Judaism is very messy.....

[Dizerner]

The law giver doesn't have to worry about what He eats. That which goes into the mouth comes out the other end. It doesn't defile anyone.

The Law Giver keeps his own Holy Law because he is the one who enforced and created it.

God is Holy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Law Giver keeps his own Holy Law because he is the one who enforced and created it.

God is Holy.

You've NEVER keep it. Never. You don't keep it now.

The Law Giver is never required to keep what He gives to His Servants.

Even so, the law of Moses is just that. The law of Moses. Christ is greater.

I see also that you ignore the very obvious Truth that Christ broke the law of Moses. Jesus was judged by the law of Moses for death. Those that have died to the law of Moses are free from the demands of the law.

All of this comes from the ability to be "self aware". If you were "self aware" as you should be, then you'd know these things are true. You don't live by what you require of others.

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

[atpollard]

bowing out ...

O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!
-Hamlet (Act I, Scene 2)

 

[praise_yeshua]

*cough* hypostatic union *cough*

God the Son came from "not here" and returned to "not here".
Jesus the "fully man" was born of a virgin (here), reincarnated (here), and assumed into "not here".

It is a bit of a tricky thing that you so quickly dismiss with your over-simplistic response.
Was He really a man "back home", "where he came from"? Is it THAT obvious?

I was asking WHY: On the basis of His perfect WORKS, or because of WHO HE WAS?

Christ was certainly perfect but it had nothing to do with following Moses.

 

[David Koberstein]

deleted ... old news. [beating a dead horse]

Now THAT is an interesting philosophical question:

• Since Jesus did obey the LAW perfectly (being the only one who did), was Jesus entitled to go to Heaven because of what He did (sinless life)?
• Since Jesus was the God-man and the perfect sacrifice whose blood was shed to obtain redemption for mankind (there is no other name by which men are saved), was Jesus entitled to go to Heaven because of who He was (the Lamb of God)?

???

What do you think? He is the only unique Son of God. I think my 6 yr old nephew knows the answer.
Shalom

 

[atpollard]

What do you think? He is the only unique Son of God. I think my 6 yr old nephew knows the answer.
Shalom

For a Jew, you are not very good at subtlety.
Let me take out my sledgehammer:

• Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven because of what He did or because of who He was?

God the Son had every right to be in Heaven.
By what right did Jesus (flesh and blood) enter heaven?

Hypostatic Union says that Christ was 100% God and 100% man ...

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

 

[praise_yeshua]

For a Jew, you are not very good at subtlety.
Let me take out my sledgehammer:

• Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven because of what He did or because of who He was?

God the Son had every right to be in Heaven.
By what right did Jesus (flesh and blood) enter heaven?

Hypostatic Union says that Christ was 100% God and 100% man ...

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

There is no separation whatsoever in the Hypostatic Union. Zero. Only distinctions.

Surely you understand this? Obviously you don't at all or you wouldn't make such an argument as this.

 

[David Koberstein]

For a Jew, you are not very good at subtlety.
Let me take out my sledgehammer:

• Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven because of what He did or because of who He was?

God the Son had every right to be in Heaven.
By what right did Jesus (flesh and blood) enter heaven?

Hypostatic Union says that Christ was 100% God and 100% man ...

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

Who are you to question whether Yeshua deserves to be in Heaven or not? You need to be more concerned about your future eternal destiny instead.
Shalom

 

[David Koberstein]

For a Jew, you are not very good at subtlety.
Let me take out my sledgehammer:

• Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven because of what He did or because of who He was?

God the Son had every right to be in Heaven.
By what right did Jesus (flesh and blood) enter heaven?

Hypostatic Union says that Christ was 100% God and 100% man ...

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

I don't place much trust or interest in Christian creeds. Yeshua was an observant Jew not a Christian.
Shalom

 

[atpollard]

Who are you to question whether Yeshua deserves to be in Heaven or not? You need to be more concerned about your future eternal destiny instead.
Shalom

Wooossshhhh ....
That was the point going right over your head.

[Hint: I was not questioning "whether Yeshua deserves to be in Heaven or not".]

I said ...

Now THAT is an interesting philosophical question:

"Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven [see, I acknowledged that Jesus "deserves to be in Heaven"] because of what He did or because of who He was?" [I was pondering ... as a philosophical question ... whether Jesus' PERSON or His WORK was preeminent in His earthly task of JUSTIFICATION ... the reason God became incarnate.]

 

[David Koberstein]

Wooossshhhh ....
That was the point going right over your head.

[Hint: I was not questioning "whether Yeshua deserves to be in Heaven or not".]

I said ...

"Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven [see, I acknowledged that Jesus "deserves to be in Heaven"] because of what He did or because of who He was?" [I was pondering ... as a philosophical question ... whether Jesus' PERSON or His WORK was preeminent in His earthly task of JUSTIFICATION ... the reason God became incarnate.]

Are you and Jeremiah5 in the same cult?
Shalom

 

[FreeInChrist]

Wooossshhhh ....
That was the point going right over your head.

[Hint: I was not questioning "whether Yeshua deserves to be in Heaven or not".]

I said ...

"Was Jesus (the God-man) entitled to go to Heaven [see, I acknowledged that Jesus "deserves to be in Heaven"] because of what He did or because of who He was?" [I was pondering ... as a philosophical question ... whether Jesus' PERSON or His WORK was preeminent in His earthly task of JUSTIFICATION ... the reason God became incarnate.]

He was going home. If you do not understand this sheeeesh

 

[atpollard]

He was going home. If you do not understand this sheeeesh

Stay in the shallow end of the pool.
I apologize for inviting you into the deeper waters of pondering the hypostatic union ... I thought you could swim.
My mistake.

 

[David Koberstein]

Stay in the shallow end of the pool.
I apologize for inviting you into the deeper waters of pondering the hypostatic union ... I thought you could swim.
My mistake.

You are actually drowning in your own heresy in a wading pool and don't know it.
Shalom

 

[FreeInChrist]

Stay in the shallow end of the pool.
I apologize for inviting you into the deeper waters of pondering the hypostatic union ... I thought you could swim.
My mistake.

Your pondering leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[atpollard]

You are actually drowning in your own heresy in a wading pool and don't know it.

I do not mean to burst your bubble, but the creeds of the ecumenical councils are the very DEFINITION of "orthodoxy" ... so for you to refer to "orthodox creeds" as "your own heresy" merely reveals that you have no idea what words mean.

[Merriam Webster Dictionary]

dogma:​

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church​

​

heresy:​

1a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma (see dogma sense 2)​

1b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church​

1c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma​

​

orthodox:​

1a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion​

Are you denying that Christ was both fully God and fully man?
If so, then which attribute are you denying, his deity or his humanity?
Or are you advocating for a 50/50 split ... Jesus the Dermigod (like Hercules)?

You are the one that has claimed the Athanasian Creed to be "heresy":

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

​

Shalom

That did not seem very "peaceful" ... your "Shalom" seems insincere.

Are you and Jeremiah5 in the same cult?
Shalom

Likewise, this post seemed not very "peaceful" and the "Shalom" felt insincere.

 

[David Koberstein]

I do not mean to burst your bubble, but the creeds of the ecumenical councils are the very DEFINITION of "orthodoxy" ... so for you to refer to "orthodox creeds" as "your own heresy" merely reveals that you have no idea what words mean.

[Merriam Webster Dictionary]

dogma:​

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church​

​

heresy:​

1a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma (see dogma sense 2)​

1b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church​

1c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma​

​

orthodox:​

1a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion​

Are you denying that Christ was both fully God and fully man?
If so, then which attribute are you denying, his deity or his humanity?
Or are you advocating for a 50/50 split ... Jesus the Dermigod (like Hercules)?

You are the one that has claimed the Athanasian Creed to be "heresy":

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

​

That did not seem very "peaceful" ... your "Shalom" seems insincere.


Likewise, this post seemed not very "peaceful" and the "Shalom" felt insincere.

Shows your ignorance about the Hebrew language among your other deficiencies.
Shalom can mean peace, well being, hello, good-bye.
I was using it in the context to you of good-bye.

 

[David Koberstein]

I do not mean to burst your bubble, but the creeds of the ecumenical councils are the very DEFINITION of "orthodoxy" ... so for you to refer to "orthodox creeds" as "your own heresy" merely reveals that you have no idea what words mean.

[Merriam Webster Dictionary]

dogma:​

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church​

​

heresy:​

1a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma (see dogma sense 2)​

1b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church​

1c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma​

​

orthodox:​

1a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion​

Are you denying that Christ was both fully God and fully man?
If so, then which attribute are you denying, his deity or his humanity?
Or are you advocating for a 50/50 split ... Jesus the Dermigod (like Hercules)?

You are the one that has claimed the Athanasian Creed to be "heresy":

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. - Athanasian Creed​

​

That did not seem very "peaceful" ... your "Shalom" seems insincere.


Likewise, this post seemed not very "peaceful" and the "Shalom" felt insincere.

I'm not into your man made creeds only the Old and New Covenants.
Shalom

 

[atpollard]

I'm not into your man made creeds only the Old and New Covenants.

THAT is the definition of "heresy" (the direct rejection of "orthodox" Christian dogma) ... like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do.

Now you can use the word correctly.

 

[FreeInChrist]

[Merriam Webster Dictionary]

dogma:​

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church​

​

heresy:​

1a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma (see dogma sense 2)​

1b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church​

Why did you cut the Catholics out of this?

1c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma​

​

orthodox:​

1a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion​