GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Are modern Jews still under the covenant

[themuzicman]

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

Are modern Jews still under the covenant

Yoshiah_ap will be defending the affirmative and Cherith will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Yoshiah_ap makes his first post. The debate will last 5 rounds.

This debate is taking place here ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21895), and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate.

[JohnnyMac]

Having a commentary thread providing the rest of us with the opportunity to critique the ideas and propositions of the debate participants is a fantastic idea, muzicman! Much appreciated!

I, for one, have been engaged in discussion with those referring to themselves as "Jews" or "Jewish" several times in the past. I am familiar with many of the arguments from that quarter, concerning the supposed validity of their adopted ethnic identity. Everyone has a little different "take" on the whole issue and their own, unique slant/perspective, so undoubtedly certain ideas will emerge in this debate that are worthy of further evaluation, referencing established, historical data and documented history in order to gauge the validity of any propositions made on either side.

One book I've found considerably helpful in assessing the whole question of "Jewish Identity" is "Zionism Reconsidered: The Problems of Jewish Nationalism and Normalcy - Dissenting Views". It is a collection of essays and article extracts from the likes of Philip Roth, C.G. Montefiore, Morris R. Cohen, The Gerer Rebbe, Rabbi Shulem Ben Schneerson (the Lubavitcher Rebbe), Hannah Arendt, etc. Michael Selzer is the editor and provides an introduction to the book.

I would also highly recommend "Elvis in Jerusalem: Post-Zionism and the Americanization of Israel" by Haim Watzman. It's available at Amazon.com. This book is particularly insightful and provides the reader unfamiliar with self-perceptions among the majority of modern "Israelis" with a clearer understanding of their worldview and understanding of their own, perceived role and identity in our modern "world".

I'm looking forward to this debate folks! It's an important one! Especially for modern, Western Christians!

[Christianotaku]

I really like the view that Yoshiah has taken not revealing his full arguement I think he will real in Cherith and have him cornered unless cherith digs up some real good verses :smile:

[JohnnyMac]

Not only will Cherith have good verses to support his arguments, but he will have documented history on his side too, Christianotaku! I look forward to the spirited exchanges ahead and yoshiah's being reduced to personal invective and rhetoric rather quickly! That's my forecast at present. We'll see.

[Christianotaku]

Once God makes a promise he keeps it thats my beleive simple and to the point


while cherith might be a good christian and all jews are the promised people and have been known to win at these kind of thinks...wars, wrestling, debates...its all God blessing you know...

[JohnnyMac]

Yoshiah's opening proposition is stated thus:


As Jews, my people are commanded to be Torah Observant forever.

This statement is loaded with certain presuppositions that must be supported from both Scripture AND history. For Yoshiah to refer to the Jews/Israelites of antiquity as "my people", he must, in fact, demonstrate this to be a fact using objectively, empirically verifiable, hard data.

From OUR position (Cherith's and mine) the ancient Israelites no longer exist on this planet. The Israelites/Jews do not exist as a People today. That is our position. The only People of Israel alive today are the SPIRITUAL ISRAELITES - Christians. The only eternal beneficiaries of the Abrahamic Covenant are his SPIRITUAL descendants.

Exodus 12:14 (speaking of Passover)
"This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time."

The language in this text is specific to the temporal history of ancient Israel. "The ages" refers to the period of human history in which their civilization and world existed. "All time" SOUNDS eternal - but it actually references the temporal timeframe of the history of that "world" - all of THEIR time is what is intended, here.

Exodus 27:21 "Aaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain which is over [the Ark of] the Pact, [to burn] from evening to morning before the LORD. It shall be due from the Israelites for all time, throughout the ages."

Again - "the ages" is NOT an eternal timeframe. Rather, it references the "ages" during which the temporal "world" of Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) Israel existed. Note that this flame hasn't been burning outside the Ark of the Pact for a couple of thousand years now. Obviously, this Law and Covenantal form of worship no longer exists on this planet.

Leviticus 10:9 "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die. This is a law for all time throughout the ages,"

Again, "for all time throughout the ages" SOUNDS eternal, according to our MODERN terminology, however the INTENT was to convey the message that for the duration of the Mosaic Covenant's existence (and the existence of the civilization formed upon it as a foundational constitution of sorts), these things would be done. The Tent of Meeting hasn't been existence for several thousand years.

Levitcus 15:15b "...There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the LORD."

Again - a temporal timeframe is indicated. Not only this, but we find no clear, definitive statement concerning God's intended preservation of the PEOPLE of Israel for all of eternity. Rather, He is dictating that the Israelites perform the requirements of His Law throughout the period of their existence as a People.


Are we out of a covenant if we break it?. (I may be wrong in how you come to your conclusions). No, the Tanakh does not say this. Rather, there are consenquences for our actions.

Yes, the Tanakh states that there are permanent, eternal consequence for breaking the Mosaic Covenant. This Covenant cannot be equated to the Abrahamic Covenant. The latter one is eternal, the former was temporal - and subject to annulment in the form of a "divorce". God repeatedly threatened to divorce His People the Israelites for their continued rebellion against Him and idolatry. He finally carried out that threat in 70 AD, divorcing them as a People forever, and bringing about their eternal elimination.


If we break the covenant, the we merit curses. These are outlined in Deuteronomy 28:15-69. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 34:24)

Yoshiah is correct in making this statement in relation to Deut. 28. However, he has failed to note that there is NO mention of restoration in ANY form at the end of the chapter. Rather, final termination as a People is indicated as they are assimilated into the populations where they are taken as slaves.


But, does this mean we are out of luck for ever? No, in fact much of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible is a rebuke and a call to repentance to Israelites who are not Torah Observant.

These calls to repentance were BEFORE the final "Great Day of the Lord" in which Yahweh meted out final judgment upon the Israelites/Jews, terminating them as a People forever.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Cherith is a "she" guys. I know, I have spoken with her, and is my friend who helped me greatly a few years back. And fully an orthodox Christian and just as opposed as I am (and even more fiery in her delivery) to foundational heresies in the church and would share no kinship with them.

[JohnnyMac]

Thanks for the clarification, DeeDee! I haven't seen that side of her yet, but I'm impressed that this dear sister in the Lord is a trucker AND a student of the Scriptures and theology.

She just informed me via PM that she, like you, is a Partial Pret. But I'm going to provide a certain amount of behind-the-scenes support to her in this debate anyway. We share identical views on the ethnicity of modern "Jews", so we can proceed on that basis, temporarily setting aside the larger question concerning the fulfillment of prophecy as a whole.

[Cherith]

Is it "legal" for the combatants to make posts over here? Because I don't know how I can stand by if you guys are going to talk about me! :wink:

Maybe I'll run over you with my big truck!

Does this mean I'll have to change my avatar too!?!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Cherith, no technicallly you are not supposed to post here. I am not going to be talking about you further, it was driving me batty to hear you referred to as a "he" and my concern that others may think your agreement with JM on this issue constituted any acceptance of his denials of essential Christian doctrine.

[Menachem]

I can see that Yoshiah is off to a good start.. He has some good verses posted there that are very difficult to break, if that is possible. Plus, I have a feeling that he has more in his arsenal than is presented...This will be a good debate if Cherith has all of the right stuff in her corner.

[Menachem]

I reviewed what Cherith had posted and the use of Hebrews 8:8-12 intrigued(sp.) me. I hope that when she posted the she went back and read Jeremiah 31:30-34 and she will be able to see that The text does not say "I regarded them not" but rather "I was a Master/Husband to them." If Yoshiah knows this maybe he will capitalize on that.

my two cents.......

[Menachem]

I would just like to make a note on what yoshiah said about "hoping that was a mistranslation of her scriptures." It wasn't a mistranslation of what the Book of Hebrews says.... here is a link http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr008.html#top

I can understand why Cherith used it, it is in the christian bible, but Yoshiah capitalized on this by pointing out the Christian bible's inaccurate rendering of the verses in Jeremiah.....

I would also like to comment on the "spiritually" note that Yoshiah gave....

I wash my dishes "spiritually" every day and they just seem to keep piling up for some odd reason.....what am I doing wrong??? Hmmmm.......

[Dee Dee Warren]

Funny the ancient rabbis did scoff so at "spiritual" applications of a (gasp!) spritual book. I find it funny how in a reaction to Christianity, many of today practioners of Judaisms have become typical Christian fundamentalist caricacatures. The same hyperliteralist reading of Scripture which is anachronistic to the core.

Let's see you guys read the Psalms that way and don't you dare spiritualize one word of it. Exactly how many feathers does God have on HIs wings anyways?

[geebob]

There is one Jew who can trace His genealogy back to King David, but you heap destruction upon yourselves by rejecting Him.

nice to generalize so it's of all people and not just the jews, and that doesn't amount to a hill of beens! You'd reject Christ to if he was getting vengence upon you for being a Christ killer by tossing the infants of your people into the incinerators. The traditional eurpean office of Christ killer has been held by the Jews and for that, it's only common sense that a prudent Christian would NOT cram this down the throat of Jews today even if you are setting them on a level of inferiority equal to all non-christians. Maybe we should gas all non Christians as well.

This may appear to be an emotional rant but the fact is you have to know and understand the mindset of your audience. Did Paul say to the athenian's concerned that he was introducing forign God's "yep your right, you people are so godless and repugnant but praise Jesus I'm gonna help you out of your confusion!" Not in the slightest! He instead proceeded to argue that this was not a forign God identifying him as the object of the alter to the unknown God, the object of the stoic claim "in him we move and have our being" and the true object of Ceanthes Hymn to Zeus.

This is also the lesson of the book The peace Child (I forget the author) about a missionary who could not present the traditional narrative to the people to whom he was ministering to because when he got to the part about Judas, the natives cheered as they admired a man who could trick someone into thinking that he was his friend only to stab him in the back. It was only after the missionary witnessed a war that ended with a ritual and pact. And what form did that pact take? One tribe gave a child to the other tribe to raise and nurture and on that basis they would be at peace, hence the child was the peacechild. The missionary was able to use this metaphore to break through to that tribe noting that Jesus was God's peacechild given to us. AND IT WORKED! These people weren't ready to hear that there admiration of traitors was repugnant. So cramming it down their throats was going to go nowhere. THere would have to be another way for the gospel and such a way was found.

God works with cultures and Cherith DOESN'T. Are we so stupid as to believe that we can convert Jews by forcing it down their throats that they heap desctruction upon themselves by rejecting Christ? Especially when destruction WAS heaped upon them by people who professed to Christians!!!

Last time I spoke with cherith, she was embarrased for me. how can anyone be so oblivious even to the importance of the climax of 17 to 19 hundred years of "christian" persecution of Jews which took place in an abominable way only some 60 years ago?!?

yes of course the debate here is whether there are any people who can legitimately be called Jews, but the point is even if you disagree that there is such a people, there is a culture and attempting to cram that down there throats isn't going to get you far in promoting Jesus.

As for the topic, as a christian, I'm somewhere in the middle. God's knew covenant is under Jesus. God wants everyone under this covenant. But God has not forgotten his people whom he foreknew and the apostle paul held out a hope that even the all the Jews would come unde the banner of Jesus. Such a hope has no meaning with the notion that there are no real Jews anymore.




Funny the ancient rabbis did scoff so at "spiritual" applications of a (gasp!) spritual book.

I don't think yoshiah has ground to stand on here in rejecting spiritual fulfillments. To my knowledge, some Jews, did in fact seek to spiritually fulfill the law by reading and meditating on the law in the absence of the temple in the babylonian captivity. and believe that is the way of it with many orthodox Jews today.

[Dee Dee Warren]

In strict theological terms, without bringing in history or geneologies or any of that, I believe the Scripture is clear that Christ is the Olive Tree. If one rejects Christ, one is cut off from that tree and is not in any kind of Covenant with kind. Placing hope and confidence in fleshand ancestry is foolish. Thus, nevermind who can trace what back to who, if anyone who claims Jewish ancestry rejects Christ, he/she is not in Covenant with God, new, old, or otherwise. Scripture is equally clear that the opportunity exists for such to come to the Tree and be grafted in.

God can raise up sons of Abraham out of the stones.

[Menachem]

I was reading the reponse from Yoshiyah and I think that Cherith is referring to David Kimhi a Ashkenazi hebrew linguist. However I havent found the such reference that Cherith has mentioned .

However on a note that I would have to Diagree with Dee Dee. My view is that Jews are in a special covenant with G-d regardless as G-d has said the Mitzvot, the Torah, the laws are all enduring and for all time throughout the Tanakh.

However, that always being the Judaic view, your christoligical view is the way you were raised and of course a christian would not think the Jews are under a covenant since to a christian they did not accept jesus.

Here we have a case of what Judaism says be it Karaism or Rabbinical Judaism and what Christianity says be it Catholicism, Protestantism, etc..... So who do we go with.... of course the one we were raised with or currently practice.

The scripture to me is very clear that We Jews are under an eternal covenant that is very much in effect for those of us that are Jewish and practice Judaism. The only way we are considered cut off form the covenant is if we do not follow HaShem and follow after Elohim Acharim... But there is always a way to come back and do teshuvah for leaving....

[Dee Dee Warren]

your christoligical view is the way you were raised

Care to admit that is something you cannot possibly know before I make you look really foolish?

Hint: I am over 30. I have only been a Christian for about oh eight years now. Long since I was "raised."

[Menachem]

I was assuming that you were raised a christian I stand corrected.....
Please forgive my ignorance on the matter

[Menachem]

I wouold lIke to comment that My boy Yoshiyah had a really good argument on the last post. The Jeremiah Passages I think pretty much made the Argument in his favor in my opinion.

Plus on the note of Cherith's use of Ruth in her arguments.....The hebrew specifically prohibits Moabite males from marrying in as the text words are Ammoni and Mo'avi which are masculine and Have the meanings of Ammonite and Moabite respecively. Had the Hebrew Text read Ammonit and Mo'avit, which are the feminine forms of the words and have meanings of Ammonitess and Moabitess respectively, I might have accepted your position..

My vote at this point would have to be in Yoshiyah's favor

[Sacrificial Ram]

Yoshiah's opening proposition is stated thus:



This statement is loaded with certain presuppositions that must be supported from both Scripture AND history. For Yoshiah to refer to the Jews/Israelites of antiquity as "my people", he must, in fact, demonstrate this to be a fact using objectively, empirically verifiable, hard data.

From OUR position (Cherith's and mine) the ancient Israelites no longer exist on this planet. The Israelites/Jews do not exist as a People today. That is our position. The only People of Israel alive today are the SPIRITUAL ISRAELITES - Christians. The only eternal beneficiaries of the Abrahamic Covenant are his SPIRITUAL descendants.

Exodus 12:14 (speaking of Passover)
"This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time."

The language in this text is specific to the temporal history of ancient Israel. "The ages" refers to the period of human history in which their civilization and world existed. "All time" SOUNDS eternal - but it actually references the temporal timeframe of the history of that "world" - all of THEIR time is what is intended, here.

Exodus 27:21 "Aaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain which is over [the Ark of] the Pact, [to burn] from evening to morning before the LORD. It shall be due from the Israelites for all time, throughout the ages."

Again - "the ages" is NOT an eternal timeframe. Rather, it references the "ages" during which the temporal "world" of Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) Israel existed. Note that this flame hasn't been burning outside the Ark of the Pact for a couple of thousand years now. Obviously, this Law and Covenantal form of worship no longer exists on this planet.

Leviticus 10:9 "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die. This is a law for all time throughout the ages,"

Again, "for all time throughout the ages" SOUNDS eternal, according to our MODERN terminology, however the INTENT was to convey the message that for the duration of the Mosaic Covenant's existence (and the existence of the civilization formed upon it as a foundational constitution of sorts), these things would be done. The Tent of Meeting hasn't been existence for several thousand years.

Levitcus 15:15b "...There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the LORD."

Again - a temporal timeframe is indicated. Not only this, but we find no clear, definitive statement concerning God's intended preservation of the PEOPLE of Israel for all of eternity. Rather, He is dictating that the Israelites perform the requirements of His Law throughout the period of their existence as a People.



Yes, the Tanakh states that there are permanent, eternal consequence for breaking the Mosaic Covenant. This Covenant cannot be equated to the Abrahamic Covenant. The latter one is eternal, the former was temporal - and subject to annulment in the form of a "divorce". God repeatedly threatened to divorce His People the Israelites for their continued rebellion against Him and idolatry. He finally carried out that threat in 70 AD, divorcing them as a People forever, and bringing about their eternal elimination.



Yoshiah is correct in making this statement in relation to Deut. 28. However, he has failed to note that there is NO mention of restoration in ANY form at the end of the chapter. Rather, final termination as a People is indicated as they are assimilated into the populations where they are taken as slaves.



These calls to repentance were BEFORE the final "Great Day of the Lord" in which Yahweh meted out final judgment upon the Israelites/Jews, terminating them as a People forever.
Well, of course, according to the Jews, they, as the followers of the Tanakh, are the real Jews. You see, according to them, the New
Testament is just a book written by man, not inspired by God at all.
And since God made the promise that they have a covenent eternally, that
means for ALL generations, including this one.

So, your misterpretations of the Tanakh mean nothing to the Jewish religion.

[Pitiricus]

Care to admit that is something you cannot possibly know before I make you look really foolish?

Hint: I am over 30. I have only been a Christian for about oh eight years now. Long since I was "raised."
So what? Your are a christadorator and interpret the scriptures from your (IMO wrong) point of view... The fact that it is 8 years or 100 years has nothing to do with it!

[Pitiricus]

Well, of course, according to the Jews, they, as the followers of the Tanakh, are the real Jews. You see, according to them, the New
Testament is just a book written by man, not inspired by God at all.
And since God made the promise that they have a covenent eternally, that
means for ALL generations, including this one.

So, your misterpretations of the Tanakh mean nothing to the Jewish religion.
That's exactly... Jews are under the covenant (Brit) and nobody can say that it isn't so because of a book Jews consider to be pagan...

[Conductor42]

So what? Your are a christadorator and interpret the scriptures from your (IMO wrong) point of view... The fact that it is 8 years or 100 years has nothing to do with it!

And there's a 99% chance, that if you are a Jew, you are Rabbinical "and interpret the scriptures from your (IMO wrong) point of view... "

[Dee Dee Warren]

So what? Your are a christadorator and interpret the scriptures from your (IMO wrong) point of view... The fact that it is 8 years or 100 years has nothing to do with it!
The fact that I have been a Christain 8 years has nothing to do with a false assertion that I was raised a Christian?

Thank you for such a irrelevant post.

[Pitiricus]

And there's a 99% chance, that if you are a Jew, you are Rabbinical "and interpret the scriptures from your (IMO wrong) point of view... "I am a Jew... and a proud Jew as such... And I have no problem in finding the rabbis right who said that Jesus wasn t the messiah...

I even like what the Rambam said about Christianity and avoda zara (idolatry)...

[Conductor42]

And I agree with what you said completely, though I can't agree to Rambam's writings completely yet because I haven't read them. I'm trying to obtain Rashbam's commentary on the Torah first - and let me tell ya, that's nearly impossible to find in English!

I'm a Karaite Jew. I'm proud of the titles that I've earned, such as Am Ha'Aretz. And I'll spell it out for you clearly : Jesus was not "the Messiah".

My point was that we are all biased by our theologies. You, Me, DDW, etc. Point-Blank accusations are worthless, and serve nothing.

If you hadn't noticed, I was involved with the Gym Debate.

[Pitiricus]

And I agree with what you said completely, though I can't agree to Rambam's writings completely yet because I haven't read them. I'm trying to obtain Rashbam's commentary on the Torah first - and let me tell ya, that's nearly impossible to find in English!

I'm a Karaite Jew. I'm proud of the titles that I've earned, such as Am Ha'Aretz. And I'll spell it out for you clearly : Jesus was not "the Messiah".

My point was that we are all biased by our theologies. You, Me, DDW, etc. Point-Blank accusations are worthless, and serve nothing.

If you hadn't noticed, I was involved with the Gym Debate.
On a lighter note, do you sacrifice on Mount Gerizim at Passover? The Shomronim still do it... :-)

On a darker note, I am sure you know that during WWII in order to save the lives of the Karaites, the Rabbis decreted they weren't Jewish, hoping it would spare them from the Nazis...

[Conductor42]

Well, all of this deserves another thread. (IMO, this thread should have been closed a week or two after the gym debate)

[Dee Dee Warren]

We keep commentary threads open permanently because the debate is available to read.

[Menachem]

and finally the debate comes to an end....or was I just that unaware that it was over.....Me thinks I was just unaware...:nsm: