Theology Debate

This is a debate currently being held at the March of The Jesus Freaks Wiki. Just thought it may be interesting for some of you to read. This is re-posted with permission from the owner of the wiki inwhich this debate is taking place. Continuously updated.

---

[Lady_Elowyn]: The Bible is not always to be taken litterally, especially when it comes to old testament laws.

[The Slave Queen]: but when do u take it literally?

[Mekashef]: Very seldom, if ever. Strict literalism is, in fact, technically impossible - due to the epistemological status of human learning, the only Revealed Scripture that is accessible to us is accessible to us through our own interpretation, which, unlike the Revelation, is not inerrent. In other words, even though the Bible may be entirely correct on all points, human understanding could never be.

[Mekashef]: That is why it is a good idea to devellop a tolerant approach towards all forms of religiosity, as well as a good deal of skepticism towards absolutism.

[The Slave Queen]: oo, very scholarly answer :)

[Mekashef]: Sorry, can't help it.

[Child of God]: Looks like someone has taken worldview and religion 101. Or in some cases, 105 ^-^

[Child of God]: A good way to remember it is that the Old Testiment is what the Jews follow. It is the old convenant, inwhich are laws there were set to prevent the Jews from sinning against God and maintain a relationship with Him, the relationship that was last due to the Fall. Chritianity is the 'completion of Judaism', if you will. The New Testement fillfills all of the prophecies (save those about the End Times). The New Testement is the new convent given to Christ's followers. Therefore, we follow the New Testement, which may include Old Testement laws such as the Ten Commandments but only those Old Testement laws we are still follow are reaffirmed by Jesus in the New Testement A way my pastor explained it was; The Old Testiment provides us with a history, The New Testement is what we live by.

[Lady_Elowyn]: I like that explanation. Thank you.

[Mekashef]: & in certain cases, the churches supplement New Testament teachings with the Tradition of the Fathers, or whatever else they deem as an appropriate moral system. The New Testament, unfortunately, does not systematically go through every 413 mitzvoth to identify which still apply. In fact, the notion of the new covenant is not discussed in the Gospels. It is mentionned thrice in the Epistles, but even there it is not explained in great detail. The problem with the understanding that the Old Testament is defunct & constitutes "the Jews' Bible" is that, on one hand, it fails to honour the Judaic roots of Christianity, & on the other hand, it demonstrates remarkably little understanding of contemporary Judaism. Judaism has subjected the "old covenant" to as much interpretation, if not more so, than any tradition of Christian doctrine. The Mishna & the Talmuds have completely redefined the Judaic understanding of the Scriptures - if this were not the case, Judaism could not have survived the Fall of the Second Temple.

[Child of God]: Not necessarily, because we all understand that we must know our history in order to understand where we have come from and where we are going right? If anything, understanding the Old Testement as a History gives great honour to the Judaic roots of history, because we are acknowledging where we have come from. Had it not been for Judaism, Christianity would not be what we know it as today. I know that somewhere in the Bible, in one of the four Gospels, Jesus says something along the lines of completing the Mosaic Laws and what he has given to us is to be the new laws to which we live by. Most of the old laws pertain to worship and sacrifices for different sins, laws and justice, stuff like that. In Jesus sacrificing Himself, he abolishes those laws pertaining to sacrifice for sin. He tells us how and when we should worship, and also how to follow laws and justice. Although He does not necessarily saw plainly, "Here is your new convenant", He indirectly gives us a new one. Many of those old laws also, were to keep the Jews seperate from the pagan cultures around them. Come the days of Jesus, there was no longer as strong of a need since Jeruselum was already established and recongnized as a culture within the Roman Empire. The 'important' Mosaic laws were are still to abide by are told to us by Jesus, such as the Ten Commandments, Love thy Neighbor, and such. The interpretation of this matter also comes down to denominational teachings I guess. I don't really have a church background, I've always read the Bible and took what I thought from it, but this year I began a Christian University from the Christian Reformed Denomination, so I guess this just falls into whatever you were/are taught.

[Mekashef]: My point here is that the soteriology of Christ's sacrifice as taking the place of the Law (figuratively or literally) is only one position in the wide spectrum of Christian opinions & doctrines. I am not an expert on denominations, but I am quite sure that churches differ wildly insofar as this matter is concerned. I find that relegating the Old Testament (& Old Testament Law) to the "Ancient History" shelf is almost as disrespectful as ignoring it altogether, mainly because it is not, like an old shoe, something that Christianity outlived or outgrew. Crucial elements of Judaism still constitute part of the living core of contemporary Christianity. Mekashef: Moreover, the Old Testament (especially the Prophets & Psalms) still plays a prevalent role in liturgy. The Old Testament has some of the most beautiful & challenging passages of Bible, & many of them pertain to statements of Mosaic Law which are by no means irrelevant to the contemporary human condition. So pick up your OT & enjoy!

[Child of God]: Teach to their own right? ^-^

[Ladyeternalflame]: hi I'm new here, I'm a Christian and I think this is a very interestng conversation. The truth about the Old Testament is that the Jews did not keep their side of the covenant with God. They betrayed Him by worshiping idols and false gods. They took up the pagan ceremonies and lifestyles of their neighbors. They slept with shrine prostitutes and sacrificed their own child true heathen devil gods. THey disobeyed the commandments requiring them to take care of the poor, the widows and orphans in the community. However, by Jesus's time the jews were doing a lot better, they had been punished by God and came to their senes. Jesus spoke about the heart of the law.

[Child of God]: Very true. I'm not at all downplaying the role or importance of the Old Testement, since Christianity is the 'completion' of Judaism. But God gave Isreal all of these laws to set them apart from the rest of the nations of the ancient world. They were to be the priesthood nation through which all other nations came to be saved. That was completed through Christ. So no longer is just Isreal called to be a royal priesthood, but all believers of Christ are called to be so. No longer do we need the laws and guidelines of the Old Testement in the same way the Jews did, because we now have Christ and Christ's love to set us apart.

[Mekashef]: One noteworthy problem with many of the Christocentric interpretations of the OT is that they rely on the notion of incompletion, which is in fact extra-Biblical, & seemingly anti-Semitic. The notion that Judaism (Ancient or Modern) is incomplete is a rather simple Christian bias. Jewish scholars as well as non-Jewish students of Jewish religion & lore rarely get that impression, if ever. It seems altogether rather unlikely that 4000 thousand years of Faith, & 2000 years of scholarship, could be mistaken on such a vital point. The Gospel accounts present Jesus as the fulfilment of the Law - not its completion, but its fulfilment, its realization, perhaps even in a sense its epitome.

[Child of God]: It's not to say Judaism is incomplete as a religion, though as the prophets foretold, Jesus is the completion of the prophies of the Old Testement. It's in that way He completes, or rather fulfills, Judaism. It's not to say Judaism is incomplete in itself, because you are right that would be a false assumption. But the fact remains that where the Israel nation was chosen by God through Abraham to be the priest nation through which all others are saved, that has been completed (or fulfilled if you prefer that word) by Jesus. No longer is just Israel to be a royal priesthodd, but all believers everywhere are called to be. We can get that just be reading the covenant of Abraham, then Christs completion (or fulfillment) of it and His commission to His followers.

[Ladyeternalflame]: I agree with Child of God. Have you heard of Messianic Judaism, from the word Messiah? They are Jews who believed Jesus is the promised and prophecied messiah, savior, deliverer, and annointed one that the Old Testaments talked about. They follow sme of the customes of Judaism like passover and Hannukah, they celebrate the holidays and probably go to church on Saturday, but they believe in Jesus as the son of God. I have no Jewish ancestry, my ancestors were probably Celts worshipping pagan idols during Jesus time.

[Lady_Elowyn]: I always wanted to be a Messianic Jew. I am a strong christian, but I have no jewish roots. My family practices some of the Jewish traditions, though, Like Passover and Hannukah, with soime Jewish friends.
Ladyeternalflame: I always thought it would be fun to celebrate Hannukah AND Christmas, more presents that way. But personally I think Christmas in more fun. I love deocrating for Christmas.

[Lady_Elowyn]: Yeah, me too. I do celebrate both sometimes, but other rimes we only celebrate Christmas.

[Lady_Elowyn]: Yeah, me too. I do celebrate both sometimes, but other rimes we only celebrate Christmas.

[Mekashef] Messianic Judaism is an exceptional & peculiar phenomenon - it is in fact impossible to trace contemporary Jewish Christianity to original Jewish Christianity (which, it is useful to observe, started out as the only Christianity). Messianic Judaism is therefore a product on the contemporary religious context, & a kind of reconstructionism. Whereas this takes nothing away from its legitimacy, it will nonetheless be observed that it is a part of counter-culture rather than the mainstream, & by & large the more prevalent movements do not give much credit to minority movements. My point here is that Messianic Judaism cannot, from a traditional standpoint, be considered either Jewish or Christian. There are also some rather problematic passages in Paul which are hard to reconcile with orthodox Judaic practices & customs, Ancient & Modern.
Ladyeternalflame: I wonder, do Messianic Jews follow OT kosher laws? In Acts Peter had a vision that told him it was ok to eat animals that were considered unclean, and to accept gentile believers.

[Lady_Elowyn]: I believe that it depends on the jew. Many jews are not strictly kosher. However, I believe messianic jews do not need to follow the old testament laws unless these laws were reiterated in the New Testament.
Child of God: I agree. Unless it is reiterated in the New Testement, Jesus states Himself that He is the new covenant at the Lord's Supper. Old Testement Laws were part of the Old Covenant made between God and the Jews to keep them as His people. Now, it's not just the Jews, but all who are in Christ which are His people

[Mekashef]: The Messianic Jews I've encountered kept kashrut. Granted, I haven't met many, but seeing that there aren't many, I think my sample is relevant. Jesus is also reported to have said He hadn't come to destroy the Law, & that not an iota of the Law would pass away from His days unto the end of time. The implications of this statement caused no end of trouble to the early Church. For an interesting & humorous treatment of this issue, have a look at the Epistle of Barnabas.

[Child of God]: True, but He like before, at the Lord's supper, He confirmed that He was the New Covenant, therefore implying that the Old Covenant had been completed, fulfilled, whatever word you wish to use. Therefore, many (not all just many) of the stipulations which constituted the Old Testement were no longer relavent. Like the Old Testement Laws about diet. I think it was Paul (someone please correct me if I am wrong) whom God told that all animals were now given as food to be eaten. No longer were they confined to the diet of the Old Laws, but now they were able to enjoy all of God's creation in food. And about people having to undergo circumsisin (sp? I know that's spelled wrong!), they didn't have to anymore because it wasn't only the Jews who were God's chosen people anymore; it was anyone who believed in Jesus. God had origionally chosen the Jews through Abraham in the Old Testment cause trying to reach mankind as a whole wasn't working. So, instead He focused on one group which would bring all other nations to Jesus. That covenant (the one to Abraham inwhich His decendants would be as a priesthood to all nations and redeem the world) was fulfilled/completed/*choice word here* by Jesus. So, the Covenant of Abraham, inwhich one of the stipulations included the Old Testement Laws, which was largely put upon them because of the Golden Calf incident, was also completed (can't think of a better word here sorry) when Jesus fulfilled God's promise in the covenant.

[Mekashef]: That is, of course, the contemporary understanding of most conservative Christian movements. Note however that it is nowhere implicit in the term "fulfilment" that the Law, or Old Covenant, is defunct. The New Covenant could just as well be interpreted as a stricter reaffirmation of the Old Covenant. It is indeed Paul who argued against kashrut & circumcision for Gentile Christians (the situation of Jewish Christians, however, is more ambiguous). Paul, however, may have had a radically different understanding of Christianity than the rest of the Apostles. Biblical texts point to disagreement with Cephas (Peter, theoretically the head of the Church). Extra-Canonical Scripture also support: the theory that the early Christians did not form a united, cohesive community but rather a wide variety of sects. It is clear from the current constitution of the Bible that the Pauline tradition, which was most compromising with regards to Gentile practices, won out. Whether Pauline Christianity is consistent with the Gospels, or with the Gospel of Christ, is a whole different story.

[Child of God]: but it doesn't change that fact that the Jewish laws are a stipulation of the Old Covenant. Jesus tell us himself that he is the New Covenant, therefore under followers of Christ we are subject to his covenant.

[Mekashef]: But what is the New Covenant? Can you find a single Biblical passage where Jesus explicitly states that the Old Law is defunct? No. "Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19-21)

[Mekashef]: The notion that the Law or the Old Testament is not important, less important, or not applicable to Christians, is an interpretation - not a fact. There are very few facts in the study of Religion, & perhaps even fewer in honest religious life.

[Child of God]: No one said they aren't important or less important, but they are not applicable to the New Covenant. You agree that the Old Coventant between God and Abraham and his descendants was that Israel would be a nation in which all others would come to God right? The Old Testement laws were created after the Golden Calf incident to set Israel apart, since they couldn't do it themselves. They demonstrated that by falling into idoltary (sp?) so soon in their exodus from Egypt. So, since Israel couldn't listen to the laws God impressed upon their hearts, He had to create written laws to govern all aspects of life since they were unable to do so themselves in accordance with God's will. That was the main purpose of those laws. Israel couldn't distinguish itself on it's own, so God had to set these laws in order to distinguish them. Now, with the death of Jesus, God had fulfilled/completed/etc His covenant in that through Israel a saviour of all nations would arise. You do agree that Jesus was the Savour promised by God to both Israel and all nations right? So then God has fulfilled his convental promises in Jesus. Therefore, as with much of Jesus teachings, Jesus didn't state exactly what the New Convenant was, only that there was a New Covenant. And (though I admit since I am at school I don't have my bible with me), I know he does saw that he did not come to destroy the Old Testement Laws, but to fulfill them. Actually, scratch that, I looked it up online and Mathew 5:17 states ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus himself states that he has fulfilled them, and in him fulfilling we are freed from them. To say this isn't so, is to then also say that his Death doesn't fulfill the need for a sacrifice for sin, which goes directly against the Bible and core beliefs of the Christian faith. The verse you demonstrated wholly states "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." He is saying that until his death, untill everything is accomplished, the Mosaic law must be obeyed. But in his death, Jesus himself states that "It is finished" John 19:30. It has been accomplished. Therefore, when Jesus sates that "not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disapear from the Law until everything is accomplished.", it is accomplished in his death.

[Mekashef]: That's a very clever interpretation, but nevertheless "fulfilment" of the commandments cannot be equated with being "freed from them." This notion of soteriology is not part of the Gospels, albeit it is fairly well articulated in Paul. Matthew 5 could easily be interpreted to extend the requirements of Christ's Covenant unto the Gentile population with all the strictness of the Old Covenant.

[Child of God]: Soteriology is very much apart of the Gospels. I'm not sure how you are using that term, but soteriology means the theological doctrine of salvation as effected by Jesus. If you are saying salvation is not effected by Jesus, then I would question as to what demonination you are and where in the Gospels is says so. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your use of this word. If so, could you please clarify the context in which you mean to use it. Even so, I'm not sure how you interpret that as being passoed unto the Gentile's though, since it states plainly that "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished". That is a plain statement that the law will 'disappear' when everything is accomplished. Jesus accomplished everything, and so as he has said, the (Mosaic) law has passed away. If not, then what about the Mosaic laws pertaining to sacrifice? Jesus was the last, the perfect sacrifice. To say that the Old Testement laws are still to be practised, that also includes the Mosaic sacrifical laws. In practicing those, you then say that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient and sin offerings are still required. It completly undermines the basic foundation of the Christian faith that Jesus died as the perfect sin sacrifice for the sins of all nations. As to the difference between fulfillment and freedome, I would question you as to what your distinction between the two are from a theological perspective. It is true we are to live by Christ's covenant with the strictness of the Mosiac Law, but not to live by them. Christ's law was based on love, forgivness and sacrifice. We are to be witness and yes are to live with all strictness, if not more so, than that to which the Jews adhered to Old Testment laws. It is not saying the Mosaic laws are unimportant or irrelevant because that would be a lie (as we have already discussed). I'm not saying that Jesus said he was the fulfillment/completion/etc of law itself, just the Mosaic Laws of the Old Covenant. No longer are we to follow the Old Covenant laws, which have found fulfillment/completion/etc, in Jesus, but live with all our hearts for the New Covenant in which Christ's laws to love and forgive one another and to be a witness and glorify God reside. Just as the Mosaic laws were meant to set a specific lifestyle for the Jews, so to is Christ's laws meant to set a strict lifestyle to us. Though we don't have chapters of laws as the Jews did, we have root laws which affect all aspects of life at the core.

[Mekashef]: Soteriology is a branch of (Christian) Theology; different denominations have their very own. Yours (the one discussed in this diatribe) appears to be particularly Christocentric, & entails the understanding that the Law is transcended in Christ. This understanding is not uncommon; like many spiritual convictions, it cannot be proven false, & even finds a great deal of support in certain of St-Paul's allusions. There are a number of problems with this interpretation, however. Excluding other matters of semantics (which are crucially important, but not particularly appealing to ordinary believers) there is the question of the meaning of fulfilment, which has already been a major subject of disagreement in this discussion, & which I would rather not dwell on. Next there is the term "accomplishment." Within the context, & also considering the Greek, it would seem like the "accomplishment" discussed here is a cosmic, eschatological one. Albeit this does not destroy the possibility of your interpretation, Christ being, (at least in John) the Alpha & the Omega & the chief accomplishment in/of Creation, it will be possible to construct objections, as by "accomplishment" could be meant (in fact, is almost certainly meant) the ultimate end of the cosmos, meaning, the passing away of this very world. Thus, my interpretation of Matt. 5., which is first & foremost a scholarly one (that is, bereft of mysticism & apologetics) is that Christ in fact stated that the Law, the very same Law of the Ancient Jews, is forever - until the world passes away. I am not alone in thinking this, for this understanding exists even amongst pious Christians, which have a different way of explaining why they do not observe Mosaic Law, with a wholly different understanding of soteriology. Another possible problem of your interpretation is that it is demeaning to contemporary Jews, as it slanders Jewish heritage: "Though we don't have chapters of laws as the Jews did, we have root laws which affect all aspects of life at the core." The implication of this statement is that aside from literal observances, Ancient Judaism had no profound religious sentimentality, unlike Christianity. Some will suggest this is in fact unprovable. I would say it is blatantly false. Many of Christ's teachings are echoed in the Oral Torah, which was later compiled in the form of the Mishna. The foremost of Christ's commandments ("Love G-D with all your heart, & your neighbour as yourself") were in fact taught by Hillel before the advent of Jesus, not as an aspect of the Law, but even as the whole of the Law. A highly spiritualized understanding of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures existed prior to Christianity, & probably had a critical influence on Christian precepts.

[Child of God]: I agree that "Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself" is the whole of the law. And perhaps it was stated by someone before Jesus, but by Jesus restating it, for Christians it is a final command. And again, I do not see how it is slandering the Jewish heritage. Also, if the Mosaic laws are to abide until Christ returns, I then agaon pose the question as to the Mosiac sacrifical laws. If Christ commands us to obey the Mosiac laws, which include the sacrifical Mosiac laws, then Christ's death as a perfect sacrifice for sins is in vain. And actually, in an earlier statement I had acknowledge wholly heartedly that the Mosica Laws had great setiment, since God gave them to the Jews for the purpose of being a holly nation and set apart from the others. Instead of giving up on the Hebrews after the incident of the Golden Calf, God was merciful enough to the Hebrews to give them these laws, inwhich states in itself that even though they had screwed up big time, God was still giving them a chance. It has great setiment and meaning and in no way am I downplaying that. I am simply stating that the context in which the Jews recieved the law was under the Old Covenant, which included sacrifical laws for sin. Jesus formed the New Covenant to abolish the sacrifical laws. Does He then distuingish specifically which Mosaic laws are to be kept? Only the truly important ones for his followers. Now in saying that, I am not downplaying the importance of any of the Mosaic Laws but again remember the context they were given in. The Jews did not have the Holy Spirit within them, which is why they had the ark of the covenant for the spirit of God to dwell in. Jesus himself told us that we recieve the Holy Spirit through our belief in Him. So, these Mosiac laws were for the Jews to live by to distuingish themselves from other nations. God had left them to attempt to live on their own as a Holy Nation, but they failed so God had to intervene with the Mosaic laws. Only if the Israelites kept these laws would God dwell with them. When they didn't adhere to the laws, God punished them. In Jesus though, He tells us that the law is written in our hearts, and once the Holy Spirit has come we can clearly hear those laws in our hearts. Now that's not to say that Jews don't have the law written in their hearts as well, but Jesus tells us specifically that his followers do.

[Mekashef]: "Now that's not to say that Jews don't have the law written in their hearts as well, but Jesus tells us specifically that his followers do." You'll have to emphasize that point next time you discuss this topic, because it does veritably seem like you are attributing Christians the monopoly of righteousness. As for the context of the Old Covenant, it is perplexing to note there was an opposition to the Temple cult well before Christianity, an opposition which even crept into the Old Testament, notably, in the form of Isaiah. Jesus didn't seem particularly opposed to the sacrificial rites, & mentions them without derision or suspicion; the conclusion that this is what He had come to replace comes only in later tradition, & whereas that is not necessarily a bad thing, it is nowhere mentionned explicitly in the Scriptures. Not explicitly enough, anyhow, otherwise there would be no mystery at all about it, & we would not be having this discussion. Contemporary Jews have a way of dealing with sacrifical laws, & are not expecting a Messiah of "atonement," so to speak. In this case which laws are "truly important"? Jesus says much more about Shabbat observance & purity laws than about kashrut or sacrifice laws, but does not dismiss any of these Jewish traditions: he merely has a rather revisionistic approach, which is potentially foreshadowed in some of the Prophets, &, ironically enough, in Pharisaic Judaism.

[Child of God]: Then once again I ask you; how do you view Jesus' death? Do you view it as a sacrifice for sins, which is what the Bible tells us and the foundation on which Christianity is based? Even if modern Jews have a way of dealing with sacrifical laws, it doesn't change the fact of their role or importance during both the Old and New Testement. If you were to argue that Christ was not the final sin sacrifice, then you would not be a Christian. I am not being judgmental or discriminatory, but Christians are followers of Christ who believe that Jesus is the only Son of God, who died on the cross as the final and perfect sacrifice for the sins of all, overcame sin and death and rising three days later and ascended to the throne in Heaven. "None come to the Father except through me" It is through Christ's sacrifice alone, his sacrifice which is compensation for our sins, which lead us to God. That is the Christain view. It doesn't really matter if others said it before Christ, the fact that Christ said and did it is what is important. If you were to argue that, then you could say the the Hebrews copied and merely ammended the Hammurbian Code into the Ten Commandments. Also, the Gospels do specifically state that Jesus came as the perfect and final sin sacrifice for all. The very fact that he said that no one comes to God except through him shows that. Sacrifical laws were meant as a means of bridging the gap between the Jews and God, because their sin keeps them apart from God. By Jesus stating that none come to God except through him, he is saying that no longer are the sacrifical laws needed in order to overcome that gap; Jesus provides the bridge for us. In that way, yes he does state that he has come to enact the final sin sacrifice, which could arguebly be the heart of the Mosaic Law. Other aspects of the law are designed to prevent the Jews from leading a sinful life, but the sacrifical laws act as the true bridge between them and God for when they do sin.

[Mekashef]: That Jesus represents the perfect sin-sacrifice in contemporary Christianity can hardly be doubted. That the Gospels explicitly depict Him as such - the sacrifice to end all sacrifices - or that such a sacrifice was necessary according to the Jewish opinion of the time, is another issue altogether. St-Paul does put down the foundations of all Christian soteriology, but the philosophy of atonement in the Gospels, with regards to the crucifixion & resurrection, is only implicit, if present at all. What is explicit is that Jesus' death fulfills an eschatological requirement according to a certain understanding of the prophecies. What is in fact achieved is articulated, not in the Gospels, but in the Epistles. What difference does this make? Well, it entirely depends on your perspective of the Gospels &/or the Epistles. Different denominations have different views on Paul's apostleship. I guess the most important point to make here is probably that Christian theology is a fabric of tradition & assumptions, & whereas the New Testament is like the jumping board of all of its momentous leaps of faith, it does not constitute the direct & comprehensive sum of its contemporary conclusions.

[Child of God]: No, that's not true. Again going back to the Old Covenant, God promises that all nations will come to Him through Abraham, to which Jesus has direct lineage as seen in Mathew 1:1-16. Genesis 12:3, 18:18, Genesis 21:12 ("For it is through Isaac that your seed shall be reckoned", just to name a few. If you would like a complete listing of all 300 prophecies in the Old Testement fulfilled by Jesus please see Prophecies Fulfilled. Please note specifically the passages where it is prophesied about the Lamb of God in the early books of the Old Testement, such as the 2 specifically mentioned in Genesis, the 3 in Exodus, the 2 in Leviticus and so on. Jesus was prophesized thousands of years before His birth to be the redeemer Lamb, the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God as the perfect and final atonment for all sins. Jesus himself articulates that He is to die and rise again three days later, and uses different parables and metaphors which refer to himself and what is accomplished through His death and Resurrection. Jesus' death is the ultamite victory over sin and is articulated when He states "It is finished" If this is not your belief, then please tell me what Jesus is alluding to here when He states this. (And this is based on the assumption that you are, as we are, Christians who believe that Jesus is the One and Only Son of God. If you wish to debate this point, there are other wikis for that, such as The Proof) As for the New Testement being a jumping board for leaps of faith, I'm afraid you will have to explain that a bit better. If you are insinuating that the faith by which we as Christians live is this jumping board then, once again, I ask you as to where you stand in your faith. No religion, including aetheism, sciencism, ect, is without it's leaps of faith. The Jewish faith to which Christians find their ancestory also require leaps of faith. Please specify better on that topic.

---

Back to The Proof Discussions