Problems with missionaries

[ImAHebrew]

Shabbat Shalom Jason, is there something wrong with me undermining what the missionaries profess concerning their interpretation of the NT?  Is not this the Counter Missionary Forum, and is this not the Problems with missionaries thread?  I am just countering and exposing their problems in trying to interpret THEIR "Jesus" as a substitute that they think died in their place to PAY the penalty of THEIR sin.  The texts of the NT that you quoted does not say that, BUT, it can be interpreted wrongly in appearing to say that.

We are also told in the texts of the NT that there was ANOTHER "Jesus" being accepted/preached, and even a DIFFERENT gospel, along with the fact that Paul's writings were being distorted and twisted by "lawless" men who were perverting and slandering what he taught/wrote.  My point is that most valid thinkers within Judaism would not consider that the Red Heifer was being slaughtered "in the place" of sinners, to satisfy the penalty or guilt of THEIR sin...would they?  Was not the purpose of the Red Heifer's slaughter a means to bring about the "REMISSION" of sin FROM a sinner (to separate their sin FROM their lives)?  Consider what happens when cancer goes into remission...the cancer is no longer active, it has been effectively SEPARATED from them, and this was the purpose of slaughtering the Red Heifer...to TURN sinners AWAY FROM their sin to where their sin is no longer active.

It's like I wrote in my last post.  The sinner is to IDENTIFY with the slaughtered sacrifice, and then put to death whatever caused them to kill or shed the blood of the offering.  The shedding of the blood IS the killing of the sacrifice, and that shed blood should cause the remission of sin in a sinner's life.  Just as a point of reference, consider how Peter accused those who were directly responsible for shedding innocent blood when he told them that they, with the help of wicked hands, did murder an innocent man, but then let a murderer go free.  Peter did not tell them a substitute died in their place to pay the penalty of their sin, he pointed out to them that they murdered/shed the blood of someone who did not deserve to die...and what was their response...they were CUT TO THE HEART, and ASKED what they must do.

These are the things that the missionaries have totally misunderstood and distorted, and that is a big problem for them, especially WHEN Judaism can faithfully explain and point out to them how the Ashes of the Red Heifer can BOTH defile the clean AND cleanse the defiled.  Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Jews do not need to be trying to explain away the problems of the Christian documents. The missionaries haven't misrepresented or distorted what the New Testament says. They present what it says. You simply reject what the New Testament says. You don't follow the New Testament; they do. You can't interpret it away.

Shalom Jason, isn't it all a matter of opinion? Like the example I gave concerning the counting of the omer, one side has misrepresented or distorted which day the counting starts on, as each side believes their interpretation is 100% correct (but one side is wrong). The missionaries are 100% in error in how they follow the substitutional view of sacrifice that Judaism endorsed, and they have little to no understanding of what Paul wrote concerning sacrifice. It all starts with grasping how the Ashes of the Red Heifer can BOTH defile and cleanse. When that is understood, there will be no doubt concerning how sinners are separated FROM their sin...believing that "god" had to die in their stead, or believing that they murdered a totally innocent righteous man. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. What is your response to the missionaries doctrine or teaching about Grace? How do you undermine that teaching they have developed? Or do you even go into that kind of depth with them.