Click Here to go to site!
Click Here to go to site!
I don’t want to make this a long post because I think this is a simple fact.
The mouths of so many christians are filled with the praise of Jesus. Their songs are about him. The words are about him. So much of their teaching is about him. So many christians know their “new testament” much better than the old one. I remember, after having left the notion of Jesus being messiah, going through the song book of my old church, trying to pick out a song that focused on the identity they know as “the Father,” the one who they believe sent their messiah-figure. Out of maybe 400 songs, there were probably only two or three where “God the Father” was the main emphasis.
Think about the way so many of them pray; they need to end their prayers with “in the name of Jesus.” I remember, with pain, hearing so many prayers directed to Jesus, or with the person praying swapping between Jesus and God as they pray. “Oh Jesus, in your name I’m praying …. And God, please make a way! And we call on your name …” It’s like a confusion! No, it is confusion. Whether they pray to Jesus, or think they have to pray through Jesus to get to God, it has diluted the pure worship spoken of in the Jewish Bible. Where the Psalmist says that God is near to all who all up on Him in truth, the christian interjects and says no one can come to the Father unless there’s a middle man.
In the Jewish Bible, the person who revered God didn’t need a priest or a prophet to call on God. In the christian testament, and in the lives of its devotees, some other person is inextricably attached to the worshipper to get any communication with God.
What makes much of christianity idolatry is their praise of someone other than God: a man. What makes much of christianity idolatry is their emphasis and focus on the Jesus-character and not on the person who they claim is the one who sent him. God commanded Israel, “You shall have no other god in front of me.” Yet christianity puts the man Jesus between themselves and God in their devotion, worship and prayer. Their so-called “mediator” becomes the divider.
Someone once said that christianity was a great stumbling block, causing so much of the world to err in serving a god other than the true God, the Creator. That person’s words have been justified.
I’ve seen it claimed by christians that in order for mankind to get perfect atonement or perfect mercy from God, a perfect (sinless) man had to die in our place. There are variations to this, such as the notion that the debt of sin that man “owed” was infinite so it needs something infinite to pay the price, therefore it could only be God Himself who pays the price. Christians and those they persuade will say that this makes sense.
But there’s one crucial and fundamental mistake with this argument: it’s not in the Jewish Bible! It’s not in their “old testament.” In other words, God never said it.
If God is the one who makes the rules of engagement between us and him, and those rules are in the Jewish Bible, then it should at least strike someone as being odd that this logic has no reference in the Jewish Bible, in His words.
Now although christians can point to a few out of context verses that state the relationship between death and atonement, there is nothing that talks about some infinite sin or infinite debt or perfect mercy or perfect atonement. I don’t even think there is a place in the Torah that overtly, in the text, relates the type of sins that require animal sacrifices to “debt.” As had been said in previous articles, there is no place in the text of the Laws of Moses that show that the death of one human, however supposedly perfect, can be a valid sacrifice for the sins of another individual, much less the sins of the entirety of humanity at least for the past 2000 years. There is nothing that states that an execution can be a valid sacrifice. In essence, there is no place in the text of the Jewish Bible that states anything like “perfect mercy demands a perfect death.”
Of course, some christians will claim that this is just the normal “measure for measure” or “equal measures” principle that is stated in the Jewish Bible. The problem with this claim is that the actual terms of this supposed “equal measures” transaction are fictions made up in the minds of Jesus-followers and acolytes of Paul, the conman of Tarsus. The Jewish Bible says nothing about an infinite debt of sin. The Jewish Bible never speaks of a perfect mercy. The Jewish Bible, God’s word is wholly silent on the concept of a perfect man without sin, or that the death of such a creature would be suitable payment for sins he is not responsible for. There is nothing said about how the sins of the entirety of the generations of the human race at least for the past 2000 years would be conferred upon him without their knowledge or consent (something that is present in the real sacrifices done in the Jewish Bible).
In fact, for many of these details, if not all of them, the Jewish Bible and the laws of Moses that God gave him for Israel seems to say the complete opposite, fundamentally undermining and undercutting this innovative argument of christians. A person pays the price for their own sins; no human is perfect; the righteous can’t die for the wicked; etc. In fact, God’s prophets said that it is departing from evil and doing good and returning to God that gains forgiveness, and this is so because God’s ways and thoughts are not like ours (Isaiah 55:6-9). And there are other places that reflect these same sentiments.
So it should be made plain that the “logical” argument of christians that somehow our sins could only be atoned for using the execution of a perfect person is not what God says, neither does it reflect his thoughts, neither is it present in God’s words in the Jewish Bible.
The concept of “perfect mercy demands a perfect sacrifice” has no place in God’s word, in the Jewish Bible. It’s just a fiction
From wil’Liam Hall (with adaptations by me)
jesus: It’s not about opinions or emotions. It’s about the FACTS:
FACT: “Christ” is the Greek word for “Messiah”
FACT: “Messiah” is the transliteration of a Hebrew word that means “anointed”
FACT: For a person who is to be king or priest to be called by that special word for “anointed”, oil must be poured on that person by a Priest or Prophet.
FACT: jesus was never anointed by a Priest or by a Prophet.
FACT: Being that jesus was never anointed with oil by a Priest or Prophet, he cannot rightfully be called “Christ/Messiah/Anointed”
FACT: jesus is “not” the Messiah.
So some of the articles on this site have focused on the “divine Jesus” notion, and some have questioned or contradicted the notion that Jesus was “messiah”. But let me share my view on the issues at play here, the more fundamental issues.
The “divine Jesus” notion and the “Jesus as the messiah” belief are two separate questions with two different sets of ramifications and consequences. Now this will be treated differently from the claims that christians make that a routine mundane execution (which was done to thousands of other people) was somehow a sacrifice for sin and the other claims that one denomination of christianity or another makes.
To believe that any dude is the promised anointed Davidic king spoken of in the Jewish Bible when such a guy didn’t even fulfil the explicit prophecies about this Davidic king and the era that surrounded his coming didn’t come about, to believe that is simply foolish. But that’s far as it goes. Of course, I don’t promote foolishness as good or praiseworthy, but it doesn’t go as far as the next claim made by denominations of christianity. So there are christians that accept Jesus as the promised king, yet don’t believe he is “God in the flesh” or God at all. Their belief in this notion that Jesus is the solely-human promised anointed king declared from the Hebrew Bible is wrong and mistaken for what would appear to some to be blatantly obvious reasons. But it doesn’t break any foundational divine laws or principles.
To believe that any man is God or god is much more serious. And to worship him as such is idolatry, just as if a person believed that God was manifest in a tree, a rock, or a crafted image and carried out that belief by bowing down to such a form or praying to it. God made plain in the Jewish Bible, in the foundational revelation of the Torah, that no form was associated to him. It’s a important principle for any human not to worship created forms, any aspect of the universe. This includes believing that a man was God or is God, or that God becomes a man, or that an intermediary was/is God and should be worshipped as such. To say “I worship Jesus” is inextricably linked to the experience of a human being that walked this earth and was dependent on air. That’s the worship of a man no matter at which point someone claims he was or became God.
Being wrong or foolish in a way that doesn’t involve idolatry is not something to be congratulated. Falsehoods in this vein should be combated, and I’ll use what occasion I can to show that Jesus could not be the promised Davidic king. At least this sort of foolishness is somewhat lighter than the other philosophy that is common amongst mainstream christian sects. A heavier, more serious issue is the worship of a man as God. This sort of thinking should not be ignored when it transgresses the core principles for any human being.
OK, back to Servant Stupidities. Last time we looked at how the “Servant of God” reveals the polytheism of “the groupers”, christians that claim that God is a group in one form or another, whether they claim God is three distinct persons, or two distinct persons.
Then you’ll meet the christians that really claim that God is indivisibly one. And they will mean it. Their view is called “the oneness doctrine” or modalism. In this belief, the father, son and holy spirit are not distinct persons. They are manifestations of the exact same God. Whereas groupers will say the father is not the son and the son is not the holy spirit and the holy spirit is not the father, the oneness people will ultimately say that these are just illusions of perception, but that they are all covers, masks, or modes of the same person.
It’s important that you see the difference. Groupers say that the Father is not the Son, they are distinct or separate entities: they are not the same person. The oneness posse will say that “father” and “son” are just manifestations of the same person, the same person being God.
So let’s see where that leads us.
Question: So Jesus is the servant of God?
Honest answer from oneness: Yes
Question: But isn’t Jesus and God the same person?
Honest answer: Yes
Question: So if Jesus are God is the same person, then is there really a servant?
Honest answer: errrr …
Question: I mean using language normally, a person can’t be his own servant. So is there a servant? The scriptures say that God has a servant, but you’re essentially saying God has no servant.
At this point, you may see the problem. The oneness doctrine undermines the words altogether making the very statement “servant of God” meaningless.
Last time in “servant” stupidities, I noted how the concept of God is the exact opposite of the notion of a servant. So saying that the servant of God is God is an utter contradiction.
This time on “Servant Stupidities”, in two parts we deal with the polytheistic or schizophrenic notion of God being the servant of God.
There are two ways of seeing Jesus as God. Either in terms of God being a group and the other as God being an indivisible unity. Let’s compare these notions with their consequences and the claims of the christians who hold them.
So the christians who see God as a trinity or a family or a “binity” (those who accept that the son and father are “God”) or whatever notion of separateness in the parties, these christians will claim to be fiercely monotheistic. Or at least they will fiercely claim that they are monotheistic. We’ll call these christians “groupers”, as their God is a group of one form or another. Yet look what happens when we apply such thinking to “the servant of God”.
Question: So is Jesus God?
Honest answer from grouper: Yes
Question: And Jesus is the servant of God?
Honest answer: Yes.
Question: So the servant of God is God?
Honest answer: Yes
Question: But in order to be the servant of God you have to be someone other than the God whose being served?
Honest answer: Well the God being served must be God the Father and God the Son became the servant.
At this point, you have an implicit fact. One “God” is not the other “God”. The God who has “the servant” is not the same as the God who is the servant. What does this mean? We have two Gods. Of course they’ll fiercely claim their monotheism, but, as is obvious, the claim is hollow. They acknowledge at least two Gods not one.
We’ll deal with the other sort of christian next time.