Morris:

To reiterate your questions from (5/24/05 7:45 pm):

1. Do you believe the Torah is true? If so, do you think G-d is telling the truth when he says he hates human sacrifice?
2. Do you believe when G-d says that each person is responsible for his own sins?
3. If you answered yes to no. 1, does it seem logical to you that one day G-d would change his mind, and all of a sudden go ahead and a) allow human sacrifice and b) sacrifice not just any human, but his Only son? (and if not a human, how can G-d die?, and why would G-d want to kill himself?)
4. And again if you believe the Torah is true, what part of "don't add to it or take anything away from it" don't you get? Where does it explain a sacrifice of a messiah that will excuse everybody's sins, and where does it say that someone can come later and cancel all the laws?


This post consists mainly of reiteration of things I've said before on other threads, though I may not have said them all before in one place. I confine myself to the question of human sacrifice.



BELIEF IN TORAH

1. Do you believe the Torah is true?

The correct Christian answer to this is no. Of course, the normal, automatic Christian answer is yes. That yes, however, implies (to the Jewish questioner, who in fact has asked a completely different question than the one the Christian answered) assent to innumerable assumptions that no Christian Ive ever met actually believes.

4. , what part of "don't add to it or take anything away from it" don't you get?

Please see Dont Touch That Dial!, (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...ndex=139), a recent post on the Take Jesus to MacDonalds thread. I will also speak to this in a later post or posts on the present thread; the post(s) will be titled, Torah Torah Torah. Also some when the OTB thread (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...457.topic) gets around to examining the nature of scr'pture.



HUMAN SACRIFICE

1. Do you think G-d is telling the truth when he says he hates human sacrifice?

I get nervous when anyone says, "God said" thus and so.

The following would be A Christian answer to the human sacrifice question; not necessarily THE Christian answer; and at the conclusion of the post I'll go into what I personally believe.

As far as Jesus goes, that had to be the sacrifice of a human. Like Sophiees oft-mentioned house of cards, the entire theological system does collapse at once if he was not.

One can dispute whether he hates it. Strictly speaking, Christianity does not dispute it. However, those who would condemn us on this basis, need to account for these facts:
(1) There is no indication of divine disapproval in the plain language of Judges 11.
(2) There is no indication of divine disapproval in the plain language of 1 Samuel 14:24-46.
(3) There is no indication of divine disapproval in the plain language of Leviticus 27:29.
(4) The ban (cherem) can be construed as human sacrifice (Joshua 10:28-40).
(5) The incident of Joshua 7 can be construed as human sacrifice.
(6) The activity prescribed in Deuteronomy 13:6-18 can be construed as human sacrifice.
Even if God did not hate human sacrifice, none of the just-listed is even comparable, as will be seen, to HaShems own sacrifice of his son, his only son, whom he loves.

What God hates aint what Christianity says God did in the sacrifice of his son, his only son, whom he loves. Ill detail this below.

Whether or not he hates what he did, it was NECESSARY. A man being sent into combat isnt going to like it, nor will a woman like having to change a tire on a deserted road in the black of night in a freezing rain. Necessity doesnt ask if one likes it. We can be certain that God hated to sacrifice his son, his only son, whom he loves. Nonetheless, Christianity says, God did it. God did the necessary. See Diaper Change (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...index=33). {4}



APPLES AND ORANGES

What God hates aint what Christianity says God did

What God hates is typified in such things as (a) the Aztec practice, (b) the Molech cult, and (c) the events of Shirley Jacksons short story, The Lottery (www.mostweb.cc/Classics/J...lottery/). Under these systems, the sacrifice must be performed again and again and again, typically once a year. It has a limited purpose (e.g., in Jacksons story, the success of the maize crop) and benefits a limited community (in Jacksons story, a single village). The victim is typically unwitting, unwilling, or both. The victim is also typically a normal human being, blemished by sin.

Christianity teaches that HaShem carried out an act different from the above on every single one of those points. It was a completely unique event, no precedent being possible (or necessary) and no recurrence being necessary (or possible).{3} Its purpose was unlimited the expiation of ALL sin. Its beneficiaries are unlimited -- ALL humanity, including those who lived before and those to come. One can debate whether this victim was unwilling. He was most certainly NOT unwitting. Nor was he a mere normal human being, blemished by sin. In order to be sinless, this individual had to be a very specific and unique kind of human being, such as (our doctrine says) the world had never seen before and has never again (yet) seen since. Unless the victim met those criteria, the whole exercise would have been futile.

No one but Gods son could have done it.

Now, there are those who argue in great detail about Christs sacrifice meeting none of the Levitical criteria. Well, that argument fails or at the very least is incredible to all minds except for those of (NOT ALL) frumers on numerous counts. Its essential presumption is, first, that it is demonstrable fact that, HaShem has at no time, in any form or by any means, revealed himself to anyone but Jews. Excuse me, but I find that quite preposterous. Next, we have the aspect that (Blessed be He!) the creator of the Levitical criteria is bound by that same creation. Well, on the one hand, this recalls to me the image of Jeremiah and the potter. (Oh, GMs SO right. I am SO ignorant of all things Jewish, especially the scr'ptures.) Does the pot talk back to its creator? Frankly, it seems to me, in this case, it does: the frumers tell HaShem what he can and cannot do; whereas the purposes He intends in the work of Jesus on the Cross arent even comparable to those for which he created the Levitical laws. We idolators answer, in contrast, that HaShem is quite free to do whatever he darn well pleases. Namely, for example (and on the other hand), operate outside that framework when and if need be.

And this WAS a situation of need be.



A STRATEGIC CONCERN

This raises for me a strategic concern vis a vis the goals (as I understand them) of this board. To whomCAN the Levitical criteria argument be persuasive? (1) No goyim. None. (2) No Jews other than SOME (probably most, I admit, but certainly not all) frumers. (3) NO frumer who is vulnerable, and certainly no vulnerable Jew who isnt frum. Such folks are ready to cash it in on observance anyway, or else they wouldnt be vulnerable. What do they care whether or not Jesus bris blemished him?

The whole argument is persuasive only to those who are already convinced. Its called preaching to the choir, and is utterly useless for counter-missionary purposes.



PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

2. Do you believe that each person is responsible for his own sins?

I do struggle with this, in my relationship with Christianity. On the one hand, let me forewarn some folks not to prey on this, like the vulture on Prometheus liver, to try to disprove my faith to me. On the other hand, I dont struggle with it much, since its not mentioned in Problems with Christianity (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...c&index=2) and I am fully content with my beliefs as outlined there.

First, I have never personally known a Christian who espouses irresponsibility. That would be tantamount to the heresy called antinomianism. The way we handle sin from day to day that is, after one has accepted JC as ones personal lord and savior -- is much as was set forth on the Rebeccca has a question thread (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...99.topic). Our doctrine is that it is through Jesus that mercy is available. Comparing Jewish and Christian posts on that thread, it does seem to me that, in this regard, Judaism is Christianity without Jesus, or vice versa.{2}

Secondly, there are circumstances when the entire dynamic of personal responsibility simply fails. It does seem to me, at these times, humanity does need some kind of savior. I very recently had such an event myself; see Mercy, Justice and the Mess Jesus Fixed (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...c&index=28 ).

Ultimately, as you ARE asking me about MY PERSONAL beliefs and not what Christianity teaches: in order to become a believer in reincarnation, as I am, I had to overcome the presumptive obstacle of karma vs. grace. Someone addressed this exact question to Edgar Cayce, who responded, HE (that is, Jesus) IS thy karma IF you put your trust SOLELY in HIM. I may have one or two words wrong, there. But this did it for me.

Karma is grace, to the extent that, in allowing me to meet time and again the natural results of my own actions, God is giving me every opportunity to correct my misdeeds. This seems to be pretty similar to the Jewish view.

My hero is one who has been through the process to completion (perfection).

He wasnt kidding when he said (John 5:39, 45), You search the scr'ptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that testify on my behalf. *** If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. In the personae of Adam, Melchizedek, Joseph, Joshua, David, Elisha, and others, a great deal of TaNaKh is merely one biography after another, of this selfsame neshama. In fact, in the personae of David, First Isaiah, Second Isaiah (author of chapter 53), Third Isaiah, Hosea, if not others as well, he himself wrote a lot of that material.

Hebrews 2:17-18:

Therefore [Jesus] had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.

Hebrews 4:15:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.

Setting aside the without sin aspect for the moment, since that term remains undefined{1}, the testing stories in Matthew and Luke, which were written to put teeth into these verses from Hebrews dont, for me; never have. For me, theyve never been credible. First, theyre so darn limited in scope. Second, they leave out what is for me the most obvious and powerful temptation of all: take your riches and kingdoms, I dont care; but put Naomi Campbell or Mariah Carey in front of me and Harry is immediately at your service -- SIR!!!

For me, the reincarnation prospect does put teeth into those verses from Hebrews, and its crucial. Look at the lives of those people. Theyve or hes -- been through it. And if we can say that based just on whats reported in TaNaKh, what else has he perhaps been through, thats not reported? YES, this is the individual described in Diaper Change (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...index=33). YES, this is the individual described in Isaac and Jesus (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...&index=39)

DANG! Wheres a Christ when you need him?

Hes right there.


Thats our belief.



{1} There is very little point in talking about sin or sinlessness so long as neither side knows what, in the others view, the word means. See For Example, (p069.ezboard.com/fmessiah...index=26).

{2}By the same token, heres a link I recently posted on a different thread. When I came across this page, I read and just got blown away; for the life of me, I read things like this and cant see why Christians and Jews ever argue at all:


{3}The demand for a precedent in TaNaKh is thus mistaken.

{4}I think I am correctly irked, therefore, when Xophobes suggest I cash it in on the whole J* myth just because it has this-or-that detail that the Xophobe thinks I shouldn't like such as Jesus' at one point comparing a goy to a dog, or that he was born in a stable rather than a bakery, or that the Xophobe mistakenly believes "ox" means "steer" and is an offensive metaphor for God. The events did not occur so that I might have a cheap and easy belief system. Xophobes may want one; maybe that's the reason for their being what they are.