What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I have a serious question, believers

DivineNames said:
Solo said:
It was fine for Jesus to do as he saw fit. When he judges your unbelief you can ask him who was more righteous in life, him or you.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that Jesus could do whatever he liked, and still have "kept" the Torah.

In which case, you are using the words in a different way to everyone else. The claim we would naturally think you were making, is not actually what you are saying. Well OK, but Jesus did not keep all of the Torah that applied to him, in the normal meaning of that sentence.

Some Christians seem to think that Jesus would have a "right" to change the law. (As Jesus is God.) Even if we assume that Jesus had a "right" to change the law, it wouldn't change the fact that it would be inconsistent to do so, as the law was "forever" I believe. Jesus would make God dishonest if Jesus tried to alter the law.
Click to expand...
Whatever Jesus sees as fit to do is perfectly just, and he will always be sinless. He never once broke the Law and he is perfect. You can know this truth as well when you become a believer. Until then you are just skating around wondering what is or what isn't. Good luck. I will continue to pray for you.
 
wavy said:
DivineNames said:
Jesus handed out leavened bread to his disciples at the last supper.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. I believe the meaning of the "bread" that was given was lost in translation and the general word for "bread" was used. There's no need to play semantics here. I don't believe there would be a need to say "unleavened bread" in those passages as that would already be understood. Why keep the feast at all if not to do it right ?
Click to expand...

Lost in translation? Could you expand on that?

I believe the Gospel writers knew the word for unleavened bread, they used it themselves. If they wanted to say unleavened bread, they could have done so. They chose to use the word for regular bread.

Why keep the feast at all if not to do it right?

Well I think Jesus was concerned to get people eating his "body" and "blood".
 
Solo said:
Where does God command the Jews to be fruitful and multiply as a commandment?
Click to expand...

Genesis 1:28 is regarded as a commandment.
 
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28 NIV)
Click to expand...


Solo, is this only for Adam and Eve? Would their own children be able to "fill the earth and subdue it"? Adam and Eve may have lived a long time, but they couldn't have had that many children...
 
DivineNames said:
It doesn't say unleavened bread, it says regular bread.
Click to expand...

This depends on how you play the semantics. Perhaps "lost in translation" was not the right term to use...

Okay, let's say I told you about the annual green bean dinner experience I had at my house.

I write you a letter about it. And say "the green bean feast was real cool. had a lot of family members over. my dad spilled the beans all over the floor though..."

I don't have to specifically indicate green beans that my dad spilled because you understand the beans to be the beans of the green bean feast.

Super-semantically you could make the argument. But I don't think the gospel writers were consciously thinking, "oh, I must indicate unleavened bread."

It's just bread. Unleavened bread is still bread. The semantic meaning does not need to be supplied in this case as distinguished from unleavened bread.

Whenever you see "bread" in English for instance, you are not obligated to think of "oh, that's bread that has yeast as opposed to bread that doesn't have yeast."

You get it? I know that probably sounded confusing. I can probably find an example in the Septuagint, but I'm too lazy to look...
 
wavy said:
Okay, let's say I told you about the annual green bean dinner experience I had at my house.

I write you a letter about it. And say "the green bean feast was real cool. had a lot of family members over. my dad spilled the beans all over the floor though..."

I don't have to specifically indicate green beans that my dad spilled because you understand the beans to be the beans of the green bean feast.
Click to expand...

This example is a little different. You would assume that the beans spilled were green. In the case of the Passover meal, you would assume they would have had unleavened bread. Until it mentions regular bread perhaps...
 
Wavy repeats said:
Super-semantically you could make the argument. But I don't think the gospel writers were consciously thinking, "oh, I must indicate unleavened bread."

It's just bread. Unleavened bread is still bread. The semantic meaning does not need to be supplied in this case as distinguished from unleavened bread.

Whenever you see "bread" in English for instance, you are not obligated to think of "oh, that's bread that has yeast as opposed to bread that doesn't have yeast."

You get it? I know that probably sounded confusing. I can probably find an example in the Septuagint, but I'm too lazy to look...
Click to expand...
 
There is no argument here. The Bible nowhere indicates Jesus served "regular" bread. The Feast was The Feast of unleavened bread. Jeus broke bread with them on the first day of this feast. To assume it isn't unleaved bread because the Bivle doesn't specifically say so is foolishness. My 14 year ofl nephew would come to the conclusion as I if he were to read this.

Please divine, lets not argue simply for argument's sake.
 
Jesus could not sin nor would he if he could.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9
 
wavy said:
I don't believe there would be a need to say "unleavened bread" in those passages as that would already be understood. Why keep the feast at all if not to do it right ?
Click to expand...

Vic said:
There is no argument here. The Bible nowhere indicates Jesus served "regular" bread. The Feast was The Feast of unleavened bread. Jeus broke bread with them on the first day of this feast. To assume it isn't unleaved bread because the Bivle doesn't specifically say so is foolishness.
Click to expand...

The argument seems to be that we should just assume that Jesus would have been keeping the law. Total nonsense. We can make no such assumption.

This was part of Jesus getting people to eat his "body" and drink his "blood". Well isn't drinking the blood of a sacrifice a pagan practice that had been banned by Yahweh? Isn't it breaking the Torah? Not all Christians think this is talking about literal blood, but then it would still be an act that is symbolic of something that is against the Torah.

So tell me, why on earth should we just assume that Jesus would be keeping the law?
 
DivineNames said:
The argument seems to be that we should just assume that Jesus would have been keeping the law. Total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Total nonsense? So he half did it? Was he "partial" in keeping it?

We can make no such assumption.
Click to expand...

We can if we assume he wasn't killed justly:

Deuteronomy 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deuteronomy 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for יהוה your God proveth you, to know whether ye love יהוה your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deuteronomy 13:4 Ye shall walk after יהוה your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deuteronomy 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from יהוה your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which יהוה thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Not all Christians think this is talking about literal blood, but then it would still be an act that is symbolic of something that is against the Torah.
Click to expand...

I guess. Still doesn't mean he broke it or advocated breaking it.

So tell me, why on earth should we just assume that Jesus would be keeping the law?
Click to expand...

He would have been killed much earlier than he was for one thing. Secondly, the above scripture. And thirdly, because we must assume he kept only parts of it, like being circumcised and wearing tzitziyot (fringes/tassels).
 
wavy said:
He would have been killed much earlier than he was for one thing. Secondly, the above scripture. And thirdly, because we must assume he kept only parts of it, like being circumcised and wearing tzitziyot (fringes/tassels).
Click to expand...


what does the above scripture prove?

He didn't have children, he didn't keep that part. He allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath...
 
wavy said:
DivineNames said:
Not all Christians think this is talking about literal blood, but then it would still be an act that is symbolic of something that is against the Torah.
Click to expand...

I guess. Still doesn't mean he broke it or advocated breaking it.
Click to expand...


I think the major Christian interpretation is that its real blood. Thats breaking the Torah. Why should we assume that he wouldn't be breaking the Torah with leavened bread?
 
DivineNames said:
He didn't have children, he didn't keep that part.
Click to expand...

Doesn't apply to him. That was for a specific purpose. One of the 613 commandments, but that is only according to traditional Rabbis (assuming you are referring to "be fruitful and multiply").

Zecharyah and Elizabeth didn't have any children until the angel came and said they would, yet before he did, Luke says they were walking "blameless".

He allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath...
Click to expand...

That is not a violation of the sabbath. That comes from a misunderstanding, as far as I know, of Deuteronomy 23:25. You have to understand that there were many interpretations of the Torah by the Jewish leaders...

The fault of many people is when they see Yahshua breaking their fences, they think he is breaking true Torah.

He said himself:

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

According to you, he hardly could have said this without being a hypocrite. And again, I direct you to Deuteronomy 13:1-5. You are saying he was rightfully crucified and hung on a tree for being a rebellious son (law of a rebellious son found in Deuteronomy 21:18-23).
 
Solo said:
It was fine for Jesus to do as he saw fit. When he judges your unbelief you can ask him who was more righteous in life, him or you.
Click to expand...


"It was fine for Jesus to do as he saw fit"


If I was also in the position where its, "fine to do as I see fit", then I could easily live a life without sin. So could anyone. It would be impossible not to. Jesus would have to concede the point, and admit that there was nothing impressive about living a life without sin under those circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top