posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:10 PM
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
I've not made that determination for myself, because frankly none of those passages are important to me in reaching a conclusion on this
Actually it is important...because it all pertains to the role and definition of the messiah (from the christian perspective). You seemed to be
interested in the definition of "messiah" a few pages ago.
Remember, "messiah" was originally a concept of the Old Testament people...and NOT the christians.
So lets stick to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the OT people....
We see that
a)the messiah was to be a normal human being and NOT divine.
b)the messiah's role was not to be a sin sacrifice.
Actually they are NOT important to me in determining that role, and I've not taken them into the account at all. If you insist, however, in applying
them, you will need to demonstrate where your points a) and b) are specified in them. Where, for example, do you believe that it specifies that the
messiah id not to be divine, and where does it specify that he will not be a "sin sacrifice"?
The muslims who believe the messiah is not divine, sticks to the definition of "messiah" as defined by the people who originally had the concept of
"messiah". (Jews reject the messiah, but thats a different story.)
I'm willing to entertain that notion, but have yet to see any evidence put forward to support that contention.
The christians, however believe the messiahs role was to be a sin sacrifice and also that he is a part of God or God himself....meaning they have
altered the original meaning of "messiah".
Some do seem to suffer under the trinitarian delusion. Again, where does it specify that the messiah is forbidden to be a "sin sacrifice"?
So enlighten me - why DID they slaughter bulls, heifers, goats, lambs, and even birds like doves on their sacrificial altars?
The purpose of an animal sacrifice did have something to do with cleansing "sin".
So they were "sacrifices", and they "had something to do with cleansing sin", but they were NOT "sin sacrifices"?
Unlike Jesus' sin sacrifice, these slaughters involved rituals and priests and consecrated objects.
Would the messiah not be a holy man? Would the things he consecrates somehow remain unconsecrated because a pagan Roman magistrate failed to
consecrate them as well? Are the rituals and prayers of the messiah to no effect, then, because Romans failed to recognize them?
Are the prayers and rituals of a Muslim ineffective because someone else would fail to recognize them?
Christianity relies on the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament to substantiate their "sin sacrifice" theololgy. Which is why christians draw
parallels to the Old Testament sin sacrifices and Jesus "sin sacrifice"... because they believe it all foreshadowed Jesus sin sacrifice.
Christians draw those parallels because they are grasping at straws, failing to acknowledge the power inherent in the gospel. They think that they
must somehow verify the gospels and validate them to the Jews by going back to the Jewish books, in the same way that Muslims think they must verify
and validate Mohammed to Christians by citing Christian passages and claiming they apply to Mohammed. Muslims, however, are somewhat more hampered in
that effort by claiming that the Christian books in existence now are not "correct", then trying to justify their assertions by appealing to those
same "incorrect" books.