Does God deceive people?

[rcjones]

Ummm, I don’t know about your church, but as Catholics, we don’t “play-act” the role of Christ. We “take the place of Christ” in order to do as he commanded us, “Do this in memory of me.” To do it, someone needs to take Christ’s place.

More, the garments are not costumes. Christ would not have worn them–they are Roman in origin, from the period of the Empire–indeed, in the early centuries, they were the same as other members of the Empire wore.

Um… since Catholic priests are not mentioned in the scriptures, it should be apparent that the reference was not to them. The Hebrew priests in the tabernacle wore garments…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Um… since Catholic priests are not mentioned in the scriptures, it should be apparent that the reference was not to them. The Hebrew priests in the tabernacle wore garments…

They still do; Revelation 4:4.
There were 24 divisions of priests serving in the temple; as instituted by King David. They all wore linen garments of white.

There is no play-acting in heaven !

As Catholics, we are all priests – although not “high” priest; but the common priesthood. See Also, Revel 1:6.

Not only that, but actual blood sacrifice can be offered by us.

Philippians 2:17 and the “if” becomes solid in 2Timothy 4:6.
Translations that put “like” in Phippians 2:17 are plain wrong. The word “like” is nowhere in the original Greek and is eisegesis.
biblos.com/philippians/2-17.htm

St. Paul is talking about the offering of his life in witness to Christ Jesus as a martyr; but also about the spilling of his blood.

Normally, we do not shed blood as priests – but act as a living sacrifice through communion (Eucharist) of thanks giving / and the Good Gift.

The sacrifice of the priests in the OT did have an effect; it is simply that Christ Jesus’s has a complete effect.

I see nowhere in the OT, that the Levitical priests ever claimed to offer sacrifices that had a completed effect. I see no deception.

 

[bmonk]

Um… since Catholic priests are not mentioned in the scriptures, it should be apparent that the reference was not to them. The Hebrew priests in the tabernacle wore garments…

In fact, there are references to priests of the Church–or presbyters, as they were originally called. Priest in English is derived, not from the classical words for priests, such as sacerdos, but from presbyter, elder. And in fact, both 1 Tim 5 and Titus 1 speak of such “elders,” not yet clearly distinguished from episcopoi, overseers or leaders. (This was clearer by the time of the First Letter of Clement, written about 88-97, and also by Ignatius of Antioch, writing about 110 on his way to be martyred.)

Interestingly, Acts 15, the “Council of Jerusalem” speaks of the “apostles and elders” meeting–although it is not perfectly clear that these are seen in the same way as the later presbyters, it is noteworthy that there are two classes, distinct in some way, and also distinct from the ministers or deacons appointed earlier for the ministry to distribute food to the widows. We already see the three orders beginning to exist.

More, Isaiah 66:18-21 speaks of God gathering in all the nations, and taking “some of them” as “priests and Levites.” The ingathering begins with the ministry of Jesus, and then the Church as described in the Acts (the Ethopian eunuch, the house of Cornelius, and then Paul’s widespread ministry)–and so the priests and Levites should also be seen in those days. Which is precisely when bishops, priests and deacons begin to show up.

True, it did take some time for these orders to be clarified and fully developed–but not all that long. And, as Jesus said at the Last Supper in John 16, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, will lead us to all truth–one aspect of which is remembering what Jesus said, although “he cannot say it all now,” and helping the Church understand and unfold what was said.

I also still find it hard to understand in your original comment how the Hebrew priesthood was “play-acting” the role of Christ, since He would not come along for many centuries after Moses. Perhaps that confusion led me to interpret your comment in a way you did not intend.

 

[rcjones]

…
The sacrifice of the priests in the OT did have an effect; it is simply that Christ Jesus’s has a complete effect.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices,** which can never take away sins**:

If they can NEVER take away sins, then they were ineffectual. Therefore they were prophetic “play acting” of what Christ would accomplish.

 

[rcjones]

I see nowhere in the OT, that the Levitical priests ever claimed to offer sacrifices that had a completed effect. I see no deception.

This shows you completely missed the point of my post. A deception does not require an evil, wicked, intention. Looking for one by the Levitical priests misses the point. A costume is called a “garment of deception”. The priests wore a ‘costume’ where every part was a prophecy of Christ.

Le 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments <0899>; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

**0899 בגד beged behg’- ed **

from 0898; n m; {See TWOT on 198 @@ “198a”}

AV-garment 107, clothes 69, cloth 13, raiment 12, apparel 4, robe 4, wardrobe 2, very 2, clothing 1, lap 1, rags 1, vestures 1; 217

**1) treachery, deceit **
2) (CLBL) garment, clothing (used indiscriminately)

Obviously there is no wickedness or treachery when a priest wears garments that he was commanded to wear by God. That is my point. It is a costume. The word deceipt is used to describe a costume.

The first garment made by God was made of skins as a “costume” which promised that we would be covered by the works of Christ. Today we are supposed to “put on Christ” like a garment.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices,** which can never take away sins**:If they can NEVER take away sins, then they were ineffectual. Therefore they were prophetic “play acting” of what Christ would accomplish.

No, they did have an effect:

Hebre 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,** sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:**
Hebre 9:14** How much more** shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

In order for Christ’s sacrifice to have any effect, it had to be under the Law.
God made an agreement with Moses concerning the law of Sacrifice, it is for this reason that Christ had to die to take away our sins. Without the agreement with Moses, there would be no need for the Cross; and no sure effect.

I think it clearly incorrect to say the priests of the OT’s sacrifice had no effect at all.

They were not play acting – they simply didn’t have the FULL power.

Many times in the OT, God accepts Israels sin offerings and forgives their sins; not in the pent-ultimate sense – but none the less, he remitted Earthy punishment for sack-cloth, ashes, and sacrifice.

I think what you are saying is puffed up nonsense.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This shows you completely missed the point of my post. A deception does not require an evil, wicked, intention.

There is no deception. They did not pretend to be the ultimate savior – and their clothes has nothing to do with it. If they are deception – then so are you; for your putting on of Christ is but a foretaste of the resurrected body.

The first garment made by God was made of skins as a “costume” which promised that we would be covered by the works of Christ. Today we are supposed to “put on Christ” like a garment.

There is a large jump in logic, and besides – it’s getting off topic.

 

[rcjones]

…
. If they are deception – then so are you;
…
I think what you are saying is puffed up nonsense.

Attacking me rather than discuss the subject? That’s usually a sign you have lost an argument.

Topic: Does God deceive.

The word ‘deceive’ must be understood in context of the scriptures. Use garments as an example.

1. The word means ‘deception’. Since God does nothing sinful, the Hebrew word has nuances which are not carried through to the English.
2. All garments are ‘costumes’ since they portray us to be something we are not. They are a ‘deception’.
3. When we ‘put on Christ’ it is a kind of costume since we have no personal righteousness,

The topic of garments as a deception is an example of the primary point.

The objection is based on the claim that the sacrifices of animals had “some effect” therefore we can’t say that they were ineffectual. This is pure sophistry as evidenced by the statement:

The sacrifice of the priests in the OT did have an effect; it is simply that Christ Jesus’s has a complete effect.
…Many times in the OT, God accepts Israels sin offerings and forgives their sins; not in the pent-ultimate sense

The word ‘penultimate’ means ‘next to the last’. ‘Ultimate’ means ‘last’.
Everything before the ultimate sense of forgiveness of sins is shadow and type. It is forgiveness based on the promise of Christ’s completed work on the cross.

One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is that ‘clear statements rule’.
God clearly states:

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

It is the interpreter’s job to reconcile ‘less clear statements’ so that there is no contradiction.

The verse used to supposedly contradict the clear statement are these:

Hebre 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Hebre 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

In English, it is evident from the IF-HOW MUCH MORE statement, that the first sentence is used as the basis for a ‘val chomer’ or ‘a fortiori argument’ in which the truthfulness of the first statement is not the issue, but is being used as a starting point of agreement with the opponent in order to build the real case. Simply putting the quoted verses in context makes this clear since the author specifically says that the tabernacles and sacrifices were ‘figure’ or types of the sacrifice of Christ.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 ¶ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that** the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest**, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that** could not make him that did the service perfect**, as pertaining to the conscience;

Figures and types are a kind of ‘deception’ used by God for teaching and preparing us for Christ.

Heb 10:1 ¶ For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The law was not the very image of the good things coming. The shadow of the law is the reality. The people living under the law thought that the law was everything, that it was part of the kingdom on earth. They were ‘deceived’ in order to be instructed.

Point made: The word ‘deceived’ does not imply evil. It includes types and shadows. It includes garments which foreshadow Christ. It includes the garment of Christ which conceals our sinfulness as we are presented to God. ‘Deception’ involves concealing truth:

Pr 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

So until ‘deceive’ is clearly understood, the discussion if God deceives cannot be held.
It is a ‘trap type question’. It is one like the religious rulers would present to Jesus to entrap him.

If you use the narrow sense of ‘deceive’ to imply something evil, then the trap is set because God does many things to conceal the truth until it was revealed at the time of Christ. Those examples are then used to show that God is evil.

If you use the broader meaning, without coming to consensus that it is being used in the broader meaning, then those who wish to set the trap, use the concession that God does deceive, in the narrow sense to to imply that God is evil.

Experts in Childhood learning tell us that the person of average intelligence learns that words have more than one meaning when they are about eight years old. Puns and word play are mechanisms for learning such a thing. When an adult denies that words have multiple meanings, either explicitly or implicitly, it means that they do not have ordinary command of the language, or they are intentionally using sophistry to make illegitimate arguments appear to be sound.

No one truly wishing to communicate would deny the clarification of the terms used in the discussion.

 

[rcjones]

…
In order for Christ’s sacrifice to have any effect, it had to be under the Law.
God made an agreement with Moses concerning the law of Sacrifice, it is for this reason that Christ had to die to take away our sins. Without the agreement with Moses, there would be no need for the Cross; and no sure effect.
…

I think what you are saying is puffed up nonsense.

According to your premise, then, since those before Moses were not under the law, and since the gentiles weren’t under the law, then the cross is not needed for their salvation.

The sacrifice of Christ is prophesied in the Hebrew of Gen 1.1, Gen 2.21, 3.21, etc. The Hebrew word for ‘said’ is also ‘lamb’. When God ‘said’ “Let there be light”, he created light by the lamb. Adam knew when God killed a lamb to cover his nakedness, that the Creator was slain in typology and as a promise. This is why Abel chose to raise sheep even though he didn’t eat them, in order to give back, in gratitude, of that which had been given as a promise.

Cain chose to live under the curse and gave back cursed gifts. Abel chose not to live under the curse, but under the promise and looked for a city not made with hands. He dedicated his life to raising sheep as a gift to God. All of the types and shadows beginning with Gen 1.1 point to the promise of the cross. The ‘deal’ made with Moses only served to reveal more of the details of the promise given to Adam.

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of** the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world**. (Not just since the ‘deal’ with Moses)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

According to your premise, then, since those before Moses were not under the law, and since the gentiles weren’t under the law, then the cross is not needed for their salvation.

Correct.
God could have saved us in many ways besides the Cross. This is a standard point in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Theology.

Again, this is off topic. And, don’t forget – Genesis is also part of the LAW (Torah)

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of** the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world**. (Not just since the ‘deal’ with Moses)

There are many worlds.
The world of Noe ended with the flood, and a new world began.
When heaven was opened (by the slaying of the lamb) a perfect world (foundation) began.
Chapter 13 is about the events which happened immediately after that world was opened; Nero, and the rise of kings who persecute Christians, etc.

Again, this is more off topic – and I won’t trace these ideas out here; or any more.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Attacking me rather than discuss the subject? That’s usually a sign you have lost an argument.

The reference is a logical corollary to the word “garment”, it’s not a personal attack on anything other than your vocabulary abuse;

Your flesh is the “tent” you live in – it is therefore your garment. As a Christian, you purport to “put on Christ” (St. Paul,right???); However, you aren’t wholly Jesus Christ – hence, you are a “play actor” every bit as much as the OT priests.

Hence: Your Christianity, by your own words, can be labeled “deception”.

Topic: Does God deceive.

Not topic; do OT priests deceive.

1. The word means ‘deception’. Since God does nothing sinful, the Hebrew word has nuances which are not carried through to the English.

The English word “deception” is not a Hebrew word; it’s a translation and interpretation. IF you wish to show that it can mean “deception” in the English sense of the word in addition to your sense of the word, you need to show at least one example where it clearly means a betrayal of the truth.

1. All garments are ‘costumes’ since they portray us to be something we are not. They are a ‘deception’.

Sorry, I already QUOTED the passage in Revelation about the priests who offer up prayers to God (Our prayers, incidentally) wearing priestly linens.
These clothes DO NOT portray them as being something they are not.
IN Catholic Theology (and Teaching and Tradition) nothing impure can enter heaven (period). These clothes, then, do not represent a clean exterior and a false interior. I will not budge from Catholic Tradition; period.

Note, also, they throw down their crowns in homage to Jesus Christ – but they don’t take off their clothes. Logical inferences can be made.

1. When we ‘put on Christ’ it is a kind of costume since we have no personal righteousness,

Wrong. We have no initial righteousness.
This is, again, off topic.