- This topic has 25,905 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 6 hours, 59 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
You can’t have one without the other.
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
While the term “Jew” is derived from “Judah,” one of the 12 tribes of Israel, it came to represent the people of Israel as a whole, particularly after the Babylonian Exile.
Historically, the 12 tribes of Israel were descended from the 12 sons of Jacob (also known as Israel). The tribe of Judah became particularly prominent because King David and King Solomon were from this tribe, and Jerusalem, located in the territory of Judah, became the religious and political center of ancient Israel.
After the division of the Kingdom of Israel following Solomon’s reign, the northern kingdom retained the name “Israel” (made up of 10 tribes), while the southern kingdom became “Judah,” consisting mainly of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. However, after the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in 722 BCE, many of the northern tribes were dispersed and became known as the “Lost Tribes of Israel.”
In time, the term “Jew” came to refer to anyone who was part of the broader Israelite population, especially after the Babylonian exile, when the people of Judah returned to their land and the northern tribes had largely disappeared. Today, “Jew” refers to anyone who is part of the Jewish religion or ethnicity, regardless of which tribe they are originally from.
A lesson in God’s mercy and grace
God is the God who gave the Law, But that wasn’t all. He also gave us mercy and grace. One through Moses and the other through Jesus Christ.
You say the Jesus prophesied of his own death for the sins of others; I’ll ask again, when did God change his mind and say the innocent can take on the guilt of the wicked?
– @DesireTruthThe idea of the innocent bearing the guilt of the wicked is a key theme in the New Testament. It’s not about God changing His mind but rather a gradual revelation of His justice coupled with mercy. In the Old Testament, the sacrificial system, where innocent animals were offered for the sins of the people, foreshadowed the idea of substitutionary atonement. Prophetic passages like Isaiah 53 describe a suffering servant who would bear the sins of others, providing a foundation for this concept.
Throughout scripture, God’s plan for atonement unfolds progressively. While Ezekiel 18:20 emphasizes personal responsibility for sin, the sacrificial system consistently points to the possibility of atonement through substitution. This reaches its culmination in the New Testament with the life and sacrifice of Jesus, where He, the innocent, willingly takes on the sins of humanity. The key here is that Jesus’ sacrifice is voluntary and part of God’s eternal plan, fulfilling what was foreshadowed in earlier scriptures.
Rather than a change in God’s approach, this concept aligns justice and mercy in a unique way. Jesus’ sacrifice satisfies the need for justice (sin is punished), while at the same time offering grace, as the punishment is borne by another.
Even in our own legal system there are situations where someone else can pay the penalty for another’s wrongdoing. For example, if my son receives a speeding ticket, I can cover the fine, and the consequence is resolved on his behalf. However, I would only step in to pay if he genuinely regretted his actions. And why might I do that? Because I love him.
@Gene,
DT, Can’t believe your so ignorant that you ask such questions,
WOW!!! I see the Jesus shining in you! I find it funny when “christians” respond with personal attacks, it reveals their insecurity and puts a smile on my face when a simple question invokes an ire in them.
1….”FAITH IS, the substance of things hoped for, (how) by the “EVIDENCE” of things not seen. You need to get your own “proof” that God does actually exist, and is involved in you life. Without that you have only “suppositions” gained by hear sayer, as it appears you now have, by your words. You don’t seem to have proven God is actually in your life yet.
Now that you have given me the Christian definition; now explain the “faith” of Abraham. Christians have “hope”; Abraham believed, trusted, and knew God would do as HE said HE would – Abraham’s faith. Not sure you’ll see the difference.
I don’t “need proof” of the existence of God, I already know he is and always has been; you have an issue because I say I don’t “need” the Jesus; your religion tells you the only way to God is thru the Jesus. God never said that by the way.
2…..God in scripture says, “Be you “HOLY” , because I am holy, be you “PERFECT” because I am PERFECT”.
To whom was God speaking “you shall be holy, because I am holy.” Wasn’t it the Israelite’s…sure was, in Lev 11:44 & 45 and what was the context of this statement? Let’s start in verse 43:
43 You must not defile yourselves with any swarmer that swarms, and you must not make yourselves unclean by them and so be made unclean by them,
44 because I am Yahweh your God, and you must keep yourselves sanctified, so that you shall be holy, because I am holy. And you must not make yourselves unclean with any swarmer that moves along on the land,
45 because I am Yahweh, who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be for you as God. Thus you shall be holy, because I am holy.
Seems God was speaking to the Israelite’s about unclean things and they weren’t suppose to defile themselves with them so they remained holy. What’s your interpretation of this passage? Silence I’m sure.
Your next statement “be you perfect because I am perfect” isn’t even in your bible. HAHAHA!!! The verse is actually “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” and was said by the Jesus and NOT God. What’s this in context to; loving your enemies. Christianity sure does like to cherry pick everything!
Your last statement of me “having very little retention of scripture” is laughable; before you write something, you should probably confirm it first!
What are you talking about? I have said repeatedly that Jewish people are people of the tribe of Judah, to which is one tribe of the 12 tribes OF ISRAEL. This is not difficult, If you are of the tribe of Levi you are not Jewish/of the tribe of Judah, but both tribes of course are of Israel.
False! “Jew” isn’t a reference to a single tribe. You may want to consult a Jewish site and get your information from the source…a Jew – chabad.org (click it, article on Jewishness).
Concerning Isaiah 7, as I posted to you before, I have no problem with God giving in the OT a prophecy to events soon to take place that also foreshadow a second fulfillment to occur even later to which holds more significance. Isaiah 7 is just one and these only go to show how intelligent and powerful our God is in how He planned everything out. Isaiah 7 speaks of a child born and whose name will be called Immanuel, meaning God with us/or with us is God and who is not more of an Immanuel than the child born of Isaiah 9, to which I say is Jesus the anointed of God’s Spirit of Isaiah 42 and 61.
You “have know problem with God giving in the OT a prophecy to events soon to take place that also foreshadow a second fulfillment to occur even later to which holds more significance.” So did God say the prophecies, ones you believe will have a “second fulfillment”, have a “second fulfillment”? NOT ONE!
So you believe in “dual prophecy”; why stop at just two, why not three, four, or more, then we can have many different understandings. The bottom line is you have to “believe” what you believe is truth, facts and proofs seem to be meaningless; God never said anywhere prophecies given will have a multi purpose. Once again, FALSE! The prophecy in Isa 7:14 was specific to King Ahaz and only King Ahaz, making the writer of Matthew a liar for using it to point to the birth of the Jesus. Apparently you haven’t looked up almah and betulah.
Isaiah also states the mother will call her child Immanuel and the angel told Mary to name the child the Jesus. Another fail!
Isa 9 reference in Hebrew:
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.”
Your King Jimmy:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
They don’t say the same thing do they; one’s speaking in the past tense and the other the future. Which translation should I accept? The Hebrew bible speaks of God calling this child the “prince of peace.” If this is a reference to the Jesus, when was the government on his shoulder, when was he ever called “wonderful” or a “counselor”, is King Jimmy calling the Jesus, God and everlasting Father, how can the Jesus be a “prince” of peace and God and Father at the same time? I thought you believed the Jesus wasn’t divine let alone God.
Isa 42:19, your servant Jesus is blind!
Isa 61 isn’t about the Jesus, it’s Isaiah speaking about himself.
Jesus was born of the Spirit without measure and by such he was able to follow all of God’s commands. God was able to perfect this man through His Spirit. The Spirit of God in this Son of Man is proof that righteousness and unrelenting faith in God can thus be accomplished in all men as what God can accomplish in one He can certainly accomplish in all. Where the Spirit is there is life and we see Jesus raised from the dead and promised to be a firstborn of many brethren. DT, do you believe in self-righteousness or in the works of God’s Spirit? Did giving the law to Israel cause righteousness or did it reveal man’s weaknesses where sin abounded? God can forgive the worlds sins by one man, because the one man is proof that it actually takes God’s Spirit dwelling in you to be righteous. Don’t you see, forgiveness comes to all because no other had been given the Spirit without measure as he did and it is the Spirit that actually causes righteousness? We are not self-righteous we are bound to sin and death, only God with His Spirit is the source to righteousness and life. Our faith in God and hope is in that we too will receive God’s Spirit as that of Jesus Christ. This is not some wicked deception, it is truth. The purpose of Christ is that our faith and hope be in God, that as Jesus is so we shall be, and as Jesus is, is one who has been born of God’s Spirit. This is what Paul teaches, but to you he is wicked as well You went from the darkness that is of mainstream Christianity to a new rabbit hole of darkness.
How was Noah righteous? What did Abraham do to be called righteous and God’s friend? Why was Job blameless and upright? Enoch and Elijah never saw death, What made Daniel precious to God? David was called “blameless”, Zacharias and Elisabeth where both righteous before God (Luke)? (Didn’t Paul say no one was “righteous”, apparently he never read the Tanakh) Nowhere in these accounts does it speak of being filled with any “spirit” and becoming “righteous.” What did they do to be considered “righteous”, “blameless”, “upright”, and a “friend” AND not die?
You say “forgiveness comes to all because no other had been given the spirit without measure…and it is the spirit that actually causes righteousness.” When God said to repent, turn from your sin, and your sin will be remembered no more, was this a lie? Since God gave simple instructions to be forgiven, why does anyone need the Jesus?
You continue to say “the purpose of ‘Christ’ is that our faith and hope be in God”; because I’m incapable of having faith (knowing God will do what HE says) or placing my hope in God without the Jesus?
Your last statement gave me a good chuckle, don’t judge much do you! Being judgmental seems to be an inerrant characteristic of christianity. The “new rabbit hole of darkness” you say I have gone into is Noahide, what God expects of the rest of the world. You really should look into it. Christianity, pick a flavor, is the darkness you speak of since it puts another between you and God.
DT,
YOU: You say the Jesus prophesied of his own death for the sins of others; I’ll ask again, when did God change his mind and say the innocent can take on the guilt of the wicked?
ME: I explained this to you thoroughly with scriptural examples, but your response was to ignore it and change the subject. God didn’t change his mind, you misinterpret that passage as I spoke to before. Did not the punishment given to Eve, God then cast upon her daughters after her who had not committed the sin she committed? I bore 2 children so I know for a fact I received a punishment directly because of another’s sin. Do you not have any concept of what it’s like to be a farmer? Thorns and thistles had only surrounded Adam and Eve’s home I suppose you want to tell me? In the day of judgment each will be judged according to themselves, not according to their father, but to say that God’s punishments given since Adam and Eve didn’t directly also effect their children is absurd.
Further, Adam and Eve’s punishment was that they would die which meant they were given weak mortal flesh that could die one way or another, which that too was cast upon all of humanity, right? If you can acknowledge this truth then perhaps you could then see the truth in Jesus Christ.
We were given curses, including weak mortal flesh that could die, because of another’s sin, but yet it’s then outrageous to think that we could receive grace and immortal flesh that cannot die because of another’s righteousness? It’s outrageous to think that the lesson is that God is the source, that we need His Spirit to be made righteous?
Your explanation doesn’t answer the question. What does Adam and Eve have to do with God changing his mind and saying the innocent can take on the guilt of the wicked. You’ve given zero passages that support this as God said the wicked are responsible for their wickedness. I haven’t read a single passage that said God changed his mind and now the innocent are responsible for other’s wickedness.
Please provide the passage I have “misinterpreted” and offer an explanation as to why I have “misinterpreted” it. Fix my “misunderstanding.”
Thankfully you used the correct term of “punishment” and not “curse” for what God said to Adam and Eve; God cursed the serpent and the ground, NOT either of them. God’s punishment to Eve was there would be an increase in pain during the pregnancy and birth, not that she went from no pain to having lots of pain. For Adam, he would work harder to produce food. HOWEVER, to equate the punishment given to Adam and Eve, and all of mankind, to what was said in Ex 20:5 “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me” is rubbish!
God never called what they did a sin, sin isn’t mentioned anywhere in the conversation to them. “Sin” is first mentioned in chapter four when God is speaking to Cain and says “If you do well will I not accept you? But if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. And its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” We can banter back and forth whether what Adam and Eve did was a sin, but is a waste of time; the important take away is what God said to Cain. Even though sin is waiting and desiring you, YOU are to rule over it, YOU have control over sin; not the other way around. Paul teaches sin controls you; and you wonder why I call him a liar?!!? Why aren’t you!!!
Onto the Exodus passage, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.” Do a parallel of this verse, the Hebrew word “avon” is translated to “iniquity”; “avon” is intentional sins. When the father of said child commits intentional sins and the child continues in their father’s footsteps, they will also receive the same punishment as their father. It is in this sense God’s punishment will be passed down. How do you not see this?!?!? I know why you don’t see this; you rely on the translated words of the Hebrew scripture verses looking at the Hebrew for understanding.
What I’ve discovered in the Tanakh (Torah, Writings) focuses on the here and now and our relationship with God and others; christianity is focused on the afterlife and because they are focused on the afterlife, they missed the here and now.
Having been on the christian side of religion, if you aren’t of the christian faith, you’re judged; if you aren’t of a particular faith, your judged. Fear is used to “convert” people into the “faith.” You have the audacity (judge me) to say I’m in darkness for having been in mainstream christianity, except I walked away from “mainstream christianity” before I joined this site. What I didn’t do, was stop studying; I continued to dig deeper and didn’t become stagnate in religion because I knew there was more beyond what religion called truth. What’s beautiful, once you see the truth, you can’t unsee it; God is the center, God is the source, God doesn’t “need” anyone to represent HIM or work on HIS behalf. HE should be all you or anyone needs…period! Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one. You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. Where’s your Jesus in this; how can you love God with all your heart, soul, might when your love, devotion, trust, and faith is in the Jesus?
P.S.
Concerning the “recovering of sight to the blind” I absolutely find it corruption “for the Messiah to extend on what Isaiah said” because he added to what Isaiah said, and Isaiah received his words from God. Just like what Eve did when she added “not to touch the fruit” when God only said to not eat of it.
To say he was reading from a scroll that may have had this phrase in it; PLEASE find me a Hebrew translation that has “recovering of sight to the blind” in it! The Jesus went to a synagogue and was handed a scroll that would have been written in Hebrew. I have found ONE translation that actually has the phrase in it, the Septuagint, which most will call corrupt, and do you think the Jesus was reading from a Greek translation in a synagogue?!?!?
You say the Jesus prophesied of his own death for the sins of others; I’ll ask again, when did God change his mind and say the innocent can take on the guilt of the wicked?
The idea of the innocent bearing the guilt of the wicked is a key theme in the New Testament. It’s not about God changing His mind but rather a gradual revelation of His justice coupled with mercy. In the Old Testament, the sacrificial system, where innocent animals were offered for the sins of the people, foreshadowed the idea of substitutionary atonement. Prophetic passages like Isaiah 53 describe a suffering servant who would bear the sins of others, providing a foundation for this concept.
Throughout scripture, God’s plan for atonement unfolds progressively. While Ezekiel 18:20 emphasizes personal responsibility for sin, the sacrificial system consistently points to the possibility of atonement through substitution. This reaches its culmination in the New Testament with the life and sacrifice of Jesus, where He, the innocent, willingly takes on the sins of humanity. The key here is that Jesus’ sacrifice is voluntary and part of God’s eternal plan, fulfilling what was foreshadowed in earlier scriptures.
Rather than a change in God’s approach, this concept aligns justice and mercy in a unique way. Jesus’ sacrifice satisfies the need for justice—sin is punished—while at the same time offering grace, as the punishment is borne by another.
You say the “key theme” of the NT is “the innocent bearing the guilt of the wicked” and to make this claim calls G-d a liar. Everywhere in the Tanakh it is said the guilty are held accountable for their guilt, not the other way around. Would you walk into a courtroom and tell the judge to let the murder go and you will serve his punishment? If not, why not? After all that’s the “key theme” of the NT. Since the Jesus did it for all of mankind, you couldn’t do it for a single person, why don’t you live by the same example and assume another’s guilt?
The sacrificial system wasn’t entirely about a blood sacrifice since flour could be used for atonement. We also find incense and monetary donations would also atone. What about the city of Nineveh, all they did was cry out to G-d in a loud voice for forgiveness and G-d forgave them. David tells us a repentant heart is more desirable than blood. Blood isn’t required! A false teaching of christianity.
Isa 53 isn’t about the Messiah.
Progressive fulfillment is a man made idea to explain how the Jesus could be the messiah. Is “grace” or “mercy” a NT thing…hardly.
Maybe you can explain why I need the Jesus when G-d said to repent, turn from your sin, and HE’LL remember it no more; but christianity says I need the Jesus to be forgiven. The Tanakh teaches, G-d is our salvation; if anyone can go directly to G-d, why does anyone need the Jesus? What is the purpose or function of the Jesus?
You say, “Jesus’ sacrifice satisfies the need for justice—sin is punished—while at the same time offering grace, as the punishment is borne by another.” Can’t wait for Gene to chime in on this statement, because it sounds like the Jesus took on the punishment due us for our sin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
