I think when talking to Muslims and Jews, Christians should tell the whole story since a mere “Jesus died for you” is unacceptable to them and it is part of the reason they reject Jesus as a savior, that he would be like a whipping boy for everyone’s sins and they are no longer accountable for their own.
The covenant has to do with a personal,loving,dedicated relationship between man and God.
I’ll try again.wow -you really had no clue to what i was saying?there are none so blind as those who will not see!
I don’t know. Both instill legal/binding obligations on both parties. And a covenant, from a legal definition standpoint is a set of mutual obligations usually contained within a contract.
The difference between a covenant and a contract is the difference between the personal vows of love between a married man and woman and the written document that makes the marriage legally binding. But God is not legally bound by any higher authority to save us,and he cannot be held accountable by men. We have only his promise.
Spoken like a true attorney…
I suppose that is literally true… Islam pops up around 600 years after the fact.
Well, the short of it is like this:
I’m sorry but this is one of the most incomprehensible things I’ve ever read. How would dying make anyone believe what someone says?? I’m sure we can all think of many foolish people who have said things before dying. Does that make what they said in their life any more “true” or “untrue”?
God told Jesus to be Prophet to Jews that they were a wicked generation about to be destroyed. Jesus could do that and die then be made King of David and High Priest who makes atonement for the people so they can live. Or he could go with Satan and receive world kingdoms like Egypt and Rome that only die.
Is Jesus to be counted among fools? If not,then there’s no comparison. Jesus was not foolish,although his words may appear to be foolish to cynical,worldy-wise people.
By your reasoning, Ghandi’s words should also be on the same level as Jesus’. Ghandi, too, died - living as he believed.
If Messiah did not fulfill the requirements of the law, then there was no atonement. Torah (the Law) was a foreshadowing of the things to come (fulfilled in Messiah). (See the book of Hebrews.) The sacrifices were meant to illustrate the cost of sin: that sin ultimately leads to death. The sacrificial system showed that there was a price to be paid for sin and that there was really no way that humans could redeem themselves. Only G-d Himself, through Messiah, could provide redemption and atonement.
paidion;3242974:
I didn’t say Ghandi necessarily had anything good or bad to say. My point was that by your reasoning - because Ghandi died - his words should be elevated in importance. (ie., I was pointing out the false logic in your statement)
I would propose that what gave Messiah’s words an extra punch (they already had plenty of force just in His speaking them), was His resurrection from the grave.
If you believe in the Resurrection,why did you disagree with what I said about the death of Jesus?
I never said I disagreed with what you said about the death of Jesus. Think of this as rather a clarification of what I think you might be trying to say. As my Greek prof used to say, “The problem is not with the Greek, but with the English.”In other words, I may think I know what you’re thinking, but unless I challenge it and dialogue, how can I ever be sure?
The Resurrection shouldn’t be taken separately from the mystery of the Cross,of God’s submission to death in the form of a man,at the hands of men,for the purpose of saving men from death. The Resurrection happened because the Cross happened.
Once again, I have to toss in a comment… of course there could be no resurrection without a crucifixion first. - ie., one cannot be resurrected from “life”
shalom