The Messiah is the Way, Truth & Life

Andalus wrote: Jeremiah 33:16-18, Zachariah 14:20-21, Ezekiel 43-44 They all speak of "literal" things.

Jeremiah 33:16-18

16 'In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.'

17 "For thus says the LORD, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;

18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'"

I answer this with the Christian Doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers, the bullwark of which is 1 Peter 2:9:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

And regarding "continual sacrifices", I would offer Hebrews 13:15:

Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

Thus, two of the Messiah's head followers, Simon Kephas, "the Rock", and Saul Paulus, "the little", both seem to be indeed interpreting Jeremiah 33:16-18 spiritually.

I suspect you are right about Hebrews 10:5 being garbled.  With that in mind, however, I think the main thrust of Hebrews 10 is still quite clear.  In the following, please recall that Leviticus 17:11 only says that "the blood ... maketh atonement for the soul", but does state the blood actually washes away the sin.  It is as if you were to get a stain on your garment, and so Almighty God begins to turn away from your dirty appearance, but then you offer Him a sacrifice, and He then deigns to forgive and tolerate your uncleanliness.  Such is what Leviticus 17:11, God-breathed or otherwise, does claim.

Hebrews 10

1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
         "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
         BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; 
6       IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE. 
7       "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
         (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
         TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'"

8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),

9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

I have argued elsewhere that the Messiah's ministry was a direct rebuttle to the Temple and its sacrifice cult.  The Messiah cleansed the temple (Matthew 21:12-17) and then foretold its doom when the unrueful Priesthood still denied the Calling of John the Dunker, or 'Baptist', and then damned themselves with their own words (Matthew 21:18 - f.f.).  And, indeed, Titus and the Roman Legions fulfilled the Messiah's fore-telling (Matthew 24:1-2) in 70 CE when they sacked Jerusalem and tore the Temple down.

Furthermore, the Messiah presented himself as the "Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices" and the "Intercessor to End All Intercessors", thereby utterly obviating the Temple of any further relevancy.  Clearly, the coming in of the Messiah was the going out of the Temple, which has remained rubble since that time, throughout all the years of the Christian faith.  The one is anathema to the other, and they cannot co-exist.  Those who would rebuild the Temple must first destroy Christianity, etc.

And here in Hebrews 10:1-9 we see yet more proof of our deductions.  In the vein of Hosea 6:6, "For kindness I desired, and not sacrifice, and a knowledge of God above burnt-offerings", Saul Paulus here argues plainly that the Messiah has "taken away" Temple sacrifices, and replaced them with "doing God's Will".

And this is the heart of Islam -- as I understand it.

That is, the Messiah came to Israel to obliterate the Temple cult and Right Israel back onto the path of Islam -- doing God's Will.  Such is what I hear, at least.

So, at the end of the day, I am arguing that the Messiah came explicilty to obliterate the ritualistic and legalistic Temple cult, with its concern for numerical minutae, and re-introduce pure uncorrupted Islam -- doing God's Will.  The Messiah came to "take away" the ossified literalisms the Temple priesthood clung to, and (re-?)establish pure Islam.

You argue for a literal interpretation of Jeremiah 33:16-18. But upon the strength of 1 Peter 2:9, Hebrews 13:15, and Hebrews 10:1-9, I counter that the Messiah's head followers clearly favored a spiritual interpretation utterly at odds to the Temple cult.  For consider, also, Hebrews 9:8:

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

So, in short, I see in the conflict between literalism and spiritualism the very conflict between between the Old Covenant, the Covenant of Works (continual blood sacrifices), and the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace (continual prayer and belief).  Note, lastly, that 1 Peter 2:9, mentioned above, references Exodus 19:6:

and ye -- ye are to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation: these [are] the words which thou dost speak unto the sons of Israel.'

Now, please put this in the context of the words of John the Dunker in Luke 3:8:

"Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

This is what Saul Paulus refers to repeatedly in his letters when he talks of (spiritual) "Adoption" to "sonship" with Almighty God.  Why?  Because a literal interpretation of Exodus 19:6 would be that the Hebrews were a "chosen kin-folk" by blood... whereas what John the Dunker is warning his listeners against is this very "laurel-resting" complacency of thinking that one is automatically a "made man" merely by virtue of calling Abraham his forefather.  Almighty God judges by the heart (Luke 16:15; 1 Samuel 16:7; Proverbs 21:2; Acts 1:24; Romans 8:27).

Therefore, I link literalism to the argument John the Dunker is lamenting, namely saying "I am a son of Abraham, and I sacrifice regularly in the Temple, meeting the letter of the Law, so I am set". 

Romans 2

26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.

29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

and Romans 7:6:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

So again, as with the "Gospel of Barnabas", we have a conflict between reading the Law "as to the sense, rather than to the letter".  The letter says, "burnt offerings [on an altar of this and that dimensions]"... The sense says, "offer up to Almighty God the 'sacrifices' of prayer, praise, and a broken spirit [Psalm 51:17]".

The very "Good News" of the Messiah, as I see it, was freedom from the heavy and oppressive overburden of the Law's legalistic ritualism, itself based upon strict literalism.  As with Hebrews 10:1-9, the New Covenant cast out the million and one rules of the old... and ushered in a New Covenant founded on merely one precept: do God's Will.

WHERE's THE ALTAR?

As for the importance of the altar, I wonder if Pilate's washing of his hands in Matthew 27:24 is a reference to Psalm 26:6,

I wash in innocency my hands, And I compass Thine altar, O Jehovah

This would make the Messiah, who is called the "cornerstone" or "capstone" of the new Spiritual Temple of the Body of Believers, equal to the "altar" of the Spiritual Temple.  I do not believe that such a statement would be inimicable to Christians, but I will ask.

1 Thessalonians 5

14 and we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the infirm, be patient unto all;

15 see no one evil for evil may render to any one, but always that which is good pursue ye, both to one another and to all;

16 always rejoice ye;

17 continually pray ye;

18 in every thing give thanks, for this [is] the will of God in Christ Jesus in regard to you.

fredifreeloader wrote: bismarck - i dont know why youre linking "works" to hebrews 9: 22.  works doesnt have anything to do with the shedding of blood for the remission of sins.  "good works" are simply the "good" things people do (in their own eyes, and in others eyes).  they are not enough to obtain salvation.  also your description of people "burdened with the debt of sin" as being jewish does not hold any water.  the prophets did not target the jews and the jews only, as you suggest.  what about jonah for instance?  he was sent to nineveh, a gentile city.  what about Gods judgement of sodom and gomorrah?   why would he judge places that were not accountable to him?  romans 3 is very important in respect of this.  paul says in verse 9 that "both jews and gentiles... are all under sin"  also v.23 - "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".  now "all" means all, and Christ died for all

That is a strong point, rooted in the Writings (Scripture).  I still suspect, however, that Muhammad's attack on "original sin" may well be misunderstood today, much as Luther's attack on "works" is often misunderstood.

Just as Luther attacked "works" like praying before "holy" relics (often cemented into walls where you could not verify that anything was really there) to get an "indulgence" for reduced sentence in purgatory....

Perhaps Prophet Muhammad attacked the "original sin" that supposedly cast you into "purgatory" -- and which thereby necessitated your dumping your income into Church coffers to "indulge" your way out of purgatory "by works"...

The simple sense I get from Prophet Muhammad is that we do not "start life already doomed with a sentence of 10,000,000 years in purgatory" like the Church of that medieval era claimed!  No joke!  It is my understanding that the Church claimed you were doomed to spend MILLIONS of YEARS in purgatory -- and if you tithed your family farm to the church, they'd let you pray before their "holy relics" to reduce that sentence by a few million!  Luther attacked that practice...

And that's what I hear Prophet Muhammad doing as well.  I would like to hear Rami's input on this issue.  I think my general point that "words need to be understood in their proper historical context" is a valid point.  Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) attacking "original sin" may not be what we think of as "original sin" today, as it were, just as "works" today seems to me to be understood as something DRAMATICALLY different from what LUTHER ever intended.

...now as to the "fallibility" of the old testament.  well, muhammad recognised the book (but then he couldnt read).  at least one islamic law is based on it, namely the stoning of adulterers, which is not in the quran at all.  according to khadija, who posts in these forums, it is not in the quran, because muhammad got it from the torah.  funny that, dont you think? how things which are fallible suddenly become infalllible when you want to implement them

The Holy Qur'an and Islam do not claim, to my knowledge, that the OT is completely forged.  Rather, the claim is, to my knowledge, that the OT is corrupt "in places".  Nevertheless, the HQ says, I am told, something like "Do not put the OT & NT down, for you may be putting down the Words of God, but do not raise the OT & NT up, for you may be raising up the words of men".  So, to my knowledge, the HQ explicitly acknowledges that there is (some) truth left in the OT & NT that has not fallen, or been cast, into darkness.

The HQ also teaches that "to save one life is as though you saved all life", just as Rabbi's teach from the OT.  Does that make either, in this case, wrong?  The Muslim argument would be, to my knowledge, that the HQ serves to AUTHENTICATE the OT here.

That is a perfectly logically consistent assertion.

now you say i HAVE to acknowledge that God set up the aaronic priesthood with a "real sweet deal" - no i dont.  if they had that it was because of sin and failure on their part, not because of Gods intentions.  as for the destruction of the temple, it was already invalidated, through the cross, before its destruction, as i already said

I do not understand what you said.  I personally suspect that, probably when temple priests "found" the OT tucked away in a wall in the Temple in the 18th year of Josiah's reign c.620 BCE after 50 years (nearly 3 generations) of non-worship, the temple Priests may have edited the texts in their financial favor.  In that case, their sweet deal would indeed be "because of sin and failure on their part, not because of God's intentions".  So I agree with your words on this point....

I get the impression you did not hear what I meant you to when I wrote what I wrote.  I did not mean that "God intended the Aaronic priesthood to get filthy rich off of sacrifices..."

Rather, I was trying to be sarcastic.  Have I cleared this point up?

Andalus wrote: Greetings Bismarck. I would like to address your well thought out contribution on a few issues. ... Point One: According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messianic age will bring about the sacrificial system and temple once again. These are "Messianic" verses I present and are widely accepted as such. Jeremiah 33:16-18 ... Zachariah 14:20-21 ...And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD Almighty. Ezekiel 43-44 ... Conclusion: We have a contradiction, either Jesus fulfilled all sacrifices and ended the sacrificial system and these messianic verses are wrong or Jesus did not actually end the sacrifical system. ...

Andalus,

I offer that you have made a very understandable, and yet nevertheless incomplete, accounting of the Messiah's ministry.  For the record, the Muslim-preserved "Gospel of Barnabas" has the Messiah say, "there are some verses where you ought to judge the meaning by the sense rather than the letter".  That sentiment will guide my discussion here.

Please consider the following passages:

John 2:19-22

Jesus answered and said to them, `Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.'  The Jews, therefore, said, `Forty and six years was this sanctuary building, and wilt thou in three days raise it up?'  But he spake concerning the sanctuary of his body; when, then, he was raised out of the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this to them, and they believed the Writing, and the word that Jesus said.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Have ye not known that ye are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God doth dwell in you?  If any one the sanctuary of God doth waste, him shall God waste; for the sanctuary of God is holy, the which ye are.

1 Peter 2:1-10

Having put aside, then, all evil, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envyings, and all evil speakings, as new-born babes the word's pure milk desire ye, that in it ye may grow, if so be ye did taste that the Lord [is] gracious, to whom coming -- a living stone -- by men, indeed, having been disapproved of, but with God choice, precious, and ye yourselves, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  Wherefore, also, it is contained in the Writing: `Lo, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, choice, precious, and he who is believing on him may not be put to shame;' to you, then, who are believing [is] the preciousness; and to the unbelieving, a stone that the builders disapproved of, this one did become for the head of a corner, and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence -- who are stumbling at the word, being unbelieving, -- to which also they were set; and ye [are] a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light; who [were] once not a people, and [are] now the people of God; who had not found kindness, and now have found kindness.

Ephesians 2:19 - 22

Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner-[stone], in whom all the building fitly framed together doth increase to an holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom also ye are builded together, for a habitation of God in the Spirit.

Matthew 16:15 - 19

He saith to them, `And ye -- who do ye say me to be?'  And Simon Peter answering said, `Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'  And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens.  `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

 

The resolution to the contradiction you raised is, therefore, that the Messiah REPLACED the Physical Temple and Blood Sacrifices with the Spiritual Temple of Believers ("The Church" is the "Body of Christ", to wit, the "Body of Believers in the Messiah") and Spiritual Sacrifices (Psalms 34:18, 51:17).  Hence, the Messiah really did "tear down the [physical] Temple made by hands" and "raise up a new [spiritual] temple made by Belief in God Almighty".

This is what the Messiah meant in Matthew 16 when addressing Simon Kephas (Peter, "the Rock").  Simon became Simon Kephas upon Believing in the Messiah-ship of Yeshua!  Indeed, that is the formal definition of a Christian -- he who believes that Yeshua really truly is the Messiah!  So, Simon Peter's profession of faith in Matthew 16 does not mean that somehow Rome becomes the supreme overlord of all Christendom... rather, it is merely an Apostolic Testimony, to wit, an Example of Righteousness and Belief that other Christian Believers are to follow.  In so doing, they join the Messiah (spiritual corner-stone) and the Apostles (spiritual foundation stones) in the building of God's Holy [Spiritual] Temple and partake in the [Spiritual] sacrifices of humility and prayer.  (Note: by word origin, humility, from Latin, just means grounded, in English; he is humble who is Earthly and [Well] Grounded -- as opposed to having lofty opinions of themselves in their self-built "castles in the sky".)

So, Yeshua the Messiah did rebuild the "Temple" and re-institute "Sacrifices"... but he did so Spiritually -- heeding those OT Messianic prophecies "according to the sense, not the letter".

Andalus wrote to Bizmarck : Understand my intention is not to "change you mind", or "prove you wrong", but to put forth my reasons for rejecting Church theology. Furthermore, my intention is to put forth this dialogue so that you will know that some people refuse to follow the Christian message not out of being stubborn, or ignorant (being ignorant is not a bad thing as we are all ignorant of many things), or just being unwilling to understand and think. Some will reject the Christian message on very solid grounds with very valid arguments.

You should put forth to Fredifreeloader for he is making the mountain out of the molehill.

I will add that being ignorant and adamant is being uncivilised. Allah has sent his last messenger to civilise all mankind. Unfortunately, the adamant and uncivilised human race has chosen to cling on their civilisation that is declining.


Edited by pauline35