Does anyone actually take this Aguest fellow serious?
She is a sweet, kind woman with faults like all of us. Do I believe she is holiness filled? I have no reason to think otherwise. Is her truth my truth? Not always.
How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?
by jonathan dough 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Robdar
-
Robdar
I find the bottom quote from the Time article interesting.
I found that interesting too. There is a lot of information out there regarding the subject. Did you read the second link I provided?
Here is some of it:
The method increasingly chosen by theologians who wish to understand anew the interdependence of Christianity and Judaism is to focus on the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Judaism of his day, and then to extrapolate some contemporary theological challenges for modern Christians and Jews. Examining this relationship leaves little doubt that Jesus had some significant identification with Pharisaism. Scholars agree that the New Testament portrait of Jews, and especially of Pharisees, is in large part distorted and inaccurate. The specific relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees, however, remains a subject of debate. Some argue that Jesus was himself a Pharisee, calling from within for the charismatic renewal of that popular form of Second Temple Judaism; others argue that he was a prophetic itinerant evangelist, heavily influenced by Pharisaism but not specifically allied with it. The arguments that Jesus was himself a Pharisee appear to be more convincing, for there is little in his uncontested words to suggest that he stood at all outside that movement.
Like the Pharisees, Jesus held himself apart from non-Jews, referring to them variously as swine or dogs. His manner of dress was consistent with that of the Pharisees, as was his way of calling disciples. His devotion to the Torah exhibits a knowledge of both written and oral law (a basic definition of Pharisaism as opposed to Sadducism and Essenism), and he repeatedly affirmed the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal life of the soul. Above all, we find normative Pharisaic teachings echoed again and again in his words. Phrases such as "No one can serve two masters," "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are all directly traceable to Pharisaism in the Second Temple period. The Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer exhibit a typically Pharisaic theology. For these and many other reasons, it would seem not unreasonable to think of Jesus as a Pharisee calling for the renewal of that movement which was itself already a movement of renewal within Judaism.
-
Chalam
Hello Lilly and welcome!
Thank you for your response. I agree that many Christians take the bible too literally. for example did Eve actually eat a piece of literal fruit from a tree of knowlege in a garden? Probably not.
I wonder how you draw the line with this thinking? Are Adam and Eve only metaphoric as Moshe believes?
This can quickly snowball, before you know if Jesus is only symbolic and not literal Does anyone here believe that Jesus never existed?
The same problem exists with believing the bible has errors. What can you trust is true if the bible contains mistakes?
I find when we Christians take things too literal we look stupid and we alienate people of different views and religious beliefs.
The "multi-faith" church thinking is growing. Where does one draw the line there? Christianity inclusive of Mormonism? Islam? The Church of Satan?
Blessings,
Stephen
-
jonathan dough
YOU: The NT states that because of the New covenant the old Covenant would become obsolete meaning it would soon disappear. See Hebrews 8:13. This is not the same as saying the old covenant was completey made null and void. Any promises God made specifically to the nation of Isreal either were fulfilled or will be fulfilled as God does not go back on his promises. See Isaiah 55:11.
For Christians Christ fulfilled the law but did not abolish the law.
ME: Your contradicting yourself. Are you talking about the Law or the promise? The promise was conditional with respect to fleshly Jews. If it was abolished and disappeared you can't say the promise is still valid. As for the Law, it was nailed to the cross. And if Romans can be interpreted to finally bring in the Jews, down the road, it's not through the Law.
-
jonathan dough
Did you read the second link I provided?
Yes, I did. But even though they had some things in common, I thought a Pharisee was formally trained? Christ wasn't.
-
Robdar
I thought a Pharisee was formally trained? Christ wasn't
Are you sure about that?
-
jonathan dough
me: I thought a Pharisee was formally trained? Christ wasn't
You: Are you sure about that?
Whether Pharisees were formally trained? I'm not the Jew. I don't know, hence the question mark. I assumed it as they were part of the ruling class and Paul was formally trained. I know Christ wasn't because that was one of the accusations against Him.
-
Pistoff
The Jews blew it, just like they seemed to almost always do so, constantly backsliding and denying the Almighty in deed.
Wow; all I can say is get the hell off this board. Anti semitism belongs somewhere else.
Seriously, get off this board, you don't belong here.
-
jonathan dough
The Jews blew it, just like they seemed to almost always do so, constantly backsliding and denying the Almighty in deed.
Wow; all I can say is get the hell off this board. Anti semitism belongs somewhere else.
Seriously, get off this board, you don't belong here.
That's not anti-semitic. Try reading all of my posts you bone-head. And read the OT. It confirms everything I said. I'll repost some of it for you.
"Supplant" in the sense that it was nailed to the cross by Christ's sacrifice. Not by force, but out of love. The Jews blew it, just like they seemed to almost always do so, constantly backsliding and denying the Almighty in deed.
Much of the OT is a litany of condemnation by God of the Jews who were vile in God's eyes century after century. Hence the destruction by Babylon and at other times. He never chose the Jews as his people for anything grand that they did but due to His promise to Abraham. He was stuck with a stiff-necked people. Out with the old, in with the new.
And no, I'm not being anti-semitic. They hold a special place in my heart as a whole.
-
Pistoff
Really, dough boy, you are just the latest in a long line of fundies that post here.
The name is different, but the reasoning the same.
You take the OT literally, rather than seriously, and mistake the whole spirit of how it was compiled and how it was intended.
It is not literal; no other literary source and no archaeological evidence has been found to support the mighty reign of David, or of Solomon, or of the exodus from Egypt; they are literary forms. The OT bears unmistakable signs of being blended from at least 3 separate sources, and edited by a 4th.
Mainstream jews do NOT read the OT literally like fundies do. They don't believe that Daniel survived a lion's den. They do understand that the book of Daniel was apocalyptic, born of an identity crisis in the 160's due to the influence of the Hasmonean dynasty.
AND no evidence exists for Jesus the Christ; no evidence for miracles, or resurrection, or any of it. NOT EVEN IN PAUL'S WRITINGS. None. It is all based on faith. Which makes it real to you, but not real.
So before you pontificate about the Jews and what they did and didn't do, how about the Christians, eh? Have they formulated a world of ethics like the Jews? Did the Christians make the world better?
Or did christian based religion rule the dark ages?