just as he did with the vinegar mixed with gall before.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was only offered. (Matt 27:47) (Mark 15:36) (Luke 23:36)

Also, the substances were not the same.

The sour wine (vinegar) was much different from what the fruit of the vine (wine or grape juice) used in the passover of the last supper.

Jesus said he would not drink of this fruit of the vine until with them in heaven. Because it was a communion it sacred in the fact of what it was being used for. Just as a glass of wine drank at a dinner is not the same as one at communion, even though it is the same substance because of it's purpose.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 20, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Just as a glass of wine drank at a dinner is not the same as one at communion, even though it is the same substance because of it's purpose.


Absolutely!


----------

