Sola Ecclesia: Trailblazer

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 9

trailblazer-Today at 5:38 AM

the jews messiah isn't god, so why is christ, which is god, believed by christian to be a
messiah which the jews have forsaken?
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 5:38 AM
Short answer: The Jews are wrong.
Longer answer: There was actually an belief that the Messiah would be divine before and
during Jesus' time.
Let me find the sources.
The main Old Testament reference is [Daniel 7:13-14].
ErasmusBOT-Today at 5:40 AM
13. I saw in the night visions,and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a
son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14. And
to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and
languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not
pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Daniel 7:13-14 (RSVCE)
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 5:41 AM
The Son of Man (an Hebrew idiom for human) is said to ride the clouds, something
usually reserved for deity.
There are other hints, but this is the closest thing to an clear statement.
The apocryphal Book of Enoch written circa 300-100 BC, elaborates on this Son of Man,
and treats him as divine and before creation.
Philo of Alexandria had an concept of the Logos, the Word of God who acted as
Mediator between God and His creation, who is called the Son of God, God, et cetera.
trailblazer-Today at 5:46 AM
thank you for taking the time to respond. it is getting late here. i'll revisit it tomorrow, if
you don't mind. good night.
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 8:11 AM
Would you guys ever encourage someone to pursue a faith they were relatively sure
wasn't true, based on the use of their reason?
Usui-Today at 8:13 AM
No, Christ is the only way of salvation. You wouldn't have us encourage anything else.
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 8:14 AM
Okay so if I am relative sure Christianity isn't true, based on the use of my reason
why should I pursue it
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:40 AM
Well, I think that discussions of confidence in beliefs are almost all futile beyond
extremes. I don't think that's how human psychology works normally. But I would say
that Christianity is all about the personal and community life and following Christ. I think
that Christianity is rational, but I don't think that the decision of faith is one that is based
on rational calculations, if you understand what I'm getting at. It's more the type of
existential decision like marrying the one you love and less like analyzing whether you
should purchase a particular bond or not. All that being said, there are arguments for
religion based on pragmatism which I think is actually more troublesome for non-theists
than is often given credit for.
@EkklesiaOikonomia
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 10:42 AM
@Franz Liszt More or less all of that applies to judaism though too
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:42 AM
I wouldn't deny that
I think the Christ bit is a pretty important thing though lol
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 10:45 AM
The question is why should i care about Christ specifically
Gravity-Today at 10:45 AM
...
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:46 AM
I could be glib and say it's because he's one of the most if not the most important person
who's ever lived from pretty much any perspective but I don't think that's what you're
getting at
I would just encourage you to think on him and look at him
Gravity-Today at 10:46 AM
Am I allowed to answer if it's not "against" Christianity?
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:46 AM
No one can force you to care about someone
I suppose this once @Gravity
Gravity-Today at 10:47 AM
Thanks.
@EkklesiaOikonomia The Bible gives you a bunch of reasons and then some to care about
Christ. The real question you should be asking is whether you believe the Bible and why
or why not.(edited)
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 10:48 AM
I can believe in the old testament without believing in the new
and the old doesn't mention Jesus of Nazareth
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:49 AM
I mean I think that would be odd, especially if your reservations about Christianity are
evidential in nature
It seems the Old Testament has many more historical problems than the New in my
judgement at least
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 10:50 AM
My problems with the new aren't primarily historical
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:50 AM
Then what leads you to think that Christianity is probably not true?
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 10:53 AM
I don't think the hermeneutic employed by the gospel authors is a valid understanding of
the tanakh. I think even if you disregard rabbinic requirements for moshiach you still
don't see anything testable that Jesus did which makes him messiah. Finally the while
dogma scene of Christianity seems entirely man made. By this I mean the councils and
such. It seems like a bunch of, although well meaning, mislead men who had different
opinions on things which, had the authors had any concept of them, could've been
resolved with a single sentence in Scripture which was never written.
whole not white
while*
Franz Liszt-Today at 10:59 AM
You and I have talked about this a little before, but these are largely just issues of
interpretations. When it comes to councils, the fact that they could be wrong or were
corrupt or whatever you want to say about them isn't really an issue of Christianity at all
in my opinion. Plently of Christians reject the authority of the councils. You (rightfully)
wouldn't think that poor arguments in the Talmud centuries after the books they were
talking about discount Judaism, why would this be any different? The question of New
Testament use of the Old is primarily a historical concern in my opinion. It's whether or
not you think that the way ancient people interpretted texts (pretty universally from my
experience) is valid. If you think that it is not, then you have to say that Christianity is
probably false because the New Testament authors interpretted texts as people from the
ancient world and not as post-reformation europeans. Furthermore, I don't think this is
even that strong of a defeater of Christianity. When I first became Christian I had no
problem saying that stories such as the Bethlehem birth may have been invented in order
to fulfill prophecies. I don't see how Matthew misinterpretting a passage of Isaiah or
something means that Christianity is false. That doesn't follow at all in my mind.
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 11:06 AM
Historical Christianity has relied on the councils and on the creeds. There's also a
fundamental difference between Councils and the Talmud. The Talmud does not claim
that everything it says is exactly what Moses believed and taught. There is plenty of stuff
in there that explicitly they say is the opposite. One can reject much of the Talmud and be
an Orthodox Jew. One cannot really reject most of the councils and be an "orthodox"
(and I don't mean denomination obviously) Christian. Sure you can be a Christian but
you're not in-line with what Christianity has been for thousands of years. I know they
didn't always exist but the claim is that they are an expression of what the apostles taught
just in more advanced language. That claim seems dubious at best. Even for the ancient
world the way certain authors (e.g. Matthew) use the text bends things more than ever
before. If he meant typology, he should've said that. If he was doing midrashic exegesis
then he wouldn't be claiming it is event-fulfillment. ETC There's no good explanation for
it. The reason all of these things are "defeaters" of Christianity to me is because if any of
my objections are correct, then it means that christianity is built on a house of lies and is
basically a massive conglomeration of pious fraud. Lies in interpretation. Lies in
councils. Lies in creeds. Is all of it a lie? No of course not. Did the apostles believe in
Jesus as the Risen Christ? Yeah of course. But pious fraud is still fraud no matter how
pious the intent.(edited)
trailblazer-Today at 11:16 AM
by the old testament, god has made an unbreakable eternal bond with the jewish people,
which is not conditional on whether they will keep following him or not. has god broken
his convent with them? if jews and christian believe in the same god and the old
testament is the word of god, what is the essential difference? are you by calling it an old
testament saying god has nullified his previous words, laws, and promises?(edited)
Franz Liszt-Today at 11:18 AM
Historical Christianity has said that most of what the councils have said are accurate
representations of the New Testament. But again, just saying “the councils claimed
something and they were wrong” wouldn’t make you non-Christian, it would just make
you a Protestant. I have no doubt that the councils say things that the first Christians
would have disagreed with. But it’s not a big deal to me that men 300 years later got stuff
wrong. The point of the Talmud analogy was that men getting things wrong or making
bombastic claims centuries later should be no defeater for Judaism and it shouldn’t be for
Christianity. I don’t see why you’d expect an ancient author to outline what they were
doing when it was normal practice in their world. You don’t expect modern authors to
say “now this is an analogy, so it’s like the example in some ways and unlike it in
others.” The audience is aware, just as they were in the ancient world. And I don’t think
Matthew is very different than say Porphyry or Crates of Mallus. I don’t see how any of
these would mean that Christianity is false. It would simply show that certain churches
were wrong or some doctrines aren’t accurate representations of the first Christians
(which again I have no doubt is true). @EkklesiaOikonomia
No that’s not what I’m saying, @trailblazer anyways I legitimately have to go. Have a 4th
of July picnic to get to. @EkklesiaOikonomia continue this in the Jewish server
EkklesiaOikonomia-Today at 11:19 AM
ok
trailblazer-Today at 11:22 AM
another question. god has specified very clearly which land animals are you allowed to
eat in genesis. why has that changed 180 degrees for christians?
is god confused and indecisive?
Gravity-Today at 11:24 AM
@trailblazer That'a the Old Testament.
trailblazer-Today at 11:25 AM
which means what to you?
Gravity-Today at 11:25 AM

Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:25 AM


Those rules were given in Leviticus, not Genesis.
They were given as part of the Law to Israel.
No such rules were given to Adam nor Noah nor Abraham.
The Jews recognize that these were given to them specifically.
They did not apply to Gentiles.
The Law of Moses was given to set Israel apart.
Which was supposed to prepare them for the Messiah.
Also, your claim that the Old Covenant was eternal is incorrect.
Gravity-Today at 11:28 AM
@Sola Ecclesia A lot of the Old Testament's laws do not apply to Christians, correct?
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:28 AM
@Gravity Correct
$ Jeremiah 31:31-34
ErasmusBOT-Today at 11:29 AM
31. “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32. not like the covenant which I made with
their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my
covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. 33. But this is
the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD:
I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people. 34. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor
and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the
least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will
remember their sin no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (RSVCE)
Gravity-Today at 11:29 AM
@Sola Ecclesia Okay, that's why I mentioned that's the Old Testament. But, I couldn't say
much more lol
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:30 AM
The Old Covenant was not so much abrogated as fulfilled.
The Messiah was God's obligation.
Israel (poorly) kept the Law, and God gave blessings to the Seed of Abraham.
trailblazer-Today at 11:31 AM
Also, your claim that the Old Covenant was eternal is incorrect.
"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants
after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you
and your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7)
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:31 AM
That is to Abraham, 400 years before Moses.
trailblazer-Today at 11:32 AM
and?
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:32 AM
And therefore it is ambiguous as to which Covenant it is.
The Hebrew says the Covenant is between God and Abraham's seed, and we believe that
Seed to be Christ.
And Christians to be the spiritual descendants of Abraham.
Throughout the Old Testament God discards legal heirs who do not obey Him and
replaces them with His Chosen.
Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Simeon, Levi
All of David's brothers, Solomon's older brothers
And again, the Old Covenant was not broken, it was fulfilled. God upheld His Agreement
and made an New Covenant, putting an end to the Old Law.
This is more subtle, but even under the Old Covenant Gentiles could be circumcised and
their descendants counted as children of Abraham.
Gravity-Today at 11:39 AM
Is cicumcision a Christian "tradition?"
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:39 AM
Nei
Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant.
Christians baptize.
Anyone who says we must be circumcised is anathematized by Paul.
Gravity-Today at 11:42 AM
Didn't think so, but only 2% of the US population is Jewish. Yet, majority of babies in
the US are circumcised. Which, is weird to me. :/
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:42 AM
Paul told those who are circumcised to be justified to cut it all off.
Gravity-Today at 11:42 AM
Ouch
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:42 AM
The American tradition of circumcision has nothing to do with Abraham.
It was started by Puritans who thought it would stop children from masturbating.
Gravity-Today at 11:43 AM

Oh my
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:43 AM
They also thought sugar caused lust.
Gravity-Today at 11:43 AM
I would like to quote what Paul said.
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:43 AM
Graham and Kellogg(edited)
Gravity-Today at 11:43 AM
Cut it all off, that solves masturbation.
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:43 AM
Origen smashed his with an brick.
Gravity-Today at 11:44 AM
At least cutting back on sugar can be good for your health though XD
That's hardcore.
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:44 AM
Origen did not understand the proper use of allegory.
$ Matthew 19:12
ErasmusBOT-Today at 11:45 AM
12. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have
been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
Matthew 19:12 (RSVCE)
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:46 AM
You see Origen, this is what we call metaphor.
You know, that thing you read into everything else.
Gravity-Today at 11:46 AM
Was it Puritans or different people who came up with the myth that masturbating will
cause you to go blind?
Sola Ecclesia-Today at 11:46 AM
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gravity-Today at 11:47 AM
So many myths came about over masturbating... Shame on parents for lying to their
children XD
trailblazer-Today at 12:23 PM
And therefore it is ambiguous as to which Covenant it is.
the jews are the decedents of abraham. how is that ambiguous? it is talking there about
direct genealogical bloodline. do christian claim to be of abrahamic decent?

The Hebrew says the Covenant is between God and Abraham's seed, and we believe
that Seed to be Christ.
are you related to christ? i thought christ was god himself. he is not mortal. what do you
mean by "seed"? isn't it a bit convenient your interpretation of it? they don't talk about
spiritual descendants in the bible. it is all about genetics.
Throughout the Old Testament God discards legal heirs who do not obey Him and
replaces them with His Chosen.
Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Simeon, Levi
that has never happened in the old testament with the decadents of abram with which the
covenant was made. he only made one convent with the jewish people and the entire
bible go around this theme over and over again, that even when they sinned god has
never forsaken them and just sent sufferings on them to make them repent and come back
to god. that was the cycle that was keep repeating there for generations. has god lost his
eternal patience?(edited)
"The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more
in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people; but because
the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto
your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:7–8).
And again, the Old Covenant was not broken, it was fulfilled. God upheld His
Agreement and made an New Covenant, putting an end to the Old Law.
how is that unbroken if it is a new one to the eternal one which he made specifically with
them and only them? and why would god change all his laws which he made with them?
such as keeping kosher etc. Were they arbitrary or divine wisdom? why would the same
god say so different things in each convent he creates? does god wish to confuse people?
if he says one thing is wrong for the jewish people why would it be now be ok for
christans to do?
if jews and christians are of the same religion origin they should be similar not so
different.(edited)
This is more subtle, but even under the Old Covenant Gentiles could be
circumcised and their descendants counted as children of Abraham.
sure, if they entered with the convent god made with the jewish people you would be
considered part of the jewish nation. are you jewish? there are specific rules for that to
become jewish. It isn’t only circumcision. And as you said before, chrisians don’t even
hold circumcision as obligatory. You said yesterday jews are wrong in their
understanding of the messianic promise, but you seem to contradict much of what was
said to them, pretty much everywhere elsewhere. Your religion is entirely based on the
jewish faith and yet you claim to know better than them? From where is that confidence?
Isn’t that hubris? Which is a sin in itself.(edited)
plus if jews and christans indeed believe in the same god, wouldn't that make you
members of the same faith? yet they're regarded as competing dogmas, why is that? the
essential core belief in the god almighty is shared, and you both wait for the messiah,
which in your case would only be the 2nd coming of it. so why all the bloodshed over the
centuries in the name of christ? the messiah according to jewish fate was promised to
bring eternal peace and tranquility to the world. where has that happened? the world only
knows suffering.(edited)
it is also said in the scriptures that the messiah would be of king david's bloodline, which
is man, yet you believe it was god.
if there are so many hard to reconcile facts and controversies about the scriptures, how
can one be of certainty that what they believe in was the true word of god?
this conviction seems to be entirely based only on each person personal belief.
nothing more substantiated than that.
trailblazer-Today at 1:08 PM
jews will remain jews, and christians will remain christians, each according to his
personal and arbitrary upbringing. few ones will change lanes, by circumstance, but that
does not indicate anything in and of itself on entire religious groups as a whole. both
groups hold 100% conviction in their beliefs. the same for muslims. do christians claim to
be smarter than jews or muslims or any other religion for that matter?
there are many religious groups each claiming to be the true one that you should follow.
how would one simpleton person can make heads or tail of it? you can research 1 religion
for a lifetime and still be ignorant. do people even come close to that?(edited)
what i am hopping for you to answer, as a rational conclusion, is that believing in christ
and christianity, is nothing more than 100% self-held belief. which is ok. you're entitled
to it. but your belief should not be transposed to others which are not of your same faith.
this would be a pointless argument to even start.
since no one knows any axiomatic absolute truths. we are just flawed humans searching
for a deeper meaning to our existence in a vast and undiscovered universe.(edited)
The Son of Man (an Hebrew idiom for human) is said to ride the clouds,
something usually reserved for deity.
another comment on that. many prophets made unnatural miracles. did they claim to be
god? was moses a god? what is the difference? it's said in the bible that even unholy men
could create miracles as in the story of the sanke, pharaoh and moses, as you recall.
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron
threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a
snake.

Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also
did the same things by their secret arts:
so miracles are not signs in themselves of a divine guidance. the scriptures even tell that a
prophet who would claim to be a deity, and try to lead you from the straight path, which
is going against the explicit word of god, that would be a sign of him being a false
prophet, and you should be careful to not stray and be mislead by that.(edited)
the self-proclaiming of being a deity is a contradictory in itself.(edited)
17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a
prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words
in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will
call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks
in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have
not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put
to death.”
(edited)
trailblazer-Today at 2:00 PM
the idea that god would be reveled in his flesh is very very foreign to judaism. extremely
far away. god is believed to have no bounds. an almighty being out of this world. the idea
of limiting him to a corporal mortal form is high heresy in judaism view.
they would never be able to accept it.(edited)
this has never been done before in their bible. there is no precedence.(edited)
the god jews know, among other things, is a vengeful and jealous god "‫"אל קנא‬, which can
be fortuitous. i don't know what christ has been teaching, but his image of being peaceful,
being crucified and all that, playing the victim, doesn't consolidate well with the image
that was portrayed throughout the jewish bible at all. the jewish god love to show his
strength and obliterate those who didn't follow him.(edited)
it seems to be the opposite of christ approach.
anyway, thanks for reading.
why is this channel not viewable to all christians?

You might also like