John 14

Jesus Comforts His Disciples

1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."

Jesus the Way to the Father

5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 Amen, Amen I say to you, anyone who believes in me will do the works I have done. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

My Questions:

Yeshua the Messiah was the "Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices"

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Christians believe that the Messiah Yeshua replaced the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem.  First, Yeshua's crucifiction was the "Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices", and the spilling of Yeshua the Messiah's heavenly blood permanently ended the need to kill animals to propitiate God for the forgiveness of sins.  This need to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins comes from the Old Testament Book of Leviticus:

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to make atonement for your souls; for it [is] the blood which maketh atonement for the soul.

This need to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins is also aptly summarized by the Apostle Saul Paulus in his Letter to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:22

and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.

For the record, the Apostle Saul adopted the Greek name Paulus, meaning "Little", for his ministry amongst the Greek speaking Jews and, later, Gentiles of Greece and Anatolia (modern Turkey).  Saul Paulus, or Saul "The Little", repeatedly called himself the "Least of the Apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:9, Ephesians 3:8).

Therefore, since "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood", Yeshua the Messiah had to bleed on the cross in order to obtain universal forgiveness for sin.  But, having done so, Yeshua the Messiah utterly obviated the need for any further sacrifice, of any kind, for any reason.  Thus, Yeshua the Messiah completely invalidated Solomon's Temple, whose sole reason for being was the sale and slaughter of animals to forgive Jews for their sins.  It is for this reason that Yeshua the Messiah drove the merchants from the Temple and said, "I will pull down this Temple made by the hands of men, and in three days I will build up another not made by the hands of men" (Mark 14:58, John 2:19).

For the record, the Temple Priests profited astronomically from this rampant animal sacrifice, by millions of Jews every "Holy Day", for practically every offense from stubbing your toe to swearing after you do so, which was made necessary by the words recorded in their Book of Leviticus.  This is why Yeshua the Messiah told those Priests that they had made the House of God into a "House of Robbers" (Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46) or a "House of Merchandise" (John 2:16).  That is, Yeshua the Messiah was impugning the motives of the Temple Priests, claiming that they were putting wordly gain before God in their hearts.

The reader may note that Yeshua the Messiah called the Temple a "house built by the hands of men", an allegation that smacks of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel.  Yeshua the Messiah's Cleansing of the Temple was, therefore, more accurately a Spiritual Destruction of the Temple.  It is no accident that Yeshua the Messiah prophesized the Physical destruction of the Temple as well, "stone will not remain upon stone" (Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 19:44 & 21:6).  Clearly, the coming in of Yeshua the Messiah was the going out of the Temple of Solomon, and any attempts to rebuild it blaspheme Almighty God.

Yeshua the Messiah is the "Intercessor to End All Intercessors"

You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

My next point, related to the first, is that Christians say that Yeshua the Messiah is the "Intercessor to End All Intercessors".  That is, before Yeshua the Messiah, the Priesthood of Solomon's Temple claimed for itself the right to intercede between Sinful Man and Holy God.  The Priests claimed that only they, as purified Holy Men, could righteously enter the Inner Sanctuaries of Solomon's Temple to perform the sacrifices required to atone for men's sins.  Indeed, this is why the Temple had seven (7) concentric courts, which were designed to progressively shield the Holy of Holies from the corruptions of the world. 

We argued above that Christians say that the spilling of Yeshua the Messiah's blood on the cross terminated Solomon's Temple.  In the same vein, Christians say that Yeshua the Messiah terminated the Temple Priesthood too, because now Yeshua the Messiah is the only intercessor between Holy God and Sinful Mankind.  Hence, we now ask from God through Yeshua the Messiah.  That is, we "pray in Jesus' name".

I would like to know, as precisely as possible, how this is or is not compatible with Islam.  I understand that Islam acknowledges Yeshua as the Messiah (Issa the Massih).  I also understand that Islam does not acknowledge any need to rebuild Solomon's Temple.  Does this imply that Islam, in agreement with Christianity, holds that Yeshua the Messiah terminated the Temple and the Temple Priesthood for the above-mentioned reasons?  Does Islam hold that Yeshua the Messiah's ministry was, in essence, a direct rebuttle to the Temple?

Christians often quote Old & New Testament passages such as:

"Yes, all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious ideal;"     Romans 3:23

"But the trouble is that your sins have cut you off from God. Because of sin he has turned his face away from you and will not listen anymore."   Isaiah 59:2

to support this conception of omnipresent sin, and the impending Wrath of God, which we can only escape through God's Mercy by our sincere repentence and belief in Yeshua as Messiah.  Yeshua the Messiah then becomes for us our spiritual "Great High Priest" (Hebrews 4:14), and all Believers become the "Royal Priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9).  Indeed, as with Simon Kephas (Peter, "The Rock") in Matthew 16:18, all Believers become "Living Stones" in the "Spiritual Temple" of the Body of Believers.  (Christians call The Church the Body of Christ or Body of Believers in Christ, from John 2:21.)  This is how Yeshua the Messiah fulfilled the Old Testament Messianic prophecy of rebuilding the Temple.

What I have tried to do here is show what Christianity means when Yeshua the Messiah says, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father but through me" and "Ask anything in my name, and I will do it."

Christians are saying "Yeshua the Messiah terminated the Temple, and assumed its functions for us, if we but Believe in him (as being the Messiah)."

But I think praying in Jesus' name would not be allowed in Islam.

And Christians often use "None come to the Father but through Jesus" as "proof" that only Christianity is true, and Islam is wrong.

But on the other hand, Islam does acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah... so perhaps that means Islam does "come through Jesus to the Father", as it were?

So, does Islam acknowledge that Jesus brought about "Salvation" to mankind through fulfilling the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies about him?  If Islam says, "Yes, Jesus was the Messiah, and yes Jesus fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies, and yes Jesus thereby bought 'freedom from the Law' in the sense that he terminated the oppressive mantle of Solomon's Temple and replaced it with a 'lighter yoke' of Belief in his Messiahship"...

... if all that were true, then I don't think there would actually be conflict between Islamic doctrine and Christian doctrine on this issue, so that "None come to the Father but through Jesus" would actually apply to Muslims as well.

These are some questions I had.  I am personally very interested in doctrinal minutiae like this.  I do want to stress that just becuase Judaism today no longer holds this concept of an oppressive "sin burden" that drives you to spend all your money in the Temple on sacrifices -- that the Temple Priests then get to eat, it's quite a deal, they sell you the animal, and then get to eat the resulting barbeque too! -- does not mean that Judaism 2000 years ago did not have that concept.  Judaism was radically altered by the destruction of the Temple in about 70 AD.  Judaism was forced to adopt a much more muted sense of sin, and that prayer and repentence could atone for your sins.  Otherwise, Jews would have felt emersed in sin and have no way out!  So, interestingly, Judaism was forced to adopt a more muted and softened and less legalistic conception of sin much more in line with Yeshua the Messiah's teachings (on that point).  But I think Judaism 2000 years ago, under the Temple, really did have this sense of Original Sin that was later adopted by Roman Catholicism (and used to intimidate the peasants into toiling away on church owned plantations and giving them lots of money in tithes to buy their condemned souls out of Purgatory).

I would really appreciate specific answers to these questions.

bismarck - i agree with your post, thanks for putting it up.  the only quibble i think i would have is your reference to solomons temple, in fact at the time of the Lord it was herods temple.  also i do not think that the cleansing of the temple was its spiritual destruction, rather it proves that the temple was still valid at that time.  the temple was invalidated in luke 23: 45, during the three hours of darkness on the cross when "God made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all", and the veil seperating the holy place from the holiest of all was "rent in the midst"  or as another of the gospels puts it "from top to bottom", the way to God now being open to all through faith in Christ

i do like these phrases you are using - "the sacrifice to end all sacrifices"  and the "intercessor to end all intercessors", and your drawing attention to Christ as the "great high priest" - hebrews 7: 25  - "wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" - a precious truth that needs to be emphasized as it passes muslims by, as does the great sin question which you also rightly raise.  all sin must be paid for, one way or another, the great thing is that Christ has paid for it through the blood of his cross.  muslims deny this, and therefore will bear the penalty of their sin.  thinking that God can just forgive sin without any basis for the forgiveness, they show they do not acknowledge the terrible holiness of God

So, does Islam acknowledge that Jesus brought about "Salvation" to mankind through fulfilling the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies about him?  If Islam says, "Yes, Jesus was the Messiah, and yes Jesus fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies, and yes Jesus thereby bought 'freedom from the Law' in the sense that he terminated the oppressive mantle of Solomon's Temple and replaced it with a 'lighter yoke' of Belief in his Messiahship"...

... if all that were true, then I don't think there would actually be conflict between Islamic doctrine and Christian doctrine on this issue, so that "None come to the Father but through Jesus" would actually apply to Muslims as well.

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
(al-Qur'an 3:45)

O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist! It will be better for you: for Allah is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
(al-Qur'an 4:171)

The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
(al-Qur'an 3:59)

That they said (in boast) "We killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for, of a surety they killed him not.
No, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
(al-Qur'an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa" title="An-Nisa - 4 :157-158)

Isa like all prophets was a salvation to the people he was sent to save, we accept him and his role but we dont accept that he died for our sins or that anyone could die for the sins of others

And no burdened soul can bear another's burden, and if one heavy laden crieth for (help with) his load, naught of it will be lifted even though he (unto whom he crieth) be of kin. Thou warnest only those who fear their Lord in secret, and have established worship. He who groweth (in goodness), groweth only for himself, (he cannot by his merit redeem others). Unto Allah is the journeying. (35:18)

Allah is not looking for sacrafice but piety and true worship of him, he is talking about the state of our hearts and moral wellbeing as this alone will determine if we are succesfull.

To say allah requires sacrifice is to say he is in need of material things, which is atributing defieciency to him as he is in need of nothing. To put this in analogy, if a person has over half the wealth in the world would you still say he is in "need" of wealth, Allah is the creator why would he be in need of something he created.

I agree David, Too many people think the atonement means they don't have to worry about hell as long as they accept Jesus as their savior.  This is false doctrine and pretty tales told by born agains.

We are all responsible for our actions.  If we sin, we must repent and seriously work at not repeating the action.

Being saved by Jesus's grace is that if we do our very best, we absolutely work hard at being obedient and good, that after all that hard work, grace takes care of the rest. 

Do we still need to worry about sinning and going to hell?  Yes, because if we are disobedient we will still be punished for that. 

***This is just a test and since I know you won't mind my using one of your posts for a test, I am doing so on yours ***

rami - you said "we each atone for our own sins through good works and repentance" - well the holy scriptures make it clear this is not true, although i agree repentance is necessary for salvation.  ephesians 2: 8-10 is illuminating in this respect.  here we read that salvation is not of works, ie it does not result from works.  indeed it is 1.by grace, 2.through faith, 3.not of works, but 4.unto good works.  salvation cannot be earned through attempting good works, as they do not remove sin.  but good works are the result of salvation, as v.10 says.  once we are "born again" (the term was used by the Lord Jesus to nicodemus in john 3, no doubt thats why worldlings laugh at it) good works are evidenced in our lives.  now we all fail and fall by the wayside at times, that is understood, but if a person is not producing good works after receiving Christ as saviour, and persist in wickedness, then the reality of their confession must be questioned.  where is the evidence of faith if there are no good works

one or two people on this thread are poking fun at the idea that all you have to do is believe in Jesus, not understanding what this entails.  now dont take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that islam, like the other religions of the world, seems to think that human beings are not as bad as the bible makes out, and that they can be improved with effort, and if they succeed they will be acceptable with God.  according to the bible this is false.  we cannot make ourselves acceptable to him, we have to let him make us acceptable.  this means setting all pride aside, including the pride of thinking we can make ourselves acceptable, and receiving Christ as saviour

now you made a point about the aaronic priesthood, saying that "it claimed for itself the right to intercede between sinful man and Holy God" - this is not correct.  the priesthood did not claim the right of intercession, but was given the duty of intercession, it was ordained of God

i did appreciate the clear contrast you drew between "sinful man and Holy God".  how appropriate to emphasize this.  God hates sin.  God and sin are polar opposites, and no sin can come near Him.  which is why it is so necessary to "be found in him (Christ), not having mine own righteousness.....but that which is through the faith of  Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" -philippians 3: 10

needless to say i do not agree with your statement that the precious words of the Lord , namely that he is "the way, the truth and the life", are in any way limited to the time the Lord was on earth - hebrews 13: 8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever"

it was interesting to see you talk about the prophecies concerning Christ in the old testament.  how would you comment on those prophecies, notably in psalm 22 and isaiah 53, which specifically refer to his sufferings and death, and the reasons for it?

Angela wrote: I agree David, Too many people think the atonement means they don't have to worry about hell as long as they accept Jesus as their savior.  This is false doctrine and pretty tales told by born agains. We are all responsible for our actions.  If we sin, we must repent and seriously work at not repeating the action. Being saved by Jesus's grace is that if we do our very best, we absolutely work hard at being obedient and good, that after all that hard work, grace takes care of the rest.  Do we still need to worry about sinning and going to hell?  Yes, because if we are disobedient we will still be punished for that.

I understand that "Issa (PBUH) was a Salvation to the People he was sent to".

This would be the Jews, yes?

Issa (PBUH) was therefore a chance for At-one-ment and Salvation, for the Jews, yes?

In other words, if Issa (PBUH) was not sent to the Eskimos, the Eskimos were not in need of salvation?

More broadly, if Issa (PBUH) was not sent to anyone but the Jews, than Issa (PBUH) is not actually a chance for Salvation for anyone but the Jews?

Is this the position of Islam?  "Yes, Issa (PBUH) was a Messiah and Savior... but for the Jews" ?

I do think this makes some degree of logical sense.  Christians always tell me Isaiah 59:2 proves our "Original Sin" and need for redemption:

But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
      And your sins have hidden His face from you,
      So that He will not hear.

But, I think that Islam would tell me, "Isaiah (PBUH) was a Prophet, sure, fine, no problem... but Isaiah (PBUH) was a Prophet sent to the Jews..."

And, therefore, that "Sin Debt" that Isaiah and other Old Testament Prophets -- all sent by Almighty God to the Jews, and Jews alone -- all talk about...

applies only to the Jews and the Jews alone.  Presumably, this would be for their back-sliding.

And let me throw this in, I understand Islam to tell me that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the first Prophet Almighty God sent explicitly to All Mankind.  That is, Islam would tell me I am "under the Spiritual Jurisdiction" of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), yes?

Do I understand correctly that Islam would also tell me that I am not under the "Spiritual Jurisdiction" of Isaiah (PBUH) and Issa (PBUH), who were sent to the Jews and Jews alone?

fredifreeloader wrote: rami - you said "we each atone for our own sins through good works and repentance" - well the holy scriptures make it clear this is not true, although i agree repentance is necessary for salvation.  ephesians 2: 8-10 is illuminating in this respect.  here we read that salvation is not of works, ie it does not result from works.  indeed it is 1.by grace, 2.through faith, 3.not of works, but 4.unto good works.  salvation cannot be earned through attempting good works, as they do not remove sin.  but good works are the result of salvation, as v.10 says.  once we are "born again" (the term was used by the Lord Jesus to nicodemus in john 3, no doubt thats why worldlings laugh at it) good works are evidenced in our lives.  now we all fail and fall by the wayside at times, that is understood, but if a person is not producing good works after receiving Christ as saviour, and persist in wickedness, then the reality of their confession must be questioned.  where is the evidence of faith if there are no good works

2 Peter 3

14 wherefore, beloved, these things waiting for, be diligent, spotless and unblameable, by Him to be found in peace,

15 and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul -- according to the wisdom given to him -- did write to you,

16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction.

I am not a certified expert, but I understand that when Saul Paulus wrote "by works"...

He was referring to Hebrews 9:22 and how you had to sacrifice constantly because you were always in violation of at least one, if not dozens or hundreds, of the Pharisees' 613 regulations.

I understand that "works of the Law" roughly means rampant sacrifice, rather than things like Piety and Charity and Prayer and Fasting, which Paul preached, yes?

Also, you mentioned that repentance is necessary for Salvation... doesn't Salvation = return to God's graces?  Isn't that what "Saved" means?  "Saved" as opposed to damned by the Wrath of God for one's sins that cut us off from God as per Isaiah 59:2?   If so, such "salvation" is equivalent to "at-one-ment" with Almighty God, getting back into communion with God, getting back into God's graces, yes?

fredifreeloader wrote: rami ... (Same Post)  if a person is not producing good works after receiving Christ as saviour, and persist in wickedness, then the reality of their confession must be questioned.  where is the evidence of faith if there are no good works one or two people on this thread are poking fun at the idea that all you have to do is believe in Jesus, not understanding what this entails.  now dont take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that islam, like the other religions of the world, seems to think that human beings are not as bad as the bible makes out, and that they can be improved with effort, and if they succeed they will be acceptable with God.  according to the bible this is false.  we cannot make ourselves acceptable to him, we have to let him make us acceptable.  this means setting all pride aside, including the pride of thinking we can make ourselves acceptable, and receiving Christ as saviour

I offer that "Belief gets you into connection with God, Good Works maintains that connection."  The Thief on the Cross Believed at the last and was saved... because he did as much as he was able, and Almighty God judges us on what we do within the confines of our finite influence in the world.  The Theif on the Cross did as much as he possibly could, he asked "Take me with you" and was told "I tell you this very day, you will be with me in paradise".  But, more or less as you said, if someone is saved early on, they have to do more Good Works.  It's the parable of the field workers, some start work in the morning, and others not until near sundown, and yet they all get paid the same (Salvation).  Not fair?  Read the parable.  Or the parable about the 3 servants who are given 50,000, 30,000, and 10,000 gold pieces.  God is happy with the first two because they doubled their money.  God is angry with the last because he didn't do squat.  God had only demanded that he double his money.  It's Noblesse Oblige, to whom more is given, more is expected.

Regarding Islam's view of men as "not as bad as the Bible claims"... may Almighty God show me the way to just be blunt, but all the people described in the Bible, all those "burdened with a Debt of Sin"... they were all, one and all, apostate back-sliding Jews.  It occurs to me that the argument might be that, bluntly, that Sin Debt belongs only and exclusively to those who dug their own hole -- the Jews, who killed 10,000 Prophets under Elijah, leaving only him left (Romans 11:3, 1 Kings 19:10-14), who killed Zechariah by the altar (Matthew 23:35), and all the others sent to Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37).  All the words from all those Prophets (PBUthem) were God-Breathed... to the Jews.  As such, all their condemnations of mounting sin, as per Isaiah 59:2, were actually targeted at the Jews and the Jews only.  As a non-Jew, you are "taking the wrap" for "crimes you did not commit" by tarring yourself with Isaiah 59:2.  I will not bring this point up again until I get some direction from someone who knows what they are talking about as regards Islam, this is merely what I am understanding from what the Senior Members have told me, combined with my desire to "salvage all I can" from Christianity in trying to reconcile Christianity with Islam as much as possible, and to thereby point out exactly, clearly, and specifically what the differences are.  Last time, but I am wondering if Islam wouldn't just tell me, "Isaiah (PBUH) was a Prophet sent by Almighty God to the Jews to bring them back into Righteousness, his words must be linked to the time, place, and audience he was addressing, Isaiah was not addressing anybody but Jews, and if Almighty God had wanted to tell all men that they were sinners, Almighty God would have sent Prophets to all tribes of men telling them so.  (Moreover, when Almighty God did send a Prophet explicitly to all mankind, namely Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Almighty God did not tell Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to warn us about our 'Original Sin', further emphasizing the point.)"

It occurs to me that, IF this is what Islam would tell me -- not saying it is, but if -- then that does, in point of fact, conflict with the Judeo-Christian notion that "the Jews are/were God's Chosen People" in the sense that, if you will, Islam would tell me "Salvation and Truth comes straight from God, not from God through the Jews, if God wants to tell you something, He needs no intercessor, neither a Temple Priesthood for the Jews, nor the Jews as a "meta-Priesthood" for the rest of mankind."  That is, Islam would -- hypothetically -- flatly deny that "Salvation comes solely from and through the Jews".

Or not, if I have overlooked something.

fredifreeloader wrote: rami -  (Same Post) ...now you made a point about the aaronic priesthood, saying that "it claimed for itself the right to intercede between sinful man and Holy God" - this is not correct.  the priesthood did not claim the right of intercession, but was given the duty of intercession, it was ordained of God

This is a doctrinal difference.  Islam tells us (I think) that the Old Testament is not the "Inerrant Word of God".  It is absolutely fundamental to Islam (I think) that the Old Testament has been corrupted, by accident or design.  Therefore, Rami can say, "The Aaronic priesthood claimed the right to intercede... [by intentionally corrupting the Words of God, trying thereby to shove their words in Almighty God's mouth, and take for themselves what they were not given by Almighty God.]"

I appologize if I just said something Rami didn't intend!  That's what I'm hearing.  If you believe that Islam is true, you must believe in the fallibility of the Jewish "scriptures".  Please note: let us say those scriptures are God Breathed.  Let us just say.  You have to acknowledge that Almighty God sure set those Aaronic Priests up with a real sweet deal!  You have to admit that, by calling all Jews sinful all the time, and having so many laws (6 13) that you are always in violation of dozens of them, that herds all Jews into the Temple to fork over their hard earned dollars 25 / 8 / 366 to buy animals to sacrifice to atone for their sinning asses... boy oh boy, "God" sure does like those Priests, boy, lemme tell you, whooo whee, "God" sure does love them Priests, he set them up real sweet like, don't he?  And this would be why Almighty God destroyed that Temple, yes???

I'm trying to be blunt, to just get to the bottom of the issue.

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

and no, i do not "take the rap" for others sins.  we are each of us accountable for our own sins.  all the more reason to have them dealt with

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

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

All the Prophets ordered their people to worship God alone. Jesus did the same, but Christians don't read these verses.

Matthew 4:10: "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

Mark 13:32 " But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Revelation 22-9: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.  Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."

Also, the Bible says that Jesus is a man and a servant of God.

John 20:17: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended  to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

ACTS 2:22: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"

Matthew 19:16-17:"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:"

Although, it is written in some verses of the Bible that God sent Jesus and he is a servant. Christians say one time that Jesus is God. Another time he is the son of God. They can't explain clearly the diffrence between God and Jesus.

John 3:34: "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."

John 8:42 "I have not come on my own; but he (God) sent me."

Acts 3:13(RSV): "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus."

John 13:16 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

Revelation 22:6: "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto  his servants the things which must shortly be done."

Matthew 12:18: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen;"

Furthermore, the Bible says that there is a diffrence between Jesus and God.

Hebrews 12:29: " For our God is a consuming fire. "

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time,..."

MARK 1:13: "And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan;"

James 1:13 - "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

John 5:37 "And the Father himself has also testified about me.

You have never heard his voice or seen him face to face,"

Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."

Romans 1:18-25 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

In the Old Testament we can read that God is not a man, but He is the savior and there is nothing like Him.

Isaiah 42:8: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

Exodus 20:3-5:"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, "

Psalms 97:7: "Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods."

Leviticus 26:1: "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 4:23: "Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee."

Isaiah 43:11: "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Hosea 13:4: "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me."

Psalms 148:13: "Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven."

Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? "

Isaiah 31:3 "Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit.When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together."

Leviticus 11:44 - "For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Mal 3:6: "For I am the LORD, I change not�"

Col 1:15: "�Who is the image of the invisible God�"

Moreover Jesus will reject the claims of these people and will disassociate himself from them in the second coming:

"Not everyone that saith unto me Lord Lord, shall enter into heaven, but that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day Lord lord have we not propphised in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy names done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY. Therefore whosoever hearth these sayings of mine and DOESTH THEM, I will liken himunto a wise manwhich built his house on a rock." ... "And everyone who hearth these sayings and doesth them not shall be likened unto a foolish man which builtt his house on sand. And the rain desended and the flood came and the wind blew and beat upon that house and it fell, and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7: 21-27)

The Christians are living in the fools paradise of original sin and salvation of sins by Jesus, while Jesus has many a times said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and whosoever want salvation must keep the commandments. Without reading their scriptures Christians are falling into a web of illusions. But they realize it not.

Alas! unfortunate of them. If they still follow their scriptures they still have the chance of salvation.

Shams Zaman  Pakistan. 

Greetings Bismarck. I would like to address your well thought out contribution on a few issues.

Bismarck wrote: John 14 Jesus Comforts His Disciples 1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going." Jesus the Way to the Father 5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." 8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 Amen, Amen I say to you, anyone who believes in me will do the works I have done. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.   My Questions: Yeshua the Messiah was the "Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Christians believe that the Messiah Yeshua replaced the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem.  First, Yeshua's crucifiction was the "Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices", and the spilling of Yeshua the Messiah's heavenly blood permanently ended the need to kill animals to propitiate God for the forgiveness of sins.  This need to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins comes from the Old Testament Book of Leviticus: Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to make atonement for your souls; for it [is] the blood which maketh atonement for the soul.

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

In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety.        This is the name by which it ^[will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'  17 For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.'

Zachariah 14:20-21

20 On that dayHOLY TO THE LORD will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD Almighty.

Ezekiel 43-44

which is about the third temple in the messianic age tells us about sacrifices at the temple.

(I will let those interested read the verses themselves as they would take up a great deal of room pasting them)

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.

Point Two: Blood, Sacrifices, Atonement, and Sin.

Leviticus 17:10-12

10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood�I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 [accurate Hebrew translation should be "This is Because....." and not for]For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

If we read verse 11 within the context of the chapter looking at verse 10 and 12 also, we can walk away with a few major points:

1) No where in the verse or in the surrounding verses does it say that blood is the only means to atone for sin.

2) The verse is about a prohibition against the eating of blood. Verse 11 begins with "this is because", which is discussing the prohibition of eating blood from verse 10. The mentioning of blood in verse 11 is only to give the reason for the prohibition and its role in sacrifice (it is not other parts of the body but the blood).

3) If Lev 17:11 is used to describe the sacrifice of Jesus, then this literal "interpretation" must be extended to the entire verse, and one must ask:"Where was the literal stone alter that took the literal blood from the liteal sacrifice of Jesus". The blood has a relationship with the alter, and the alter was as important as the blood.

4) Lev 17:10-12 fails to address the specifics of sin expiation and the sacrifical system. This is addressed throughout the Torah and what one finds is that not every sin was expiated through blood, and blood was not the only thing that could be used for sin expiation. A grain offering was also accepted to expiate sin that blood was able to expiate.                     

Conclusion: Lev 17:11 is out of context unless it includes 10 and is not a ruling on sin expiation and blood but a prohibition of eatin blood and a reason for the prohibition. The verse also mentions a stone alter, so I would like for someone to point out the "literal" stone alter that was used with the literal blood sacrifice of Jesus. Finally, blood does not expiate all sin, and sin that could be expiated by blood could also be expiated by grain (if the person was poor). If Gd were to come down and give Himself as a divine sacrifice, then perhaps He could have come down as grain, which would have better represented himself as the man of the people. Just a thought.

BIZMARCK wrote: This need to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins is also aptly summarized by the Apostle Saul Paulus in his Letter to the Hebrews: Hebrews 9:22 and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. For the record, the Apostle Saul adopted the Greek name Paulus, meaning "Little", for his ministry amongst the Greek speaking Jews and, later, Gentiles of Greece and Anatolia (modern Turkey).  Saul Paulus, or Saul "The Little", repeatedly called himself the "Least of the Apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:9, Ephesians 3:8). Therefore, since "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood", Yeshua the Messiah had to bleed on the cross in order to obtain universal forgiveness for sin.  But, having done so, Yeshua the Messiah utterly obviated the need for any further sacrifice, of any kind, for any reason.  Thus, Yeshua the Messiah completely invalidated Solomon's Temple, whose sole reason for being was the sale and slaughter of animals to forgive Jews for their sins.  It is for this reason that Yeshua the Messiah drove the merchants from the Temple and said, "I will pull down this Temple made by the hands of men, and in three days I will build up another not made by the hands of men" (Mark 14:58, John 2:19).

1) Expiation and atonement could be resolved according to the Hebrew Scriptures, and there was no "deficit" left in the Torah which would be an overshadowing or an implication for Gd to birth Himself and Sacrifice Himself in order for man to be atoned of sin.

2) Sin could be forgiven in the Torah without the spilling of blood.

Atonement through monetary means without blood:

Exodus 30:11-16

......16) Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD, making atonement for your lives."

If a person was unable to bring an animal for sacrifice, they could give a "grain" offering, which is not blood, and was accepted to atone for sin.

Leviticus 5:11-13

" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.' "

There are numerous verses throughout the Hebrew Scriptures which can further show that blood is not the only means to expiate sin. Such verses may be simplistic such as Proverbs 21:3

To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Or Hosea 6:6

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

So in conclusion, one may find that Hebrews 9:22 is challenged in light of various verses that tell us sin can be forgiven without blood. Another interesting note regarding Hebrews is chapter 10:5-6.

Hebrews 10

 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.

This is borrowed directly from Psalms 40:6

Psalms 40:6

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened;burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.

Someone interchanged "but a body you prepared for me" in place of "but my ears you have opened". What I find troublesome is that someone took a verse in Psalms which tells us that a blood sacrifice is not "everything" and Gd places a preference on sincere repentance, and altered it to get a point across that is anti-thetical to its intended desire.

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. When I studied your faith (before I was Muslim), I just did not see the Hebrew Scriptures backing up the major theological points of Christology/Church Theology. I suspect that if anyone truly read the Hebrew Scriptures with an open mind, they would not find Christilogical relevance, but a theology that an nearly anithetical to church teachings. I respect your faith and your religous conviction, and I am happy that you also show respect here and to my faith.

Peace

fredifreeloader wrote: bismarck - i agree with your post, thanks for putting it up.  the only quibble i think i would have is your reference to solomons temple, in fact at the time of the Lord it was herods temple.  also i do not think that the cleansing of the temple was its spiritual destruction, rather it proves that the temple was still valid at that time.  the temple was invalidated in luke 23: 45, during the three hours of darkness on the cross when "God made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all", and the veil seperating the holy place from the holiest of all was "rent in the midst"  or as another of the gospels puts it "from top to bottom", the way to God now being open to all through faith in Christ

I think you are closer to the Truth than I on this topic, but after consulting the Gospels I offer that the Temple was doomed the next day, the day immediately after the Cleansing of the Temple.  I argue thusly:

Matthew 21:1 - 11 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

Matthew 21:12 - 17 The Cleansing of the Temple; the Messiah retires to Bethany for the night

Matthew 21:18 - 27 The Withering of the Fig Tree as the Messiah comes back in the morning; the Temple Priests reject John's Baptism

Matthew 21:28 - 32 The Parable of the Two Sons; the Messiah warns the Priests that the Toll Takers and Whores will enter God's Kingdom before them because they Believed in John's baptism, whereas the Priests did not

Matthew 21:33 - 45 The Parable of the Tenants; the Priests and Pharisees damn themselves with their answer to the riddle; the Messiah tells them that God's Kingdom will be taken from them and given to others who bear fruit

Matthew 22 The Parable of the Wedding Banquet; Paying Taxes to Caesar; Marriage at the Resurrection; The Greatest Commandment; Is the Messiah David's Son?  The Messiah is tested by the Pharisees and Sadducees, answering them well and stumping them in turn with his riddle about David and the Messiah.  The Messiah proves he is the better Rabbi (despite their having judged him).

Matthew 23 The Seven Woes.  The Messiah formally and finally condemns the Pharisees and Sadducees as Agents of Satan by calling them "Snakes" and "Vipers"; the Messiah then dooms them for the blood of every Prophet from Abel through Zechariah ben Berekiah; the Messiah then dooms Jerusalem to desolation and warns them they will never see him again until they say, "Blessed is he who is coming in the name of the Lord".

Matthew 24:1 - 2 The Messiah leaves the Temple Mount and foretells the Temple's Destruction

Therefore, the Cleansing of the Temple clearly did not embody its Doom.  Rather, it was the Priesthood's "last chance" to rue its sins and turn back to Almighty God.  And yet when the Messiah came back the next day, even as he proved again and again that he was the better Rabbi, more knowledgeable of the Law and a better speaker of Riddles (Parables) about the Law, still the Pharisees and Saducees judged him and tried him and tested him and attacked him before the eyes of all Jerusalem -- even as they denied John's Prophethood!  The Messiah, however, damned them with their own words, showed the hypocrisy of their deeds, and spotlighted their blood-guilt in the martyrdoms of every Prophet of old (some say that Zekariah ben Berekiah was John the Baptist's own father, murdered during the Massacre of the Innocents for not revealing his young son John).  Then the Messiah quit the Temple and foretold its tearing down.  Thereby, the Messiah officially "Passed the Legislation" mandating the Temple's downfall.

I would, therefore, argue that Luke 23:45 was the beginning of the crackdown implementing that decree.

It would seem that Titus and the Roman Legions fully enforced that decree when they raized the Temple in about the year 70 CE.

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".

fredifreeloader wrote: rami - you said "we each atone for our own sins through good works and repentance" - well the holy scriptures make it clear this is not true, although i agree repentance is necessary for salvation.  ephesians 2: 8-10 is illuminating in this respect.  here we read that salvation is not of works, ie it does not result from works.  indeed it is 1.by grace, 2.through faith, 3.not of works, but 4.unto good works.  salvation cannot be earned through attempting good works, as they do not remove sin.  but good works are the result of salvation, as v.10 says.  once we are "born again" (the term was used by the Lord Jesus to nicodemus in john 3, no doubt thats why worldlings laugh at it) good works are evidenced in our lives.  now we all fail and fall by the wayside at times, that is understood, but if a person is not producing good works after receiving Christ as saviour, and persist in wickedness, then the reality of their confession must be questioned.  where is the evidence of faith if there are no good works ...

Martin Luther coined the phrase "Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ".

Luther's opposition to "works" must be understood in its proper historical context.

When Luther was sent to Rome in 1510 by his Augistinian order, he did things like crawl on his knees up the stairs that supposedly Jesus had climbed on Pilate's orders.  Each step earned him an "indulgence" of -10 years of burning in Purgatory.  And when he reached the top step and kissed a silver crucifix set in the floor, he earned a "double indulgence".

Luther also visited the catacombs beneath the Bassilica of St. Callixtus, wherein were interred the bones of 46,000 saints.  Praying before all those bones would earn Luther -- so the church said -- some astronomical number of years, like -1,972,456 years, "indulgence" out of Purgatory.

And of course, for the "privilege" of entry into the theme-park, you had to PAY.

And so Rome raked in gold, even as it preached that "money is the root of all Evil".  By so gutting Europe of its wealth, Europe should have been the Saintliest place on all the Earth!

So, when Luther rails against "works" as a means to Salvation, he is in fact not complaining about Charity, Prayer and Fasting...

but rather all these hoop-jumping rituals the Church sold (literally) as surrogates to Faith (Belief) in Jesus as the Christ Messiah!  Luther railed against these money-grubbing intercessions of Rome into the consciences and spiritual lives of Believers.

Luther never, however, condemned "doing good deeds" like Charity, Prayer, and Fasting -- although again Luther would never have claimed that Charity, Prayer and Fasting "get you into heaven" by themselves... consider the False Pharisees in Matthew 6 who trumpet their "good deeds" even as they hide their evil hearts ("ye art as sepulchres, outside white as marble, inside full of dead mens' bones").

According to the movie God's Outlaw, William Tyndale said that "Good Fruit does not make the Tree good or bad -- it merely reveals to others whether that Tree be good or bad.  Likewise, good works [ie, Charity, Prayer, Fasting, etc] do not make a Christian a Believer, rather they merely reveal to others whether they be Believers or not".  A Lutheran pastor I talked with said that accurately summed up Luther's position as well.

In short, God judges by the inner heart, which is hidden to the eyes of other mortal men...

Good deeds, by whomever so designated, may serve to convince other mortal men of the inferred goodness of that man's inner heart...

But Almighty God is the final authority, Judge, and Deemer who knows all and sees all and Deems (Judges) accordingly.

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?

Bismarck wrote: 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.'

This is called "circular reasoning". You tell me the NT says X about sacrifice. I show you the Hebrew Scriptures says Y, where Y contradicts what X says. You tell me I have an incomplete understanding, and so you quote X again.

Bismarck wrote:   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".

So what the NT tells us is correct and agrees with what the HS tells us because the verses about the Messianic age are "symbolic" and "spirtual"?

Interesting.

Could you point out in the following verses what in the verse tells us it is "symbolic". If you say it must be because the NT says that sacrifice has been abolished forever, then I will call you on "circular reasoning", because I have not spotted anything in the following verses that gives a single indication that it is all "spiritual" or "symbolic".

Jeremiah 33:16-18, Zachariah 14:20-21, Ezekiel 43-44

They all speak of "literal" things.

Bismarck wrote: 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: 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.

Zechariah 14:20-21

20 In that day there will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, "HOLY TO THE LORD " And the cooking pots in the LORD'S house will be like the bowls before the altar.

21 Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the LORD of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them And there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts in that day.

On my own, I will guess that the "bowls before the altar" are those described back in Numbers 7:84-5:

84 This was the dedication offering for the altar from the leaders of Israel when it was anointed: twelve silver dishes, twelve silver bowls, twelve gold pans,

85 each silver dish weighing one hundred and thirty shekels and each bowl seventy; all the silver of the utensils was 2,400 shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary;

I will guess further that the "bowls before the altar" were used to cook sacrificial foods.  If that is the case, then Zechariah 14:21 is echoing this, talking again about sacrifices to God being boiled in the pots of all Jerusalem and even all Judah.

The part about "all pots" being Holy to Almighty God seems to me to echo 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19:6 about the Priesthood of Believers, for all pots will be Holy, not merely those in the Temple!

The House of the Lord, by spiritual interpretation, is just another reference to the Spiritual Temple of the Body of Believers, all of whose bowls are Holy enough to receive the consecrated sacrifices... which, by spiritual interpretation, are exactly the Eucharist.

I will have to ask around.