No one can die to atone for the sins of another.

[Indeependent]

Yes----I googled Ezra was of the tribe of LEVI------and he did not claim that he was a pagan

He was upset the Levis married Canaanite women and had children with them, so he had them send them away. Horrible.

Ezra discouraged intermarriage. He had neither the POWER nor the LEGAL authority
to force anyone to do anything. Whole groups of people utterly ignored him---ask roudy. Whole groups of people are still annoyed with each other----over EZRA.
Sheeesh penny-----your catechism whore
really sold you a kettle of fish.
Cannanite women? ezra lived in IRAQ

Crap, no kidding. He traveled back and forth. He got scribes together to write the torah. Do you read the OT. When he returned from Babylon, unless your OT is a load of crap, he was upset with what he found, everyone was pagan.

Ezra canonized the Prophets and Writings.

 

[Penelope]

Josephus Flavius was also of LEVI

He was a lot of things, same as Paul. I think they might be one of the same.

more of that catechism whore information---PAUL was of no tribe----he was the child of GREEKS ----a convert,. Josephus Flavius
was ------a levi of the COHEN variety

You best read the NT, Paul was circumcised and a Pharisee, and also a Roman citizen. He learned at the school of Gamaliel? , same rabbi Josephus did. Saul was his name from the tribe of Benjamin.

In which verse does Paul describe himself as a Pharisee?

Acts 23:6New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the data-Council, Brethren,I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

 

[irosie91]

Yes----I googled Ezra was of the tribe of LEVI------and he did not claim that he was a pagan

He was upset the Levis married Canaanite women and had children with them, so he had them send them away. Horrible.

Ezra discouraged intermarriage. He had neither the POWER nor the LEGAL authority
to force anyone to do anything. Whole groups of people utterly ignored him---ask roudy. Whole groups of people are still annoyed with each other----over EZRA.
Sheeesh penny-----your catechism whore
really sold you a kettle of fish.
Cannanite women? ezra lived in IRAQ

Crap, no kidding. He traveled back and forth. He got scribes together to write the torah. Do you read the OT. When he returned from Babylon, unless your OT is a load of crap, he was upset with what he found, everyone was pagan.

the load of crap is the catechism whore that shoved this shit into your brain. Ezra did not "get scribes together" to "write the torah" ---What could be called a college of torah scholars ALREADY existed in Babylon before EZRA emerged as a prominent guy----the torah was already written. Your problem is that the Brothel in which your were spawned did not have a cultural legacy of literacy ---so you imagine that no one else did. Interestingly----Ezra was not only active in Babylon and Jerusalem ----he even communicated with other literate communities that existed AT THAT TIME-----in what today we call "THE DIASPORA" -----sorry---but you are very outclassed -----obviously you cannot tolerate the fact. Examples of "already" existing literate communities with its own scholars at that time include ALEXANDRIA AND YEMEN AND IRAN. -------AND EVEN SAUDI ARABIA. BABYLON was one of the centers of jewish scholarship-----but then---so was Jerusalem ---AT THAT TIME. Messed up by invasion but it never DISAPPEARED

 

[irosie91]

Yes----I googled Ezra was of the tribe of LEVI------and he did not claim that he was a pagan

He was upset the Levis married Canaanite women and had children with them, so he had them send them away. Horrible.

Ezra discouraged intermarriage. He had neither the POWER nor the LEGAL authority
to force anyone to do anything. Whole groups of people utterly ignored him---ask roudy. Whole groups of people are still annoyed with each other----over EZRA.
Sheeesh penny-----your catechism whore
really sold you a kettle of fish.
Cannanite women? ezra lived in IRAQ

Crap, no kidding. He traveled back and forth. He got scribes together to write the torah. Do you read the OT. When he returned from Babylon, unless your OT is a load of crap, he was upset with what he found, everyone was pagan.

Ezra canonized the Prophets and Writings.

right----that's not "THE TORAH" ----poor penelope

 

[irosie91]

Josephus Flavius was also of LEVI

He was a lot of things, same as Paul. I think they might be one of the same.

more of that catechism whore information---PAUL was of no tribe----he was the child of GREEKS ----a convert,. Josephus Flavius
was ------a levi of the COHEN variety

You best read the NT, Paul was circumcised and a Pharisee, and also a Roman citizen. He learned at the school of Gamaliel? , same rabbi Josephus did. Saul was his name from the tribe of Benjamin.

In which verse does Paul describe himself as a Pharisee?

Acts 23:6New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the data-Council, Brethren,I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

so? you want to credit Constantine's account of Paul as history-----fine with me-----the event if true does not run counter to the likely scenario that Paul was the son of greek converts. There were greek converts who became very PROMINENT talmudists

 

[irosie91]

more of that catechism whore information---PAUL was of no tribe----he was the child of GREEKS ----a convert,. Josephus Flavius
was ------a levi of the COHEN variety

You best read the NT, Paul was circumcised and a Pharisee, and also a Roman citizen. He learned at the foot of Gamiel? , same rabbi Josephus did.

I read it ----Paul was the son of GREEK CONVERTS -----thus circumcised and by choice an adherent of the Pharisee political
party and ---schooled Josephus was of the tribe of levi----and a COHEN and later in life--
became a roman citizen. Pharisee is not an INHERITED position----COHEN/LEVI is.
You are mixing apples with oranges in your
befuddled mind. Converts do not get ASSIGNED a tribe-----

I think Paul and Josephus is one and the same. Saul was raised in a jewish family and also a Roman citizen, as said in the NT. Paul was not a Priest, and Josephus says he was, but he is a traitor and if he is Paul, Paul said he can be all things to all people.

you are very confused. Both Paul and Josephus were real people----The actual
lineage of Paul is completely unknown outside
of what ever the writers of the NT included
in the NT. The most likely correct information is that he was a ROMAN CITIZEN as a legacy from his father. At the time that
the father was a Roman citizen---jews were
very rarely roman citizens. Josephus became a roman citizen LATE IN LIFE.---thus years after paul was born ALREADY A ROMAN CITIZEN THRU IS FATHER.

As to being of the tribe of Benjamin----that tribe barely existed it at all by the time of Paul's life. Paul was born in TARSUS---which was a Hellenistic city of the ROMAN empire. Chances are that the description of Paul being born into a jewish family refers to greek converts---there was considerable amount of greek converts. There is no question that Josephus was a cohen (that means of the tribe of levi) Josephus was not a traitor---he advocated a level of accommodation to roman demands for the sake of survival----thus joining the CENTURIES OLD DEBATE in which jews have been involved for the past 3000 years.
Ezra----who predated Josephus by about 500 years---- wanted NO PART OF the accommodation thing. There is no GAMIEL----
the school of GAMLIEL had lots of students

Yes I just told you all of the above. Glad you were reading it.

you "told" me nothing----and never did----just about every post that you fart into cyberspace is either from the islamo Nazi propaganda you eat or the product of your own rectum

 

[irosie91]

Josephus Flavius was also of LEVI

He was a lot of things, same as Paul. I think they might be one of the same.

more of that catechism whore information---PAUL was of no tribe----he was the child of GREEKS ----a convert,. Josephus Flavius
was ------a levi of the COHEN variety

You best read the NT, Paul was circumcised and a Pharisee, and also a Roman citizen. He learned at the school of Gamaliel? , same rabbi Josephus did. Saul was his name from the tribe of Benjamin.

In which verse does Paul describe himself as a Pharisee?

sheesh ----he does----independent ----I am in no mood to google-----His claim would not be
so hard to grasp----something along the lines of "I USED TO BE A PHARISEE---BUT NOW I SEE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS" -----or " I USED TO BE A PHARISEE, BUT NOW I FOUND JESUS" or "I USED TO BE A CHRISTIAN, BUT NOW I FOUND ALLAH". ------it is a tried and true and useful ploy

 

[Meriweather]

This is why Jews do not believe there was any redemptive power at all in Jesus' death. Such a belief is unbiblical; it has no basis in the sacred text and no justification in Jewish theology. This doctrine can be seen as an invention for the sake of post-event rationalization, in other words, to give meaning and purpose to the crucifixion after the fact.

Some Christians may choose to interpret other verses in the Bible to indicate the opposite, that one CAN die for the sins of another. If that were the case, this would mean that Gd changed His mind, or that He did not mean what He said in Deuteronomy 24:16: 'Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.'

Is there a passage in the Tanakh where God announces sins are forgiven? Was a covenant made whereby people repent (turn away from sin/change their behavior) and God forgives?

 

[HaShev]

This is why Jews do not believe there was any redemptive power at all in Jesus' death. Such a belief is unbiblical; it has no basis in the sacred text and no justification in Jewish theology. This doctrine can be seen as an invention for the sake of post-event rationalization, in other words, to give meaning and purpose to the crucifixion after the fact.

Some Christians may choose to interpret other verses in the Bible to indicate the opposite, that one CAN die for the sins of another. If that were the case, this would mean that Gd changed His mind, or that He did not mean what He said in Deuteronomy 24:16: 'Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.'

Is there a passage in the Tanakh where God announces sins are forgiven? Was a covenant made whereby people repent (turn away from sin/change their behavior) and God forgives?

Hosea 14:3 , I Samuel 15:22 ,Ezekiel 33:11 , Isaiah 55:7 & Jeremiah 36:3 about the Teshuva

There are MANY means of atonement for sins. 1. Monetary (Ex 30:15) 2. Restitution (Leviticus 5:16, Numbers 5:8) 3. Incense (Numbers 16:47) 4. Loyalty and faithfulness (Proverbs 16:6)5. Jewlery (Numbers 31:50) 6. Prayer (I Kings 8 :46-53, Hosea 14:1-2, Psalm 141:2) 7. Repentance (Hosea 14:3 , I Samuel 15:22 , Isaiah 55:7 , I Kings 8 :46-53, Ezkeiel 18:21-23, 33:11,14-16, Jeremiah 36:3)

 

[shimon]

Really all one had to do was humble oneself...Christianity is far from humble as adherents claim they don't have to be humble because of their arrogance in their belief that Jesus did it all for them.... There are many many problems with this attitude the most major in my opinion is that the individual is taught from a young age that he or she can continue being a terrible person not only to others but themselves as no matter what they do they are forgiven... This leads to no improvement in either the individuals personality or actions and affects society on so many levels.... The belief of Jesus as an atoning sin is possibly the worst thing ever foisted on mankind and this blatant lie is held fast to by people either because they are too lazy to change or question it or they just want to be part of a group that has held sway and power for so long that their ego will not give it up.. Indoctrination and group pressure are a heavy chain to keep around ones neck that eventually pulls one down and drowns one to say the least...

 

[irosie91]

This is why Jews do not believe there was any redemptive power at all in Jesus' death. Such a belief is unbiblical; it has no basis in the sacred text and no justification in Jewish theology. This doctrine can be seen as an invention for the sake of post-event rationalization, in other words, to give meaning and purpose to the crucifixion after the fact.

Some Christians may choose to interpret other verses in the Bible to indicate the opposite, that one CAN die for the sins of another. If that were the case, this would mean that Gd changed His mind, or that He did not mean what He said in Deuteronomy 24:16: 'Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.'

Is there a passage in the Tanakh where God announces sins are forgiven? Was a covenant made whereby people repent (turn away from sin/change their behavior) and God forgives?

you know that there are many such allusions-----

 

[Meriweather]

Really all one had to do was humble oneself...Christianity is far from humble as adherents claim they don't have to be humble because of their arrogance in their belief that Jesus did it all for them.... There are many many problems with this attitude the most major in my opinion is that the individual is taught from a young age that he or she can continue being a terrible person not only to others but themselves as no matter what they do they are forgiven... This leads to no improvement in either the individuals personality or actions and affects society on so many levels.... The belief of Jesus as an atoning sin is possibly the worst thing ever foisted on mankind and this blatant lie is held fast to by people either because they are too lazy to change or question it or they just want to be part of a group that has held sway and power for so long that their ego will not give it up.. Indoctrination and group pressure are a heavy chain to keep around ones neck that eventually pulls one down and drowns one to say the least...

Remember, the attitude of "Jesus" did it all is, relatively, a new addition (since the so-called "Reformation"). Five hundred years ago, some decided Jesus did it all and that behavior/works don't matter. This is not what Jesus taught; it is not something any of the Catholic denominations teach.

Jesus taught, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins; your sins are forgiven." When challenged that he had no authority to make such pronouncements, Jesus said that, in fact, he did. He established this New Covenant (or Testament), ratified it with his own blood, and it was shown to be authentic through his resurrection from the dead.

In the Catholic faith, 'atone' is linked to 'at one'. Jesus came to announce that mankind was at one with God upon repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus stressed obedience, and obedience has not been given a lot of respect in society since the Enlightenment/Reformation period. Instead, respect and approval are reserved for civil disobedience.

Jesus did not really teach anything foreign to Judaism. The sects of the Reformation are responsible for that. It's why they think so little of both Catholicism and Judaism--convinced the Protestors are the Enlightened ones.

 

[Meriweather]

you know that there are many such allusions-----

Absolutely, and the first comes from Genesis. The first account we have of human forgiveness and reconciliation is with Joseph and his brothers. It tells of recognition of wrong-doing, confession of wrong-doing, forgiveness and reconciliation. Hosea pronounces, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

I'm pointing out that in the time of Jesus, sacrifice (and the money made from it off the backs of the poor) was in full swing. Jesus simply announced the truth to the poor, even quoting Hosea. He emphasized obedience to God and honoring the spirit of the law which he said would not pass away until all is fulfilled.

Still, what I see may not be what Guno (or others of the Jewish faith) see. That's why I asked him which Tanakh passages Jews pointed to where God distinctly announces, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins." In this Catholics and Jews are quite alike. We hold no belief (or even respect) for "substitutionary atonement" where Jesus life, death, and resurrection dismissed behavior, works, and repentance as no longer mattering. In the Catholic faith all three matter, and they matter a lot.

What also matters is that Jesus wanted this news announced not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well.

 

[irosie91]

you know that there are many such allusions-----

Absolutely, and the first comes from Genesis. The first account we have of human forgiveness and reconciliation is with Joseph and his brothers. It tells of recognition of wrong-doing, confession of wrong-doing, forgiveness and reconciliation. Hosea pronounces, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

I'm pointing out that in the time of Jesus, sacrifice (and the money made from it off the backs of the poor) was in full swing. Jesus simply announced the truth to the poor, even quoting Hosea. He emphasized obedience to God and honoring the spirit of the law which he said would not pass away until all is fulfilled.

Still, what I see may not be what Guno (or others of the Jewish faith) see. That's why I asked him which Tanakh passages Jews pointed to where God distinctly announces, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins." In this Catholics and Jews are quite alike. We hold no belief (or even respect) for "substitutionary atonement" where Jesus life, death, and resurrection dismissed behavior, works, and repentance as no longer mattering. In the Catholic faith all three matter, and they matter a lot.

What also matters is that Jesus wanted this news announced not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well.

I am intrigued with your comment about MONEY BEING MADE OFF THE BACKS OF THE POOR------who was "making money off the backs of the poor" in the time of jesus and by what means? And in what way did jesus try to end "money being made off the backs of the poor"?

 

[irosie91]

Really all one had to do was humble oneself...Christianity is far from humble as adherents claim they don't have to be humble because of their arrogance in their belief that Jesus did it all for them.... There are many many problems with this attitude the most major in my opinion is that the individual is taught from a young age that he or she can continue being a terrible person not only to others but themselves as no matter what they do they are forgiven... This leads to no improvement in either the individuals personality or actions and affects society on so many levels.... The belief of Jesus as an atoning sin is possibly the worst thing ever foisted on mankind and this blatant lie is held fast to by people either because they are too lazy to change or question it or they just want to be part of a group that has held sway and power for so long that their ego will not give it up.. Indoctrination and group pressure are a heavy chain to keep around ones neck that eventually pulls one down and drowns one to say the least...

Remember, the attitude of "Jesus" did it all is, relatively, a new addition (since the so-called "Reformation"). Five hundred years ago, some decided Jesus did it all and that behavior/works don't matter. This is not what Jesus taught; it is not something any of the Catholic denominations teach.

Jesus taught, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins; your sins are forgiven." When challenged that he had no authority to make such pronouncements, Jesus said that, in fact, he did. He established this New Covenant (or Testament), ratified it with his own blood, and it was shown to be authentic through his resurrection from the dead.

In the Catholic faith, 'atone' is linked to 'at one'. Jesus came to announce that mankind was at one with God upon repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus stressed obedience, and obedience has not been given a lot of respect in society since the Enlightenment/Reformation period. Instead, respect and approval are reserved for civil disobedience.

Jesus did not really teach anything foreign to Judaism. The sects of the Reformation are responsible for that. It's why they think so little of both Catholicism and Judaism--convinced the Protestors are the Enlightened ones.

In fact in the catholic tradition---not only said JESUS DO IT ALL----but his minsters on earth----HAD THE POWER TO DO IT ALL----
and could even withhold "IT ALL"-----"salvation" was completely dependent on what the church or its ministers DECIDED -------mostly based on high fees

 

[Meriweather]

In fact in the catholic tradition---not only said JESUS DO IT ALL----but his minsters on earth----HAD THE POWER TO DO IT ALL----
and could even withhold "IT ALL"-----"salvation" was completely dependent on what the church or its ministers DECIDED -------mostly based on high fees

Wrong. So wrong. I am sure anyone can find isolated instances to support that claim, but there are more instances that show the servant role to be front and center.

 

[irosie91]

In fact in the catholic tradition---not only said JESUS DO IT ALL----but his minsters on earth----HAD THE POWER TO DO IT ALL----
and could even withhold "IT ALL"-----"salvation" was completely dependent on what the church or its ministers DECIDED -------mostly based on high fees

Wrong. So wrong. I am sure anyone can find isolated instances to support that claim, but there are more instances that show the servant role to be front and center.

the "servant" role? "isolated instances" if you are reluctant to discuss this issue---it is ok with me

 

[Meriweather]

I am intrigued with your comment about MONEY BEING MADE OFF THE BACKS OF THE POOR------who was "making money off the backs of the poor" in the time of jesus and by what means? And in what way did jesus try to end "money being made off the backs of the poor"?

Take a look at Roman history, policies, and economics of this time. People were as good as being run off their land, forced into tenant roles with too much of their labor and produce taken in taxes. Roman rule did not prosper the poor or middle class of Judea. It was a situation where the poor were getting poorer, the rich richer.

Then there was the Temple Tax and Temple offerings which placed further burden on the already over-taxed poor. In that time, Annas and Caiaphas did little to help the poor, and by all appearances seemed willing to go along with the Romans. (Note their lack of support for any revolutionary, let alone Jesus.) Jesus and his followers had little trouble with Pharisees such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and the like. However, Annas, Caiaphas, and their ilk were often at odds with Jesus and what he said.

 

[Meriweather]

the "servant" role? "isolated instances" if you are reluctant to discuss this issue---it is ok with me

Actually, it is the original broad-brushing that indicates an unwillingness to enter into a discussion. If you are truly interested in a discussion, pinpoint a specific instance, and we'll discuss.

 

[irosie91]

I am intrigued with your comment about MONEY BEING MADE OFF THE BACKS OF THE POOR------who was "making money off the backs of the poor" in the time of jesus and by what means? And in what way did jesus try to end "money being made off the backs of the poor"?

Take a look at Roman history, policies, and economics of this time. People were as good as being run off their land, forced into tenant roles with too much of their labor and produce taken in taxes. Roman rule did not prosper the poor or middle class of Judea. It was a situation where the poor were getting poorer, the rich richer.

Then there was the Temple Tax and Temple offerings which placed further burden on the already over-taxed poor. In that time, Annas and Caiaphas did little to help the poor, and by all appearances seemed willing to go along with the Romans. (Note their lack of support for any revolutionary, let alone Jesus.) Jesus and his followers had little trouble with Pharisees such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and the like. However, Annas, Caiaphas, and their ilk were often at odds with Jesus and what he said.

Judea was a TRIBUTE state to Rome-----no doubt----Jesus had little trouble with Pharisees because Jesus was a Pharisee. Annas and Caiaphas were SADDUCEES and roman shills. The temple tax was utterly trivial and no issue at all even for the poor-----I have no idea what are your issues with sacrifices-----
the custom was not profitable---your must be thinking of the ROMAN system ----roman temples made a BUSINESS out of sacrifices-----the meat was sold and involved GIANT animal massacres-----but donated mostly by the rich and powerful for the sake of a show of PRESTIGE AND POWER