Is the Catholic Mass the Final Sacrifice? A Whopping Question

 The Catholic Forum mentions the following as an ”anti-Catholic whopper.”

 ”Catholics re-sacrifice Christ at every Mass because [they say] we don’t understand that His death on the cross was the FINAL sacrifice.”

In the above statement, is the argument that 1. Catholics don’t believe that Christ is sacrificed at every Mass or 2. Catholics do believe that Christ is sacrificed at every Mass but that this does not imply that Christ’s death on the cross was not the ”final sacrifice?”

The second argument seems strange. It seems to me that only the first argument is plausible. So, I shall focus on this one. In The Constant Thirst and Constant Sacrifice of Jesus Christ: The Charism of Mother Teresa, I examined Mother Teresa’s belief that Jesus Christ in heaven is constantly “thirsting for souls?” In that post I linked the “constant thirst” idea to the constant sacrifice of the Mass. In Roman Catholic theology – perhaps, philosophy is a more appropriate term – the sacrifice is never over.

 According to Roman Catholicism, Christ was not sacrificed once and for all, but is sacrificed constantly – in the Mass. From this idea it’s no big leap to imagine that every time Christ is “offered” as a sacrifice in the Mass, He also thirsts (for souls) as he did at His crucifixion. The term “constant” is from Pope John Paul II. In his teaching of the sacrifice of the Mass, Pope John Paul II writes: . . . the Church is the instrument of man’s salvation. It both contains and continually (my italics) draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantly (my italics) “enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption” (cf. Heb 9:12). (Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Knopf, 1995, p. 139). The underlined section is the Pope’s rendition of Hebrews 9:12.). The Pope’s “constantly enters” resonates with the Council of Trent’s declaration that the Mass is not merely a “re-enactment”, but a real propitiatory sacrifice, which is repeated at every consecration of the wafer and the wine. “And for as much as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. . . If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. . . and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.” Here is one Catholic’s depiction of “the agony of Our Lord in each Holy Mass.” As is (intentionally?) made clear, it’s hard not to make the propitiary sacrifice of the Mass unbloody, which the Council of Trent stipulates is an unbloody sacrifice, for surely ”sacrifice” implies blood – real, not mystical, blood. The first part of John Paul’s statement – “continually draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice” – does not conflict with the Bible. However, just because the Church “continually draws upon the…sacrifice” this does not mean that Jesus Christ is constantly sacrificed. After quoting what he says is Hebrews 9:12, the Pope ends with “(cf. Heb 9:12).” “Cf’” means see/refer to/compare Hebrews 9:12. Let’s do so. Here is the complete verse of Hebrews 9:12 from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible translation (I underline the part of the verse that the Pope has asked us to compare with his):Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered ONCE into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption.”(My emphasis). Here is the Pope’s rendition: Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ constantlyenters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption” (cf. Heb 9:12). John Paul replaces ‘entered once’ with ‘enters, and ends up with: (Jesus) constantly ‘enters entered once into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption’ (cf. Heb 9:12).’” John Paul changed “entered” to “enters,” to fit in with his “constantly.” Whether a Pope is interpreting ex cathedra (that is, by infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit) or in his personal capacity, the practical effect on many devout Roman Catholics is the same. But, for sure, John Paul is indeed speaking ex cathedra, and merely reiterating the Council of Trent on the issue.And for as much as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. . . If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. . . and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.” The question is: Was Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice (that is, the punishment sinners deserve is borne by Christ to satisfy/propitiate the Father’s wrath) a unique first-and-final sacrifice? If scripture is anything to go by, the answer is a whopping yes. If Christ is constantly sacrificed (for souls), it’s no big leap to imagine that He is constantly thirsting (for souls), as Mother Teresa believed. As I argued here Christ is not constantly thirsting, that is, suffering with thirst, for souls. Neither does a propitiatory sacrifice occur every time the priest utters hoc est enim corpus meam “for this is my body.” The Council of Trent says otherwise; and that settles it for Roman Catholics – God on earth has spoken Although I do not agree with the Catholic view that the breaking of the bread depicts the breaking of Jesus’ physical body (I stand with Calvin here), I do agree with the Catholic that ‘it was broken in pain, in anguish and distress of heart, under the weight of the indignation and wrath of God, which He sustained in bearing our sins.’ The wine signifies ‘that His Blood was severed from His flesh’ and it ‘tells you that He died for you, that His Blood was shed for you.”(My emphasis). (Quotes from Robert Bruce – Sermons on the Lord’s Supper).

‘You” in the last sentence refers to those whom God (in His mercy) appoints to salvation:

Acts 13 44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Robert Bruce says: ”We utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm Sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs…”

And he affirms that

”in the Supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.”

There is mystery here, as there is in so many of Christ teachings. For those Protestants (followers of the Zwinglian tradition), there is no mystery in the Lord’s supper, for they hold the ”elemental” view that the Lord’s Supper (”communion”) is nothing more than a remembrance; hence their use of the term ”elements” to refer to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. For Calvin – if not many modern Calvinists – the bread and the wine (the signifiers – to use Robert Bruce’s term) – becomes in a mysterious sense (that is, we only have very partial knowledge) the Body and Blood of the Lord (the signified).

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “Is the Catholic Mass the Final Sacrifice? A Whopping Question

  1. You are quite right. Would be nice if the early Fathers (who had heared the Word from the voices of the first testimonies) would come back and answer your blog regarding your questions. Oh wait. They wrote their doctrine, unchanged still today. And also you know that it is written in the Gospel that many other things could have been said that were not written.
    Anyway not to suffer from Theological Aphasia I am going to give some food for further thoughts: ( How is he the Living God if he is not here suffering or smiling?)

    7. Romans 10:14-15
    But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent

    8. John 15:4 and 6:56
    Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

    He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him

    Colossians 1:24
    Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

    • Maria
      You seem to agree with me that our Lord Jesus sacrificed Himself once and for all time (2000 or so years ago). So, although it is true as you (and the NT says) that ”many other things could have been said that were not written.” it could never contradict what was written, namely, that Jesus Christ was sacrificed once and can never be constantly sacrificed (at every Mass).
      How does your quote ”He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” relate to this discussion? Are you saying that if the body of Christ in communion is the real ”substance” of Christ (in contrast to ”accidents” – it looks like bread, it tastes like bread, but the ”substance” not really bread), this implies that a sacrifice does occur at the Mass. If you think this, then, of course, you would be saying that Christ is indeed sacrificed at every Mass, which means that I am not right but wrong, that is, you do not, in fact, agree with me that Christ was sacrificed once and for all time (in Jerusalem 2000 years ago).

      • Raphael,
        You are right in asking the question…I am sorry if my cryptic language does allow misunderstanding You are right in asking the question since you are protestant and you would be right in asking the question as Catholic or as Martian too. You have then the right question but not the right answer 🙂 I am not qualified to answer because first I am not a protestant and I actually don’t see the problem too well…second I am not a preacher and third ( as you perhaps can guess I like the number 3 ) I like to be guided otherwise It would be easy tomorrow morning to wake up and to discover that there are 28000 Catholic Churches as there are Protestants. I send you a link of a former protestant (perhaps a preacher?) who has become a catholic. He understands your perplexity better then I can do and he has done his homework. Have we done ours? I hadn’t it but you have forced me to :-). If the Gospel tells me “ This is my flesh” than I take it for what it says. But I am a catholic, of course I don’t read the Scriptures. I(I know that my not so prestine English humor will let the reader missunderstand what I am implying but is it ok for me :-)) I let others read them to me and I listen. In listening I understand if the Church is right or wrong in what it preaches and I don’t know why I find that it it is always right but it doesn’t mean that I agree with everything even if it is right. When I don’t agree with the Church it is because it is too difficult to fit the Catholic Church in my personal life but I know that this is my problem and it is not a problem of the church in itself. And this is understood by the same Church. Something good about this relationship the Church and I have is the fact that I am not considered a saint as you are in your church or in other Protestant Churches. We have already many of them certified as such 🙂
        http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/MassReCrucify.doc
        Have a peaceful Sunday

        • Maria, your
          “Something good about this relationship the Church and I have  is the fact that I am not considered a saint as you are in your church or in other Protestant Churches.  We have already many of them certified as such.”

          The CC’s definition of a saint is much more than the biblical view, which is the Protestant view:

          “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you.”Philippians 4:21

          ἅγιος
          Pronunciation
          hag’-ee-os
          sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated):–(most) holy (one, thing), saint

          In the Bible, “saint” refers to all those who are saved. No Protestant, or Catholic, worth their salt, would classify theselves as a saint in the Catholic sense of “saint” Teresa of Avila.

  2. I smile too often in my comments. I am sorry. But I am pleased to be in a communication. with you. Is this the right kind of communication you were speaking about in the other post? I really don’t understand how we are supposed to considere a theological communication that is not suffering from aphasia. If I am not able to communicate under ‘ the right set of rules’ please let me know. I have my own good share of problems in communicating as it is 🙂

  3. Do you know about the slander that the Jews tortured the host?

    This is not a joke. This is real European Christian history. You may find yourself laughing about this as I retell it, but the punchline won’t be as funny.

    Back in the day–and in fairness, the Catholic Church is a different institution today than it was before Vatican II–when the local bishop wanted to focus discontent on an innocent scapegoat, he’d rile the folks up with a good anti-Semitic canard. You’re probably familiar with the accusations that the Jews poisoned the wells to cause the Plague that killed so many Jews and gentiles, or the charge that Jews (who are forbidden by the Bible explicitly from ever eating blood) kidnap and murder Christian children to use their blood to make Passover wafers (alternatively, to replace the blood that Jewish men lose each when they menstruate, etc.). These slanders, ridiculous as they are, effectively mobilized armies of devout Christians to reduce to ashes whole Jewish communities across Europe throughout the Middle Ages and beyond.

    But one of the more bizarre anti-Semitic slanders has been, at least to my sensibilities, the host torture canard. In this story line, Jews sneak into churches at night and steal the crackers, aka “hosts”, into which Jesus’ body has transfigured itself, and then they literally torture the crackers. As the libel goes, the Jews would congregate with their captive crunchy hosts and jab them with knives. The crackers would cry out, and blood would spurt from them while the evil Jewish hook-nosed villains cackled.

    Maria, I know you’re thinking, this is ridiculous! But I want you to know something: Catholics really believed this living cracker nonsense, and the idea that baked goods could be brutalized and that the Jews are evil enough to do it. And the consequences are not humorous. For instance, in 1243 the entire Jewish population of a community outside of Berlin was driven into their synagogue, locked in, and burned to death in response to the host desecration allegations. According to William Nichol in Christian Antisemitism, “over 100 instances of the charge have been recorded, in many cases leading to massacres.”

  4. It is such a tough blow you are using.. Let me ask you after the blow…would you as well follow your religion without this history to relate to?

    • maria,

      I would like to respond to your comment/question, but I’m afraid I didn’t understand it. If you’ll post again with a clarification I’ll by happy to reply to you.

  5. Bography,

    This is in response to your comment here:

    http://roshpinaproject.com/2011/06/21/about-whom-is-isaiah-49-speaking-2/#comment-24078

    As you know, I have again been banned from posting comments at that blog.

    You wrote of Is. 53: “The Servant (he) suffered for our (the servant – Israel) iniquities. it’s simple. YAWN.”

    Let’s see if your parenthetical insertions, or conclusions, hold up.

    Here’s the King James version of 53:5, which you parodied:

    “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities”

    Who is the “he”, and who is the “our”? As you correctly surmised, they cannot be the same party. Let’s back up a bit, to the last verse or the previous chapter. Who is speaking in Is. 53? In Isaiah 52:15, the speaker who narrates chapter 53 is identified:

    “So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.”

    In this context, it becomes immediately apparent that the verses commencing immediately after 52:15, namely 53:1-5 and beyond are the kings of many nations, commonly known as the gentiles. It’s clear in 52:15 that the gentile kings in this messianic prophecy are quite shellshocked, surprised, flabergasted and speechless.

    And in their soliloquiy beginning with “Who hath believed our report?”, the gentiles go on to catalog their stunned, late realization about the suffering servant (the “he” in verse 53:5). And of course we know well from Isaiah whom the suffering servant is, about whom the gentiles will at the time of the messiah be so surprised:

    “But thou, Israel, art my servant…” (Is. 41:8), “…O Jacob my servant…” (44:1 and again in 44:2), “…O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel…” (44:21), “…Thou art my servant, O Israel…” (49:3).

    So, in conclusion, you are right that the “he” and the “our” cannot be the same party in Is. 53:5. Rather the verse is a gentile narration about the Jews. Isn’t it amazing how clear the Book of Isaiah is when we read it all the way through instead of cherry picking verses out of context and trying to twist them to fit the Christian “new testament”?

    • Anon, what do you make of Isaiah 53:8b?
      For he (Israel – your view) was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people (Israel) to whom the stroke was due.

      • bography,

        I know you’re not astonishingly incapable of following the 10 verses from Is. 52:14, which introduces the speakers as the kings of the gentiles and the subject they speak of as the suffering servant. So, it must be that you’re ideologically irreconcileable to the text.

        The subject, as we’ve now agreed, is the servant Israel. And the speaker in 53:8 is a king of a gentile nation.

        This is obvious stuff, bography, straight out of the plainest possible reading of the text. I expect much stronger challenges from a man of your intellect. Now, we know what the text says. I think the onus is on you to show where in Isaiah it mentions Jesus at all.

      • Anonymous,

        Isaiah tells us God’s Servant (the Moshiach) will be “greatly exalted” (as did Daniel in chapter 7:13-14) when He returns. But Isaiah also tells us about Messiah’s suffering and sacrificial death for our sins, “His appearance was marred more than any man”. Daniel writes of this as well in Daniel 9:24-26 telling of Messiah’s atoning death for our sins. Thus by Yeshua’s death on the cross He sprinkled people from “many nations” (Jews and Gentiles) with His redeeming blood. Yeshua appeared before gentile kings during His trial, King Herod and Pilate the Roman ruler of Palestine.

        13 Behold, My servant will prosper,
        He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.
        14 Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
        So His appearance was marred more than any man
        And His form more than the sons of men.
        15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
        Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
        For what had not been told them they will see,
        And what they had not heard they will understand.
        Isaiah 52:13-15 NASB

  6. You raise an excellent point here bography, we know that Isaiah’s people are not the unbelieving gentile nations but the people of Israel. So Anon’s interpretation (and classic modern rabbinic Judaism’s view) doesn’t work, nor make any sense to say that Israel was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people (Israel) to whom the stroke was due.

    But the interpretation that “For Yeshua the Messiah was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people (Israel) to whom the stroke was due.” dose make sense and agrees with not only the Tanach but also the New Testament.

    By His knowledge (Yeshua) the Righteous One,
    My Servant, will justify the many,
    As He will bear their iniquities.

    Singular and Plural pronouns is another big clue, the singular pronouns “He”, “His” are talking about God’s righteous Servant Yeshua the Savior and the plural pronouns “their”, “the many”, “our” is talking about Yeshua becomes the guilt offering for our sins, i.e. Israel (those who believe and receive Yeshua as the Messiah and Son of the living God, the children of the promise).

    So how do we interpret Israel in this passage the bloodline of Israel, or the Israel of God the children of the promise (the elect, chosen people of God; both Jewish and gentile who believe in Yeshua the promised Messiah)?

    Paul gives us this insight;

    6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Romans 9:6-8 NASB

    Paul explains in Galations;

    6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

    10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON TREE”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:10-14 NASB

    Paul then concludes;

    23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

    Galatians 3:10-14 NASB

  7. Christ is not re-sacrificed in every Mass. Below is an excerpt from what I wrote:

    We know that Christ sacrifice on the cross took place in c. 30 AD but, interestingly, Scripture says (Revelation 13:8) that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, i.e. from the time of creation, not on fourteenth (according to John Gospel) or fifteenth day (according to Matthew, Mark and Luke) of Nissan in c. 30 AD. In addition the Greek word translated into “slain” is esphagmenou – it is the passive form in perfect tense of Greek verb sphazo (to slay). Unlike the English perfect tense, the Greek perfect tense indicates continuation and present state of a completed past action – in this case it was completed at foundation of the world. In human time His sacrifice appeared to take place almost two thousand years ago. he has appeared once for all at the end of age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). This explains why Christ was the Passover Lamb of the Last Supper (of the first three Gospels) even though He was not yet crucified. Also whether He was crucified on fourteenth or fifteenth day of Nissan makes no difference. For the same reason Catholics believe the same and single sacrifice Christ made on the cross can be made present in every Eucharistic celebration (or Mass). Christ is the Passover Lamb of New Testament and partaking the Eucharist is participating in Passover meal of the Last Supper. Thus Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1323 also refers Eucharist as Paschal (Passover) banquet. Some might argue that the phrase “foundation of the world” in Revelation 13:8 is to be applied to those who names not written in the book of life. However Hebrews 9:24-26 says that if Christ did not offer Himself in heavenly sanctuary then He, like Old Testament High Priest, must do it repeatedly, interestingly, not from the year He was crucified, but from the foundation of the world.

    • It is very interesting. I have to read something about this to understand it better. Where is written that he was scarified from the beginning of time or before time? Somehow I think that the fact that in Genesis is written about the seed of the woman does make it a very early presence. But why at the beginning? If we consider that there is no time or space restriction for God the moment that something is decided by God is decided before time’s and space’s idea. The same concept is true for predestination and free will. Only when we are living in absence of time and space, meaning in a all present eternity, the free will and the predestination parallel lines coincides as they do even mathematically. In the case of human beings there is free will even if God knows it everything before time. And it is not impossible to comprehend it since scientifically Is possible to grasp it. Could you please tell me the sources of this atemporal dimension of the sacrifice? It does imake sense but I would like to read it from somewhere else

      • maria,

        Back up just a bit in your quest for a source. What is the source that “seed of a woman” in Genesis had anything to do with Jesus at all? You want to believe that Jesus was a central figure of the Jewish Bible, whom G-d knew about before writing it. Surely He would have known Jesus’ name.

        It’s beyond bizarre, then, that G-d wrote a whole book about Jesus but forgot to mention his name in any verse.

        I know what you want to believe, but we both also know that there is no source for it in the Hebrew scriptures.

      • The LORD God said to the serpent,

        “Because you have done this,
        Cursed are you more than all cattle,
        And more than every beast of the field;
        On your belly you will go,
        And dust you will eat
        All the days of your life;
        15 And I will put enmity
        Between you and the woman,
        And between your seed and her seed;
        He shall bruise you on the head,
        And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

        Genesis 3:14-15 NASB

        The “Seed” (Yeshua) of woman (the virgin Mary) bruised the serpent’s (Satan) head at the cross. The serpent working through sinful men bruised Yehua’s heel with a Roman nail at the cross; when He was atoning for our many sins.

        Paul wrote to believers in Yeshua (Jesus);

        When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Colossians 2:13-15 NASB

      • Anonymous writes; “It’s beyond bizarre, then, that G-d wrote a whole book about Jesus but forgot to mention his name in any verse.”

        Anon Elohim is revealed to us in Torah by many different names (as well trhoughout Tanach ie OT) as is His Son the Moshiach David called Adoni and Adonai in Psalm 110:1 and verse 5.

        Isaiah writes that the Moshiach (Messiah) will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

        6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
        And the government will rest on His shoulders;
        And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
        Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
        7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
        On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
        To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
        From then on and forevermore.
        The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

        Isaiah 9:6-7 NASB

        We read in the gospel of Matthew, chapter 1;

        18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25 NASB

    • Marie (also a note to vivator) the scripture vivator is referencing is from Revelation 13:8; although he has combined thoughts and as a result come to a wrong conclusion.

      What it is saying is that there are people from the foundation of the world have had their name written in the book of life, and there are also people whose names are not written in the book of life since the foundation of the world.

      Those whose names have not been written (from the foundation of the world) in the book of life. Is specially who is being discussed in Revelation 13:8; these are the ones who will worship the beast mentioned in verse 1 of Chapter 13.

      8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Revelation 13:8 NASB

      All who live on the earth will worship the “beast coming up out of the sea” (mentioned in verse 1 of chapter 13) except those whose name has been written in the book of life (from the foundation of the world); they will not “worship the beast coming up out of the sea.” Everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb will worship the beast coming up out of the sea.

      The phrase “the Lamb who has been slain” is reference to Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins. It is not saying that the Lamb was slain at the foundation of the world that would be combining to separate thoughts.

      Hebrews gives us the answer when Christ our Lord entered the holy of hollies in heaven and sprinkled His blood on the mercy seat after His burial before His resurrection is most likely when this transaction transpired; we read in Hebrews “but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin”.

      The “consummation of the ages” is a reference to His first advent and atonement He did for us on the cross. (note it did not say He did this at the foundation of the world). It dose say if Christ were required to offer sacrifices year by year, it would have been necessary for Him to “suffer often since the foundation of the world”, but this is not the plan god decided upon; He chase a different plan of salvation; “but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

      23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

      Hebrews 9 NASB

  8. Hi David,
    What vivator wrote is a little more complex than that . He considers that the sacrifice of Crhist has been done from the foundation of the world and it makes sense but since he spoke about it I asked him if he has other references (besides the scriptures).

  9. David wrote, above:

    “The L-rd G-d said to the serpent,

    ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life; and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

    Genesis 3:14-15 NASB

    The “Seed” (Yeshua) of woman (the virgin Mary) bruised the serpent’s (Satan) head at the cross. The serpent working through sinful men bruised Yehua’s heel with a Roman nail at the cross; when He was atoning for our many sins.”

    According to David, the verses discuss extra-Biblical characters Jesus and Mary, as well as Satan. But the plain meaning of the text is anything but Christological. The woman is Eve, not Mary. The seed is mankind generally, and certainly not Jesus in particular!; Jesus wasn’t even mentioned, at all, in any verse in the Jewish Bible.

    When reading David’s lengthy comments, which he bulks up by quoting liberally from the Hebrew scriptures (as well as a variety of utterly irrelevant sources), it’s critically important to differentiate the Word of G-d that he non-contextually quotes from the abject nonsense he baselessly asserts that it means when he incorrectly restates it with his Christian insertions.

    • Anon I suppose you mean by quoting, “a variety of utterly irrelevant sources”, the New Testament Scriptures which include the teachings of Jesus (Yeshua) the Messiah and the NT apostles.

      • David,

        I think you’ve also quoted rabbinical sources to support your Christian views, which is quite cynical considering the fact that you reject the rabbis’ claim to have an oral tradition from Sinai.

      • You have a good memory Anon, and you are correct I have quoted two rabbis (although this is not my custom in general), one being Tovia Singer on the meaning of the Hebrew word “echad”; that it has more than one meaning. Can mean singular one or a unified one.

        You are correct I do reject the rabbis’ claim to have an oral tradition from Sinai (that is authoritative, but I do accept the Hebrew scriptures as the Word of Elohim). But I also reject the infallibility of the Pope (or billy graham or any other Protestant figure). Yeshua (Jesus) is the way the truth and the life. Only God is right all of the time about everything, people can be deceived, both religious and non-religious people.

    • Anon regarding your comment, “According to David, the verses discuss extra-Biblical characters Jesus and Mary, as well as Satan. But the plain meaning of the text is anything but Christological. The woman is Eve, not Mary. The seed is mankind generally, and certainly not Jesus in particular!”

      The apostle John gives a Biblical key for interpretation in Revelation chapter 12 regarding the serpent of old written of by Moses in the Torah;

      9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Revelation 12:9 NASB

      The serpent who tempted Eve and Adam to sin, and also bruised Messiah on the heal is Satan, the Devil himself.

      Anon I am fully aware that you reject Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah and son of God and as a result the New Testament. But others here (both Jews and gentiles) believe in Yeshua (Jesus) as the Son of God and their Lord and Savior.

      • Regarding your final paragraph, David:

        “Anon I am fully aware that you reject Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah and son of God and as a result the New Testament.”

        Jews do not discount the Christian bible merely because it promotes the worship of a human deity and a trinitarian god panoply in direct contradiction to their Hebrew scripture, or because it claims the messiah has already come even though the Jewish Bible’s messianic prophecy remains obviously unfulfilled. There is also the matter that the Christian bible wasn’t presented to the Jews by their G-d ala Sinai; the “new testament”, recall, is Paul’s anachronistic narrative of a dream he had while he was alone on the road to Damascus.

      • Anon regarding your comment, “Jews do not discount the Christian bible merely because it promotes the worship of a human deity and a trinitarian god panoply in direct contradiction to their Hebrew scripture,”

        Anon can you explain to me why in Genesis 18, Abraham “bowed himself to the earth” and called one of the three men who appeared to him “My Lord” (Adoni) and later called the Man My Adonai (Lord God)?

        In verses 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 33 Moses identifies the “Man” as the LORD (YEHOVAH) who Abraham conversed with and negotiates with Him to spare Sodom from destruction. In verses 27, 30, 31, 32 Abraham calls the “Man” (a Messenger from heaven) divine Lord (Adonai).

        Yeshua said; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; 55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced [p]to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:55-59 NASB

        King David also called the Moshiach both Adoni and Adonai in Psalms 110:1-5.

        So Moses, Abraham and the King of Israel David call the Messiah divine Lord (Yehovah or Adonai). Anon your belief about Messiah Yeshua is different than Abraham, Moses, and King David.

      • All,

        Note that David is subject to frequently making claims that the Bible says this and that, when if you bother to look up the verse the Bible says no such thing.

        For instance, immediately above, David wrote an essay about Genesis 18 in which he makes the ridiculous assertion that “In verses 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 33 Moses identifies the ‘Man’ as the LORD (YEHOVAH) who Abraham conversed with and negotiates with Him to spare Sodom from destruction.”

        David is obviously counting on you taking him at his Christological word that the Jewish makes the Christian theological statements he claims. If you review the citations, though, you’ll see right away that the verses do not mention Moses or the parenthetical figure David referenced in all CAPS.

        So, rather than debating the meaning of scriptures with David, let me instead merely ask you readers here to simply check out the verses he “quotes”, and find out yourself if anything David reports about the Bible and its meaning could possibly be on target.

      • Anon regarding your comment, [For instance, immediately above, David wrote an essay about Genesis 18 in which he makes the ridiculous assertion that “In verses 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 33 Moses identifies the ‘Man’ as the LORD (YEHOVAH) who Abraham conversed with and negotiates with Him to spare Sodom from destruction.”]

        We both know that Moses wrote the Torah and the first book of the Torah is Genesis written by Moses. So sometimes in Genesis Moses quotes people present in the story, in this case Moses quotes Abraham in chapter 18:3 said to the three men (who are three visitors from heaven); “My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not pass Your servant by. 4 Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; 5 and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant.”

        Then in verse 13, Moses gives us this insight; And the LORD said to Abraham, Moses wrote that one of the three men who ate the meal prepared by Sarah was Yehovah. The other two men we find out later are two angels. In verse 16 we read the three men were preparing to go to Sodom, but one stays and continues to speak with Abraham, the other two depart for Sodom.

        1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. Genesis 19:1 NASB

        The “man” who stayed with Moses to discuss the futre of the city of Sodom Moses identified as Yehovah and Abraham calls the “man” Adonai (divine Lord). This messenger from heaven is the pre-incarnate Messiah, Yeshua the Son of God before He was born in Bethlehem by the virgin Mary.

        Who do think this man is who ate dinner with Abraham is?

        Remember Abraham bowed to the ground when this man arrived, honors Him with a meal and Abraham knows the man has authority to either destroy or spare Sodom. Abraham was convinced the man was Adonai (divine Lord) and addresses Him as such. Moses said in his comments that the man who had dinner with Abraham is Yehovah.

        They are both correct the “Man” visiting Abraham was Yehovah Adonai, the pre-incarnate Messiah Yeshua. The other two men with Him were angels who then went off to save Lot and his family and destroy Sodom.

    • Anon regarding your commentary on Genesis 3:15 where you explained; “According to David, the verses discuss extra-Biblical characters Jesus and Mary, as well as Satan. But the plain meaning of the text is anything but Christological. The woman is Eve, not Mary. The seed is mankind generally, and certainly not Jesus in particular!; Jesus wasn’t even mentioned, at all, in any verse in the Jewish Bible.”

      Let’s do some observation from the text;

      14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

      “Because you have done this,
      Cursed are you more than all cattle,
      And more than every beast of the field;
      On your belly you will go,
      And dust you will eat
      All the days of your life;
      15 And I will put enmity
      Between you and the woman,
      And between your seed and her seed;
      He shall bruise you on the head,
      And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
      Genesis 3:14-15 NASB

      The Seed of the woman, “He shall bruise you on the head”. Notice that Moses writes that the Seed of the woman is a “He”, a singular noun, not a plural noun which it would be if it was “mankind generally”. So the Seed (offspring) of the woman will bruise (or crush) the head of the Serpent (who tempted Adam and Eve) who is Satan the tempter. The “Seed” is the singular offspring (“He” a male child) of the woman.

      The Messenger of Yehovah (Angel of the LORD) told Abraham,

      “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” Genesis 22:18 NASB

      Seed (offspring) here is also singular not plural. How do we know this?

      The apostle Paul gives us this commentary on Torah;

      Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. Galatians 3:16 NASB

      So both Moses who said in Genesis 3:14 of the Seed of the woman, “He shall bruise you on the head,” and the Paul also writing under the inspiration of the Holy spirit explains that “Seed” is singular referring not to many, but rather to one; namely Christ (Messiah). So the in interpretation I wrote, is based on scripture both our observation from what Moses wrote in Torah, in agreement with what Paul wrote in the New Testament.

      • DC,

        We all know you believe that the passage is about Jesus. The thing is, all of your claims–that Eve really means Mary, that the serpent really means Satan, that mankind really means Jesus–contradict the text.

        You would do well to accept the Biblical accounts as they are, and to stop attempting to swap out the Biblical figures with characters unknown to the Hebrew scriptures.

      • Anon you sidestepped the point, actually your interpretation that Seed means “all mankind” contradicts the text. Moses tells us that the seed of the woman is a He or make offspring not a all inclusive plural referring to “all mankind”.

        Your second point, “…that mankind really means Jesus–contradict the text.
        You would do well to accept the Biblical accounts as they are, and to stop attempting to swap out the Biblical figures with characters unknown to the Hebrew scriptures.”

        Are you saying that the Messiah is an unknown character of the Hebrew scriptures? And that there are no prophecies of the coming of Messiah in the Tanach (Old Testament)?

      • Anon,

        Yeshua is the Messiah,
        and the Messiah is a subject of the Hebrew scriptures;
        therefore Yeshua (Jesus( is a subject of the Hebrew scriptures.

        You are still sidestepping Genesis 3:14-15

        15 And I will put enmity
        Between you and the woman,
        And between your seed and her seed;
        He shall bruise you on the head,
        And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
        Genesis 3:14-15 NASB

        Moses wrote this about the seed of the woman,
        “He shall bruise you on the head,”

        A singular male shall bruise the serpent on the head. That “He” is the Messiah who crushed the works of Satan through His atoning death on the cross for our sins. And by His resurrection from the dead “He” conquered death.

        The apostle Paul wrote;

        12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

        Colossians 2:12-15 NASB

  10. Hi Maria,
    I didn’t know you were a visitor on this blog as well. If something, is not spoken of in the Bible then going to other human sources besides scripture is mere human speculation. If something taught or believed contradicts what is written in the Bible, then it is false.

    The scriptures dose teach that God chose His children before the foundation of the earth.

    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. Ephesians 1:3-4 NASB

    Brother Paul taught that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. But the Bible dose not teach that “the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, i.e. from the time of creation”, this is a false doctrine. It contradicts what the scriptures teach concerning Christ.

    • Dear David,
      If it so why do you keep preaching? The Scriptures are there to be read by everybody who wishes to do it but you keep preaching, useless then is your preaching as you consider useless all the other preaching that have been done in writing 🙂 To cite more doesn’t make it more right to begin with.
      I am giving you a site that speaks about the ” The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world” that is Protestant…one of the many…and it reads it in the Bible. Why not you? You are both Protestants and how comes that you don’t read the same things? 🙂 difficult to answer I know…I believe that God gave us reason for a purpose…and I want to use it…buttt you are in the Middle Ages and you think that I have to read only what you tell me to read as ifff God had stopped men from thinking in giving the Scriptures (What a waste of his creation)…please be real..Galileo and the Catholic Church have done this battle after the Reformation and it is enough for all of us
      PS You knew I was on this site 🙂 “I didn’t know you were on this site” when you are posting an answer is not so truthful. Do you want to bet that at the end I am less idolatrous and a less Samaritan woman/man than you? Life is not bad is not good…is original ( a friend of mine used to say…a Jewish friend)
      Protestant Site that contraddicts you:
      http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/slainfounda.html
      By the way if I am going to be preaced I am going to choose the best and the Catholic scholars are in many cases the best…

      • Ops I posted the wrong site…not the ones I was thinking…but it is all the same 🙂 After all the only true thing is that Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man and the only true Savior…. all the rest is left to your interpretation and I chose mine to be the Catholic…for good reasons of course 🙂

        • David and Maria, I agree that three of the grandest truths are that Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man and the only true Savior, for without these truths all the other many truths in the Bible, indeed truth itself, have no firm foundation.

      • Missionaries say that “Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man”, but G-d says “G-d is not a man…nor a son of man” (Num. 23:19).

        I believe G-d, and I discount anyone who disagrees with Him.

        • Anon,
          As you know, language consists of parts ranging from individual letters/sounds to very large chunks of discourse such as a chapter in a book. Consider the following piece from Numbers 23:8 – ‘’How can I curse…” This piece can, of course, stand by itself to have an independent meaning. When, however, the piece is joined to the next piece of the verse as in ‘’How can I curse whom God has not cursed?,’’ ”How can I curse” takes on a different meaning.

          Another example from Numbers 23:11a – ‘’Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou done unto me?’’ Now add the next piece of the verse ‘’I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.’’ 23:11a changes its meaning when read together with the piece that follows.

          Now your (for the umpteenth time – recall the discussions on the Roshpinaproject site) your “God is not a man….” (Numbers, 23:19).

          ”God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good? (Mechon-Mamre translation).”

          The comma between ”man” and ”that” is wrong; you don’t put a comma before a ”that” where the latter joins two clauses, namely, ”God is not man” and ”He should not lie.” it should read, ”God is not a man that He should lie.”

          Numbers 23:19 is simply saying that God does not lie, only man does. But then how many times do I – and ,many others – have to tell a Jew that he is milking the teats off this text. This ”God is not a man(period)” argument – one of the favourite ”proof texts” against the notion of the Christian doctrine of the incarnation – goes against the basic rules of language.

          I have said more on this at https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/milking-the-teats-off-the-text-the-rabbinical-interpretation-of-numbers-2319/

      • Anon if you reject Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah and Son of God, you do not believe God as you claim. You do not know nor serve the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if you continue to reject His Son Yeshua whom He sent to earth.

        This is what Yeshua taught;

        39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus *said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41 You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:39-47 NASB

      • bog,

        I understand that you are motivated in your insistences about Numbers 23:19 not by your commitment to the Book of Numbers but by your commitment to the Christological notion that Jesus is “fully god and fully man”.

        But if G-d had meant to convey in Num. 23:19 only that He does not lie, He would have dictated “G-d does not lie”, and left the bit about not being a man out of it.

        You argue G-d illustrated, even predicated, His point–that He is not subject to the distinctly human failure of lying–by delineating that He is not a man. Implicit in your argument is the Calvinist doctrinal “Total Depravity” stipulation that lying is inescapably coupled to the human condition.

        But then you turn around and pull the rug out from under G-d’s argument that He does not lie by insisting that really G-d is a man. As we’ve already established about your understanding of Is. 23:19, declaring G-d “enfleshed” is equivalent to announcing He is a liar. That leaves you disagreeing with Num. 23:19 on two counts: on the question of whether or not G-d is a man, and on the question of whether or not G-d lies.

        A final irony I’ll point out before concluding is your assertion that G-d stretched the truth in claiming “G-d is not a man” for the express purpose of conveying that He does not lie. You’re too smart and too good for this, bog. Use your intellect and your knowledge of linguistics and pull yourself out of the hole you’ve fallen in.

  11. Dear Anon,
    Bog tried very well and hard to make you understand how your interpretation was quite not logic for the passage “ I am not a man”. Since impeccable linguistic logic doesn’t convince you, p;lease answer me this question. You are explain the concept of God to a child. The child says:” God is omnipotent?” meaning that He can do everything he wants and be everything he wishes? “ You answer “ Yes’ Then the child asks “ Why then CAN”T HE BE A MAN?”
    “I am not a man” in your opinion woul imply for God that He can’t choose to be a man if he wishes. The child would have got it, if God is God is because he has no restriction to his being.

    THis is what whe find on line:
    Wikipedia:
    The Jewish belief in God’s omnipotence is rooted in the Bible:[4]

    ‘Why did Sarah laugh, and say “Shall I indeed bear a child now that I am old?” Is anything too hard for the Lord?'”[Gen. 18:13-3]
    “Attribute to the Lord all glory and power.”[Ps. 29]
    Most rabbinic works also present God as having the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. This is still the primary way that most Orthodox and many non-Orthodox Jews view God

    • maria,

      I don’t know how hard bog tried with his mumbo jumbo, I only know that his argument “G-d is not a man” means that G-d is a man was comically unconvincing.

      Your own argument that G-d’s omnipotence trumps the truth of His statements is similarly flawed. No party to this discussion has argued that G-d suffers any limitations. Rather, the question centers around verse 23:19, is G-d a man?

      Separate and apart from any consideration of how powerful G-d is, is the question of whether or not G-d lies. If you agree with me (and 23:19) that G-d does not lie, then you must know that G-d is not a man. If you agree with bog (and not with 23:19), then you imagine that G-d is a man who has lied about not being one.

      But, back to your scenario for a moment: imagine trying to explain to a child that G-d is so all-powerful that He can create a rock so heavy that even He can’t move it?

      • Anon argues that, “then you imagine that G-d is a man who has lied about not being one.”

        Anon the word in Hebrew for one as you know, is “echad”, and echad like the word one has more than one meaning. It can mean one alone or singular as you interpret Deuteronomy 6:4, but it also means a “unified one” as in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one; a unified one Elohim.

        This is what the Messiah taught;

        I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 NASB

        Anon Yeshua wasn’t bad at math, He knew the Father plus His Son makes two divine Persons; but He meant is the Father and His Son are a unified one God.

        Messiah talks about this again in John 17;

        22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. John 17:22-23 NASB

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/the-lord-our-god-the-lord-is-one-%E2%80%9D/

      • Jesus was not only a man but he was also God. We are given testimonies about a man that doesn’t lie. He is so not a lair that he says to the Pharisees what they want to hear, as he doesn’t say to his own apostles or to everybody else what they wish to hear. I have never read about any man who can be so true to himself in all the history of humankind. This was possible only because he was not only a man. Then the Scriptures would still hold to be true. He was not a liar and he said very disturbing truth:
        “And he said, Then give to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s”
        Are you given to God the things which are God’s? Meaning also the decision to be a man and a God if He wishes to? Is for you more important to give to the Rabbi the things which are Rabbi’s? Who do you think would be more prone to lie a God who decided to be ALSO a man (meaning that He is still God) or a Rabbi who decides otherwise?

        In reference to the rock, infinite doesn’t create infinite. In the Catholic Nicene Credo we say:
        “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.Through him all things were made.For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven:by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man”
        My Credo explains that God doesn’t lie. He doesn’t create a rock that he can’t move, his Son was begotten, not made. And this is all that I can say. I give to God’s what is of God’s….’Omnipotence’ …Do you? You don’t give your God omnipotence if you ask the question of the rock, obviously

      • David,

        The passage under discussion in Genesis involves, expressly, the serpent, Eve, and her human progeny. All of these three are named explicitly in the text. Yet you insist that the only subjects of the verses are Satan, Mary and Jesus–three parties who are not named at all in the passage (Mary and Jesus are not mentioned at all in the entire Hebrew scripture, nor are they figures of the Jewish oral tradition).

        But that’s not all. Where the Bible says “the L-rd is one”, you insist that it means G-d is a trinity comprised of three distinct persons.

        Clearly your deeply held convictions are foreign to the Jewish Bible and require a leap against logic. Nonetheless, I respect your right to shout from the sidelines your beliefs about the information that my family passed down to me from Sinai.

      • Maria wrote, “Jesus was not only a man but he was also God.”

        This is true.

        Paul wrote;

        Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:6-11 NASB

      • Anon writes, “Clearly your deeply held convictions are foreign to the Jewish Bible and require a leap against logic”

        Actually my deeply held convictions are from God and His Messiah Yeshua, these are not foreign to the Jewish Bible but they are foreign to Rabbinic Judaism. Abraham, and David both believed the Messiah is Adonai (divine Lord) as do I and Moses.

        Your deeply held convictions contradict what Moses wrote and David the King of Israel wrote in Psalms 110:1 & 5; Messiah is Adoni & Adonai.

        Both the goy Abram (who became the first Jew) and the Jewish King David took a leap of faith and believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. I have also taken that leap and have been declared righteous by God’s grace through faith in the Messiah who is my Adonai.

        Why don’t you join us? Come on in the water is fine!!

        • David your
          ”Both the goy Abram (who became the first Jew) and the Jewish King David took a leap of faith and believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.  I have also taken that leap and have been declared righteous by God’s grace through faith in the Messiah who is my Adonai.”

          David would you agree that before one can take that leap, God has to first raise you from the dead (Ephesians 2)? Also perhaps ”leap” is too kierkegaardian; we are drawn, seems more biblical (John 6:39-44).

      • bog,

        I don’t fault you for taking a “leap of faith”. My criticism comes only where you take a leap of faith that is unwarranted.

        If you saw a coin tossed, and took a leap of faith that it landed heads up, I might disagree with your reasoning and conclusion, but I’d respect your right to lodge a bet that the coin had landed heads up. You could be right.

        On the other hand, if you saw a coin tossed, and then saw the coin land tails, and you still bet that it had landed heads up, I’d have to laugh at you, not out of spite but out of the clear recognition that you’d taken an unjustified leap of faith. You’d acted against your intellectual gifts–patently wrongly.

        When you take a leap of faith to believe in a human deity even after receipt from G-d of the message that “G-d is not a man”, and when you worship a trinity of three distinct persons even after learning that “the L-rd is one”, you illustrate your need to be raised from the braindead (notwithstanding your obviously outstanding abilities as a writer).

      • Anon,

        Moses wrote in Torah that Jacob wrestles with a “man” who gave Jacob a new name–Israel. So who was this man who Jacob wrestled with?

        Let’s take a look at the Hebrew scriptures;

        30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” Genesis 32:30 NASB

        Who did Jacob think the “man” was?

        Jacob was convinced he saw, “God face to face”.

        Anon do you think Israel was wrong? Or did Jacob wrestle with a man face to face, (pre-incarnate Messiah, Son of God) who he knew was divine?

      • Anon after Jacob wrestled with this man who changed his name to Israel, Jacob said; “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” Genesis 32:24 NASB He the named the place Peniel which means “face of God”; as a memorial of his encounter of wrestling with the divine man (pre-incarnate Messiah, Yeshua).

        Anon if you continue to use a “cut & paste” text out of context (Numbers 23:19) as your rebuttal to what Mose wrote in other places in Torah (as well as the Hebrew Prophets in the Jewish Bible) how will you ever come to an understanding of the truth?

        Using a text out of context that has a false interpretation as your reasoning to reject all of the other scriptures in Torah and the Tanach that teach Messiah has existed from the beginning and is divine leads you to false theology.

      • David,

        There’s no reasoning with you.

        You just keep repeating the same discredited arguments and ignore the facts that are presented to you for consideration.

        That’s why our conversation is over.

      • Anon states, “There’s no reasoning with you. You just keep repeating the same discredited arguments and ignore the facts that are presented to you for consideration.”

        Were you looking in the mirror when you said this?

        Anon you seemed to very accurately expressed what many of us feel about you. You keep repeating Numbers 23:19 over and over again. Whereas I and several others have reasoned with you from numerous places within the Torah and Tanach that Yeshua is the promised Messiah and Son of the living God.

        Genesis 1:26
        Psalms 110:1-5
        Isaiah 7:14
        Isaiah 9:6
        Isaiah 48:12-16
        Isaiah 53

        So far you have not really engaged with giving honest consideration of the Torah or Tanach that contradict your false theology but simply repeat Numbers 23:19; which we have all explained to you numerous times is “cut & paste” scriptural text taken out of context. I take your comment as a result that you have run out of ammo (and have no real Biblical arguments to support your false interpretation so you are running from the light of the truth of the scriptures to where you feel secure in your current beliefs.

        13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
        Daniel 7:13-14 NIV

        The Lord of hosts, is the First and the Last; who created the heavens and the earth. In chapter 48, verse 16 we see that the “Lord of hosts”, who is “the First and the Last” maker of the heavens and the earth was sent by the “Lord GOD” (Adonai Yĕhovah in Hebrew). What is the significance of the fact that the Lord GOD sent the Lord of hosts? We see that the theology of the Tanach is consistent with the teaching of Yeshua the Moshiach and the New Testament writers. The belief that Elohim is a unified one Lord is supported by numerous scriptures throughout the Tanach, one being Isaiah 48:16 which includes a reference to three distinct divine Persons.

        “And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”

        Isaiah 48:16 NASB

        1. Lord GOD
        2. “Me”
        3. His Spirit

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/%E2%80%9Cthe-lord-god-has-sent-me-and-his-spirit%E2%80%9D/

      • David,

        In your view, Numbers 23:19 (“G-d is not a man…nor a son of man”) is a “discredited argument”.

        And the argument you say is not discredited is that the following verses declare “that [Jesus] is the promised Messiah and Son of the living God”: Genesis 1:26, Psalms 110:1-5, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 48:12-16, and Isaiah 53. Of course, not one of these passages contains the quote you attribute to all of them.

        I hope readers will appreciate that monotheistic arguments are always between the Biblical quotation marks, while your trinitarian apologetics have to dance awkwardly around them. There’s a message in that.

  12. Yes, bography I agree with you “that before one can take that leap, God has to first raise you from the dead (Ephesians 2)?”

    4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Ephesians 2:4-10 NASB

    True “leap” is Kierkegaardian (as you know, I’am not an existentialist) I was playing off of Anon’s phrase; “leap against logic”.

    Theologically true, “we are drawn” (John 6:39-44) is Biblical correct. As Yeshua Himself said; “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” John 6:44 NASB

  13. Pingback: Pope John XXIII and the “crucifixion” of the Jew « OneDaringJew

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s