Challenges to Orthodoxy – In Discussion

Seems societyvs not only denies the true gospel but seeks to come up with his own, one which looks to works righteousness rather than the gift and righteousness of God.” (Swordbearer)

Interesting you should mention this – in fact – I am studying the roots of the atonement idea – anyone else doing this – in fact yes? I am looking at what the Jewish rabbi said about the 3 aspects of atonement in the torah and prophets and how Jesus says ‘he will fulfill the Torah and Prophets’…and then looking at the idea with more depth. Maybe I am working through this idea and the discussion is very helpful – where I stand at the atonement I am not sure at this point but it goes like this:

(a) Jewish atonement – 3 aspects (Torah (Blood), Repentance, and Charity)
(b) Christian aspect actually respects all 3 of these ideas – but holds up one as the only atonement that matters
(c) Jesus mention each idea in all gospels – repentance, charity (we also see this in Acts community), and sacrifice
(d) Maybe Jesus fulfills the blood atonement (from Hebrews) once and for all – not to happen yearly now – all are cleared
(e) However, all may be cleared but we still have our parts in the good news – repentance and charity.

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Jesus – Matt 5:17 and John the Baptist’s – Matt 3:2 – first words). Jesus seems to be telling people ‘repent’ is the first thing to do to follow him – and first thing John requests of everyone in following God (exact same message). Repentance is given a fairly weighty position if you ask me.

We can see – for some odd reason beyond any reason – God accepts people that are charitable (Matt 25: 31-40) and loving (Matt 22:36-40). Nowhere in these gospels until the very end is the atonement even mentioned – at that we have discussed in depth – but we are still required to do something or we can lose our place in the kingdom.

Heck, even Puritan is saying not believing in the Messiah makes one subject to no atonement – but what he is really saying there is ‘what you do’ matters. Believing something is a type of action in Puritan’s wording (a verb). I find it hypocritical you guys can push on idea about faith and then hold another about losing that salvation based on ‘actions’. It’s not one or the other obviously. Even Paul in his letters admits this – even after he talks about how people are saved by faith – apparently they condemned by their actions. And I am not pulling one over your eyes – check it out in Paul’s letters when he tells people they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven – apparently it is based on ‘what they do’ (ie: namely being immoral in some way or form). He is telling this to a Christian community all the time in his letters.

The article I sent you shows the existence of the Trinity in the Old Testament” (Puritan)

Actually, I am asking rabbi’s and others in the Jewish community who actually study the Hebrew and have dedicated themselves to studying the whole of the Tanakh – and they say there is no proof of a Trinity…I have to think they are right on this – they dedicate their lives to those teachings. I have not set up a ‘straw man’ whatsoever – I have claimed the Tanakh does not mention a Trinity and I am very sure of this – even the NT never uses the actual word. I don’t see why not addressing the idea Jesus may not be God is problematic – he was the Messiah/Christ sent from God.

 As for the divinity of Jesus – I am not worried. If he is God – I follow his teachings anyways – if He is not God – I am not breaking the 1st commandment (There is only One God). To be perfectly honest, most of the disciples outside of the 3 synoptic gospels neither make this claim about Jesus’ divinity – but mainly his special position as Messiah(Jewish term)/Christ (Greek term). It’s rather funny that you guys bash pluralism yet hold to a form of it in the Trinity – irony?


Let me ask you, since Judaists were wrong about Messiah…why trust them on the Psalms (or any other prophetic interpretations)?” (Puritan)

Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders which You have done,
And Your thoughts toward us;
There is none to compare with You
If I would declare and speak of them,
They would be too numerous to count.
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
My ears You have opened;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

David is writing a Psalm and in vs. 5 we see how God is very insurmountable in knowing about- in vs. 6 David says simply ‘you opened my ears’…so he could hear and write some of it. Now you tell me, in context, how a ‘body you have prepared for me’ (from Hebrews 10:6) even fits in the context of that Psalm? I think the Psalm 40 version is accurate and makes sense from the Rabbinical viewpoint – Hebrews 10 is flawed.

Just some Food for thought?