Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the world religion of Judaism in general and also its relationship to Christianity. This forum is generally for theists only. Non-theists (eg, atheistic Jews) may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why should I believe in Jesus and the NT?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    No it can't really if it's a Messianic prophecy and you have a majority of the world seeking him through Christianity and Islam:

    Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

    You can quibble that it should be all billions of Gentiles or only two individuals or anything in between, I interpret it to mean a majority thus fulfilling the prophecy with Jesus.
    Almost all Christians and Muslims accept the prophecies as written in the NT without comprehending the serious problems of their context in the Torah that the Jews are more aware of

    Many Hasidic Jews believe the Rebbe Schneerson is not only Messiah but God incarnate. That makes for God in Heaven, the Shekinah as the Spirit, and God as a man in the Rebbe also descended from David. It's exactly the same general idea of a Trinity on the surface.

    Other Jews criticize the idea because it lends too much credence to Christian beliefs. A lot of other Jews think the idea of God is nuts anyway because they are atheists.
    This has been brought up several times before, and the problem addressed when all is taken into context. Yes many Jews object to these claims, but the context should be clarified. ALL contexts in the OT and modern sects of Judaism clearly and specifically refer to men like gods, and gods, small 'g,' and NOT three Gods big 'G' as the Trinity of Christianity believes. This is clearly a Heresy in ALL the history and among ALL variations of Judaism today. Bring it up in a thread with citations and I will have a turkey shoot. As in the OT ALL references are to men like gods, and gods small g.

    The problem does exist in the beliefs of the early history of the tribes of Judea, where polytheism can be found in reference in the Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms, likely with a close relationship to Canaanite scripture and religious beliefs.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-21-2014, 10:37 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Almost all Christians and Muslims accept the prophecies as written in the NT without comprehending the serious problems of their context in the Torah that the Jews are more aware of
      I've interacted with quite a few antimissionaries over the years so I'm pretty much aware of their complaints. For example that Isaiah 53 is about all righteous Jews as the Suffering Servant. Sure but the Messiah is also to be leader of righteous Jews. In that case I think Christians shouldn't exclude other martyrs, and Jews shouldn't exclude Messiah as one, they are both a bit off the mark.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      This has been brought up several times before, and the problem addressed when all is taken into context. Yes many Jews object to these claims, but the context should be clarified. ALL contexts in the OT and modern sects of Judaism clearly and specifically refer to men like gods, and gods, small 'g,' and NOT three Gods big 'G' as the Trinity of Christianity believes. This is clearly a Heresy in ALL the history and among ALL variations of Judaism today. Bring it up in a thread with citations and I will have a turkey shoot. As in the OT ALL references are to men like gods, and gods small g.

      The problem does exist in the beliefs of the early history of the tribes of Judea, where polytheism can be found in reference in the Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms, likely with a close relationship to Canaanite scripture and religious beliefs.
      I'm sure you're aware some Lubavitchers hold a view similar to ours of the Christian Messiah, fringe as they may be to other Jews:

      "The Rebbe is the conjunction of God and human. The Rebbe is God, but he is also physical."

      http://www.haaretz.com/the-lubavitch...2F8B1CF52F1D7F

      As for Trinity, once again in Judaism exists the idea of the masculine Father God, and also feminine presence of God in the Shekinah Spirit on earth. Christianity differs only slightly by acknowledging the Father, and also Spirit on earth, in addition to the Son/Word presence on earth. Which might be explained as, the Spirit acts on creation, and the Word is the instruction for the action.

      Back to the man as God issue: when the presence or Spirit of God comes on men like David, they can do all kinds of things only God can do: prophesy the future, judge wisely, build the Tabernacle, etc. They can be like God to an extent, or gods as you point out.

      With Jesus it's the same, he was born a man from David with a human nature subject to temptation. He had God's presence as David did, no problem there either. In neither case did God actually come down from Heaven to turn into a man, either a little bit with David or completely with Jesus.

      Rather, David and others turned into God a little bit on varying levels, and Jesus turned into God completely.

      So the real Jewish argument you're presenting is that there's some kind of biblical limit as to how much of God's presence can be in a man. And you know what, it just isn't there.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
        I've interacted with quite a few antimissionaries over the years so I'm pretty much aware of their complaints. For example that Isaiah 53 is about all righteous Jews as the Suffering Servant. Sure but the Messiah is also to be leader of righteous Jews. In that case I think Christians shouldn't exclude other martyrs, and Jews shouldn't exclude Messiah as one, they are both a bit off the mark.
        From the Jewish perspective some of these interpretations are way of the mark and actually I agree. It is really a stretch of unreasonable proportions, including the prophecies of 'virgin birth.'



        I'm sure you're aware some Lubavitchers hold a view similar to ours of the Christian Messiah, fringe as they may be to other Jews:

        "The Rebbe is the conjunction of God and human. The Rebbe is God, but he is also physical."

        http://www.haaretz.com/the-lubavitch...2F8B1CF52F1D7F
        I have been over this several times before, and you are misrepresenting your own source. It clearly refers to 'a god' small 'g' which is consistent with OT scholarship and bears no relationship with the Christian belief in the Trinity, which defines Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as 'God' big 'G.' This is clearly Heresy even in the above mentioned Jewish belief.

        As for Trinity, once again in Judaism exists the idea of the masculine Father God, and also feminine presence of God in the Shekinah Spirit on earth. Christianity differs only slightly by acknowledging the Father, and also Spirit on earth, in addition to the Son/Word presence on earth. Which might be explained as, the Spirit acts on creation, and the Word is the instruction for the action.

        Back to the man as God issue: when the presence or Spirit of God comes on men like David, they can do all kinds of things only God can do: prophesy the future, judge wisely, build the Tabernacle, etc. They can be like God to an extent, or gods as you point out.
        All of the above is clearly within the Jewish tradition of sons of God, and human and gods small 'g,' which do not equate to the Christian belief of the Trinity, which is a polytheistic Heresy in Judaism.

        With Jesus it's the same, he was born a man from David with a human nature subject to temptation. He had God's presence as David did, no problem there either. In neither case did God actually come down from Heaven to turn into a man, either a little bit with David or completely with Jesus.

        Rather, David and others turned into God a little bit on varying levels, and Jesus turned into God completely.

        So the real Jewish argument you're presenting is that there's some kind of biblical limit as to how much of God's presence can be in a man. And you know what, it just isn't there.
        Absolutely no, the OT concept of god small 'g.' The above reference to David bears no resemblance to the Christian belief of Jesus Christ as the INCARNATE GOD, big 'G.' There has never been a reference in the OT to an incarnate God, big 'G.'
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #64
          [QUOTE]
          Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
          I've interacted with quite a few antimissionaries over the years so I'm pretty much aware of their complaints. For example that Isaiah 53 is about all righteous Jews as the Suffering Servant. Sure but the Messiah is also to be leader of righteous Jews. In that case I think Christians shouldn't exclude other martyrs, and Jews shouldn't exclude Messiah as one, they are both a bit off the mark.



          2 Esdras 7:106 I answered and said, “How then do we find that first Abraham prayed for the people of Sodom, and Moses for our ancestors who sinned in the desert, 107 and Joshua after him for Israel in the days of Achan, 108 and Samuel in the days of Saul,[ac] and David for the plague, and Solomon for those at the dedication, 109 and Elijah for those who received the rain, and for the one who was dead, that he might live, 110 and Hezekiah for the people in the days of Sennacherib, and many others prayed for many? 111 So if now, when corruption has increased and unrighteousness has multiplied, the righteous have prayed for the ungodly, why will it not be so then as well?”

          2 Esdras 8:31 For we and our ancestors have passed our lives in ways that bring death; but it is because of us sinners that you are called merciful. 32 For if you have desired to have pity on us, who have no works of righteousness, then you will be called merciful. 33 For the righteous, who have many works laid up with you, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds. 34 But what are mortals, that you are angry with them; or what is a corruptible race, that you are so bitter against it? 35 For in truth there is no one among those who have been born who has not acted wickedly(read:Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication - 1 Kings 8:46); among those who have existed there is no one who has not done wrong. 36 For in this, O Lord, your righteousness and goodness will be declared, when you are merciful to those who have no store of good works."

          On Isaiah 53 - there are two verses to highlight (Isaiah 53: 6 - and by his wounds we are healed.6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah53:11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. See Habakkuk 2:3) but also, are the passages describing the righteous Jews (plural) when only a righteous Jew (single) was being written. If the passages were describing one as for "many" Jews - and then to use it as a base to the suffering they endured then how would this even point toward Jeremiah - as some have describe those passages as being the prophet who suffered? This still wouldn't make sense even if the passage did describe it toward Jeremiah - because the wounds that Jeremiah incurred could 'not' heal the sins of the many. Also, if you accept the stripes (the wounds that healed the many) as being Jeremiah's then I don't understand "why" the same passages couldn't relate them to Jesus - considering the New Testament passages?

          "and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

          Zechariah’s Song: 74 to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear 75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days

          See John 1: 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

          33And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit
          (the people were to receive baptism (by water) and the Holy Spirit (by Fire), isn't that the point in Exodus 19:10 And the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow.)
          Last edited by mitzi; 10-22-2014, 01:55 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            mitzi: For example Jewish Christian martyrs could also be seen as Suffering Servants along with Jesus, trying to "heal" by carrying the Gospel to them. I don't see that it can't refer to more than one Jew and also Messiah.

            Comment


            • #66
              I'm weary of Rabbinic teaching as the modern Rabbi's who reject Christ are descendants of the Pharisees who likewise rejected Christ. Jesus warned His disciples to be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which meant their teaching. "How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Mat. 16:11-12).
              I was talking about rabbinic terms, not rabbinic teaching. Just as there were Pharisees who accepted Jesus, there are modern rabbis who also accept Jesus, but the terms mean the same thing regardless of whether or not the people using them were believers. Like it or not, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, who lived in a Jewish culture, who followed the Torah and Jewish traditions, who had Jewish disciples, who borrowed elements from rabbinic parables, who used rabbinic terms, and who taught mainly to a Jewish audience, and whose first converts up through Acts 10 were all Jews. If you don’t study Jewish culture, then you’re not going to have the proper context through which to correctly understand the Bible.

              The Pharisees and Sadducees taught interpretations and traditions about how the Torah should be kept and like I said before, they were teaching the wrong way to follow the Torah, which Jesus said he came to correct.

              Oh goodness yes, I believe we should teach others to obey the commandments of Christ: "You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’But I say to you.. (Mat. 5:22)

              You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you...(Mat. 5:28)

              You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Mat. 5:39)

              You see, we practice the law as fulfilled and transformed by Christ - not the law in its original form - the law of Christ. We love God and love one another through the Holy Spirit and therefore we won't want to do any of those things - commit adultery, hate our brothers and sisters, etc. Once we have been born again by the power of the Spirit through faith in Christ, He starts to transform our deepest desires and affections - Walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
              Jesus did not add or subtract from the law, but fulfilled these laws by giving a correct interpretation for how these should be understood and followed. If he had been teaching against following any of the laws, then he would have been a false prophet and rightfully executed under Deuteronomy 13. It simply does not follow to go from Jesus saying he didn’t come to undermine the law and that not the slightest part of the law would disappear until heaven and earth passed away, to saying that Jesus though only the laws he repeated should be followed. Jesus was sinless, meaning he kept the Torah perfectly, so he thought the whole thing was important.

              The Torah was read out loud in the synagogues on the Sabbath, but the commentary was done in Aramaic. The Aramaic translation of the Torah is called the Targum, which the word “memra” or “Word” to describe God’s interactions. For instance:

              Genesis 1:27 And the Word [Memra] of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the Lord, the Lord created, male and female created He them."

              The Jews believed that the memra is an individual and yet the same as God (John 1:1), was an instrument of creation (John 1:3), was an instrument of salvation (John 1:12), was the visible presence of God (John 1:14), was the covenant maker (John 1:17), and was the revealer of God (John 1:18). John’s first chapter was making heavy parallels to this concept of memra, which means that he was making a very specific claim about who Jesus was when he identified him as the Word. Jesus was speaking of the same thing:

              John 5:45-47 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

              So if we look at where else this concept appears in the Targum, we can see that, among other things, the Word was the giver of the Torah:

              Exodus 20:1 The Word of YHVH is the Torah giver.

              If you love God, then you will keep His commands.

              I specifically said "He came to fulfill the law and usher in the New Covenant"..
              Right, but you seem to want to interpret that as Jesus abolishing some laws that he didn’t repeat. The Torah is not the same as the Old Covenant because it contains several different covenants and none of these covenants annulled previous covenants. Furthermore, there are two words for "new" in Greek, "kainos" and "neos." "Neos" means something which has never before existed, whereas "kainos" carries overtones of freshness and renewal of something which has existed. The word used in Hebrew 8 in the phrase "New Covenant," is always "kainos," and this is as it should be, because in a very real way the New Covenant renews the Old Covenant.

              The core issue, of course, is that they failed to put their faith in Christ: "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6). If they had followed the law and r4ightly understood its place - they would have realized: "the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (Gal.3:24).
              "If your father were king and you were a young child destined to rule one day, he would get a tutor to train you and teach you what you would need to know to rule the kingdom when your time came. He would give the tutor authority to teach, discipline, and punish you.


              When your time came, would you immediately shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you, and then have the audacity to proclaim your actions to be in accordance with the wishes, desires, and intentions of your father the king? The tutor is not the king. He is given by the king to train those who will one day rule. They must be trained so that they can properly make decisions and act in the liberty, freedom, responsibility, and position they will one day have.

              The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."

              I certainly don't teach "against Torah" rather I see its proper place in redemptive history through the perspective of Christ's finished work on the cross and the New Covenant.
              If you teach against following the laws given in Torah, then you are teaching against the Torah. The Torah is what sin is and sin is defined as breaking the Torah. The redemptive works of Christ has paid the penalty for breaking the Torah and has freed us from our captivity to sin, but has not freed us to break the Torah.

              "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom. 3:9).
              I was not saying that Jews were superior to Gentiles, but that there are distinctions them, though these distinctions are not in regard to being one in Christ. If there were no distinctions, then Paul would have said that there is no advantage to being a Jew.

              Paul explicitly stated that He was blameless in terms of Torah righteousness - yet he counted it all as loss compared to knowing Christ Jesus.
              There’s a difference between being declared righteous and living righteously. We are declared righteous by faith, but we are then to live righteously through obedience to God’s Torah, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

              "by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace," (Eph. 2:15).
              For context:

              Ephesians 2:11-20 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 [b]But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.[b] 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing [b]the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,[b] that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

              First we need to understand what is meant by “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”. It is only used in a similar way in two other places:

              Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

              It could be argued that what is being broken down are the human commands that forbade Jews and Gentiles from associating with each other, which was to make peace and end hostility between them.

              Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

              Peter is clearly talking about man-made oral laws here because they are not found anywhere in the Torah.

              Hebrews 9:1-3 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent[a] was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand andthe table and the bread of the Presence.[b] It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section[c] called the Most Holy Place,

              Hebrews 9:7-10 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. 8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing 9 (which is symbolic for the present age).[d] According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10 but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.

              Here, the regulations are the limited access to the tabernacle to the Levitical priesthood and access to the Holy of Holies to the High Priest and for only once a year. In contrast:

              Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

              Hebrews 10:19-22 Therefore, brothers,[c] [b]since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,[b] 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

              What Jesus did away with was the regulations that were creating a barrier that kept the Gentiles out and drew them near so that they could have access to the Father.

              Ephesians 6:2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),

              It would be contradictory for Paul to have considered the Torah to be abolished and then appeal to the same instruction later in the same letter. The Torah could not be what separated the Jews from the Gentiles because it teaches to include and care for them. Ephesians 2:15 also needs to be balanced with Romans 3:31 and Matthew 5:17.

              [quote]That genuine faith will produce good works and deeds.[/quoe]

              What are good deeds, but following God’s instructions in the Torah?

              Ah, so you agree that we are not under law? Good, to further the point, Romans 7: 4-6: "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
              1 John 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

              Sin is defined as breaking God's law/instructions/Torah, so Paul could have been asking, "What then? Are we to break the Torah because Jesus paid our penalty for breaking it? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of habitual Torah violation, which leads to death, or of habitual obedience to the Torah, which leads to righteousness?"

              Being under the law is being under its penalty, but Paul emphasized that being under grace didn’t mean we were free to break the law. I see it’s good that you agree that we’re not free to sin.

              Romans 7:1-3 Or do you not know, brothers[a]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.[b] 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

              When her husband dies, she is not freed for the entire law, but merely those aspects of it that were preventing her from living with another man. Similarly, we are to die to the aspects of the Torah: its capacity to stir up sin (verses 5-14), its capacity to produce irremediable guilt feelings (verses 15-25), and its penalties, punishments, and curses (8:1-4)

              So the New Covenant is essentially a proper interpretation of the law? I don't think so.
              No, the main differences between the Old and New covenants is in the means of atonement, the power of that atonement, the priesthood which offers the sacrifice, and the Temple in which the sacrifice is offered. The New Covenant also involves God's law being written on our hearts and is available to everyone. Teaching how to understand and follow law was needed so that we could understand how it points toward Jesus and his atoning work.

              So all we really need to do is follow the Torah as interpreted by Christ? Where does the new birth/creation come into the picture here?
              We have died with Christ and our old sin nature has been nailed to the cross. We have been raised up to walk in newness of life. Our old sin nature is habitual Torah violation, but Christ died to set us free from sin and raised us up so that we can become slaves to habitual Torah obedience, which leads to righteousness and sanctification.

              Romans 6:17-18 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

              Where would the New Covenant and Apostolic teachings fit in for these people?
              I meant to say “in other words”, but Apostolic teaching would fit in just fine because the Apostles all continued to keep the Torah. For instance, in Peter’s vision in Acts 10, he insisted that he had never eaten anything unclean and Paul kept the Sabbath a number of times throughout Acts.

              "It is finished!"

              We are under the New Covenant purchased by the blood of Christ. We are under the Apostolic teachings on the New Covenant. We are empowered by the Spirit to obey Christ and His commandments - to love God and love others, and we are called to preach the gospel to Jew and Gentile - for it is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.
              Jesus was talking about his redemptive work on the cross. He paid the penalty for sin, not to free us to break his law, but to free us from bondage to sin, and empowered us by the Spirit so that we could keep it. The problem with the Old Covenant wasn’t with God’s Torah, but with our inability to keep it, so God made a new covenant with us that involves writing his Torah on our hearts, which only magnifies the importance of keeping it.

              I think the bolded is a fundamental error.
              I’m amazed that you can call that part an error because Mark 7:6-8 makes it very clear that’s what he’s criticizing them about. He spends Matthew 23 criticizing them for, among other things, not taking the Torah seriously enough (verse 3) and following it in the right way (verse 23). In Matthews 5:21 through the rest of the chapter, he was teaching about the right way to follow the Torah. The Greek word “paradosis” means “Jewish traditionary law”, so Paul also taught traditions to Gentiles for how the Torah should be kept:

              1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

              2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter

              2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

              Whenever Paul used the phrase “works of the law” the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that he was talking against other traditions for how the Torah should be kept. When kept correctly, the Torah is a delight to keep, as the Psalms make clear.
              "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

              Comment


              • #67
                Look we're all mixed up I said Leviticus 12:48 you said Genesis, it's actually Exodus 12:48 haha.
                /facepalm

                It’s in there somewhere. :P

                But yeah, he was talking about Jesus as the Passover, however since he was addressing both circumcised and uncircumcised such as in 1 Corinthians 7:18, it's not clear if he was talking to both or it was understood only to be for Jews. So to me that one's inconclusive.
                I’ll grant it’s possible that he could have been speaking to one or the other, but I don’t think the language supports that, and I see nothing that indicates that Gentiles weren’t keeping the feasts. In fact, the Colossians were being criticized for keeping them and Paul encouraged them to pay it no heed. The feasts teach important lessons about the Messiah, so that right there is a good reason to keep them even if you think they weren’t required. Paul at least continued to keep them:

                Acts 20:6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days.

                Acts 20:16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

                Acts 27:9 Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast[a] was already over, Paul advised them, (he fasted for Yom Kippur)
                "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                Comment


                • #68
                  Soy,

                  I think further dialogue is going to be fruitless, as I would only be repeating what I and others have been saying to you. With that said, I would just like to leave you with a few verses to meditate upon. And by all means, read them in context:

                  "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Gal. 2:21)

                  "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Gal. 3:10)

                  "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." (Gal. 3:12).

                  "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (Gal. 3:25).

                  "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Rom. 7:6).

                  But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. (2.Cor. 3:7-11).

                  Good discussion my friend, it's always an iron sharpening experience discussing these matters.

                  "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (2Cor. 11:23).
                  Last edited by Scrawly; 10-23-2014, 03:12 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Oh and of course, how can I forget:

                    "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Gal. 2:20).

                    God bless!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      OK, I'm seriously stopping now:

                      For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (Rom. 1:16-17).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Seriously, this is it:

                        "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4).

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          From the Jewish perspective some of these interpretations are way of the mark and actually I agree. It is really a stretch of unreasonable proportions, including the prophecies of 'virgin birth.'
                          As I said in the recent virgin birth thread here God promised David to always have a son on the throne which would be impossible to fulfill without resurrecting one of David's own sons to be that Messiah, the first possible candidate being the son who died for David's sin, as he had the promise before Solomon received and lost it. There's also the prophetic implication of dying for David's sin, then dying for everyone's sins, that points to Jesus.

                          Common Jewish objections are that Isaiah only refers to a young woman, and it was only for Ahaz in his time. However that's actually a stretch in the direction of being overly exclusive: those words were directed to the House of David, not just to Ahaz, and even Rashi's commentary on Isaiah 7:14 suggests that as a sign it would be an unusual birth not a regular one, such as to a barren woman.

                          Or as the NT says, to a virgin, which also carries a prophetic implication of the kingdom of Jesus coming out of righteous/virgin Israel vs. the kingdom of Solomon coming out of unrighteous/harlot Israel.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I have been over this several times before, and you are misrepresenting your own source. It clearly refers to 'a god' small 'g' which is consistent with OT scholarship and bears no relationship with the Christian belief in the Trinity, which defines Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as 'God' big 'G.' This is clearly Heresy even in the above mentioned Jewish belief.
                          The Haaretz headline used a small "g" but the person it quoted saying Rebbe is physical and also God used a big "G" -- it's there in the article did you read it? That view is almost exactly like the Christian view of Jesus physical and also God.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          All of the above is clearly within the Jewish tradition of sons of God, and human and gods small 'g,' which do not equate to the Christian belief of the Trinity, which is a polytheistic Heresy in Judaism.

                          Absolutely no, the OT concept of god small 'g.' The above reference to David bears no resemblance to the Christian belief of Jesus Christ as the INCARNATE GOD, big 'G.' There has never been a reference in the OT to an incarnate God, big 'G.'
                          As I stated Trinity is simply understanding another person of God in addition to a parallel masculine Father God and feminine Shekinah Spirit in Judaism. If the Christian 3-Person God is polytheistic so is Judaism's 2-Person God.

                          As I have explained the NT and basis in the Tanach don't claim that God turned into a man and came down from Heaven, although it may be a simplistic view of incarnation by some Christians. Rather, that Jesus was a fully human man and seed of David, who has the presence of God as David and others did, only Jesus has it fully and eternally.

                          As I said the real complaint is something like, to use an analogy:

                          If humans are like a glass and its volume is like the presence of God, it's ok to have the glass partly full with people like David, but not completely full with Jesus.

                          So it's another made-up limitation like the one regarding Isaiah 7:14.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                            I’ll grant it’s possible that he could have been speaking to one or the other, but I don’t think the language supports that, and I see nothing that indicates that Gentiles weren’t keeping the feasts. In fact, the Colossians were being criticized for keeping them and Paul encouraged them to pay it no heed. The feasts teach important lessons about the Messiah, so that right there is a good reason to keep them even if you think they weren’t required.
                            I agree there is good reason, I would prefer them to Christmas, Easter, etc. But I still have doubts they are required.

                            Some interpretations here are that they are criticized for not observing them:

                            Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

                            How do you conclude that they are being criticized for observing them, and how would you interpret the following?

                            Galations 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

                            Galations 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

                            I don't think Paul ever says they are a bad thing, rather he's speaking against doing it for the wrong reasons. But where uncircumcised Gentiles are concerned, there's question if he's saying do it and do it for the right reasons, or if he's saying, if you are doing it for the wrong reasons then don't do it at all. In which case he'd be implying that they aren't obligatory.

                            Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
                            Paul at least continued to keep them:

                            Acts 20:6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days.

                            Acts 20:16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

                            Acts 27:9 Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast[a] was already over, Paul advised them, (he fasted for Yom Kippur)
                            Yes I believe Paul remained observant and commanded other Jews to do the same (abiding in circumcision), we can agree on that completely.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
                              Colossians 2:6-8 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

                              Paul wrote Colossians to encourage them to continue doing what they've been taught and to resist teachings according to human tradition on elemental spirits. Later in the letter, he clarifies what those teachings are:

                              If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
                              Syncretism was a problems with Gentiles who often had baggage from their previous religion that they were joining a new religion with new rules, yet were remaining part of a pagan society. So Colossians were being criticized by those who were teaching asceticism and and severity to the body for eating, drinking, and keeping festivals. It doesn't make any sense for them to be criticized by those who were not eating for eating and then turn around and interpret that as saying they were being criticized by those who were eating kosher for not eating kosher. Maybe I'm wrong and they were being criticized both ways, so Paul was saying not to listen to either of them, but I don't think the text can be read that way without inserting your personal theology.

                              Acts 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

                              Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense for Paul to warn them not to be judged for not keeping the sabbath days if they were expect to learn about Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues.

                              How do you conclude that they are being criticized for observing them, and how would you interpret the following?
                              Galatians 4:8-10 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!

                              Again, Paul uses the same phrase of elemental principles or spirits, which we see in Colossians is referring to human teachings. Paul says he upheld the Torah and considered it to be holy, righteous, and good, so he would never talk about God's commands as being weak and worthless elementary principles of the world.

                              Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

                              Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
                              "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I think further dialogue is going to be fruitless, as I would only be repeating what I and others have been saying to you. With that said, I would just like to leave you with a few verses to meditate upon. And by all means, read them in context:
                                Yes, reading them in their context is important, so it's a shame that you ignore me when I try to point it out. It would be great if instead of just repeating yourself, you would actually read my responses and listened to what I'm saying. More and more people, such as N. T. Wright are starting realize a "Radical New Perspective" on Paul which reads him as never having laid aside his Jewish practice and belief. Shocking, I know, given that all Christians up until Acts 10 were Jews. Studying the Jewish culture has led many Christians to a much deeper understanding of the Bible and of their faith.

                                "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Gal. 2:21)
                                I completely agree that justification does not come from keeping the law and have never said anything to suggest otherwise. However, Christianity isn't just about whether you are justified or not, that's just the beginning of our walk of obedience to God's Torah.

                                "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Gal. 3:10)
                                If this is saying that anyone attempting to obey to Torah is under a curse, then that would apply to everyone who obeyed the 10 commandments. Rather, it is talking about relying on keeping the law for justification, which is requires perfect obedience to it, and is the wrong way of keeping it. It needs to be kept as if justification comes by faith, not by works.

                                Romans 9:30-32a 30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

                                "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." (Gal. 3:12).
                                Either you are justified through keeping all of God's commands or you are justified by faith in Jesus, but obeying them isn't just about justification, but also about sanctification.

                                "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (Gal. 3:25).
                                I've already responded to you quoting this verse, but again, you ignore me and repeat yourself without giving any thought to the conversation.

                                "If your father were king and you were a young child destined to rule one day, he would get a tutor to train you and teach you what you would need to know to rule the kingdom when your time came. He would give the tutor authority to teach, discipline, and punish you.

                                When your time came, would you immediately shoot your tutor, reject everything he had ever taught you, and then have the audacity to proclaim your actions to be in accordance with the wishes, desires, and intentions of your father the king? The tutor is not the king. He is given by the king to train those who will one day rule. They must be trained so that they can properly make decisions and act in the liberty, freedom, responsibility, and position they will one day have.

                                The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."

                                "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Rom. 7:6).
                                Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.

                                The law is not sin, but it tells us what sin is. Being released from the penalty for breaking the law through Christ paying it for us does not free us to sin.

                                "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." (2Cor. 11:23).
                                Indeed, it didn't take long for Satan to lead the church astray by divorcing itself from its Jewish roots.

                                "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Gal. 2:20).
                                Amen.

                                For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (Rom. 1:16-17).
                                Correct, and the fruit if faith is obedience to God's Torah.

                                "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4).

                                The Greek word "telos" can be translated "end", but it is more accurately translated as "goal". The clearest indication of this is all the athletic terms that Paul has been using since Romans 9:30. The chapter break is unfortunate because it kills the train of thought. This article makes a compelling argument for that being the correct translation:

                                http://www.godward.org/archives/spec...20of%20law.htm

                                God bless.
                                "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X