₦airaland Forum

sonmvayina:
The whole idea of jesus christ did not originate from the old testament. I have not come accross anywhere in the entire old testament where any prophet said anything like God sending his son to die for the sins of men and after 3 days rise from the dead. God decreed death for humans when they became aware of their ability to make choices.

The idea of original sin is not found anywhere in the old testament.

God already gave a solution to the problem of sin in 2nd chronicle 7:14. "If the people who are called by my name will humble them selves and confess their sins and turn away from their evil ways, i wilk hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land....confess and forsake...no human or jesus scrifice was needed....

So, the jesus story is not jewish

The passover story as well as Isaiah 53 points to Jesus. Heck the entire story of isreal points to Jesus.

The idea of original sin was not a teaching of Jesus. Although original sin(in my opinion)is a reasonable doctrine, if you think about it critically.

Jesus also prescribed thesame method for sin as 2nd Chronicle 7v14. Jesus sacrifice for sin on the cross is related to passover deliverance of the isrealites from exile due to sin. More like collective community sin of the nation. It is not human sacrifice to God but rather more like the selfless sacrifice of a General who loves his nation or people.

sonmvayina:
Only romans/greeks have the idea of god having children with humans...the jews dont have it..

Well I see what you mean here concerning the virgin birth. Well virgin birth is not necessarily interpreted by many Christians I know as God having a child with humans.
Apart from Matthew and Luke, it was not so important in first century early Christian literature. I believe it wasn't such a common topic about jesus, and I do not think that's the reason Christians call Jesus son of God.
John (writing somewhat later) and who probably wanted to prove to all more than anyone else that Jesus is son of God, doesn't even mention it.

sonmvayina:
So christianity is paganism because it was not God who ordered it..who asked for it?

Christians are simply followers of christus ( whom they believe is messaiah). How do you know God ordered judaism or anything? the early Christians did not see themselves as part of a new religion per se.

sonmvayina:
Is there anywhere in the entire old testament that speak of anything like christology?

What is christology?

sonmvayina:
The passover was to commemorate the day that God sent the angel of death to kill the first born son of the Egyptian and had to pass over the house of the jews...


So?...

Good, so also for the christian tradition, the animal that was killed points as a symbol to Jesus who was killed for the deliverance of his people.

sonmvayina:
Did God ever say, through any prophet that he was sending his son(sic) to come and change his laws?

Change what laws? The laws are there for those who want to keep them, he rather heightened the requirements of the laws and gave better ones under a new covenant.
The laws of Moses were not really special and they were strictly for the social life of ancient Isreal. With Jesus we see the laws of Moses clearly and have the laws of the new covenant in Jeremiah 29.

sonmvayina:
You seems to think that judaism is about animal sacrifice..

And what makes you assume such about my thoughts on Judaism? Was there a passover sacrifice in Jewish culture or not?

sonmvayina:
Jesus is a roman creation.....or did you miss that?

can you state the reasons why you think so?

sonmvayina:
There is only one creator of all. We are all his children. He created us from the dust of the earth and his breath (or spirit). He gave us his children his simple rules to follow and obey in other to have a more fulfilling life with a purpose, [b]only the jews and the igbos accepted it.[/b]They became the apple of his eyes and his chosen people. They were mandated to teach the world to follow God by obeying his commandments. Most times they did not even follow it and just as men use the whip to discipline humans, he has not relented in punishing them by using their enemies to overwelm them.
The romans hijacked his commandments and word and created an idol(jesus) and set him up as the new god for humans to worship. Ever since, God has turned his face from humans, just like the psalmist said in psalm 104:29-31.


We have to return back to following the laws and commandments of our creator. No more idolatry, or human sacrifice. No more worshipping God with other associates..There is no one beside the creator.

Isaiah 45: 1-12

You are the one making assumptions here now. So tell me, where do you get the bolded from?

Quote..."Only the Jews and the Igbos accepted it"

Concerning the Roman's hijacking his commandments to create an idol jesus, that may have been possibly true 300 years after christianity began but not prior.

Early christian tradition has nothing to do with the hijacking of the Romans. If you say the catholic church of 300 A.D, then I may agree with you slightly.

sonmvayina:
I dont...where did you get this from?

Where did you get the bold from??

What don't you understand about it?

sonmvayina:
Do you have any idea of what judaism is all about?

What do you want to get from me concerning Judaism? what's your point?

sonmvayina:
So did God ever accepted or approved a human sacrifice ?

The only sacrifice God accepts as you know already is the right heart, God has nothing really to do with animal or human sacrifice. They are just symbols.
The animal sacrifices on the alter ( e.g the lamb sacrifice on the jewish passover day) signified that due to the death of this animal ( as a hero), the jews were saved from death or extinction and in turn delivered out of bondage to Egypt.

This old testament tradition or story in the eyes of the early christian authors stood as symbols pointing to jesus as the real hero ( not the animal) whose death would save the jews.

It is not about God accepting this death as a human sacrifice, but rather the heroism of messaiah Jesus whom the passover animal represented 1500 years prior in Egypt.

I hope you understand?

sonmvayina:
There is just one universal creator but so many gods..They must have gotten the idea from paganism.


There was child sacrifice to moloch....thats a pointer..

The early christian tradition drew heavily from the Jewish scriptures not Moloch. Read the book of Hebrews in the new testament to understand how they interpreted these things.

Jman24:
So in essence, biblical Jesus was in agreement that to love the only invisible God is worth more than burnt offerings and sacrifices(plural) according to verse 33.

So where did the Romans later get the idea that you need an ultimate sacrifice to reconcile self with God? When your only reconciliation is to Love God?

The Jews practiced sacrifices of atonement in the past, the christian tradition in trying to make meaning of the untimely, humiliating death of messaiah Jesus, reconciled his death to that of the passover sacrifice. Jesus himself at the last super had this interpretation of his death and suffering as a means of deliverance of the Jewish people from their sins( that always put them in misery).
To Paul, this deliverance was not just for the Jewish people but to all around the world who want to partake in this blessing or covenant.

All of these doesn't deny the fact that there is one invisible God worth more than burnt offerings.

Trinity as a name is just a confusing term, Christians have one God the Father and then his son Jesus Christ whom he sent into the world.
This one God the Father is spirit and his word and movement combined in Genesis to create the world. when he moves into the world like a wind we call him spirit, and then his teachings or speech (Torah) is called the word.

Christians simply replaced the speech of God (Torah ) with the person of Jesus. Jesus is a man but he is the chosen one who has the fulness of God ( spirit) and so he became new Torah to the world.
The torah is like an oracle or speech of God indicating the complete will of God. The torah and the temple ( body ) are complete in Jesus.

In summary, there is God in heaven(the one God), his Torah given to man(Jesus), and his power at work(spirit).

Kobojunkie:
Read what transpired for your own self.

Wasn't that prophecy fulfilled when jesus was on the cross with two thieves? Read what transpired for your own self.

Luke 22 vs 35-38 (ESV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.”
36. He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
37. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
38. And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

According to Jesus Christ, He told this to His disciples at the time so that the scripture found in Isaiah 53 vs 12 might be fulfilled in Him. From Isaiah, we learn that Jesus Christ was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bore the sin of man, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 53 vs 11-12 (ESV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;[g] when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i] and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
12. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,[j] and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,[k] because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bore the sin of many and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Was that scripture not fulfilled when one of His disciples took a soldier's ear off, Jesus Christ having to put the ear back on after calming both parties down?

Luke 22 vs 47-53 (ESV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him,
48. but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”
49. And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”
50. And one of them struck the servant[h] of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.
52. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?
53. When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour and the power of darkness.”

Jesus Christ Himself said the swords had to do with the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Wasn't that prophecy fulfilled when jesus was on the cross with two thieves? Jesus Christ did not make intercession between transgressors while He was on the cross. The conversation He had while on the cross was just with the one thief, and it was no intercession

As for Stephen, didn't Stephen also pray that God receives his soul? Stephens' worldview ( as that of Jesus and all Christians) is that the soul which would rise on the day of resurrection matters more. Even Jesus looked forward to the glory ahead, paul didn't want to be a castaway, etc etc. Here's another way to think of this, If Jesus Christ had in fact commanded that we, His followers, know to defend ourselves when attacked, Stephen's death would have been for nothing because Stephen's actions would have been in direct disobedience of the teachings of Jesus Christ? There is nothing to gain from disobeying the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So you talk of glory and resurrection and what not hinges on obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ. If the actions were born of disobedience, then it was for nothing.

I am ready to concede that Jesus told his disciples to buy swords in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, although I also think the prophecy was fulfilled when jesus died alongside two transgressors as well. But I concede you are right on this one in addition to that, and I was wrong on my earlier interpretation as to why they bought swords.

I don't think you get the point about Stephen. My point is not that jesus did not command that we should turn the other cheek, rather my point is that he didn't say we should do this simply because we love our enemies more than ourselves. Also running away ( like the other disciples did) is no disobedience. Self defence when we can afford it without hurting anyone is no disobedience, because even Jesus had to run away at some point when they picked up stones and like you said, the other disciples ran away too.
The purpose of the command was not targeted at making Christians avoiding to protect themselves when they can ( by avoiding conflict or running if they could), the purpose is to teach love and perseverance. Stephen wasn't just obeying turn the other cheek, rather he was dying because he believed in a purpose not necessarily a commandment written on stone.

Kobojunkie:
It implies exactly that. It is natural for humans to want to defend themselves - a natural act done in self-love. But in this case, Stephen chose to love his enemy, more than he loved himself and so stood there, even praying that God forgives his enemy for the evil, dying in the end. Do not rob Stephen of his "testimony" for the sake of your ego in this.

I am afraid your answer goes against what is written.

As I explained there in my previous post, Jesus did what He did at that moment to ensure that the word of the prophet concerning His person would be fulfilled before His death, and it was so. There needed to be a sword on the scene, and a transgressor from among his own. Isaiah's prophecy concerning the person of Jesus Christ was fulfilled by the action of His disciple there - it was finished there and then. To suggest that Jesus Christ instead commanded His disciples to take up swords and fight is a lie.

So you are trying to say jesus set up his disciples just to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah? He intentionally made them transgressors just to fulfill that prophecy? Wasn't that prophecy fulfilled when jesus was on the cross with two thieves?

As for Stephen, didn't Stephen also pray that God receives his soul? Stephens' worldview ( as that of jesus and all Christians) is that the soul which would rise on the day of resurrection matters more. Even Jesus looked forward to the glory ahead, paul didn't want to be a cast away, etc etc.

Jman24:
My brother I know my English language

Don't fight back at those who want to hurt you(Don't react)- you have an option to run away which is a very reasonable way of avoiding confrontation.

But the other clause(if he strikes you, turn the other cheek)- cannot justifying escaping confrontation or being harmed willingly even if it's an intended figure of speech like you said.

So it would make more meaning if you only say "don't fight back at those who Wana hurt you"

I think you are the one not following our arguement. My only contention is that that passage is not saying Love your enemies more than yourself, even if you are not fighting back at them.

Kobojunkie:
Well, I don't know the particulars of their escape, so I cannot comment as to whether they escaped a direct attack or not. But one particular case we have more details of is the one I keep harping on.
Stephen was directly attacked by a mob, and rather than defend himself, Stephen stood there, eventually dying. My question to you is why you resist stating that what he, Stephen, did was indeed in obedience to what Jesus Christ Himself commandment of His followers?

I don't understand why you continue to refuse to give credit to Stephen for obeying Jesus Christ's direct commandment to all of His followers?
You are the second person this week to quote that passage without properly understanding the message of what Jesus Christ in fact asked His disciples to do there and the why.

How about carefully examing that verse in the context to which it belongs?

According to Jesus Christ, He told this to His disciples at the time so that the scripture found in Isaiah 53 vs 12 might be fulfilled in Him. From Isaiah, we learn that Jesus Christ was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bore the sin of man, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Was that scripture not fulfilled when one of His disciples took a soldier's ear off, Jesus Christ having to put the ear back on after calming both parties down?

* Note that the disciple who struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear during the chaos that ensued was also described as a transgressor in all of this.

Instead of being called a "hero", the disciple is called a "transgressor" by God - through His prophet Isaiah and through Jesus Christ Himself. You have to understand that this is the same God that announced "Vengence is mine".
So why do you have a hard time accepting the teaching of Jesus Christ as documented in Matthew 5 vs 38 -

Kobojunkie Stephen was attacked by a mob and died, he even prayed for them. This doesn't imply that Stephen loved his killers more than himself but rather in this situation he chose to turn the other cheek ( be humiliated further, die, etc). and prayed for his enemies, while in thesame breath also prayed for God to receive his soul, he loved himself enough to do that, just as he loved his enemies. Stephen would not be a sinner if he chose to run away and even Jesus ran away twice.

The luke passage has Jesus telling his disciples to buy two swords for what reason? I agree the disciple was a transgressor and I stated that in the post you replied to. My only question is: What was the need for any sword at all? I answered that also in my previous reply.

Jman24:
. When English language is clearly spelt out? Then we can as well assume that all those stories were created since you have an idea of what Jesus intended

What English was clearly spelt out?

Jman24:

Religion is quite funny.
The funniest thing is .. people even leave out what biblical Jesus instructed to practice. How many will leave their properties as instructed when one wants to take it

Jesus is not saying you should run into fire but be ready to give yourself up rather than do something evil in the name of reaction. It doesn't mean if you can avoid the situation don't avoid it. It doesn't mean love your enemies more than yourself.
Your giving yourself up does not necessarily imply you love them more than yourself. You are definitely not pleased with that situation.

Kobojunkie:
So, Stephen died because he loved his enemies his way, but the other Christians who chose to escape for their lives, many of them moved to do so by the Spirit of God, were not looking forward to helping save the souls of their enemies, and "achieving he crown of glory"?
Again, read what you are told from verse 39 of the same passage and tell me that you do not seriously believe that what you posted above means more than what Jesus Christ Himself teaches.
By refusing to defend himself when his enemies attacked him, did Stephen not in fact obey the commandment/teaching of Jesus Christ as depicted above?

You yourself said the other Christians escaped and chose to do so by the spirit of God. Stephen and Paul in both of your examples were major targets and could not have escaped easily.
Jesus eventually told his disciples to buy two swords in Luke ( not to fight, because two swords would not have been enough) but to teach the importance of self protection without the desire to attack. Peter didn't understand his master, he attacked first and was rebuked. The poor disciple must have been confused, lol.

Kobojunkie:
Figuratively? Where?


So, when Stephen, stood there while the mob stoned him to death, did Stephen die figuratively?
When Paul was pummeled by the mob during his journeys, and he did not defend himself, nor did the Christians rush to his defense, was that also figurative?
I believe Jesus Christ indeed meant we should take Him at His word, not assume His teaching is gibberish or "figurative".

Paul and Stephen died looking forward to achieve a greater task where the message of christ was to win at the end of the day and spread around the world, they considered themselves sacrifices to:

1) Help save the souls of their enemies ( because they love their enemies)
2) Acheive the crown of glory( Because they love themselves, and would not want to be a cast away after saving others).

Even jesus himself admitted he never always spoke plainly.

Kobojunkie:
It is implied if you think carefully about it.

As a person, I love myself enough to ensure that no harm comes to me. I will defend myself wherever and whenever! But as a Jesus follower, I am told that when attacked by an enemy, I should not put up a defense i.e. show love for myself, I am instead commanded to love my enemy more, allowing said enemy to beat on me to his heart's content - at my expense.

That passage does not literally mean allow your enemy to beat on you. It is figuratively saying take insult and humiliation from your enemy but bless them in return, rather than repay evil for evil. Heck even give them yourself to be humiliated more ( turn the other cheek), as long as you do not repay evil for evil.

The reason you are to do all this is not because you necessarily love them more than yourself per se, but because you are modelling your father in heaven who is insulted day and night by the evil works of wicked men, but he loves all men and gives them his sun equally even though he is pained by their actions.

Our father in heaven obviously does not love his enemies more than himself( if that is even possible), but he loves them anyway because he is the model of perfection.

If you do not love yourself first ( which the best for yourself), how then would you know what it is like to love anyone?

Kobojunkie:
I laugh when folks say such things as "You are allowed to defend yourself".

But it never says you should Love your enemies more than you love yourself. If you are to love even your neighbour just as yourself, then how can you love your enemy more than yourself?

Jman24:
Stop mixing English language here and there
The Roman creation said you should even hate your people if you must follow him.

Hate as used in bible language just means not choosing something or choosing not to love something rather than the other. For example:

Esau I hate, Jacob I love.

Remember that God also blessed Esau later on, he prospered and became even wealthier than his brother.

The passage simply means God chose to walk with Jacob and his descendants rather than Esau.

Kobojunkie:
There are laws that do that - 3 of them in fact.

1. Love thy neighbor as you love your own self.
2. Do to others as you will have them do to you.
3. Love your enemies(even more than you love yourself).

Love your enemies more than you love yourself? can you give me the scriptural reference please?

Jman24:
If you still practice all the contents of the 10 commandments (presently) and you mistakenly break one, would you still be under curse since atonement was promised to you by Romans?

Old covenant is 613 commandments, not 10. If you want to live by the old covenant, then you would also have to consider the civil and ritual laws in place and the atonement. It is a whole package or system of it's own, but Christians are not under compulsion to live by the old covenant. You do not need to live by a so called 10 commandments ( or worse still all 613 laws).
All you need to do is obey the royal law: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

enilove:
I have a question for you .

The law says , '' thou shall not kill '' .
Is this abolished ?

You speak as though there are also no laws in the new covenant that speaks against killing, stealing, etc.

Website first, then as the business grows App comes in.

I thought Bart Erhmann has always been an Agnostic, or is this old recycled news?