Jeremiah and the "New Covenant"

[fiddlerzvi]

I was accused of bluffing when I said that "new covenant" references did not necessarily apply to the Christian Bible. Gang -- I don't bluff.

Jeremiah 31 verses 30-33 (or 31-34, depending on the edition) is often cited by Christians who identify the new covenant (brit hadasha) mentioned there with Jesus or with their "New Testament". _The problem is, they don't read far enough; they seem to read only the first two verses.

The KJV says:
31 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:32 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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G-d, and they shall be my people.34 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 I will remember their sin no more.


The third verse is quite specific -- this is the covenant: my Torah ("Torah" is sometimes rendered as 'law' but is better rendered as 'teaching'), will be in everyone's heart, and (fourth verse) no one will teach anyone else about G-d, because all will know G-d. _Since Jesus didn't bring this about, he can't be this new covenant.


To put it more simply, if any of you try to teach about G-d to anyone else, then Jermiah 31:34 is still in the future.


You disagree? Tell me why. Tell me specifically which verse you think I have misunderstood and in what way.

[themuzicman]

1 John talks about this very subject, clarifying it nicely:

1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him."

Does this mean that no one preaches and teaches? No. It simply means that you need not have any other PERSON as your source for truth, but the Spirit. We can digest what others tell us and go to God directly to understand what IS true.

This is a major change from the OT, when people had to go to the teachers and pharisees and priests and those annointed by God.

Thus, I don't have to approach a fellow Christian and tell them to KNOW THE LORD, because they already know Him. And even if I speak truth to them, they are under no compulsion to accept what I say, because they have the Holy Spirit just as I do.

:Muz:

[Solly]

Isa 54.13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

John 6.37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

It is not intellectual knowledge that is being referred to, but relational, as yada often means in the OT. We shall know, and be known of him. I know my wife, but she still has to tell me things, and vicky verky.
The OT people knew God intellectually too often, but not in their hearts. God will overcome that, not only in people who are/were Jews, but in the Gentiles also. That is why we call him Father.

Just as Israel figures aspects of humanity in its failure, so it figures aspects of humanity as drawn to God, and a restored relationship with him.

You also might be conflating "Torah" with "Know God". Torah in the heart addresses their sins, and waywardness - they shall be guided by what is worked within - when ye turn to the left or to the right, ye shall hear a voice saying, this is the way, walk ye in it - not mere outward commandments that accomplished nothing, and didn't stop Israel being obliterated by the Assyrians and Babylonians because of their idolatry and backsliding.
Know God addresses their relationship; it deals with the focus of their lives, and why they would walk in paths of righteousness, to what end - to please God; which again they failed to do.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 04:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=169188#post169188)
fiddlerzvi:

I was accused of bluffing when I said that "new covenant" references did not necessarily apply to the Christian Bible. Gang -- I don't bluff.

Jeremiah 31 verses 30-33 (or 31-34, depending on the edition) is often cited by Christians who identify the new covenant (brit hadasha) mentioned there with Jesus or with their "New Testament". _The problem is, they don't read far enough; they seem to read only the first two verses.

Are you totally incapable of telling the truth? Is English a second language for you? You were NOT accused of anything. I asked you if your statement about Jeremiah was an empty boast. I believe there is a mitzva somewhere about bearing false witness. Or is lying to and about Goyim permitted?

And OBTW who is considered a neighbor, vice a stranger, in Judaism?
Gill Exposition of the Whole Bible

Verse 31. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,.... This refers to Gospel times, as is clear from the quotation and application by the apostle, Hebrews 8:8; and it is owned by a modern Jew {l} to belong to the times of the Messiah

{l} Abendana, not. in Miclol Yophi in loc.

Verse 33. But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord,.... The several articles or branches of the covenant next follow, which show it to be different from the former:

This passage is applied to future times, the times of the Messiah, by the Jews {m}:

{m} Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 3. 2.

[fiddlerzvi]

Oh goodie goodie, people are interested. I’ll answer Musik and Solly (but not posts from anyone who is abusive.)

My post:
Jeremiah 31 verses 30-33 (or 31-34, depending on the edition) is often cited by Christians who identify the new covenant (brit hadasha) mentioned there with Jesus or with their "New Testament". The problem is, they don't read far enough; they seem to read only the first two verses.

The KJV says: (Oops – there is one word different from the KJV translation – sorry for the carelessness.)
31 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:32 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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G-d, and they shall be my people.34 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 I will remember their sin no more.

The third verse is quite specific -- this is the covenant: my Torah (KJV renders "Torah" as 'law' but it is better rendered as 'teaching', or simply as 'Torah'), will be in everyone's heart, and (fourth verse) no one will teach anyone else about G-d, because all will know G-d. Since Jesus didn't bring this about, he can't be this new covenant.


To put it more simply, if any of you try to teach about G-d to anyone else, then Jermiah 31:34 is still in the future.
-------------------
Musizman says:
…1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you;...
Does this mean that no one preaches and teaches? No. It simply means that you need not have any other PERSON as your source for truth, but the Spirit. We can digest what others tell us and go to God directly to understand what IS true…

Zvi comments: Musik, whatever John means, that isn't what Jeremiah says. Are you saying Jeremiah is wrong?

Solly says: …It is not intellectual knowledge that is being referred to, but relational, as yada often means in the OT.

Zvi replys: First it says ‘lo yilmadu” – which refers to intellectual. Then comes the relational. Jeremiah says that with the new covenant people will have both kinds.
“Lo yilmadu” – they will not teach. But you are teaching, so that day hasn’t come.

Solly says: The OT people knew God intellectually too often, but not in their hearts.
Zvi replies: I can’t speak for your OT. That certainly isn’t true for my Tannach. If you want we can discuss the differences between the two.

Solly says: You also might be conflating "Torah" with "Know God".
Zvi repies: I’m quoting Jeremiah. Do you think he is conflating the two?
--------------
Hey -- if I left anything out -- let me know.

[Solly]

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=170937#post170937)
fiddlerzvi:
Solly says: …It is not intellectual knowledge that is being referred to, but relational, as yada often means in the OT.

Zvi replys: First it says ‘lo yilmadu” – which refers to intellectual. Then comes the relational. Jeremiah says that with the new covenant people will have both kinds.
“Lo yilmadu” – they will not teach. But you are teaching, so that day hasn’t come.

So, let me see, the Jews, the chosen people of God, the ones whom God saved out of Egypt, settled in Canaan, and then took out of Israel for their sins, will have to be taught the simple fact that God exists - that is, intellectual knowledge. If you look to the text, it says God will establish a covenant:


... not ..."to make an appointment," but "to conclude a covenant," to establish a relation of mutual duties and obligations. Every covenant which God concludes with men consists, on the side of God, in assurance of His favours and actual bestowal of them; these bind men to the keeping of the commands laid on them. The covenant which the Lord will make with all Israel in the future is called "a new covenant," as compared with that made with the fathers at Sinai, when the people were led out of Egypt; this latter is thus implicitly called the "old covenant."

The law of the Lord thus forms, in the old as well as in the new covenant, the kernel and essence of the relation instituted between the Lord and His people; and the difference between the two consists merely in this, that the will of God as expressed in the law under the old covenant was presented externally to the people, while under the new covenant it is to become an internal principle of life. Now, even in the old covenant, we not only find that Israel is urged to receive the law of the Lord his God into his heart, - to make the law presented to him from without the property of his heart, as it were, - but even Moses, we also find, promises that God will circumcise the heart of the people, that they may love God the Lord with all their heart and all their soul (Deu_30:6).

Covenants are relational; you need to know the other party, personally.

However, I do not teach anyone to know God in a relational sense; how can I, I am not a priest or a mediator. God is quite capable of introducing himself, and does so, through his Spirit. The action of men may be intellectual, but the results of God's work is not. We are fingers pointing at the moon, but we are not the moon. We preach and prach and preach, but it falls on deaf ears unless God is there first, making himself known.

Solly says: The OT people knew God intellectually too often, but not in their hearts.
Zvi replies: I can’t speak for your OT. That certainly isn’t true for my Tannach. If you want we can discuss the differences between the two.

Fiddler, firstly, if we are going to get into my OT/your tannach then there is no point talking. I can refer to a Hebrew text where necessary, and commentaries on such.

Secondly, unlike the Greek, the knowledge of God to the Hebrews was not a matter of speculation and intellection, but of relation and response; the whole history of Israel in the OT is one of signal failure in regard to God - this people draw nigh with their lips, but their heart is far from me; which my covenant they brake. That is intellectual knowledge, without heart knowledge - ie, relationship, because they didn't like what they had. But God will change that...

"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 I will remember their sin no more" - this is relational knowledge. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.

Notice that "I will be their God, and they shall be my people," reflects Lev 26:12 & Exo 29:45. Again, a covenant relationship is established, not mere intellection. Knowing God, not just the knowledge of God.

Solly says: You also might be conflating "Torah" with "Know God".
Zvi repies: I’m quoting Jeremiah. Do you think he is conflating the two?

No, I think you are.
The covenant, the one sided covenant is established; God's people are brought into right relationship with God through the forgiveness of their sins; their wandering hearts are dealt with by the law being written on their hearts, rather than on stone; and they know a God who has reconciled them through the forgiveness of their sins. These are things God teaches direct, but do not exclude the idea of instruction by men.

The correct understanding of the words results from a right perception of the contrast involved in them, viz., that under the old covenant the knowledge of the Lord was connected with the mediation of priests and prophets. Just as, at Sinai, the sinful people could not endure that the Lord should address them directly, but retreated, terrified by the awful manifestation of the Lord on the mountain, and said entreatingly to Moses, "Speak thou with us and we will hear, but let not God speak with us, lest we die" (Exo 20:15); so, under the old covenant economy generally, access to the Lord was denied to individuals, and His grace was only obtained by the intervention of human mediators. This state of matters has been abolished under the new covenant, inasmuch as the favoured sinner is placed in immediate relation to God by the Holy Spirit. Heb 4:16; Eph 3:12.


The sum is this; God will establish a new covenant relationship with his backslidden and exiled people - we leave aside the identification of his people at this time.
That covenant involves the personal knowledge of God, in covenant relationship; that covenant relationship will involve the forgiveness of sins - a very relational thing to do - and the writing of the law on the hearts of men - heart being the centre of their being - so that they follow him implicitly and willingly, rather than being handed some commandments written on stone, which they couldn't even follow for five minutes.

This new covenant is fulfilled in Messiah Jesus:
God has a people in all the world, not just among the OT Jews (I contend that modern Judaism is not Biblical Judaism, but Rabbinism)
We are forgiven through his substitutionary sacrifice, by God's design - you know that much, you seem quite informed about these things.
The Holy Spirit is sent forth to bring us into the covenant personally, and to write the law of God in our hearts.
We know God - as I can testify of myself; though I had read much about God, and rejected it, yet on the day he entered my life, I knew it was God. Only God can teach us that, men can't.
Which covenant is an everlasting covenant.

Extracts are from, Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the OT.

Num 6.24-26
Solly

[GrayPilgrim]

Differences between my OT and your Tanach--
Yours is ordered into three divisions, such that 2 Chronicles ends it.
Mine is ordered into four divisions ending with Malachai.


There that should about cover it. Unless of course I use this, which I prefer.

Gp

[fiddlerzvi]

Fiddler, firstly, if we are going to get into my OT/your tannach then there is no point talking....

...the whole history of Israel in the OT is one of signal failure in regard to God

You're right. There is no sense in my talking to you. Anyone who displays such utter contempt towards me and my people is not someone worth having a conversation with.

You people really do think highly of yourselves.

[GrayPilgrim]

Fiddler,

get off your high horse. You come in here speaking rather invectively, and when people return it you fail to see that they are only returning to you what you have already dished out. Solly was merely pointing out that your distinction is a red herring! There is no difference between the Tanach and the Protestant OT! So if you bring up red herrings, are shot down because of them, do not then imply any personal animosity. Your "poor vicitim routine", is most unbecoming.

[Solly]

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
Isa 1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: [but] Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
Isa 1:5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
Isa 1:6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head [there is] no soundness in it; [but] wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
Isa 1:7 Your country [is] desolate, your cities [are] burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and [it is] desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
Isa 1:8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
Isa 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
Isa 1:11 To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Isa 1:12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Isa 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them].
Isa 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
Isa 1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
Isa 1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Isa 1:19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
Isa 1:20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].
Isa 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
Isa 1:22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
Isa 1:23 Thy princes [are] rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
Isa 1:24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:
Isa 1:25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:
Isa 1:26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.
Isa 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.
Isa 1:28 And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners [shall be] together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed.
Isa 1:29 For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen.
Isa 1:30 For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water.
Isa 1:31 And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench [them].

Btw, you forget, Fiddler, our Saviour is a Jew.

[fiddlerzvi]

Today @ 05:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171795#post171795)
GrayPilgrim:

Fiddler,

get off your high horse. You come in here speaking rather invectively, and when people return it you fail to see that they are only returning to you what you have already dished out. Solly was merely pointing out that your distinction is a red herring! There is no difference between the Tanach and the Protestant OT! So if you bring up red herrings, are shot down because of them, do not then imply any personal animosity. Your "poor vicitim routine", is most unbecoming.

My problem with Solly is this comment -- "...the whole history of Israel in the OT is one of signal failure in regard to God." That he (and you) don't know the difference between the "protestant OT" and the Tannach doesn't bother me. If you want to know what differences I see, you'll ask. If you don't care, you wont.

Yes, I am speaking with invective. When I see comments to the effect that all Jews who are not apostates go to hell, that Jews should be hated (albeit in a limited context), that we are enemies of the gosple, and now that our whole history with G-d in the Bible is a failure -- hey -- yeah -- I get riled.

For one thing I remember what words like that often lead to. Maybe you've forgotten. The words themselves are bad enough, but all too often Christians haven't stopped with words.

[themuzicman]

"You guys aren't fitting my expectations of CHristians, so I'm putting my expectations on you, and then declaring myself the victim. You must now bow at my feet and beg forgiveness!" :hrm: :no:

Michael

[fiddlerzvi]

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172098#post172098)
themuzicman:

"You guys aren't fitting my expectations of CHristians, so I'm putting my expectations on you, and then declaring myself the victim. You must now bow at my feet and beg forgiveness!" :hrm: :no:

Michael

Imaginative paraphrase.

[Solly]

When I see comments to the effect that all Jews who are not apostates go to hell, that Jews should be hated (albeit in a limited context), that we are enemies of the gosple, and now that our whole history with G-d in the Bible is a failure -- hey -- yeah -- I get riled.


Imaginative paraphrase.

[bar Jonah]

No one here believes that Israel ALWAYS failed in her relationship with the Lord.

The point was that Israel repeatedly did so. And this is something one cannot deny without being blatantly intellectually dishonest.

What's more, every time Israel fell away from God's will, she found herself in tribulations. And everytime she returned to God's will, she was blessed, set above other nations, made to be undefeatable on the battlefield, bestowed with miracles, etc.

Where has Israel been for the last 2,000 years, I ask you?

I would be one of the first Christians at this website who would sincerely exclaim, "God bless Israel!" The previous paragraph is said not out of spite or invective, but is a plea out of love. Indeed, the whole of the Bible, both Tanakh and Brit Hadasha, are the greatest anti-Anti-Semitic work of literature in the history of humanity.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171795#post171795)
GrayPilgrim:

Fiddler,

get off your high horse. You come in here speaking rather invectively, and when people return it you fail to see that they are only returning to you what you have already dished out. Solly was merely pointing out that your distinction is a red herring! There is no difference between the Tanach and the Protestant OT! So if you bring up red herrings, are shot down because of them, do not then imply any personal animosity. Your "poor vicitim routine", is most unbecoming.

Amen!!! Does that Flame Warrior page have an image for the Long-Suffering Martyr?

(but not posts from anyone who is abusive.)


Well how do you ever read Joe Wallack's posts. You have no credibility after comments such as those. You need to exercise the other side of your mouth.

[bonehead]

This "new covenant" can be seen woven throughout the Old Testament in various ways, first the temporary or self made, then the permanent free gift

Adam & Eves clothes - they made for themselves clothes of leaves - G-d gave to them clothes of skin

Abraham`s son of the bondwoman, and son of the free

Isaac`s two sons, the birthright going to the younger

The tablets of the law, broken by Moses, then reconstructed

The tabernacle, then the temple

Isreal`s first king rejected for second

David`s rejection as builder of the temple (bloody hands)

are but a few, so I don`t see whats to gain by removing Jeramiah`s prophesy from the list! The new covenant was always in the plan! Why even our lives fit this theme, we live our temporary now looking with hope for our permanent!

[fiddlerzvi]

This "new covenant" can be seen woven throughout the Old Testament in various ways, first the temporary or self made, then the permanent free gift ...

Of course you can read it into the text if you want. You can read anything into the text if you want. You can even 'prove' that a rooster is the messiah if you quote out of context.

The point is that if you try to say that Jeremiah is prophecying the Christian Bible (or Jesus) when he speaks of a new covenant, then you have problems with the text, because the new covenant that Jerimiah describes -- and he gets pretty specific -- doesn't fit.

[dizzle]

It sure does fit quite well in the full revelation, and as you say Fiddler (at least for you, and I suspect you don't believe in a literal messiah anyways so your bellyaching is moot - i.e. you don't believe in the OT so it is no surprise you don't believe in the NT) - the prophets were not inerrant. (mind you that is not my opinon - I am just pointing out your very prevalent tactic of arguing where it suits you)

[fiddlerzvi]

It sure does fit quite well in the full revelation,...

Of course it does. If you draw the target around the arrow you'll get a bullseye every time.

and as you say Fiddler (at least for you, and I suspect you don't believe in a literal messiah anyways so your bellyaching is moot - i.e. you don't believe in the OT so it is no surprise you don't believe in the NT)

RIght. I don't believe in a personal messiah or in the infallibility of any text. I assume that you're not interested in arguments from that POV, so I often take the orthodox POV because that is what you think you are refuting.

Now, if at times I don't make clear whether I'm speaking my own ideas or quoting what I think Orthodox would say, cut me a little slack. I don't claim to walk on water. (Interesting metaphor, Zvi.)

- the prophets were not inerrant.
Yes -- some impeccably orthodox and pious Jews say that the Writings, and others the Writings and the Prophets are not infallible. Not all say that, but some do.

(mind you that is not my opinon - I am just pointing out your very prevalent tactic of arguing where it suits you)

Assume a malicious intent if you want but tell me -- DO you care what the points of liberal Judaism are?