- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Atlantic op-ed claims Catholic rosary has become ‘an extremist symbol’
Posted on 8/22/22 at 3:58 pm to Frank Black
Posted on 8/22/22 at 3:58 pm to Frank Black
quote:
Let a Jewish Rabbi explain Leviticus to you
Why would I accept the advice from a Rabbi who denies Jesus as the messiah and would have a vested interest to deny any correlation between the sacrifice of a spotless lamb in the Old Testament and
Jesus, the lamb of God?
Why do you think God told the Israelites to smear lambs blood on their doorpost to spare death from the death Angel?
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 4:02 pm
1
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Again with the dishonesty
Thanks, but The author of Hebrews explained that the shedding of blood was required for forgiveness by God, so I'll go with that interpretation.
A good rule of thumb for you: when the NT writers interpret the OT, take the NT's interpretation.
Btw, which OT passage was Hebrews interpreting? The rabbis say There is no such passage in their scriptures. Could you point it out to me? Which OT verse was Hebrews quoting?
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:07 pm to Revelator
quote:According to the book of Exodus it was so the death angel would know which houses contained Jews and which houses contained Egyptians
Why do you think God told the Israelites to smear lambs blood on their doorpost to spare death from the death Angel?
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:08 pm to Frank Black
quote:
According to the book of Exodus it was so the death angel would know which houses contained Jews and which houses contained Egyptians
Why not ask them to put a candle in the window instead?
Surely you can’t deny the significance of the lambs blood?
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:22 pm to Revelator
quote:I don't know what the significance is from a contextual POV. I know what it is from a Christian POV. But it takes a good deal of eisegesis to arrive there. Certainly none of the Jews in Egypt understood it the way you understand it
Surely you can’t deny the significance of the lambs blood?
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:26 pm to Revelator
quote:
Yes it’s an offering for the sin committed. The offering is tied to a specific sin and requires a specific sacrifice. How can you possibly say the two are unrelated?
Once again, let a Jewish rabbi explain the verse to you. He also explains how Christians misinterpret the verse. You'll learn something if you'll take the time to read it
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:27 pm to Frank Black
A Rabbi saying Christians are wrong?
Say it ain’t so!
Say it ain’t so!
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:29 pm to Frank Black
quote:Please elaborate for me.
Again with the dishonesty
quote:It wasn't a quote but an allusion to the blood sacrifices of the OT and the representation of life that is in the blood. I quoted Lev. 17 for you already, but the blood sacrifices for sin (Lev. 4) were surely also in mind. This goes all the way back to Gen. 9:4-6, talking about the shedding of blood (sin of murder) requiring shedding of blood as a reckoning.
Btw, which OT passage was Hebrews interpreting? The rabbis say There is no such passage in their scriptures. Could you point it out to me? Which OT verse was Hebrews quoting?
Let's not forget that John (in spite of your refusal to acknowledge his gospel as scripture) narrates how Jesus was called the "lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). That would have been something strange to say if there wasn't some sort of correlation between an animal that takes away sin (by its shedding of blood).
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:31 pm to Revelator
quote:How can you be so smug? Would you smugly say, "A Christian saying a rabbi is wrong? Say it ain't so." Of course you wouldn't.
A Rabbi saying Christians are wrong?
Say it ain’t so!
Did you even take the time to read it? Are you that afraid of reading something that might challenge your theology?
How about reading it, then telling me where he's wrong?
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:33 pm to Frank Black
quote:What Jesus pointed out time and time again was that the Jews were blinded and did not understand the truth. God's revelation was progressive, coming to the Jews in types and shadows which they didn't all understand. Jesus was the fulfillment of those things and He was able to explain how all of the OT pointed to Himself (Luke 24:27).
I don't know what the significance is from a contextual POV. I know what it is from a Christian POV. But it takes a good deal of eisegesis to arrive there. Certainly none of the Jews in Egypt understood it the way you understand it
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:That's an absolutely unfounded, monstrous, even heretical statement
God's revelation was progressive
You sound like a Mormon. I know you're not, but you and they agree on the subject of progressive revelation.
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:36 pm to Frank Black
quote:Here's how the logic flows:
How can you be so smug? Would you smugly say, "A Christian saying a rabbi is wrong? Say it ain't so." Of course you wouldn't.
Did you even take the time to read it? Are you that afraid of reading something that might challenge your theology?
How about reading it, then telling me where he's wrong?
1. The Bible is the infallible word of God
2. The Bible teaches that the shedding of blood takes away sin
3. Given that the Bible teaches that blood must be shed to take away sin, and given that the Bible is the infallible word of God, then it follows that anyone who contradicts that teaching from the Bible is in error (including Jewish Rabbis).
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:47 pm to Frank Black
quote:No it's not. You must not understand progressive revelation. It's quite orthodox to believe that God's revelation increased over time and with greater clarity, culminating with Jesus Christ and ending with the Apostles.
That's an absolutely unfounded, monstrous, even heretical statement
quote:They might agree with the orthodox view of progressive revelation, but they disagree on where it stops. I believe it stopped with the Apostles. The Mormons believed it carried on with Joseph Smith. I disagree with the Mormons.
You sound like a Mormon. I know you're not, but you and they agree on the subject of progressive revelation.
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 4:50 pm to Frank Black
quote:
How can you be so smug? Would you smugly say, "A Christian saying a rabbi is wrong? Say it ain't so." Of course you wouldn't. Did you even take the time to read it? Are you that afraid of reading something that might challenge your theology?
I’m reading it now, and yes I was a little smug, but why would anyone who doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah correlate the Old Testament blood sacrifices with the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?
Of course he views things from a Jewish perspective. This isn’t surprising.
Hebrews 10:1
¶ For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin
5 ¶ Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me
11 ¶ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds ( the Jews) were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 5:09 pm to Revelator
I just want FooManChoo to sing a capella psalms now that I know hes reformed Presbyterian.
also what are your thoughts on what John Calvin did in Geneva?
I've read that many reverted Protestants (should say Presbyterians/Calvinists/that branch of protestantism)look back at his beliefs and his time a Geneva and turn back to Catholicism...also when they look at St Augustine.
in fact I've always heard the saying "to study history is to become Catholic"
also what are your thoughts on what John Calvin did in Geneva?
I've read that many reverted Protestants (should say Presbyterians/Calvinists/that branch of protestantism)look back at his beliefs and his time a Geneva and turn back to Catholicism...also when they look at St Augustine.
in fact I've always heard the saying "to study history is to become Catholic"
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 5:23 pm to gaetti15
quote:I do.
I just want FooManChoo to sing a capella psalms now that I know hes reformed Presbyterian.
quote:He tried to show mercy to Servetus by warning him not to come to Geneva. Servetus was wanted by both Catholics and Protestants as a heretic, and had Servetus been arrested in France (where his effigy was burned after he escaped), he would have suffered the same fate at the hands of the Catholics. When arrested in Geneva, several other city councils were consulted and they agreed that Servetus should be put to death (which was enshrined in the law at the time). Calvin actually petitioned to have him killed by the sword so he wouldn't suffer as much, but his request was denied and Servetus was burned.
also what are your thoughts on what John Calvin did in Geneva?
Calvin was a product of his times, and based on what Calvin did to influence Servetus and the Council of Geneva, he was more merciful than the government was at the time.
Also, Calvin was a sinner like everyone else. His sins do not nullify his theological insights into the scriptures.
quote:People convert to Catholicism for all sorts of reasons. It doesn't mean that Catholicism is correct, any more than converting to Mormonism makes Mormonism correct. Studying history has actually made me more confident and assured in my beliefs.
I've read that many reverted Protestants (should say Presbyterians/Calvinists/that branch of protestantism)look back at his beliefs and his time a Geneva and turn back to Catholicism...also when they look at St Augustine.
in fact I've always heard the saying "to study history is to become Catholic"
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 5:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
converting to Mormonism makes Mormonism correct.
can we agree they are a cult?
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 5:27 pm to gaetti15
quote:We can agree on that
can we agree they are a cult?
Posted on 8/22/22 at 6:39 pm to gaetti15
quote:
However, there are degrees of sin. Venial and mortal
This unscriptural belief is based on another Catholic misconception, and that is our sins are somehow weighed against our good works on some giant scale at judgment to see where we end up. That’s why emphasis is placed of rating sin.
This post was edited on 8/22/22 at 6:43 pm
Posted on 8/22/22 at 6:47 pm to Frank Black
quote:
There was no sacrifice in the OT for sin committed knowingly.
How would you interpret this:
quote:
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,“If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely—in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby— if he has sinned and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt. And he shall bring to the priest as his compensation to the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty.”
Also, I am currently working my way through many of the great books of the West, and I will be sprinkling in Muslim and Jewish thinkers once I finish with the Roman authors. I presume you are Jewish or at least interested enough in Judaism to study Jewish apologetics. I have not yet done any research into what Jewish thinkers I will read except forJosephus and Maimonides. Do you have any recommendations?
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News