Recently, I posted an article entitled, “The 3 Dirty Words of a Mega Church Pastor.” Someone brought my article to the attention of the pastor I named in it, i.e., Pastor Ted Roberts of East Hill Family Church (Gresham, Oregon). Pastor Ted posted a strong disagreement to my article with the words, "I challenge you to post this response and speak with me directly." Ted’s response had already been posted, and I happily met with him on May 22. I brought a very good friend to the appointment with me. Here is what happened:
1-Ted told me that he “had no doubt” that what I posted was accurate, as far as his former church employee understood him to have said about platform protocol. Ted believed that his former church employee, Will (name changed) had told me that he understood Ted to have forbidden the 3 words "sin, hell and repentance" from being spoken from the platform at East Hill Family Church.
2-Notwithstanding, Ted further explained that even though Will had understood him in this way, that as the senior pastor of East Hill, Ted had never forbad the words "sin, hell or repentance" from the church platform. He did want everyone on the platform, however, to have tears in their eyes when/if they were ever to use the word “hell” – “like Jesus did,” Ted said.
3-Furthermore, Ted explained that he personally believed in using the words "sin, hell and repentance" both theologically as well as ministerially. Ministerially, Ted is now traveling with his book and seminar, Pure Desire, calling Christians to repent from sexual sins so that, as Ted explained: true revival might come to the Church.
4-The mistake I made, as Ted pointed out to me, was that I posted what Will had understood Ted to have said without first running it by Ted. I did this because Will was a very credible source to me, but this was a mistake in judgment. I sincerely apologized to Ted, and he gladly received my apology and we parted on very good terms. I also apologize to this blogging community.
5-For clarification purposes, before I composed this follow-up article, I asked Ted whether he ever had had a platform policy that forbad certain language being used in the church services. He wrote back to me these words:
“Once again, I cannot comment about what a 'former staff member' may have said I said. I just know I didn't put any overt or implied restrictions on sharing from the pulpit other that it be truth (biblical-practical truth) expressed with compassion and grace. I don't communicate that clearly at times and we are all in desperate need of a Savior every single day of our lives—so I have long ago stopped trying to get everyone one to fully understand me. I am just trying to love and help get as many folks as I can get healed. You don't have to run your comments past me. I am sure you will communicate as clearly and truthfully as you possibly can. In His Love, Ted”
6-I spoke with another former East Hill Family Church employee, Craig (name changed), who worked with Ted for many years. Craig told me this about “The 3 Dirty Words…”: “The short answer is there was no implicit directive…. but also it is important to acknowledge what I would call (un-written but strongly implied "no-go" language).” Surprisingly, Craig also wrote, “Much of this actually originated with me.”
7-Ted shared with me that there was a very redemptive event that came out of the posting of my article. It was the fact that he and another estranged brother got together and found reconciliation in Christ. When my friend and I heard this, we gave God thanks.
I was very impressed with how Ted came onto the blog using his real name and challenged my article. This gave me the opportunity in Part 2 to give the other necessary side of the story. I was also very impressed with Ted during our meeting. He was gracious, honest, respectful and kind both to us as well as to Will. At the end of the appointment, all of us prayed together.
God brought much unexpected good from my first article. Not only did it create the opportunity for Ted to reconcile with a person who had sadly been estranged from him, I, a City Business Church (CBC) blogger who has come out very strongly against some senior pastors for operating like “pastor-kings,” am now posting a very positive report about Pastor Ted from my own meeting with him.
Maybe this can be a beginning of reconciliation between some CBC bloggers and pastors. My hope is that more CBC bloggers would admit when they do not fairly give both sides to a story. I pray that more pastors would follow Ted’s example by coming onto the blog using their real names inviting us to meetings of deeper understanding and reconciliation.
P.S. I will be taking a sabbatical from this blog in order to finish my book against The Mandatory Tithe. I will let you know when copies are available. Blessings to all!
David
David, I appreciate your sincere honesty and openess. It takes humility to publicly admit mistakes. In the past, I had offenses due to misunderstandings. Misunderstandings can happen very easily (even when you don’t expect it) We’re all people.
David,
I am going to miss your bloggings but I understand your need to take a break. I look forward to hearing that you are done with your book and I wish you the best.
I’m glad this has turned out well. On the other hand, this is a lesson learned about reporting things that could be considered rumors.
I realize i am responding to this post almost 3 years later and have no idea if anyone will even read it, but I am compelled. First, let me say that I am happy that Dave Mackin has had some sort of wake up call, as he was the bane of my existence at PBC, giving my boyfriend all sorts of controlling and condemning counsel about me and how to “deal” with me. Dave, you will be happy to know that in spite of that, with years of therapy, I turned out okay. I am serious, in that, I am happy for the wake up call for many here on this blog.
I can’t help but address the fact that I personally don’t believe the church, or those no longer attended, yet still calling themselves Christians, have woken up enough. Little by little, there is a dismantling of faith that is taking place in the body of Christ and until it becomes completely dismantled and then built again on truth, if there is any, the wake up will not be complete. Case in point, the Christian concept of sin, repentance and hell. The Christian concept of these words comes directly from the teachings of Paul. The true founder and leader of Christianity, not Jesus. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. Jewish doctrine and concepts of God being the foundation of Christianity. So, I look to Judaism and see what was God’s original concept of these 3 dirty words and how do they compare with Paul’s.
Paul says that all sin is worthy of death as the wages of sin are death. However, God did not say that. Some sin was worthy of death, yes, but most, absolutely not. How is it that just because Jesus died on the cross that now all sin is worthy of death? In Judaism, the word “sin” simply means “missing the mark.” You fell short. Also, there is the expectation that you get up and try again. But never the threat of hell fire. Repentance was make it right, ask for forgiveness and do better next time. Another concept missing from the church. The concept of “making it right.” In Judaism, there is no forgiveness from God until this is done. How is it that just because Jesus died on the cross this is no longer necessary for forgiveness? It certainly was not what Jesus, himself, taught. Which brings me to the concept of hell. This concept is strictly a pagan concept. Judaism is the religion from which Christianity came and there is no “hell,” as taught in Christianity, in it at all. The concept of eternal damnation and torment came from the pagan religions not Judaism. There is a special place for the truly wicked, but it most likely looks like they just cease to exist (death), not that their souls are tormented for the rest of eternity. If this concept of hell is nowhere in the beliefs of the people that God “set apart” from paganism, why do Christians continue to embrace this pagan belief? Paul taught this concept for the same reason it is still being taught today. Power, manipulation and control. Then there are people like Ted Roberts that come along and actually realize it may not be so helpful. Don’t get me wrong, I believe God takes sin and its destructive consequences seriously, only He gives us the choice of whom we are going to follow. Paul tells you either follow Christ or you will go to hell. This is not true free will and is not God’s way. God gives true free will. He never demanded that he be followed by anyone but the Jews. He requires righteous living, a taking care of and giving back to the world he created for us, but He does not demand our loyalty and if we don’t give it He will burn us in hell forever. That was all passed down by the Roman Catholic Church when they picked and chose what would be in your Bible and what wouldn’t.
That is why I say the dismantling has barely begun. It is not enough to just address the lie of mandatory tithe. The history of this religion must be looked at. It is a fearful place to go because of the fear of hell, but the price of the ignorance is truth. I found that price to be too high and opted for truth in the face of hell.
Warmest Aloha,
Sharlee Johnston Maher
Sharlee, Paul was not the only author in the NT. What about what John and James and Peter and Jude and Luke and the writer of Hebrews? Even if you toss out Paul, there is still a lot of doctrine left.
Anna,
Absolutely, but how much foundational doctrine is based on those that actually walked with Jesus? Jesus said to anyone that asked, “If you want eternal life, keep the law.” Paul said the law was a curse and that anyone that felt the need to follow it could avail themselves to nothing that Christ supposedly did for them on the cross. Paul is a starting point and by no means the end of the story. However, he is definitely where the church takes most of its doctrine. And the Catholic church wanted it that way. If truth be told, the Catholic church decided what Christians would be believing 1800 years later and they used Paul’s writings to back that up, killing and burning anyone or anything that posed a threat to it.
So what about the gospels? What about the fact that there were over 200 gospels available at the time of the canon of the Bible. Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John chosen? How were they chose? What was the criteria used? Did they even write them? None of them were actually signed, so who knows. Same for the book of Hebrews, by the way and the 2nd book of Peter. For the most part, the church is clueless as to its history. It believes what it believes trusting that the Roman Catholic church did all the vetting of the manuscripts available. Seriously, the Roman Catholic Church? They then proceeded a reign of terror over the known world for the next 1200 years. And Christianity today continues their reign of control, manipulation and destruction, all in the name of Jesus. But nothing Jesus said backs up their behavior. Paul, on the other hand, can be quoted ad nauseum to back up the manipulation. Jesus was just a Jew and promoted Judaism. He wanted those that were legalistic and harming the name of God to stop and he wanted his ppl to obey their commitment to the covenant God made with them. Paul, however, was a completely insecure over achiever that claims himself to be a Pharisee of Pharisee, when he was one, and then the greatest of apostles when he was one and indeed, he had to make the claim that he was also the greatest sinner, because if he was going to do anything, he was going to be the best at it. Paul is many ppls least favorite author for a reason, they just refuse to acknowledge why because Paul calls you accursed if you do. Almost verbatim what Benny Hinn said when he prayed that if anyone questioned his ministry that they would be cursed. This blog is all about the frustration of the leadership that is allowed to continue because they have not been brought into question. Well, that is what Paul teaches, so there you go.
The Christian church has chosen Paul’s words over God’s. That would be a good place to start, just comparing Paul’s doctrine to what God says is truth. Jesus taught one thing and Paul took it about 50 miles down the road and made into something that no longer even resembled the religion that Jesus actually practiced.
Jesus said, “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”
I’m not an expert, but I believe the manuscripts were mostly “vetted” by 150 AD, well before the Catholic church as we know it was established.
Regardless, Jesus has a place in God’s plan (actually, He IS God’s plan), and without Him, we are doomed — whether we try to follow the Law or not.
Anna, I see where you are coming from. You have a great investment in what you believe being true. I totally get that. My point that I am trying to make is that not everything you believe is true, such as say, mandatory tithes, or forced conversion (convert or die) as was believed for centuries, or even the once Christian belief in reincarnation. If we are only willing to look at some of it and not all of it, we are robbing ourselves of truth. If it is truth, then PTL, but there are basic Christian doctrines that are adhered to tightly by the church that are not truth. Such as, if you want eternal life, all you have to do is believe in Jesus. I see you pulled out a verse as well, and that is great, but that does not negate the others that say follow God’s laws. But those get ignored because if we paid attention to them, well, we would have a problem with Paul.
The Christian church has been doing nothing but figuring out it has been doing it wrong since the reformation. I’m just saying it would be nice if they were willing to go a little deeper a little faster. And it is happening. Christian scholarship is finally being scrutinized using methods that have some integrity attached to them. New scholars that don’t fear the information being wrong are taking a critical look at things. Such as, the Catholic church is now having to acknowledge that the comments made by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews regarding Jesus were fraudulently put in there (by them) and there actually wasn’t any reference to Jesus at all. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity doesn’t hear about this stuff.
Regarding the vetting of manuscripts, the bible was not canoned until 325 CE. At that time, they had 200 gospels to chose from. I don’t see that as having limited things down. That was the role of the RCC, to unify a very fractured religion full of infighting and they did not do so with reverence to God’s will. They had the goal of controlling the people, they did so with an iron fist and they succeeded.
Sharlee, thanks for sharing. I’m sorry to hear you have no faith in God. It would be hard to live this life without faith in something, but I do not judge, to each is own.
I do not adhere to any religious doctrine. I am not a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Lutheran or any other sect of Christianity. What I am is a follower of Jesus, who believes in the power of His saving Grace. I could care less about heaven or hell. I don’t serve God for fire insurance. I serve God because He died for me. Because He saved me from myself and gave me a hope and a reason to live again. If my service to Him has been in vain and I die and just go lay in some pit in the ground so be it. At least I lived a life with purpose, joy, stability and faith. I walked this earth with morals that helped me enjoy every minute I was alive, without getting involved in all the shit that can really make a person’s life a mess.
So don’t judge us all but what you think you know. Some of us are just believers in Jesus, followers of Christ and nothing else.
Good day.
Sharlee, I am not interested in believing a lie — invested in it or not.
As far as belief systems go, most have their sacred writings. If you choose to go with a system, you accept the writings. Either that, or you make up your own religion and write your own stuff down — and probably have followers.
Ergo, you are not a Mormon if you don’t accept the “Pearl of Great Price”; you are not a muslim if you don’t accept the Koran; you are not in Judaism if you do not accept the Torah, etc.
So, then, what criteria will you use to decide what you will believe?
Ahh Anna, the question of my life for the last three years! I have chosen to believe that God is revealed in the writings of the Old Testament. I find them to be reliable if read from Hebrew text. I believe in it because God did not reveal himself to just one man, he revealed himself to a nation and it got documented and that nation has guarded the documentation for thousands of years. However, I am not Jewish and so do not consider myself in that covenant with God. I do consider myself, as is all mankind, under that Noahide covenant. I consider myself responsible to live a moral and righteous life that gives back and takes care of the creation that God called good. I choose relationship with my creator, not out of fear of hell, but because he loves me and wants one. I also don’t judge those that have chosen a different path to their Creator, as long as their path leads them to him and doesn’t harm others. It is Jewish tradition that God is not so concerned with how you get there, just that you get there. Since God first chose to reveal himself to the Jews (or the nation of Israel actually), I take that to heart.
I am going to bet that you don’t believe that the Pearl of Great Price or the Koran are God’s words. I don’t. My question is, what is the evidence that the New Testament is other than the say so of Rome.
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone on this blog mention the Noahide covenant.
I hadn’t heard of it until a few years ago, when I read my high school classmate Rick Richardson’s (Auburn High School (WA) 1974) e-book called “Origins of Our Faith” at http://www.originsofourfaith.com/book/toc-a.html
That book is well researched and footnoted about how the original ‘Way’ became Christianity – the pagan influences, etc. I’ve read similar books by Michael Rood, Frank Viola, et al, but elements in those books seemed like hearsay because they weren’t researched and footnoted. Rick’s book is a lot better in that regard.
Where I really had trouble with Rick’s book, was the conclusions about the need to embrace the Jewish holidays / festivals, did not take into consideration Pentecost and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Spirit, now. For example, the Feast of Tabernacles – what need to I have to go ‘camping with God’ if thanks to being baptised with the Holy Spirit He now dwells within this ‘tabernacle’ of my body?
The way I look at Paul’s letters, is that they were directed to a specific region, people and time, addressing specific issues in a practical way. Jesus spoke in parables, obviously designed to make His people think – Paul seemed to go a step farther than parable (metaphor) – to the point of specific application.
About that, I once had a friend who went house to house living off of others, and maintaining their job was to do spiritual warfare – criss-crossing the country – and that God did not want them to work at a job to earn a living – so the person turned to a few dozen people they knew to provide for them. The person showed up here once running on fumes and stayed for several days, nary lifting a finger to help around the house. My wife and I felt relegated to the status of chef, bellhop and waiter. Finally, I brought up the scripture of Paul that speaks to idle persons and “if a person doesn’t work, they don’t eat” … well the person rejects Paul altogether … how do you deal with that?
The Lord showed me that the word of Paul in that matter was simply a logical application of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” … that person would not stand for someone to “mooch” off of them – would not work to support the physical needs of the body – so what right did that person have to expect support from anyone else? They were effectively asking the body to do for them, what they refused to do for the body … they were NOT doing for others as they wanted done for themselves …
So I threw their idle butts out of my home and asked them never to come back. Naturally, when that happened, they showed their true colors in cursing me.
They were just a couple caught up completely in manifest sons / 3rd day church / dominionism …
Paul’s instructions on women to the church in Corinth, makes a lot of sense IF examined in light of the historical, cultural, and pagan religious practices of the day … in trying to restore a right relationship between God and man, and man and woman, it makes sense to me to direct the women in silence and submission, when they were front most in pagan worship and ‘temple shrine prostitution’ – shaving their heads as part of their religion … Paul’s instructions to that specific situation, had to do (IMO) with restoring dignity to men and women and family …
The mistake, is in taking Paul’s words as universal and applicable to all times, all cultures, all situations.
Unscrupulous, thanks for reading and commenting. I laughed at your comment on going camping with God. The thing that has gotten messed up between Christianity and Judaism is that the Mosaic covenant was for the nation of Israel, not the world. Because Christianity was birthed out of Judaism, there is the assumption that gets made that the church usurps that covenant and now they are the chosen ppl and the old covenant is null and void. However, if you walk through the teachings of Jesus, he did not nullify that covenant and the laws are still required, including the adherence to the feasts. But the feasts are only meaningful to the Jews, so I can see the resistance one might have to “camping” with God for a week and I don’t think it is necessary for anyone that is not Jewish. Many Christians are coming to that same conclusion, however, as they try to follow the teachings of Christ. But the Jew is to do it as a reminder of their Exodus and the Sukkah they lived in in the wilderness. The annual practice of these things keeps a cohesion within Judaism and also provides an annual cleansing process, both relational and spiritual, that is amazing. God took care of his ppl for sure.
So my question for you is, if Paul wrote for a certain church, under certain circumstances, how are his writings applicable for today since we no longer have temple prostitution and the like. And how do we call that the word of God being the same yesterday, today and forever?
Regarding your “friend”. I don’t think you need Paul’s teaching to figure out what to do under those circumstances. Many are without Paul’s teachings and would have done the same as you.
Oh, sheesh, I feel so inadequate to the question. But I will answer what I know … in a round-about way.
I know the Bible fairly well. I’ve studied it, both OT and NT, and I find that it fits together. That said, I’m not well read in theology books, or church fathers and all that. But I have friends who are.
Now I am a good reader. A good friend that I admire for her scholarly pursuits suggested a book called “Life in the Trinity.” Another friend who was a physician in Gaza for 15 years recommended a book called “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes.” And lastly, I’ve had this one book for years: “The Blood Covenant.” It was written in the 1800′s by a man who was fascinated by the concept and traced it through history (biblical and otherwise) and even investigated the practice in his modern time.
The interesting thing about these books is that all of them approach Christianity from a non-Roman viewpoint. We in America are the recipients of “western” Christianity, of which RCC is large part, but certainly not the whole.
But I digress. There are many, many church fathers that we westerners are ignorant of because they were NOT from Rome. They stayed in the middle east or moved even east-er. BUT the basic Christian doctrine is the same. Not necessarily the practice of Christianity, but the core beliefs.
These “eastern” church fathers also seem to accept the basic core of writings we know as the NT. So it’s not just a Roman thing. Christianity was birthed in the middle east, and many, many believers stayed there and practiced their faith and wrote about it.
From the little that I have read, that’s what I know in my head. What I know in my heart is that the words I read in the NT are just as much life as the words from the OT. Because of the NT, I know the Lord Jesus in a much deeper way. Not that it could not happen outside of those words, but for me, God used those words to bring me closer to Him.
Now I have a question for you: If the Law was the end-all / be-all of God’s plan for humans, why did He tell Jeremiah that He was going to make a new covenant with Israel?
Awesome question Anna and thank you for writing what you know about the beginnings of Christianity.
Ahh, Jeremiah 31:31. I love that verse. But in order to obtain context, you have to read what is around it as well. Most Christians completely ignore verse 30 but I will get to that later.
I do not believe the law was the be-all for humans. I believe it was the plan for Israel and then Israel was to be a light to the world. Not to convert everyone to their system (or bring them into their covenant) but to teach what Jews call ethical monotheism, to the world. To live morally and righteously with the knowledge of one God. We must remember that what God told Jeremiah was for the nation of Israel, not just for anyone willy nilly. When he told him that he would give them a new covenant, it was not a “different” covenant, He simply clarifies that this time, he will not write it on tablets, but on hearts. God’s thing, not just in the NT, but in the OT was that the Jews not just be circumcised in body, which was the outward sign of the covenant, but be circumcised in the heart. He talks about it more in verse 33. He states it clearly that he will put his law (the Hebrew word here is Torah, where his law exists) deep within them. So, same covenant, different place or delivery. Same plan for his ppl, as it is just a really good way to live one’s life. Okay, so this is one place Christian doctrine begins to unravel that the church refuses to acknowledge and look at. The Church claims that they are under this “new” covenant, yet the covenant they claim looks nothing like what God clearly describes in these verses.
Another doctrine unraveling in these verses is verse 30. God clearly states that no man can die for another man’s sin. It is actually in Torah and throughout the OT 7 times. No man can die for another man’s sin. Each man bears his own sin and if it is sin worthy of death, such as murder and some instances of rape and such, he dies for the sin. At the time, there was some messing around with that and there was a saying the went like this, “The fathers eat sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” It is reiterated in verse 30 and spoken about in Ezekiel as well. God says in Ez that there will be no place for that saying to be used any more and says, again, no man dies for another man’s sin. Essentially the saying means that the fathers were eating the sour food, but the children’s mouths were experiencing the sourness. God was saying that the children were not going to pay for their father’s sins. I believe it is Ez 20. Okay, with that in mind, what exactly is Jesus said to have done for us on the cross? It is said that he died for our sins and yet God states 7 times in the OT that this is not acceptable and not possible. however, as Unscrupulous mentioned, it was common place in the pagan religions to have a savior die for the people. This is a big deal, as all of Christianity rests on this doctrine and yet God’s word states differently AND it is a clearly common pagan belief. Who’s word are we going to believe? God’s or some unknown author of the gospels? Or Paul, who it has already been said that he was not being universal in his letters. They were, in fact, just letters. I am sure he didn’t have a clue they would end up on the bible one day. So, for me, the old and the new testament do line up. God said repeatedly that his covenant with Israel was a forever covenant. Paul and the author of Hebrews abolished that covenant. On their word it is gone. In spite of God’s promise to Israel that it was forever. IMHO, I believe the NT in many ways and Christian doctrine for that matter, makes God a liar.
I’m sorry, sharlee. I don’t get the distinction. What difference does it make if a person dies only for his own sin? We all die either way since none of us is guiltless.
Also this passage (whole context) must be reconciled with the Ten Commandments where God said He would punish the children for the sins of the fathers, up to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him. One can only conclude that it’s a learned behavior, and that the children are sinning as well — therefore guilty of idolatry too.
And punish them He did, through exile into Babylon even though the particular people who were dragged off were not necessarily the same people who did the crime. (Like Daniel, for instance.)
My point is that God DID punish one group for the collective sins of their forefathers. And God DOES prescribe in the Torah how sins are atoned for.
Jesus cannot be included in this principle if you believe that He is God incarnate and has no sin. If anyone else died for another person, it would be useless because his death was just the natural consequence of his own sin. But that is not the case for the Lord Jesus. He falls into the category of atoning sacrifice since He had no sin of his own.
First question – application is situational; see my example concerning an idle brother and sister who habitually imposed on the body for support while doing nothing to support themselves. Though Paul’s letter was written to Thessalonians, the general principal and situation were a match to what I experienced.
Second question – I do not call the Bible the “word of God” … near as I can figure, that is man’s misnomer. Hebrews actually referred to what us gentiles call the OT as the Torah (teachings) and Ketuvim (writings). Nevi’im (prophets). When compiled in book form, the Jewish people call it a TaNaK. You’ll notice in scripture, Jesus, nor his disciples ever say “Isaiah chapter 40, verse 31″, rather, they would say “the prophet says” … or “it is written” or “the law says” …
That somewhere along the line scriptures were translated to Greek and marked scriptures by chapter and verse within individual ‘books’, is a creation of the gentile / Roman church influence as far as I know.
About closing up the Bible as a ‘cannonized and complete’ body of work, calling it the Bible and holy ‘word of God’, there are of course problems. Reference to the book of Enoch in Jude, the latter included in the cannon, the former not included. The catholics include the apocrypha, protestants don’t. But I wouldn’t be so quick to toss out Paul on the subject of the cannonized Bible – he actually speaks to your apparent cause.
For in 2 Corinthians 3:3 Paul calls each of us an “epistle of Christ” – written not with pen and ink on parchment, but by Christ Himself on the tablets of our very heart. That poses a very difficult question for most Christians to answer, where they assert that the Bible is the only authority and that it is complete and infallible on its own. How does a person answer to the fact that the Bible as canonized, includes the “epistles of Paul” but not the “epistles of Christ”, to which Paul refers?
For the Bible is really a collection of individual testimonies of people who experienced God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, first hand. How do those writings differ from my own experience with them? What makes a Psalm of David any more valid than my own Psalm? What makes Solomon’s Proverbs any more profound than the ones the Lord has given me?
I am, by virtue of Christ writing His Testimony upon my heart, a continuation of the New Testament.
There is a sense, in my thinking, that to have buttoned up the New Testament, has effectively silenced the living people of God, giving preference to the saints of old, over living saints, valuing the testimonies of people long dead over the testimonies of the living.
If Paul were here today, he would likely have an aneurysm over calling the Bible the “word of God”.
I have, BTW, in my own studies of translations, using the various Strong’s annotated versions and reading up on the original Hebrew and Greek definitions, found what I strongly believe are mistranslations in the english versions – specifically, a translation that favors the institutional church and professional clergy. So, no, I do not call the Bible “infallible”.
Neither however am I so hung up about it, to discard the Bible altogether over the errors I’ve found. The Spirit in me is more than able to lead me into all truth. 1 John 2:27.
Have you come here to evangelize, Sharlee? I’m having difficulty trying to figure out where the apparent contention is coming from?
If you seek agreement, let me assure you, that agreement-based fellowship is a myth. It is a narrow path we follow, which by definition we must walk, single-file, where no 2 people ever see the same vista … we each have our own perspective and thankful can still love and respect one another for simply following the path. To the one ahead of me, my vision is their yesterday’s news; to the one behind me, I am potentially a heretic who has seen things they have not. It’s individually relative. Thankfully, we each seek the one who is Truth incarnate, we are each *in* the Way incarnate and feast from the one who is Life incarnate. Accordingly, there’s nothing to prove.
Jack
Anna, this is where an understand of Jewish teaching and interpretation of scripture is handy. For hundreds of years, there was the Jewish understanding of these scriptures based on hours upon hours of scrupulous prayer for understanding and studying of it. Lives were dedicated to it. Still are, in fact. And then there is a separate and different interpretation by the church based on no historical understanding of it at all, because if it is not exactly written in the 66 books of the KJV of the bible, it isn’t considered.
Yes, God punished a nation, but not based on the verse where the sins of the father are passed to the third and forth generation (which is not part of the 10 commandments btw). I would caution drawing conclusions regarding this passage and actually go to the ppl God gave it to for their understanding maybe. That particular verse would be explained by Jews as the natural course of consequences when one has a sinful father. It stigmatizes a family and often the memory of that stigma lasts generations.
Lets also delineate between punishment and death as they are not one and the same. Yes, we all die, but we do not all die because of sin. Only certain sin was worthy of death. Only Christianity makes all sin worthy of it, but that is not God’s plan or way. In Judaism, the definition of the word for sin is “missing the mark.” It is not a threatening thing at all. Jews go through annual processes, as established by God, to acknowledge, make reparation for and be cleansed of this sin.
The thing about Jesus being God is interesting. There is much said in the OT about the messiah and the criteria for one to fill that role. None of it has to do with him being God. That notion was voted on by Rome. It was a huge area of disagreement amongst the fractured faith and Rome settled the matter in 325CE. However, if you look at, say, Paul’s writings, you will see that he consistently delineates Christ from God. He claims there is only one true God and also (separate person) the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, I would like to point out your negligence in acknowledging the point of our last discourse, which was the covenant. You made a statement that a new/different covenant was given. I pointed out according to scripture this is not true. If it is something you don’t want to look at, I will understand. However, you are challenging me, so I challenge you as well. It has been my experience that this is a place Christians do not want to go which goes back to my original complaint. Christianity is not willing to look at these things with honesty and integrity. They would rather remain ignorant. The thing is, all my life I have had these questions. I grew up in a Christian home, the daughter of an elder at Bible Temple, now City Bible Church. When I would present my questions, I was poo pooed and told that God was a mystery and stop making trouble. When God, as I knew Him, stopped working according to my Christian upbringing, I was left with no choice but to find these answers for myself. And the fact is, God says, “If you seek me, you will find me.” “I do not hide myself from you.” And I found Him to be true to his word. I stopped asking what Paul had to say about something, or anyone in the NT for that matter and started asking God what he had to say about it.
So what is your understanding of atonement for sin? I am sure you know what the NT says, but do you really understand it according to Torah?
Oh Jack, thank you for sharing your name! It was odd calling you unscrupulous. I have to say, you have a very healthy view of the Bible. One that I can agree with.
Regarding whether I am here to evangelize or not, the answer is no, I am not here to evangelize. I began with simply sharing the original perspective of the 3 dirty words, as Given by God to the Jews. Since this blog often addresses the spiritual abuse that takes place in MFI churches and often that abuse happens using those 3 dirty words to manipulate and control ppl, AND since I was one that grew up in that church (BT/CBC) and was very much (because my father was an elder) a victim of that abuse, I commented. After that, questions get asked and I just answer what I have found in my studies to be God’s say in the matter. I do present challenges to doctrine that I would love the Church to look at and deal with. I have lived a frustrating life of silence and unwillingness of the church to explain these things to me. This blog seems to want to address some of them, but I would assert, not enough of them and not the crucial ones of them.
People want to be free to ask questions and get answers without the fear of hell hanging over their head. I empower them to do so, knowing that God is not in the least bit threatened by questions, although the church would have you think so. Ppl want to know they are not crazy for seeing something is up, rotten in Denmark so to speak. Dave Mackin has seen something rotten in Denmark regarding tithes. I have seen it regarding other things. That’s all.
BTW, your view of the Bible is a very Jewish perspective. I just find that interesting
Regarding the tithe issue, that’s where the Lord started unraveling religion for me, too. http://www.lighthouseprophecy.com/prophecy/ExposingTheTitheLie.html
About unraveling, some are content with the revelation God sent that set them free, others take the approach of “well, if the tithe was a crock of guano, what about _______?” and in so asking, soon find that the entire yarn-ball of religion comes unraveled. Though in time the unraveling grows tiresome as it seems to become a distraction from simply spending time with the Lord. It’s hard to keep it Jesus focused, with the ever tempting prospect of comparing scars and the unraveled tenets of religion – such can even provide a false sense of unity. And here, staring down at my own unraveled ball of religious yarn, I realize that Jesus is all I ever wanted – and that I long to hear others tell about what Jesus has done for them.
Sharlee, I really do know something about Jewish interpretation of the Torah. My mother’s family is Jewish, and my aunt and cousins are observant. I understand the principle of Yom Kippur and its modern practice, and I have attended several Seders (and even a bris!). My cousin’s kids both had their Bat Mitvahs (since they are girls). My point is not to brag, but to say that I am familiar with Jewish doctrine.
So why am I a Christian? Because I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and I believe that He is God. How do you dissect “belief”? I don’t know. Why did Abraham “believe God”? Where is divine grace in the act? How is God’s choosing part of it. These are mysteries. I don’t know.
I can’t think of any OT verses that specifically say that the Messiah must be God. But the person described in various places is certainly seems more than an ordinary human. But I choose to believe that the NT gospels are an eye witness account of the public life of Jesus, and the statements attributed to Him are accurate. That’s the definition of being a Christian, I think.
And so… Jesus said He was God, and He invoked the name I AM for Himself. And I believe the account and the claim.
I’m sorry I was negligent about discussing the “new” covenant. I got distracted with the discussion about the previous verse. My son says I have ADOS: “Attention Deficit …. Oooooh! Shiny!” I am easily led down bunny trails.
As I understand the covenant referenced in Jeremiah, it’s the one between God and Israel made before they entered Canaan. The one where God said that if they obeyed His Law, it would go well for them, and if they didn’t obey, it would be terrible for them.
So the burden of compliance was on the person. The “new” covenant internalizes the Law, as you said. But the difference — what makes it “fresh” — is that GOD will do it. People mostly failed miserably in both their desire and their ability to follow God’s law.
So as I understand it, a “new” covenant means a new heart of flesh to replace the heart of stone. And I believe that is only possible through the work of the Holy Spirit when one comes to belief in Jesus. And I know I skipped over a lot of dots in my connection, but it’s just really hard to lay out one’s personal theology in a blog.
And no, I’m not afraid to discuss things and confront my own beliefs, and take them to God in prayer — and get corrected. Which has happened many a time.
All of this discussion reminds me of just one more thing many of us were cheated from in BT days, Jewish connection, roots, and recognition of their blessed place in the sight of God, etc. In one big replacement theology sweep we were all so indoctrinated as to be scared to the dickens to ever consider that many of the O.T. prophecies could actually still apply literally and be fulfilled through our Jewish brothers.
For a long time I stayed under the “Restoration of all things through the Church only” mentality, until I finally started to at least consider some of what I had been taught could be wrong. I concluded Rom. 9-11 should seriously be re-examined. Going too far dispensationally and cutting out the church is wrong, but taking every single prophecy written to Judah, Jerusalem, and/or Israel supposedly to be fulfilled by the church is equally bad hermeneutics. Just as in other big things like marriage and salvation and the trinity, unity doesn’t negate individual identity. There still are promises for the Jewish people, even though in the body of Christ all believers are one. That is the amazingness of God to see and plan the much bigger picture.
And the New Testament, though written in Greek (the most universal language of the day), is really Jewish through and through, and can best be undersdtood that way.
Sorry, hope I didn’t get to rambling too much!
Sharlee, you sure got my curiosity up as to who is your father. But I understand if you want to keep it confidential.
I’ll sign my name in case you remember me (don’t fell obligated to tell me yours)
Jay Lawrence
Jack, you seem to have a somewhat fluid embrace of Christianity. It is certainly not the Christianity I was raised with. It was very dogmatic, our way is the only way and if you don’t swallow all of it, you are going to hell, kind of religion. And most every Christian I know today still believes that, although might be less judgmental. Maybe it is part of the new generation that isn’t allowing themselves to be brainwashed. I can acknowledge and respect someone that says, and this is for Anna as well. someone that says, I chose to believe Jesus is the messiah. I cannot go so far as to say he is God, as messiah only means “anointed” and unfortunately, there is nothing autobiographical from Jesus himself saying he is God. There are far more quotes of Jesus making himself separate from God and absolutely not God than being God. It think there is only one, maybe two that might be taken that way. How does the church reconcile that? And God cautioned to great degrees, his children going after any God that was foreign to who he revealed himself to be in Torah (Deut 13). Jesus coming as man and then being declared God and God having told his ppl many times that he is not a man, would raise serious red flags for the Jews and it does for me as well. So, for me, I do not follow the one that is said to be God yet is not like God as he revealed himself in Torah, because God said don’t do that.
I have chosen not to just read over stuff that doesn’t line up, like the fact the John and Matthew (the only two eye witnesses) don’t even have Jesus dying on the same day amongst a myriad of other discrepancies often referred to as the “harmony” of the gospels. How crazy is that? I was taught that discrepancies were actually harmony. Secular scholarship does not concur. Please read Deut 13:1-6 and see that the experience you have in a religion is not the validation that it is true or real. God says, he will test us with these cool experiences and see if we allow them to lead us away from what he said in Torah. Not to say you are stupid to believe what you believe, but I have to say that I felt stupid for believing without looking into it and researching it and just taking my teachers’, preacher’s, mentors’ and parents’ word for it. I felt stupid for allowing myself to be ruled by fear of anything that was contrary to what I had been taught. It is refreshing to hear that you, all three that have responded, are willing to look at and throw away untruths. That you might be willing the accept the NT is not infallible because, well it was written by men with no intention of it being considered “Thus saith the Lord.” I live on a small island, so not a lot of ppl to discourse with about this stuff. They are either hard nosed evangelicals or so open minded their brains fall out.
Oh and ADOS, oh my gosh, that is hilarious!
Jay, my name is Sharlee Johnston, infamous daughter of B.J. and Terry Johnston. I really wasn’t infamous. I was a good kid. It just felt that way. I lived under such condemnation and scrutiny and the feeling of disgusting unworthiness. Daddy and Howdy Sligar were best friends from their marine corps days. We attended from 77 to 83 and then we went to help start a church in FL with David Blomgren and then my dad took over a church in Idaho from, I think his name was Jack Talbott. My dad came back to CBC in 97 and was there for 7 years and then went to FL again to retire. It was weird when we went to FL in 83 because my parents were no longer under that controlling doctrine and freedom abounded and I almost became normal again. Unfortunately, I went on to attend one year of PBC and put myself right back under all that crap and it sent me off the deep end. Not like padded room deep end, but years of questioning my identity kind of stuff. Years later, when I was going through a divorce, I came back to Portland, from Alaska, and attended the church for a bit. I talked with an elder there Bob Isabell, who promptly not only went and told my father everything I had said, as well as Howdy, Glenda Malmin, his secretary and the couple I was living with. Those are just the ppl I know. Because I was an elder’s daughter, this was acceptable; even though, by then, I was 27 years old. But I digress. Sorry.
See Sharlee, you’ve made people think. Which is not a new thing for most of the people here. Many have left their controlling environments because they started thinking.
But as I was thinking, I realized that it’s not enough just to research stuff. Because every scholar has his slant. I’ve read articles by secular historians (with a string of letters after their names) who claim that the OT is a random collection of writings by flea-bitten goatherds with delusions of grandeur about their relatively obscure tribe. If a person listened to them, he might pick out a useful proverb or two and call the rest drivel.
Same goes for the NT. There are no end to experts on both sides. Either it’s the verbatim word from God on high, or it’s the stories and teachings of a minor sect of Judaism that should have fizzled in the first century. Or maybe it went further than that and got picked up by an empire that contorted it and used it to control the western world.
You see my point. We listen to the “experts” then we listen to our hearts, and we use our brains and come to a conclusion, which is hopefully growing and changing. The problem comes when someone (or a whole church) bashes other people over the head and insists that they believe their way.
So you can stand in your world-view and pray for me, and I will stand in my world-view and pray for you. Hopefully we will see each other in the end, if there is indeed consciousness after physical death.
I’m glad you are willing to tackle the hard questions. I hope I am too. It just takes me longer… ancient as I am. haha.
Sharlee— I have heard of other instances of Bob Isabell having flapping jaws and no sense of confidentiality.
Hi Sharlee,
I had typed out a long reply and then hit one of the tiny keys on this netbook that made it go POOF! Sorry.
My belief in Jesus is unshakeable – it is not based on scripture, but experience. I have seen him in vision, been baptised by him with the Holy Spirit, have been healed by him physically and emotionally. He is my Lord and Savior.
I think his identity in scripture is obscured deliberately – so as to let me decide for themselves who he is. It is interesting throughout the NT, there are stories of people worshiping Jesus, even crowds as when Jesus rode into Jerusalem. The religious leaders asked Jesus to instruct the people to stop, but he did not. About that we have the 1st commandment “I am the Lord your God – thou shalt have NO OTHER gods before me”. So the people who worshiped Jesus either broke the 1st commandment, or worshiping Jesus is the same as worshiping God. Jesus made no attempt to stop it. Fast forward to Revelation 19:10, John falls down to worship an angel and the angel says “knock it off – worship God alone” … Funny sort of that the last few pages of the Bible affirm the first commandment – which is the same number 1 in the 7 Noahide commandments and the 10 given to Moses. Worshiping anyone other than God, is idolatry, regardless of Jew or Gentile.
There’s a few scriptures attributed to Jesus where He all but says “I am God” … that one where he says in essence “if you have seen me you have seen the Father” or “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!” … where “I Am” is the name God used in speaking to Moses while delivering the 10 commandments …
…
About that, Sharlee, when I was still out doing concerts in churches all over western Washington (I’m in Illinois now), it was common to put up a “statement of beliefs” page … as the years went by and I had countless strange and sometimes hurtful church experiences, that “statement of beliefs” page took the form of a manifesto – sounding somewhat like a rebuke of denominationalism. The more I focused on the minutia of what I believed, the more I was separating myself from every other Christian and church. Presbyterians and their Calvinism – Methodists and their Arminianism, Baptists and their full immersion baptism, Assemblies and their charismata, Pentecostals divided from them over saying they baptize only in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ … eventually I understood that DOGMA is divisive and that the ONLY thing that unites us, is Jesus.
In fact, the scripture records Jesus saying “If I be lifted up from the world, I will draw all men unto myself” … so dogma repels – divides – separates men – whereas Jesus draws, gathers and unites men … so finally my “statement of beliefs” has become one thing only: “I believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior and it is my desire only to lift Him up” – that is our only potential for unity – Jesus. Only He can bring us together and across the great divide into the Kingdom of God.
Since my faith in Jesus is based on my experience with Him, my faith is not shaken by questions about scriptures, nor the discovery that there are disagreements within its pages …
It’s also been very difficult for me, to come to the conclusion that my faith in Him is a gift from Him. I’m saved through no effort on my own but only by His doing. The understanding I have come to, is also of His doing. And it has involved a lot of tearing down and exposing falsehood before any learning truth could commence. Accordingly, I’ve learned the best any person can ever do, is to walk in the revelations they have from the Lord. I can’t give anyone my revelation – it has to come from the Lord. Though I can affirm teachings to those who are learning the same things from the Lord.
Best not to hold onto anything tightly when the Lord starts going through your closet. Though do hold tightly to the Lord.
Profound once again, ‘scrupe. Don’t let it go to your head. LOL
I’ve done that so many times that I try to remember to copy (CTRL+C) my reply before hitting the button. It’s saved my bacon a couple of times.
The meds must be working.
The whole typing and losing it all thing, if you do any level of typing online, it happens and it bites
or 
rather, lol.
A common thread, throughout all religions, is the spiritual experience and miracles. If that is going to be our measuring stick for validity of religion, we are going to have a problem. That is why I go with Deut 13. It promises that you are going to have these experiences and that they are a test, not the stamp of approval by God. I have a friend that was healed of cancer by voo doo. Another healed of debilitating depression through meditation and Buddhism. Miracles abound without Christ and his name.
Jack, I guess I can’t agree that “only” Jesus can unite, as he has failed to do so as of yet. The proof is in the fruit. I am not saying there aren’t great Christians out there, doing their best to honor and serve God. However, an organization is known by its leadership and the leadership stinks and so do many of the followers. Christianity is the largest religion in the world. If it worked, our world would not be full of corruption and the fruit of that (most often devastation of the average guy.). Our world is full of this for the same reason it was 2000 years, 2500 years, 3000 years ago. We do not obey God’s laws. The problem is not the covenant or the law, the problem is man. Jesus has not changed that. There were certainly righteous ppl that lived then as they do now. It is called the remnant and God always assured one would exist.
A thought to ponder: If I say that I am going to clean the house, and yet all I get to are the bathroom and kitchen, do I get credit for cleaning the house? Of course not. It’s not rocket science. Apply that “scholarship” to Jesus. There are about 11-16 clear cut things the messiah must do when he comes. There are some 600 or less scriptures Christianity calls prophecy that they say he fulfilled, but let’s put those on the shelf for a moment and just look at the ones there is no question about. Jew and Gentile would agree that these things are definitely talking about the coming messiah. Did you know that Jesus fulfilled only 1 of them? He was a Jew. That’s it, one. How do you then call him the messiah, when he only fulfilled 1 indisputable criteria? After the fact, Christians came in, and did a horrible job I might add, and ripped scripture out of context and made it point to the one they chose would be messiah. They even changed words (such as even putting the word messiah in the bible in the first place) to make it fit their doctrine. Just a thought to ponder. I don’t get credit for cleaning a house until I have cleaned it. Is it right that Jesus be given title of messiah when he did not fulfill the requirements. Say he does so on his 2nd coming (a strictly Christian concept to cover why Jesus did not fit the bill). Again, then is it appropriate scholarship to give him the title he did not earn yet? And in this knowledge lies the answer as to why the world is still the way it is, because the messiah has not come yet.
Another nice little study is to look at where the term “the†messiah even comes from.
Anna, I appreciate your acknowledgment that it might not be appropriate for a religion to claim to be the only way.
Point of clarification, I didn’t say that I accepted my experience as proof of the religion, I accept my experience as proof of the power and authority of the person, Jesus.
About my remark that I believe Jesus is the only one who can unite us, I was not talking about in this life, hence my comment:
I don’t think unity is possible in this world, as the carnal nature is selfish – in opposition to unity.
About that, the last church I belonged to, over 10 years ago, after months of trying to effect change – spark revival – the Lord gave me a strong word – that He is *still* in the business of knocking over man’s towers of Babel – and that in trying to shore up our ‘vain’ religious works we were in fact working against God, who continues to send wind and waves to test whether we are building on the rock (Jesus) or sand … about the screwed up church I had belonged to for a couple years, He finally told me, emphatically “get out of the way and let it fail …”
I’ve come to think that God will let man chase his tail as long as it takes to burn the stinking religion and lust for vain works out of him – until he finally falls, broken, at the feet of the Lord.
I’m inclined to agree with whomever said “the problem with the Church is NOT that there aren’t enough people to do the work, the problem is that there aren’t enough people who are willing to get out of the way and let God direct the work – do the work – be in control” …
You wrote:
What is your source(s) for that, Sharlee, since obviously the Bible documents many more proofs and fulfillments than just the 1 …
Sharlee,
I remember BJ and Howdy, I went to PBC in the fall of 1977, and stayed at BT for too long.
It really seemed like I had found a spiritual ‘home’, but that was because I had been raised in an alcoholic home and went from there to 3 tours of Vietnam. Of course it felt like home! It was dysfunction junction! Today, I’m a different person, a lot of my anger is gone, and I have a deep sense of Christ abiding with me. I don’t need a ‘leaders’ approval, Christ is the leader. (Mt 23:10 NASB) I agree with you in that the teachings of Jesus are not at the center of ‘churchianity’, and probably never will be due to the top down structure. John 14:21 is a favorite of mine, and I believe that God the Father told me to follow Him. (Mt. 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35) When I fellowship with others who are walking in a similar manner, that becomes ‘church’ to me.
Anyway, welcome to the blog! Thank you for posting your thoughts and experience.
What? I didn’t say that! I said that there are “experts” on every side. I said that because you were citing Jewish scholars. And I was trying to ask why I should listen to them anymore than I should listen to other scholars who say other things.
As for dismissing Jesus because everything is still a mess after 2000 years, well, think about this: God’s timetable is immense — long — huge. He is eternal, after all. So 2000 years is absolutely nothing to Him. Think about the metaphor of the vineyard that Isaiah wrote about. God compared His people to a vineyard, and what He described as taking place in one season actually took centuries.
OK, without getting your knickers in a knot that I’m going all “replacement” on you, I’m not. I’m making the point that what God says He will do, and the time-table He does it on is mind-boggling. When He says He will destroy wickedness, and then He takes milennia to do it, does that mean He is lying? Or does it mean He is patient and merciful and giving people time to repent?
When He says that an “Anointed” person will come to fulfill His will, who will demonstrate a life lived perfectly under His Law, who will heal the sick and set captives free, who will speak for Him, and then ultimately destroy God’s enemies … well, can you set a time-table on that?
And who are you (or me or whoever) to decide the success of the “fruit” that the life of Jesus has borne? I am His fruit. Jack is His fruit. Because the whole world is not yet His, does that mean He was unsuccessful?
Cleaning house in a worldly sense involves judgment of an apocalyptic nature. You are dismissing Jesus because the proof of his “Messiah-ship” is judgment, and He hasn’t yet judged the world? Considering the prophecies of judgment, I am thankful that God is merciful — that He does not delight in the death of the wicked, and is still waiting for men to repent.
[Comment ID #40477 Will Be Quoted Here] It was this quote, Anna, that I concluded you said it was not okay to say you had the only way. I am sorry if i misunderstood your meaning.
I do believe that I can judge fruit. Doesn’t Paul say we can? It is not rocket science to do so; it is often simple common sense. I would strongly disagree that proof of Jesus’ messiahship is his judgment of the world. That is NT theology and the theology of a 2nd coming. Before we get to a second coming, I think it would be fair to just deal with the first? I don’t think that is unreasonable. Some proofs would be that he is from the line of Solomon (2 Sam 7). Jesus was not. He will gather his ppl including the lost 10 tribes (Is 11:12) back to Israel. , there is a universal knowledge of God (Is 66:23), the third temple is rebuilt (Ex 37), peace reigns amongst mankind (Micah 4:3) are just some clear cut basic requirements for the messiah. None of it happened.
I am not the one that has a time table. In fact, God states in the OT that Israel will be without king for many days. I know it will be many days. I am not sitting around waiting for the messiah. It is NT that says it will be soon. It is Jesus that is quoted as saying “before many in this generation die.” and many other “very soon/this generation” promises. It was Paul that was certain it would be within his lifetime. More stuff that goes unexplained by Christians as a mystery. And actually, 2000 years is something to God. He destroyed all of mankind except for Noah before 2000 years. He supposedly gave up on his covenant with Israel before 2000 years as well.
Jack, I listed some verses above in answer to your question. These would be the things that the Jews would have been looking for. There are more, but these were at the top of my head. These other “prophecies” claimed by the church as fulfilled by Jesus are looking for proof after the fact and they are taken out of context, often from another prophecy, half verses and many partial sentences. When I fume about scholarship, that is one of the things I fume about. Christians declaring 1 part of a sentence that makes 4 points and calling it prophecy fulfilled. It’s embarrassing. Another thing that is often done is the Church just puts in its own word. Completely changes what is written. Such as the word messiah. The word mashiyach means anointed and is correctly translated as such in every situation in the OT except Daniel 9. There it is not only used as a title vs a description, it is called “The” Messiah. “The” isn’t even in there in Hebrew. Lastly, they will just add a verse, such as when Matt says that according to the prophet Jesus would be called a Nazarene. No such verse or prophecy exists.
WhatHeSaid,
I am sure your walk was not a painless one, but I am so grateful for God’s faithfulness to deliver you from it. 77 would have been my dad’s first year at PBC as well. Oh the days when I was still young and innocent, LOL.
Sharlee,
I can see how the apparent failure to fulfill those scriptures would cast doubt on Jesus as the Messiah. But I wonder if they were in fact fulfilled, but not in the way expected? For clarity, there’s some questions that should be asked and answered.
Is Messiah a physical savior, or spiritual savior?
Since we all still die and suffer sickness, it would seem Messiah is not a physical savior. Whether or not he is a spiritual savior, rescuing us from spiritual death, remains to be seen – however there are many testimonies of people who have had NDEs (Near Death Experiences) and countless testimonies from people like me and Anna, et al, who have experienced the Lord, His love, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, complete with spiritual gifts (tongues, interpretations, the revelatory gifts, discernment, etc.).
It seems clear from scripture, that Israel at the time, was looking for a physical, even *political* savior. The essence of the sin of Judas, was to betray Jesus to the religious rulers at the time, to prove Himself and assume an earthly kingship and thereby oust the Roman occupation / rule. But that wasn’t God’s purpose in Jesus – He was intended for a sin-sacrifice, to save the souls of men and bring men into the Father’s kingdom. Hence, Jesus own words “my kingdom is not of this world”.
About all this, IF Messiah is a *spiritual* savior, and the prophecies about him are *spiritual* in nature, is it reasonable to look for a physical fulfillment?
The unity about which we talked before, obviously not in this life. But if He is a spiritual Messiah whose mission was to absolve men of sin and bring them into His Father’s spiritual kingdom, might it be fulfilled in the death of men when they come into the Father’s spiritual kingdom?
About Israel, consider Galatians 6:16. There is physical Israel with a physical lineage traceable back to Jacob. There is also an “Israel of God” whose citizenship is those people who walk according to the rule of Christ, by faith. Again, the contrast of the physical and spiritual.
About the 3rd temple, it’s already built. 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19 state clearly that believers are now the “temple of God”. Look to the confession of Peter “you are the Christ, the son of the living God” to which Jesus said “You are a rock, Peter, and upon *this* rock, I will build my Church” (3rd temple). I believe Jesus made a reference to himself when he said “upon THIS rock” … scripture does, after all refer to him as the ‘chief cornerstone’ – Peter was just the first human ‘rock’ (stone). Notice it’s Jesus who does the building of that temple – and Peter goes on to say in 1 Peter 2:5-9 or so, that our job is to present ourselves to Christ, as *living stones* with which Jesus will build us into a spiritual temple. Again, we have a contrast of physical and spiritual.
Paul refers to the physical vs. spirutal understanding / interpretation issue in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16.
I’m sure that seems like a copout, Sharlee, but in my way of thinking, it seems silly to expect the physical fulfillment of spiritual prophecies, from a spiritual Messiah on a spiritual mission sent by a spiritual God. And yet, I believe because that same spiritual Messiah revealed himself to me in a way my blind and ignorant flesh could receive and believe Him. I didn’t see him with human eyes, hear him with human ears, touch him with human hands, yet I experienced Him in a way that was every bit as real as anything I’ve every experienced in this world.
About the physical vs. the spiritual, the church has spawned all kinds of error and confusion from the physical / literal application and interpretation of the spiritual text that is prophetic scripture … just look at all the rapture mumbo jumbo … thank God people have at least some sense where it comes to interpreting spiritual scripture physically / literally – I mean – no one is looking for a real life big ugly beast with 10 heads and horns and 7 wearing crowns, are they? Could it be us humans, being sentient beings, can’t help but try to make a literal / physical interpretation of spiritual scripture, where only the most ridiculous, seemingly impossible scriptures are dismissed as spiritual in nature. “A beast with 10 heads and horns with 7 crowns? No way! That must be spiritual or metaphoric …”
Jack, I understand where you are coming from, as that used to be my belief system. A very New Covenant view. [Comment ID #40520 Will Be Quoted Here] This is only true if Jesus was messiah. But the messiah does not need to have come already. Maybe he has not come at all yet.
The problem I have is that you are only picking and choosing which verses you want to believe and discarding the rest. To say that it is all about the spiritual and to exclude the very real and physical prophecies, IMO, is a mistake and a mistake worthy enough for me to eventually call Christianity a sham.
The Old Testament can be true and the New false. However, the New Testament cannot be true and the old false because the New uses the old to back up its validity. Therefore, you have to look at what God was telling his ppl before Jesus came. It cannot be ignore. You can quote NT text at me all day, but if it is not reconciled with the OT text, it is invalid. Just because Paul said something did not make it true. there has to be other evidence and according to Deut 13, you do not get to claim your experience or any testimony for that matter as being your proof. Not even mine, as I have healed the sick and prayed for and received miracles. Guess what, no longer is Jesus my messiah and I still pray for and receive healing and pray for and receive miracles and so do my voodoo and Buddhist friends (the voodoo person is not really a friend, more of an acquaintance. hey, I may be brave and openminded, but I’m not stupid.).
Yes, the Jews were very much looking for a physical savior. Or deliverer, if you will. That is because, that is how God had revealed himself to his ppl for centuries. That is because their prophecies told them to look for it. Christians like to make like the Jews missed the boat because they didn’t believe in Jesus. The thing is, according to what God and their leaders had taught them, Jesus brought up MANY red flags. Because Christianity doesn’t understand its origins, they don’t understand that. Just Jesus making the statement, “you must drink my blood and eat my flesh to have life” metephorical or not, caused him to lose many of his followers. (Jn 6) Why? Because they knew just this statement flew in the face of all that was holy. God is not a liar. God said, “Do not do this.”
I would like to hear your thoughts and comments on Deut 13 and about all the verses where Jesus clearly says he and God are not one and the same and that God is indeed his God and greater than him. What about the fact that Jesus is NOT from the line of Solomon? He isn’t. There is no getting around that and yet prophecy says that he needs to be. This spiritual messiah, if you will, must physically be from the line of Solomon. Jesus has not even fulfilled the prophecies spiritually, as there is not unity. There is not peace, not even spiritually is there peace. It is an ever elusive thing. Why, because bad things continue to happen. Uncertainty still abounds and no matter what one might do to try to avoid anxiety, we still like to control our own environment and therefore, peace doesn’t abide in us let alone our relationships. Neither on a micro scale or macro. I mean, let’s just be honest. You can talk all you want about it being our quest, and not that we don’t get a taste of it at times, maybe even long durations of it, but the messiah brings it! Done, finished.
The scriptures say that physically our weapons will be beaten into plowshares. It is a physical description of peace. There must be the physical gathering of the ppl of God (not Christians, the chosen nation). Even if you do call it spiritual, the fulfillment of the spiritual has not happened yet either. Until that fulfillment, does Jesus get credit for having completed it and therefore, filling that role as messiah? According to God’s word, no. God is also clear on what is prophecies fulfilled.
I acknowledged that there are different world views. But I did not intend to make a statement on their validity. It only makes sense that some have wisdom and some don’t.
Well, me being Ms. Literal, when you talked about “cleaning house” I thought you meant it, as in “cleaning up the world” — so that would involve judgment (ref. Psalm 2 and Psalm 110). Sorry if I misunderstood.
Fine. There are “messianic” prophecies which are all about the “Day of the Lord.” You can usual recognize them because they will say, “in that Day…” and it’s usually associated with cataclysmic change.
However, there are other prophecies which talk about that anointed servant in another light, such as Isaiah 50 and 53, and even chapter 11. Now you may say, “well you just can’t split them up that way!”, and I would say, “Why not?” There are other prophecies which are only partially fulfilled so far. And then we go back to time-tables. When does a prophecy begin to be fulfilled, and when is it completely fulfilled?
Is it not possible that Jesus came, and fulfilled some of the prophecies, but it is not yet time to fulfill the rest? When the time comes, then we will have one of two scenarios: that person will come along to tear down and judge, then rebuild and beat swords into plowshares. That person will either be Jesus, or some other guy.
If it’s Jesus, then many will say, “I recognize you. You completed these other sad prophecies already!” If it’s not Jesus, then that other guy will have to go through these other experiences, or he ought to be rejected as not fulfilling all the prophecies. And how can a conquering king go through that and still be a conquering king? See my point?
Who said that? I’m not replacement.
Just a quick comment about Deut. 13: it’s all about following other gods. No-one here is saying that we should turn from God because of experiences … unless you are saying that following Jesus is following another god. Is that what you mean?
Anna, apparently my analogy of cleaning house is misunderstood. It was just an example of not getting credit for doing something I said I would do until I actually did it.
[Comment ID #40532 Will Be Quoted Here] If you chose a Christian view of the Day of the Lord. Not necessarily the Jewish view as it depends upon what has been done to usher in this time of the messiah. And again, it is the Jewish view/interpretation I look at since these prophecies were given to the Jews, not the Christians.
[Comment ID #40532 Will Be Quoted Here] no, it is not possible. Partial prophecy fulfilled is prophecy unfulfilled. Christianity has taken a huge leap to, therefore, just wrap it all up. Jews believe that in every generation there rises a possible messiah. If the ppl are ready and all has been put into place for the ushering in of the time of the messiah, then he will fully raise up to that role and fulfill the prophecies. If he doesn’t fulfill them, then well, he was only a potential messiah, not “the” messiah. However, in reality, if he was truly anointed, he is still a messiah, but just “a” messiah. Chabad Jews actually are waiting for the resurrection of a different messiah, as they had an uncommonly righteous leader amongst them. But they cannot claim him to be “the” messiah either, until all is fulfilled and he has risen to that role. I guess it would be easier to accept Jesus as messiah if he just fulfilled the basics.
What do you say about all the verses where Jesus separates himself from God and makes himself lessor than God?
well crud, that did not quote like I expected it to at all. So sorry about that. Hmmm. I must be doing something wrong. I am highlighting a small portion of what is written and then hitting “Quote this comment” but it put in the whole post and I am not seeing an option to edit the post.
I’m not trying to have any kind of view of the “Day of the Lord” — Christian, Jewish or otherwise. I’m just looking at the text as it is. And as it stands, the Day usually involves massive movement and changes.
I didn’t say that Jesus partially fulfilled. What I mean is that He did fulfill completely and totally some of the prophecies. It is not possible that He (or anybody) has fulfilled all of them, because some of them have not yet occurred.
Ok, so when a man arises (whether born and matured, or resurrected), and fulfills all the prophecies, then that person will be recognized and THE messiah. Why can’t that be Jesus?
What I would say without going verse by verse is that Jesus separates Himself in the way that He says He is a different person. But then there are verses like “I and my father are one.”
When looking at the verses where He says that He is “lesser,” I believe it is in the context of role and place.
Ok. So highlight the part of the quote you want to show up in your post. Then copy it (CTRL+C). Then go to where you are writing your comments and paste it (CTRL+V). While it is still highlighted, hit the “b-quote” button above the writing box (or whatever it’s called). And it will just block-quote your selection.
I’m not sure what all the buttons do, but the “str” button is for bold. The “em” button is for italic. The “link” button will give you a pop-up to put a web address in, and then it will show up blue on the text. The “strike” button will put a
line throughyour text.I don’t know what “code” “lookup” or “Close Tags” are for. Maybe somebody else can enlighten us.
Let me clarify, if it is Jesus, he has yet to earn the title until he has fulfilled the role as prescribed in the OT. He is going to have a problem since he does not come from the line of Solomon, however. The thing is, Christians worship him. Call him God. Act like and claim he has fulfilled the role. This is a lie. Therein lies the problem. God said, “Don’t do that.”
You make mention that Jesus calls himself lessor, yet takes a far greater role of acknowledgment for things that only belong to our Creator. The doctrine of the trinity does not support Jesus being “lessor.” The dean of Dallas Theological Seminary defines it as: The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, INSEPARABLE, INTERDEPENDENT and ETERNALLY UNITED in one absolute Divine Essence and Being. This does match what was decided at the Council of Nicea. Here are a few verses where the NT does not support this:
Mark 13:32, Matt 24:35-36: Only the Father knows the day and the hour. This is not unity unless they have all agreed to keep secrets from one another. I did not see how they could be of the same substance/essence and one not know what the other one knew? How can there be true unity?
Luke 22:42 Not my will, but yours be done. Jesus’ will was different from the Father’s will. This is not unity.
Matt 12:31-32 All blasphemy will be forgiven, except towards the Holy Spirit. This is not equality.
John 6:28 Jesus was taught by God. If God is all-knowing, and Jesus is God, why is the Father teaching Jesus? This is not equality.
Matt 20:20-23, Only the Father decides who sits next to Him in Heaven. This is not equality or unity.
Mat 26:53 Do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? Jesus cannot call for the legions himself. He must pray and ask God to do it.
Acts 1:6 It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has placed in His own jurisdiction. Jesus is not aware of what the Father is up to. This is not interdependence.
Act 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know– Peter declared Jesus as a man.
Luke 2:52 Jesus kept increasing in wisdom in favor with God and men. Why did Jesus need to increase in wisdom or favor with God if he was God?
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Jesus declares that it was God that gave him life. God has no beginning or end, Jesus declares the he (Jesus) did.
John 5:30 Jesus could not do anything without hearing from God first. Again, not doing his will, but God’s will. This is not equality. This is submission and subordination.
John 8:28 I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. God is teaching Jesus.
John 14:28 I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. This is not equality.
John 14:31 As the Father gave me command, even so I do. Jesus being obedient to the will of the Father over his own.
Joh 17:3 that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. Jesus declares God as the only true God and himself as being sent by God.
In John 20:17 Jesus calls God his father and his God. This is not equality or oneness; this is a subordinate relationship.
Hebrews 5:8 has Jesus learning obedience. If Jesus was perfect and without sin, why was he having to learn obedience? If Jesus is God, why does he have to learn to obey?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: I gave a thorough explanation of this at the beginning of this chapter
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. James confirms there is only one God.
Heb 4:15 Jesus was tempted.
Jas 1:13 God cannot be tempted.
Christianity claims Jesus had to be tempted to show his sinlessness and give him understanding for what we go through as humans. However, if Jesus is God, and God cannot be tempted, the temptation in the wilderness was an act.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Peter says that God is the God of Jesus, as well. How can God be the God of God?
For those that still believe Paul’s words are the inspiration of God:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. One God.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Paul is clearly talking about two people here and he specifically says one God.
1Co 11:3 and the head of Christ is God. God being the head of God is not unity or equality.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; One God and another person who is a mediator.
Yes, there is that ONE verse he says that he and his father are one, however, I and my husband are one as well, but we are not “one.” That is what I believe Jesus is saying here. he is saying he is very close to his father and that’s it. If my father and I are business partners and my father is gone and someone needs a decision but want to hear it from my father, I could say, “You hear it from me, you may as well have heard it from my father.” It is just expression. Linguistics. These types of verses have been twisted into making Jesus God, when, as you can see above, the text does not support that. You keep going back to one verse and i have just given you more than 25 that say something very different. Jesus, himself, says something very different.
Hi Sharlee,
Earlier, we seemed to agree that the Bible has errors in it and that it is not, as many Christians insist, inerrant / infallible, yada, yada (is that Yiddish?) You also suggest that my belief in Christ, or at least, my explanation using a few scriptures, was a kind of “cherry picking” of the scriptures.
My question to you is, having established that the scriptures have errors and are not infallible, how can you site them as proof that Jesus is NOT Messiah?
More directly, you seem to regard the scriptures as insufficient to prove Jesus as Messiah, but sufficient to disprove Him.
Isn’t that cherry picking?
Have you ever considered throwing the Bible out altogether and seeking Messiah with nothing more than fasting and prayer?
Did I mention it more than once? Anyway…
So are we going to discuss NT theology now? I thought you didn’t put any stock in it. But if we ARE going to discuss it, then I guess I am free to use NT verses (even Paul).
OK, so in Philippians 2:6-8 it is described that Jesus is in nature God, but He humbled Himself to become a man. If you hate Paul, then John 1 will do. Point being that Jesus set aside divinity and became a human.
I don’t know what you mean re: your reference to the Council of Nicea, but the creed says,
So it acknowledges that Jesus is unique in that he is God and he is man. When he was running around as a two-year-old, he did not retain all the knowledge of God. He was a toddler! He had to learn obedience just like the rest of us humans. He had his own will like the rest of us, and he learned to submit to his Father’s will. He is an example for us — which he could not be if he was not human like us.
All these verses that you use as a proof-text against the divinity of Jesus simply support the doctrine of the humanity of Jesus, and that his divine nature was set aside during his earthly sojourn.
And, let’s see… the verse about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: Jesus said in John what the job of the Holy Spirit was, and so rejecting him or calling the Holy Spirit an evil spirit means that he cannot bring a soul to repentance, so forgiveness is not an option. (Because forgiveness is God’s response to repentance — not a NT idea.)
And… when Peter declared Jesus to be a man, he went on to finish his sermon by saying, “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
And … when Peter says, “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” do you really think he is denying the divinity of God, when he affirms it elsewhere? Or does he simply mean “Blessed be [the] God…” (THE) is not in the original, “who is also the Father…”
And about God and the mediator… notice how it says the word “man.” I think theologically the understanding is that there is ONE GOD (which includes the person of Jesus Christ), and his role in his humanity is that of a mediator.
And finally, what is the point of our discussion? I am not likely to recant my faith. And while I do not perfectly understand the Scripture, I regard it as God’s words to me: they judge me, I do not judge them. When I do not understand, I ask God for understanding, and then set my question aside until that time when understanding may come.
Ergo the geneology of Jesus as recounted by the gospel writers. Matthew says that Jesus came from the line of Solomon; Luke says that Joseph is from the line of Nathan. I have heard what theologians say about this, but it’s one of those things I do not understand. While the issue may be your reason for rejecting faith in Christ, it is not sufficient for me to reject Him as my savior.
Someone feels strongly about this. My head is spinning now, but I know what I know what I know. This just sounds like a shouting match, though.
Jack,
I only believe the NT is unreliable, as I have already stated. I have also stated that I believe the Hebrew form of the OT. I believe they clearly show significant signs of the coming messiah and what we are to look for. I do not find Jesus to have fulfilled these requirements. I can only make reference to Jesus from the NT scripture, as that is the only place he is. It is from these writings that ppl try and prove he was messiah. I do not call that cherry picking at all. The criteria was laid out in the OT, from which I quote and supposedly fulfilled in the NT, from which I quote. How else would you suggest me go about it?
Anna, I would reiterate what I said to Jack. I make reference to NT text, because that is the text that makes reference to Jesus, of whom we are speaking. I would also request that if you are aware of another way for me to be able to do that, then you might suggest it to me. The verses put forth are valid and were at least enough to raise a question for me that caused me to want to look at this further.
My intent, Anna, was not to make you huffy. You proposed your questions or comments and I proposed a view point that disagrees with that. It was dialogue. However, it would seem that it is time for it to end. I personally don’t care if you believe Jesus was messiah. I grieve that you would believe he is God, as that robs our Creator of what is due only Him. But that is between you and him. Aloha
I was staying out of this one, but golly Sharlee, like Anna said, the points you made from all those verses you quoted are beautifully describing Jesus’ self-imposed human limitations, just as Phillippians 2 states.
I like Isaiah 7:15 to show more or less the same thing. Jesus who is God but allowed Himself to be limited by being human, The Lord Himself will give you a sign. A virgin will be with child and will bring forth a son and will call him Emmanuel (God with us). and Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given. And the government wilol be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government there will be no end. And He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom. And many other prophecies re-inforce who He was and that indeed Jesus was the one to come. In the volume of the book it is written of Him.
And Mucho mucho verses about Jesus being God and Jesus being Lord, both titles reserved for deity only. For instance Matt. 4:7 Mark 16:19 John 1:1,14, 18 John 5:18 John 10:30-33 John 20:28 Acts 2:36.37 Rom. 9:5 Rom. 10:9, Rom. 10:13 Phil.2:5-8 Col. 1:15 Titus 2:13,14 Heb. 1:8. But you need eyes opened to see, a blinding light so to speak to break through our darkness of unbelief.
All the divine attributes of God the Father are also the Son’s like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, sinlessness, forgiving sins, taking part in creation, and end-time judgment Matt. 28:20 John 1:1-3 Mark 2:5-12 John 2:24,25 John 2:48 John 5:22 Col. 1:17,18 Heb. 1:3
In fact Jesus is the “I am” John 6:35 8:12 8:58 10:9 10:11 11:25,26 14:6 15:5 Rev. 1:17,18
And Jesus received prayer and worship reserved only for God Matt. 2:11 Matt. 14:33 Matt. 28:9 Luke 24:51.52 Acts 7:59 Acts 9:4,5,21 Rev. 1:5,6 Rev. 5:11-14
But as I said you need a revelation to see any of this. Just like the guys on the Emmaus road in Luke 24, all at once their eyes were opened to see who Jesus was and how He was the fulfillment, the One who should come throughout scripture. And I’m not saying that arrogantly; you just do or it is up for grabs what you want to believe or not believe, nothing more than intellectual or religious exercises. But Jesus really is true life. And His love is ever reaching out to any and all who will listen. I pray that for you just like I pray that for myself or anyone.
Sharlee,
I hope you will read my friend Rick Richardsons’ book “Origins of our Faith” here: http://www.originsofourfaith.com/book/toc-a.html
You have talked about not finding anyone with which to discuss these things where you live – which I understand is very frustrating. I believe you might find a friend in Rick and agreement with much of what he has written.
As far as I know, he still lives around Auburn, Washington where we grew up and went to school together. The summer following our Junior year, Rick, our mutual friend Rob and I went inner-tubing on the upper Green River out of Flaming Gyser park, where I nearly drowned after going through a rapids and getting “May-tagged” in a deep hole. Only the Lord saved me down there – by putting my feet upon the rock and telling me to push off with all my strength toward the light … Rick and Rob had recovered my inner tube – then saw me launch out of the water like a Polaris missile. After telling them what had happened, I said “let’s do it again!” … he’s a great guy.
I need to read his book again – as what he has to say about the Jewish perspective on Messiah is very difficult to grasp. Likewise, his approach to the festivals – which in my thinking, are partially overcome by Pentecost, etc. If I recall correctly, Rick said that the Jews actually looked for 2 Messiahs … the first a sin sacrifice – the second as judge. Not sure – it’s been awhile since I read it and I don’t want to misrepresent what he has researched and written.
He did, for several years, organize an event observing the Feast of Tabernacles at Ocean Shores and I’m sure could put you in touch with like-minded friends.
I do understand what you man by Jesus claims of oneness and difference from the Father. There is real sense in saying, if you have met me (Jack Jr.) you have met my father (Jack Sr.) – we are very much alike in character – down even to the bathroom humor. About Jesus, it could be said that He was incarnated in human form with a specific purpose in mind – sin sacrifice – upon whom would rest all of God’s wrath for the sin of man. And so, while co-identified with God in character, power and authority, he was still lesser in that he was voluntarily demoted to human form for the purpose of becoming the curse and receiving the Father’s punishment for sin. So to say “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father” could potentially mean that in Jesus, we see the love, mercy, character of the Father, though they also be different in incarnation … the one is Spirit, the other is Spirit inhabiting flesh – mortal.
Zechariah 12:10 for example, could be said to refer to the 2 comings of the Messiah. It suggests that the people He first appeared to, did not recognize Him, in fact, murdered Him.
Again, about my own belief, it is because I have had my own Damascas road type experience. I’m keenly aware of my own ‘faith’ as a protestant church member for nearly 40 years – endeavoring to believe on the basis of scripture alone. Until the day the Lord revealed Himself to me, and baptised me with the Holy Spirit, I really didn’t believe. I gave it my all, but it really amounted only to intellectualism.
Do look up that book from Rick, please. I think you would find a lot to agree with there. I can certainly appreciate it as the perspective of someone who has not had a personal revelation from Jesus. Up to that point, a person can only knock (BANG!) on the door until the Lord opens it.
Jack,
Thank you for your suggestion. I will look at Rick’s book for sure. I would hesitate that just because someone does not believe like you, they have not had personal revelation from Jesus. I lived my life for Jesus for 39 years. I very much had personal revelation and experience. And one day I asked my Creator why certain things just didn’t work according to NT scripture. I expected him to show me the error of my ways. What I got was something completely different. He said, “You’re right. It doesn’t work. Now study with me and I will show you my way.” And I went to his word and studied it for 10 hours a day most days for 18 months. I went to Jewish sources for understanding and suddenly the “mystery” of God was no longer mysterious but very understandable. He made sense. there was no striving to make things fit or having to change words or meanings of words.
So here, you created a post that begs a response from me, and yet most are getting upset with me for my responses, which is not fun. Not sure what to do with this. I am happy to continue to dialogue, but I am not happy to be attacked. Which, you never answered my question on how you would do it differently. I would like to know, as my goal is not to offend. I know what I say is frustrating. Trust me, I know. It has been a fearful journey of discovery, but it has been one of discovery and I now know a lot about what God has to say about something based on Jewish interpretation.
Yes, the Jews are actually looking for two messiahs to usher in the End of Days. Zech 12 talks about this. I cannot agree that it can be said it is talking about two comings. The entire prophecy must be taken into consideration, and not just one verse. The entire prophecy gives a clear description of what the response of the Jews will be when this first messiah dies. It takes an understanding of Jewish history to understand this reaction. In 2 Chron, it talks about the circumstances surrounding the death of the beloved king, Josiah. His death brought great mourning to Israel. These circumstances line up with what is described in Zech 12. The Jews will weep for the fall of this messiah, as they wept for Josiah. This did not happen upon the death of Jesus. According to Matt. the Jews gladly took responsibility for it and gave it to their children as well. Sorry for the NT reference, but I don’t know where else to get the proof given for Jesus, as there are no extra-biblical writings about him.
There is more to discover about this verse, but I won’t go into it. However, I would like to say that it is a perfect example of the shoddy scholarship of Christian doctrine as it takes one sentence out of an entire prophecy and attributes it to their messiah. There was a point when I was going to do that myself and make it so that I was the messiah, if that is all you need for proof, a verse here and a verse there, half a verse here, half a verse there. Half a sentence here or there. But I didn’t need to because a rabbi did one that made his chicken look like the messiah. It is a funny read while making a valid point. http://www.messiahtruth.com/discovery.html
Yes, certain verses “could” be taken as Jesus’ claim to being God. There is a saying: Is there anything true in the NT? Of course there is. But if it’s true, it isn’t new. If it’s new, it isn’t true. So, I take the verses that seem to go against the doctrine of what God established with his ppl and and I test it. I look at a verse and I say, “Okay, this ‘could’ mean this. What does God have to say about that?” If it goes against what God says, I disregard that meaning, give Jesus the benefit of the doubt (and don’t call him a liar) and conclude he was just a man. I don’t know what else to do.
I have spent the last two years writing my own book. Weird, I know. It started as a letter to my mom, but once it hit 50 pages I just decided to go for it. It is 550 now and I am not done. What I have found is, Christian doctrine is like stacked dominos. You hit one and it all comes down. It started with Paul for me. That was just me. For others, it starts elsewhere. But then there is the complete dismantling of the concept of sin and atonement, the trinity, Jesus’ messiahship, the virgin birth.
Like I said to Anna, you can consider Jesus to be your messiah. I only have a problem with someone calling him God. But in the end, it is not my problem, it is the problem of those that call him God. And maybe, in the end, God won’t care.
Jay,
I can see where you are coming from based on the Bible you use. I can only say it is not reliable in its translation. For instance, your statement that Lord is only reserved for God, is inaccurate. In fact, just the opposite is true. God is never referred to as Lord. In fact, your orthodox Jews will not even say it in reference to Him. The say Addonai. The reason for this is because in the form it was used in description of a god was for Baal and they would never ascribe a title for Baal to the Creator. Not that the title doesn’t exist. It simply means master or husband. When any name of God has been translated to Lord in the OT, it is an inaccurate translation. So, in understanding this, when any Jew (writers of the NT other than Luke) calls Jesus Lord, that is another clue that he was not considered God.
If you look closely at Is 7:15, another verse ripped out of context, not by the church, but Matthew. He tried valiantly to back up his stuff with scripture, just failed miserably at it. That verse is speaking of Elijah’s wife. It does not say virgin, but young maiden. Yes, the word for young maiden can mean a virgin, as virgins can be young maidens as well. However, here, it cannot be talking about that as Elijah’s wife was pregnant with their second son, so she could not have been a virgin. This was a prophecy to Ahaz. Many times God would prophesy to the nation through the name of a child. This child was going to be called Emmanuel (God IS with us, not God with us) because God wanted Ahaz to know that in spite of the current siege he was under, God WAS with him and he would be delivered. The sign in the prophecy was the child, not the mother (as Christian interpretation would like it to be) Jesus was also never called Emmanuel either, so it is weird to me that Matt would say this. I mean, I get his poetic point and all, but still. If this verse was indeed talking about a virgin giving birth, and that virgin was Mary, it would require there be two virgin births since it had a present day application (as in an immediate application, to the Jewish ppl, at the time it was given).
It’s a hefty subject and as i said, 550 pages, and I am still not done with it. This is a belief that deserves serious reconsideration by the church. I do know that recently there are some translations that have removed the word virgin and have put in young maiden. It’s a start.
So, a question for you would be, what if someone has had that “revelation” you speak of and lived the live to the hilt and yet had lingering back ground questions that begged to be asked by someone. Finally finding the guts to ask them and had her world turned upside down by a truth that is different than what you claim is truth. What do you do with that? I think that is why God said we are not to go by these “experiences” or I would assume also “personal revelations” as they cannot be trusted and are often tests of whether we will cling to what He has already stated was truth.
Sorry, Sharlee. I didn’t mean to sound huffy. I was being direct, and that came across the wrong way.
I assumed that the end result of your challenges was to convince me (us) of error, and so I answered that assumption. If that assumption was wrong, and you wish to correct it, then I’m listening.
I don’t mind the discussion, and if it seems like an “attack” to you, then again: I’m sorry. I thought we were debating, verbally fencing. So I was generally not as carefully tactful as I normally am. I had my “fencing” hat on.
You had said that your various points had been ignored, and so I attempted to address them. I have tried to go by your rules, but they seem to change. So I guess I am confused.
Either that, or a global thinker has “crossed swords” with a linear thinker, and the discussion is not going well.
If you are done. That’s fine. If you still want dialogue, then let’s find a starting point again, because the whole discussion is too muddled for me to pick a place.
Are we good?
Sharlee,
I guess it’s difficult to have such a conversation, where there is little / no possibility of agreement. Just reflecting on my own involvement here, it’s rather easy to hang out where everyone shares the same beliefs and thereby affirm one another. Just watch what happens when a drive-by poster pops in to lob some criticism and judgmentalism – they don’t last long. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of us enjoy the sport of running them off.
I know I do.
Regarding the need for affirmation, that period of my life / walk where I experienced the most spiritual growth, was also the period I received the least affirmation. The minute I began to break with mainstream Christianity (or ‘churchianity’ if you will) because of the revelation I was receiving, I was treated like a leper and effectively run off from the church I’d belonged to for years.
I think it’s still possible to have meaningful discussion about our different beliefs, if each of us are secure in our own beliefs and can accept there will be little / no affirmation, other than the love and respect accorded a fellow sojourner …
Sharlee, if you’d like to write me off-line, my email is jack_at_vjam.net (replace the _at_ with the at sign, of course).
Take care!
Jack
Anna,
We are good. I was not offended, only worried that I had offended you. When I sense that I am frustrating someone, I back off. I do not want to offend. Very often, in fact, most often, when I get into a discussion like this, because it is so vast, it is easy to go down bunny trails. One topic relates to another and so that is brought into it and and it’s all related and challenging before you know it, no one topic has been discussed.
This discussion came from my desire for the church to take a good second look at some of its doctrine. For me, sooner rather than later. For instance, the belief in the virgin birth. I only mentioned a few issues with it above and truthfully, the issue is being forced and Bibles are changing. But the doctrine is not. For me, I spent most of my life in blissful ignorance, trusting that this stuff had been researched and verified for me. To discover it hadn’t was shocking.
I’m glad we’re good. I don’t want to offend by miscommunication either.
Some of us have looked at the doctrine again. And we came to a different conclusion than you did. But I have been just as distressed as you are at the ignorance of doctrine in the Church as a whole. There is blissful ignorance. And that should not be.
So, do you want to keep the discussion going? Do you want to start with this one thing? Or do you want to take a break?
And if you want to contact me privately, Jack has my email. At least he used to. I can send it to him again if he needs it. But I also don’t mind discussing it on the blog (if the owners are not opposed). It’s educational for everybody.
He needs it.