Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:20:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020905174725.R91660-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, if you could, when you get to around column 75 or so in your email
software, if you could hit enter and start a new line, it would be
most appreciated! Thanks..
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote:
> > > Funny, I don't think the "OT" seemed to indicate that one is
> > > supposed to junk it at some point in the future in favor of
> > > worshiping the messiah.
> >
> > Neither do I. But to reject everything that the OT pointed forward
> > to is just as bad. I have a higher regard for the "OT" than you
> > seem to assume.
>
> I don't assume you have a low regard for the "OT", though your calling
> "OT Judaism" (a phrase meant to deligitimize existant Judaism) an
> "aborted version" of your religion doesn't sound like you think too
> highly of Judaism.
The reason I make the distinction is because, as Christ said,
Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and my view of the Old Testament
sufficiently differs from yours as to make the distinction
relevant. The apostle Paul regarded Christians to be the true
heirs of Abraham, a point you obviously reject.
> > > > Orthodox Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and
> > > > redemption, which means man can never know if he is in a right
> > > > relationship with God.
> > >
> > > Orthodox Judaism does not repudiate the superiority of the Temple as
> > > a vehicle for inner repentance; we (I am an Orthodox Jew) pray every
> > > day for the Temple's restoration because of that.
> >
> > What you have failed to realize is that Christ is the true temple
> > of which the physical temple was only a shadow. This is the same
>
> Make up your mind, is he a temple, a god, or a messiah? Perhaps a Mithra?
He is the temple. The true temple to which the physical temple was
only a shadow. Do you not understand the concept of symbolism and
typology? He is not *a* god, he is God, the same God who spoke to
Moses in the burning bush. He made this clear in John's gospel. He
is also the Messiah. I know you don't accept these things, but if
you are going to challenge Christian doctrine at least get it right.
Why do you find it so difficult to grasp that he is all three? He
is also prophet, priest, and king. Is this so difficult to
understand?
>
> > error the pharisees made when they mistakenly thought that Jesus
> > was talking about the literal temple in John 2:19-22. How can a
> > temple built with human hands make atonement for sin?
>
> You didn't read what I said. I said a "vehicle" for "inner repentance".
> Without that inner repentance, which can be effectuated in all
> circumstances, the Temple was indeed useless. This is another New
> Testament misrepresentation of the Pharasiac position; of course this is
> not the only or the worst misrepresentatation of the Pharasees, of whom
> Orthodox Judaism is decendeded, in the New Testament. (The worst one of
> course is when it represents the Sanhedrin of the kind and holy Rabbis
> Hillel, Akiva, and Gamliel as having a secret trial to commit deicide.)
How is a physical temple able to bring inner repentance? Also, what
about your sins, what do you do with those? Does God just sweep them
under the rug? If you reject blood atonement, even though your own
scriptures taught it, how is one right with God? Does God just wink
at your sin because you are so "righteous"?
>
> > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in verse
> > 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of Israel have
> > despised?
>
> G-d.
I agree. It is also referring to the Messiah, and the true Temple.
> "...they have forsaken Hashem; they have angered the Holy One of Israel,
> and have turned their back [to Him]" (Stone Edition Tanakh)
>
> That's a semicolon, not a period, and it's talking about apostacy in
> Isaiah's time (note the past tense), not a crucifiction.
I agree that it is written in Isaiah's time, so why did you earlier
cite this passage as evidence of a future rebuilding of the temple?
Neither did I say this passage referred to a crucifixion.
>
> > Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt
> > offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in
> > the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"?
>
> Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In verse
> 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance through
> the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing.
You need to read the passage a little more carefully. It does not
repudiate blood atonement. It repudiates the false notion that the
blood of *animals* atones for sin. It was clarifying that the
animal sacrifices never *actually* atoned for sins, they only
pointed forward to the fact that the *Messiah's* blood would
atone for sin. The people were missing the point of why God
instituted animal sacrifice in the first place. They foolishly
believed that the outward obedience of making sacrifices is what
pleased God, instead of inwardly trusting that God would provide
a suitable substitute to atone for their sins.
Remember when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Mt.
Moriah? What was the point of that whole story? Was it not
the lesson that God would provide a substitute for sinful man?
"Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind
{him} a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went
and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the
place of his son." (Gen 22:13)
"Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it
is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
(Gen 22:14)
God then promised the following to Abraham:
"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
because you have obeyed My voice." (Gen 22:18)
This is a reference to the Messiah who would come from Abraham's
loins. It was the Messiah who would be a blessing to all the
nations of the earth, by dying on the cross to be a substitute,
a sacrifice pleasing to the Lord for man's sins. It is only
by *His* blood that any of us can be right with God.
The solution? Not a
> better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to do
> good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan,
> take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.)
All of this is well and good, but it doesn't atone for sin. How can
a just God let sin go unpunished? Christ provides the answer to this
dillemma. He is the second Adam who did not fall to the temptations
of the serpent.
> > What then *was* the purpose of
> > the temple sacrifices back in Leviticus? Were they not to teach the
> > Iraelites that without the shedding of blood, there can be no
> > remission of sins? (See Hebrews 9:22) Why does John the baptist
> > refer to Jesus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the
> > world"? (John 1:29)
>
> Since those books aren't in my Tanakh (Bible) I don't consider your
> proofs by scripture convincing.
I know that, but please answer the question. What is the purpose of
all those bloody sacrifices in Leviticus?
> > Moreover who is being referred to in the suffering servant passages
> > in Isaiah 53?
>
> Israel is the servent, as is clear when you read the long servant poem
> (without the chapter divisions introduced by medieval xtians) in
> context. (Chapter 44 for example.) The servent is a personification of
> Israel, who has gone through so much suffering that the nations consider
> him cursed and will be astonished when he is restored.
I agree that Chapter 44 refers to Israel. In that chapter God calls on
Israel to repent of its sins and turn back to the Lord. Israel was to
be a light to the nations, yet Israel repeatedly fell into sin and failed.
As I'm sure you know, Isaiah was written near the end of the Babylonian
exile. Why were the Jews in exile? God sent them into exile as
punishment for their idolatry and apostacy. The suffering servant in
Isaiah is the true Israel, the Messiah, who would finally put an end
to sin as is clear when comparing the passage to the gospel accounts.
For example, compare Is. 53:5 to John 19:34. Also compare Is. 53:7 to
Matt. 27:14, Is. 53:9 to Matt. 27:57-60. Also, the passage seems to
imply that the servant was to die for the transgressions of His people.
See for example Is. 53:8.
> > Who is the seed of the woman being referred to in
> > Genesis 3:15 when God addresses the serpent and says, "He shall bruise
> > you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."?
>
> I'm afraid to ask. ;-)
Well, what do you think? 8-) Who do *you* think it refers to? Isn't
it the same seed that is referred to later in Gen. 22:18?
> > > > Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I
> > > > propose is the One True Way,
> > >
> > > My religion is not the One True Way for non-Jews. (Hence the wink.)
> > > The righteous of the gentiles have a portion in the World to Come. I
> > > have no inepitus for forcing my beliefs down other's throats; such
> > > as the belief that god will torture for eternity anyone that isn't
> > > my religion.
> >
> > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just
>
> I do not attack xtianity, it has done a lot of good in the world. If one
> is selling something to someone, however, one shouldn't be surprised if
> others offer reviews of the product.
I must humbly point out that you in fact *did* attack the doctrine of
hell. That's not the point I was making though. If somebody wants to
criticize some aspect of Christianity, that's fine, but the point I was
making was that it is hypocritical to criticize a particular doctrine
as amounting to "forcing my beliefs down other's throats". Your very
criticism amounted to trying to get me to accept *your* belief that
hell does not even exist. If in fact the doctrine of hell is true,
the baselessness of the accusation about my motivations for defending
it become clear. I know it is a difficult doctrine to accept, but
you know, life is like that. There are many things about life that
are unpleasant, but complaining about it and attributing bad motivations
to those who point it out isn't going to change the fact. The charge
that the doctrine of hell amounts to an attempt to "force by beliefs
down other's throats" is not a rational argument. Such an argument
could never be proven, since you would have to have knowledge of a
person's heart-felt motivations, and only God could have that.
> > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just
> > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did
> > it not come from the lips of Christ himself, who claimed to be your
> > Messiah?
>
> I don't care who's lips it came from, if it is not affirmed by the Oral
> and Written Torah of Moses and our sages we Jews don't believe in it.
This misses the point. If the scriptures to which *I* appeal to *do*
teach it, you cannot claim that my motivation for defending it is just
an attempt to force my views down other's throats. If you disagree
with it fine, but stop attributing bad motivations to me just because
I hold to a doctrine which my religion explicitly teaches. This is
called an "ad-hominem" fallacy.
> > Aren't you just trying to silence what you don't agree with?
>
> As usual, all evangelists view people disagreeing with them an offense
> against the first amendment.
No, I was calling you on the carpet for engaging in an ad-hominem
attack on my character. Attributing bad motivations to someone for
believing a particular doctrine is not a sound argument.
> > why is it that you find my posts so offensive in a public forum that
> > was expressly created for off-topic posts? And why do you deem my
> > views to be "militant"? You sir certainly seem to be engaging in a
> > "crusade" to silence what you disagree with.
>
> No, I just view it a little amusing that someone would go on a bible
> thumping crusade because of a word in a subject line. I don't believe
> that evolution is all that great either, but I'm not going on an
> evangelical crusade because of someone using it to refer to phenomena
> concerning moderating trolls on mailing lists.
There you go again engaging in ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you try
giving some rational arguments instead of engaging in
character-assasination?
> > > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an internal
> > > > perspective for coherence.
> > >
> > > Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum
> > > est".
> >
> > In your humble opinion.
>
> Considering that he was a church father, in orthodox xtianity's humble
> opinion about itself. Of course that opinion changed, with lots of hand
> waving in order to make the change the same.
While I have deep respect for the church fathers, they weren't right on
everything they said. Quoting church fathers to support an argument is
certainly valid *in principle*, but they were not infallible, and at times
they said things that were in direct contradiction to the teachings of
scripture. Such is the nature of sinful man, even the great Tertullian.
Neal
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020905174725.R91660-100000>