Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Questions on Judaism

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18

    Questions on Judaism

    Hello my Jewish friends at Tweb.

    I have recently been listening to a Jewish apologist, Tovia Singer. I have placed these comments/questions on his discussion forum here in response to his video entitled Did God Destroy the Second Temple Because Jews Rejected Jesus? - and now place them at Tweb for further comment.


    Some questions and comments for the Jews at Tweb to consider ("you" in the comments below refers primarily to Tovia Singer) –

    If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end? If God did end the Mosaic covenant, then God would take away the means to continue the Levitical sacrifices, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the line of Davidic kings, and remove the many laws, which cannot be kept apart from a functioning temple?

    If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant? If God has not taken away the Mosaic covenant, why then did God take away so much (temple, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, means to keep all the laws) from the Jews in 70AD and kept these things away from them for so long?

    Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event? After all Christian claim Jesus was God, and hence Jesus was the incarnate temple of God. How do Jews explain these historical coincidences, which we all arranged by God’s providence?

    If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT? If the temple was central to the Mosaic covenant, why is the temple not central to the ongoing functioning of the Mosaic covenant after 70AD? If the temple was NOT central to the Mosaic covenant (you would have to establish this fact), why was the loss of the temple then the occasion for the Rabbis to so radically revise the Jewish understanding of the OT?

    If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures? What authority did the Rabbis have to re-interpret the OT after 70AD? If a reinterpretation of the OT scriptures occurred after 70AD, what value can be placed upon any interpretation of the texts, that may be subsequently revised when historical events do not subsequently support a past or present understanding of the OT texts? If we have witnessed Judaism radically re-understand the OT, based upon historical events in Jerusalem, what confidence can we have with Rabbinic claims concerning their understanding of any OT texts?

    The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant. When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how? If the loss of the temple has NOT brought about a broken covenant, why not?

    Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken? What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken? If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?

    Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple? Also, what then is this ever close Messiah going to do with regard to sin that Israel has not yet done? Will he also suffer sin and if so, why does he have to suffer for sin if Israel has already done so in the past?

    Some comments about modern Jewish apologetics.

    According to the modern apologetic Jews, they do and don't need the temple, they do and don't need the sacrifices, they do and don't need the festivals, they do and don't need to keep all the Torah laws. They do when they can and don't when they cannot. Such alternating emphasizes and non emphasizes on these topics indicates the Jews really cannot explain what God has done with the Mosaic covenant. As the Rabbis cannot clearly and consistently explain God’s dealings with the Jews, then nobody really knows what going on in Judaism. As nobody knows, then Judaism is fundamentally agnostic about the value of the Mosaic covenant.

    The Jewish post 70AD narrative is full of problems, which make the Jewish apologetic very weak. Apparently there has been no prophetic voice for the Jews since Christ to teach them how the temple will be restored. Indeed the occupying Muslim mosque in Jerusalem is a strong prevention against the temple ever being rebuilt again. Evidently God’s providence in placing a Mosque in the vicinity of the temple shows the world and the Jews that He simply does not want the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Why? Because the Mosaic covenant has end and the Christian covenant is the only functioning covenant through which men can obtain union with God.

    Please note that I have nothing personal against the Jewish people. I believe as a whole, they are God fearing, law abiding people who what to please God. The above comments and questions are only directed at Jewish theology in the modern age and at least deserve to be given some thought. If any Jewish person is willing to engage some of the above statements, it would be appreciated. I intend to engage Jewish responses respecting the Jewish history and the great contribution Jews have made to humanity throughout the ages. I look forward to engaging people of a faith had in common with Christians, for the benefit of all involved.

    JM

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Midwest
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    289
    Amen (Given)
    7
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken? What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken? If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?

    Read Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch book,"Horeb: A Philosophy of Jewish Laws and Observances 7th Edition". The comments and questions that you're posing are not exactly (politically) correct. This is a really good book to read:

    "It has often been said that Orthodox Judaism has always existed since the Jews received the Torah on Mt. Sinai and that Conservative Judaism was a reaction to Reform Judaism, however, that is not entirely accurate. In fact, modern Orthodoxy did not exist until the reforms and innovations of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/Hirsch.html

    Rejecting Reform


    "The actual term "Orthodox" is derived from Christian theology and was, at first, a term of reproach hurled against the traditionalists by the early Reformers at the beginning of the nineteenth century, to imply that those who failed to respond to the modernist challenge were hidebound. Eventually, however, the term was used by the traditionalists themselves as a convenient shorthand for the attitude of complete loyalty to the Jewish past, although some traditionalists prefer the term "Torah-true" to describe their religious position. In any event, Orthodoxy came to mean for Jews faithfulness to the practices of Judaism, to the halakhah (Jewish law) in its traditional formulation" http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...hodox-judaism/

    Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch—Torah Leadership for Our Times
    by Yehudah (Leo) Levi | September 20, 2008 in People

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Thanks for the answer. Would you like to answer any of the other questions on Judaism? Maybe you can present a short discussion on one or so Jewish theologians. I am interested in Rabbinic commentaries on the OT.

    JM

  4. #4
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Midwest
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    289
    Amen (Given)
    7
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Thanks for the answer. Would you like to answer any of the other questions on Judaism? Maybe you can present a short discussion on one or so Jewish theologians. I am interested in Rabbinic commentaries on the OT.

    JM
    Hi JM,

    Some of the questions that you had listed were commented in the book that I read. I thought that the book opened my eyes to the differences between the two groups in Judaism. The part that surprised me the most was the fact that "not" only did the reform movement change the way others looked at the law but I felt weakened it. Giving an example would have been "equally" the fact that as a Christian we adhere to our practices and beliefs. If we deviate or fall away from God's grace and disassociate from others in our community then we become distance and out of touch. How could a Christian remain or maintain their belief by practicing outside of the faith - and telling others to do the same? If I don't believe the authenticity of the bible and I felt that not everything Jesus or the apostles said is faith bound - then this would be what I believe to be the truth. However, if I tell others to do the same then where does that put me?

    Another thing - the Pauline theology on what Christians should follow and not follow in the law. (Kashrut (also kashruth or kashrus, כַּשְׁרוּת) is the set of Jewish religious dietary laws. For example: If I as a Christian (and I don't follow dietary laws but using this as only an example which some Christians have) follow the Jewish dietary laws but the reform movement is telling others what is to be followed and not - and they are not in line with the Orthodox meaning of it but again, and again, there are Christians who do follow it strictly, what does this tell us? Also, there are Christian, and perhaps came from Jewish descent, who are returning (yet) their belief in Christ hinders there total commitment - where does it stand when the reform movement follows or advocates (almost) the same theology.

    To me - it's can be very confusing. Especially when we call it Modern Day Judaism?
    Last edited by Marta; 05-10-2016 at 09:08 PM.

  5. #5
    Undergraduate
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Faith
    Jewish
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    0
    You keep saying that we cannot keep to the covenant. Why do you say this? Why would Hashem give us a system we could not follow? In fact David rejoices in Psalms 117 about the glories of the Torah. You also seem to blow up the importance of the Temple. Even Solomon understood what the Temple was. It was a place for G-d to be present to show the nations of the world that G-d was with us. Praying towards the Temple became a replacement for sacrifices a long time ago It was even stated during Solomon's corrination of the Temple.

    As for the priestly order, that's what the rabbis are. There are two kind of observation of the Torah the time of Exile and the time of return. Take a look at Daniel for that example. The Temple is not around currently so we live according to the time of the exiles.

    I also want to address your question as to the timing of the destruction of the Temple. Well this was profesied in Isaiah and Ezekiel. And the timing. Jesus was crucified according to most Christian Bible scholars around 35 CE the Temple was destroyed 70 CE So you have 35 years in between it's not like Jesus died and then boom the Temple was destroyed. There is a whole history as to the lead up to the destruction of the Temple. It is even recorded in the Talmud that the religious leaders of the time were very corrupt Jesus himself refers to this corruption. He wasn't the only messianic speaker back then and they all spoke out against the priests taking bribes from Rome and even alloud the Romans to put pagan gods in the Temple.

  6. #6
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,045
    Amen (Given)
    740
    Amen (Received)
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by HebrewIsraeli View Post
    You keep saying that we cannot keep to the covenant. Why do you say this? Why would Hashem give us a system we could not follow? In fact David rejoices in Psalms 117 about the glories of the Torah. You also seem to blow up the importance of the Temple. Even Solomon understood what the Temple was. It was a place for G-d to be present to show the nations of the world that G-d was with us. Praying towards the Temple became a replacement for sacrifices a long time ago It was even stated during Solomon's corrination of the Temple.
    ". . . The LORD did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people - for ye were the fewest of all peoples - but because the LORD loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore unto your fathers, . . ." -- Deuteronomy 7:7-8.

    As for the priestly order, that's what the rabbis are. There are two kind of observation of the Torah the time of Exile and the time of return. Take a look at Daniel for that example. The Temple is not around currently so we live according to the time of the exiles.
    ". . . Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. . . ." -- Deuteronomy 27:26.
    ". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more." -- Jeremiah 31:31-34.
    ". . . Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. . . . And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . ." -- Daniel 9:24, . . 26.

    I also want to address your question as to the timing of the destruction of the Temple. Well this was profesied in Isaiah and Ezekiel. And the timing. Jesus was crucified according to most Christian Bible scholars around 35 CE the Temple was destroyed 70 CE So you have 35 years in between it's not like Jesus died and then boom the Temple was destroyed. There is a whole history as to the lead up to the destruction of the Temple. It is even recorded in the Talmud that the religious leaders of the time were very corrupt Jesus himself refers to this corruption. He wasn't the only messianic speaker back then and they all spoke out against the priests taking bribes from Rome and even alloud the Romans to put pagan gods in the Temple.
    The two dates given are typically 30CE and 33CE. 30CE makes it 40 years to 70CE.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  7. #7
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Midwest
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    289
    Amen (Given)
    7
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Hello my Jewish friends at Tweb.

    I have recently been listening to a Jewish apologist, Tovia Singer. I have placed these comments/questions on his discussion forum here in response to his video entitled Did God Destroy the Second Temple Because Jews Rejected Jesus? - and now place them at Tweb for further comment.


    Some questions and comments for the Jews at Tweb to consider ("you" in the comments below refers primarily to Tovia Singer) –

    If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end? If God did end the Mosaic covenant, then God would take away the means to continue the Levitical sacrifices, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the line of Davidic kings, and remove the many laws, which cannot be kept apart from a functioning temple?

    If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant? If God has not taken away the Mosaic covenant, why then did God take away so much (temple, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, means to keep all the laws) from the Jews in 70AD and kept these things away from them for so long?

    Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event? After all Christian claim Jesus was God, and hence Jesus was the incarnate temple of God. How do Jews explain these historical coincidences, which we all arranged by God’s providence?

    If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT? If the temple was central to the Mosaic covenant, why is the temple not central to the ongoing functioning of the Mosaic covenant after 70AD? If the temple was NOT central to the Mosaic covenant (you would have to establish this fact), why was the loss of the temple then the occasion for the Rabbis to so radically revise the Jewish understanding of the OT?

    If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures? What authority did the Rabbis have to re-interpret the OT after 70AD? If a reinterpretation of the OT scriptures occurred after 70AD, what value can be placed upon any interpretation of the texts, that may be subsequently revised when historical events do not subsequently support a past or present understanding of the OT texts? If we have witnessed Judaism radically re-understand the OT, based upon historical events in Jerusalem, what confidence can we have with Rabbinic claims concerning their understanding of any OT texts?

    The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant. When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how? If the loss of the temple has NOT brought about a broken covenant, why not?

    Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken? What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken? If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?

    Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple? Also, what then is this ever close Messiah going to do with regard to sin that Israel has not yet done? Will he also suffer sin and if so, why does he have to suffer for sin if Israel has already done so in the past?

    Some comments about modern Jewish apologetics.

    According to the modern apologetic Jews, they do and don't need the temple, they do and don't need the sacrifices, they do and don't need the festivals, they do and don't need to keep all the Torah laws. They do when they can and don't when they cannot. Such alternating emphasizes and non emphasizes on these topics indicates the Jews really cannot explain what God has done with the Mosaic covenant. As the Rabbis cannot clearly and consistently explain God’s dealings with the Jews, then nobody really knows what going on in Judaism. As nobody knows, then Judaism is fundamentally agnostic about the value of the Mosaic covenant.

    The Jewish post 70AD narrative is full of problems, which make the Jewish apologetic very weak. Apparently there has been no prophetic voice for the Jews since Christ to teach them how the temple will be restored. Indeed the occupying Muslim mosque in Jerusalem is a strong prevention against the temple ever being rebuilt again. Evidently God’s providence in placing a Mosque in the vicinity of the temple shows the world and the Jews that He simply does not want the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Why? Because the Mosaic covenant has end and the Christian covenant is the only functioning covenant through which men can obtain union with God.

    Please note that I have nothing personal against the Jewish people. I believe as a whole, they are God fearing, law abiding people who what to please God. The above comments and questions are only directed at Jewish theology in the modern age and at least deserve to be given some thought. If any Jewish person is willing to engage some of the above statements, it would be appreciated. I intend to engage Jewish responses respecting the Jewish history and the great contribution Jews have made to humanity throughout the ages. I look forward to engaging people of a faith had in common with Christians, for the benefit of all involved.

    JM
    John Martin - the one thing God didn't take away from the Jews is the law - Torah. The best way to describe what you're asking is it a system of only "ceremonial laws" - and that may not be necessarily true, is it? If the whole was based on the sacrificial offerings, and they have long gone passed, then what is left?
    In the same essay, Hirsch goes on to show, by means of analysis of the 613 commandments of the Torah, that there is no validity what-so ever in distinguishing the laws of the Torah as between so-called “ceremonial laws” and Moral laws,” which latter alone are supposed to have a justified claim to our continued observance. Hirsch showed, on the contrary, that it is just those laws dubbed by the Reformers “ceremonial laws,” like Sabbath and festivals, circumcision, the dietary laws and that category of laws usually known as chukim, which have as their main aim holiness-i.e., the moral perfection of man, and have indeed contributed largely towards moulding the collective character of our nation and the holiness of the brotherhood of Israel. Horeb – A Philosophy of Jewish Laws and Observances


    *another thought – The chief purpose of man on earth from the point of view of The Torah is not metaphysical speculation or abstract thought, but moral action. 'Not what man, thinks of God is of primary importance, but what God thinks of man and wants him to do,' was a favourite saying of Hirsch. The Jew will never find the directive for his actions in idle philosophical speculation, but in the study of the Torah and its laws (cf.S.R.Hirsch,, Commentary on Exod.xxxiii, 21; Commentary on Ps. ciii, 3 ;Gesammelte
    Schriften, Vol.Ill, p.451).

    We have a passage written by the Apostle Paul - 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

  8. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Midwest
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    289
    Amen (Given)
    7
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Matthew Henry Commentary
    2:25-29 No forms, ordinances, or notions can profit, without regenerating grace, which will always lead to seeking an interest in the righteousness of God by faith. For he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly: neither is that baptism, which is outward in the flesh: but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith. And the true baptism is that of the heart, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost; bringing a spiritual frame of mind, and a willing following of truth in its holy ways. Let us pray that we may be made real Christians, not outwardly, but inwardly; in the heart and spirit, not in the letter; baptized, not with water only, but with the Holy Ghost; and let our praise be, not of men, but of God.


    If the emphasizes were of baptism - how then can we look toward the sacrificial offerings. What has to be in place is what Matthew Henry's is stating, "Let us pray that we may be made real Christians, not outwardly, but inwardly; in the heart and spirit, not in the letter; baptized, not with water only, but with the Holy Ghost; and let our praise be, not of men, but of God."

    It's not in the systematic way - offerings, "…1 Samuel 15:22
    Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

    Mark 12:33
    and to love Him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.
    "

  9. #9
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Midwest
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    289
    Amen (Given)
    7
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    ". . . The LORD did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people - for ye were the fewest of all peoples - but because the LORD loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore unto your fathers, . . ." -- Deuteronomy 7:7-8.



    ". . . Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. . . ." -- Deuteronomy 27:26.
    ". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more." -- Jeremiah 31:31-34.
    ". . . Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. . . . And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; . . ." -- Daniel 9:24, . . 26.



    The two dates given are typically 30CE and 33CE. 30CE makes it 40 years to 70CE.

    2 sections in the Torah/Old Testament - actually more but I'll give you a couple of passages on this.

    Nehemiah 9 - New International Version (NIV)
    The Israelites Confess Their Sins

    "But you are a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. Therefore you did not desert them, 18 even when they cast for themselves an image of a calf and said, ‘This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt,’ or when they committed awful blasphemies.

    19 “Because of your great compassion you did not abandon them in the wilderness. By day the pillar of cloud did not fail to guide them on their path, nor the pillar of fire by night to shine on the way they were to take. 20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst. 21 For forty years you sustained them in the wilderness; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen."

    Daniel 9 - New International Version (NIV)


    7 “Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 Lord, listen! Lord, forgive! Lord, hear and act! For your sake, my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.”

    Romans 11: The Remnant of Israel


    Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

    “The deliverer will come from Zion;

    he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

    27 And this is my covenant with them

    when I take away their sins.”

    28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •