“Israel My People”

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 118
#31
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

The teachings of the NT are based on those of the OT (or your holy writings). Your holy writings are also our holy writings. What was promised in your holy writings Christians claim met their fulfillment in the NT times. 
Yes, that is the claim.
It is verified in many ways with reasonable evidence. 




The OT is a constant revelation of a disobedient people, a people who failed to live according to the teachings of the book or covenant (Exodus 24:3,7). God continually sent prophets and teachers to your people who continually rejected them and pursued foreign gods and things that by nature are not God. God continually warned them that if they continued this way they would receive judgment. Your ancestors did not listen. Thus, in AD 70 God brought the curses of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards) against His chosen people. He brought divorce to Judah as He had previously brought divorce on Israel.
And this is also the claim. There have certainly been judgments over time, but not one which invalidates the relationship between God and the Jewish people.
It is not a claim. It is in your own writings. The OT people agreed to follow God's laws in all their ways. They kept seeking foreign gods. That is evidenced in the OT. You and I interpret Daniel 9:24-27 in different ways. 

How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?

How many can you identify that speak of another judgment on Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest? How many of these have been fulfilled? 


In AD 70 God selected a new bride with a new covenant, the people Jesus was betrothed to.  
Again, that is what you claim, and that's very nice. It is just irrelevant to Jewish people.
Did God divorce the Northern Kingdom - Israel? Was the Southern Kingdom left standing? Did God bring a judgment to the Southern Kingdom in AD 70? Did God promise a new covenant in Jeremiah?

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,



After AD 70 there is no more Levitical priesthood (that God had sanctioned as the mediator between Israel and Himself).
So you believe.
Where are the animal sacrifices? Where are the Levitical priests? The NT explains the transition and what happened confirms its writings. This can be logically and reasonably confirmed.



There is no more animal sacrifice to bring the offer of atonement on the Day of Atonement. There are no more feast day sacrifices required under the Law of Moses. 
Fortunately, Jewish law had already taken this into account.
Does it follow the Torah? If so, please document how. 


Thus, you cannot worship God as He required you to under the Mosaic Covenant. It no longer exists. If it did you would still be bringing your sacrifices to God via it and through the Levitical priesthood. 
And you say this because you don't understand what the full Mosaic Covenant is. That's OK. But because you have limited knowledge and have decided on a required series of events predicated on that limited knowledge, you come to erroneous conclusions.
I go, in large, on the knowledge of those who were 1st-century Jews that are recorded in the NT. I go on the evidence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. I go on the fact that the OT prophecies cannot be fulfilled after AD 70. They address an OT people who are in covenant relationship with God. The means they are charged with atoning for sin are no longer available after AD 70.  




Daniel 2:44 predicted God setting up His eternal kingdom during the time of the fourth kingdom or empire. Which kingdom do you identify this to be? 
The remnants of what is called the Roman exile -- what we are still in now.

How do you figure that? It is not the same kingdom or empire. The four kingdoms would affect the Jewish people and they did. 
#32
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
How good is scripture hey ?
I mean, you wouldn't have ya god speak anything but. 

Good game.
Good game. 
#33
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
It is verified in many ways with reasonable evidence. 

Well, evidence that you, self-servingly, think of as reasonable. Not exactly a paradigm of intellectual integrity but whatever.

How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?
You really don't understand Judaism, right? Some day, after you have had a very basic course in Judaism and Jewish texts, we can continue this. You have yet to define terms you throw around.

Did God promise a new covenant in Jeremiah?
Well, no, not exactly. God promised that the same old content would be instilled directly into the hearts of the Jews in a mode which made traditional "teaching" unnecessary. This renewed covenant is the topic.

Where are the animal sacrifices? Where are the Levitical priests? The NT explains the transition and what happened confirms its writings. This can be logically and reasonably confirmed.
The priests are all around. Go to any Jewish community and ask. The sacrifices? they are in the early parts of each day's prayers. Just check a prayer book and you will see. Judaism already knows what happened. Your texts are unnecessary but thanks.

Does it follow the Torah? If so, please document how. 
First, you need to take a course on biblical atonement and exactly which sins any sacrifice could expiate. Then you'd need to learn about what was acceptable as even that limited sacrifice. You can also study the other methods, judicial and interpersonal, the text details as methods of atonement. And finally, you should study up on what the corpus of Jewish law is composed of.

I go, in large, on the knowledge of those who were 1st-century Jews that are recorded in the NT. I go on the evidence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. I go on the fact that the OT prophecies cannot be fulfilled after AD 70. They address an OT people who are in covenant relationship with God. The means they are charged with atoning for sin are no longer available after AD 70.  
Oh. That's cute. I go by the knowledge of those who were Jews from 500 years before to 400 years after. I ignore the fallacious texts which present stories which people confuse with "evidence."

How do you figure that? It is not the same kingdom or empire. The four kingdoms would affect the Jewish people and they did. 
I don't figure that -- that has been the standard Jewish understanding for over 1000 years
Topic's author
#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
How do you reconcile Matthew 28?

Not for me to "reconcile", is it. But of course, as per usual, nations meant something slightly different BC early AD than it does today. Over half the references to "nations" in the OT are negative, ex,  Leviticus 18:28 it meant vomit. A "drop in a bucket" and "dust on the scales"Isaiah 40:15. "Slaves" in Leviticus 25:44.


But I think it can be safely said that in this instance it means tribes. It was a uniting mission,exactly as King David had done that Jesus was trying to achieve. He knew he couldn't take on the Romans with the nations/tribes divided. So " Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,"  could easily be interpreted as -  'go out to all the tribes of Israel and bring back the lost sheep into the sheepfold' - as it clearly states "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."

It is for the theist to reconcile this:
 
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

with this>>

Matthew 10:5-6 
 
These Twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, [anyone NOT of  Jacob /Israel from whom the 12 tribes came] and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


  And we have a clue here when god is said to have told Abram renamed Abraham;> 

Genesis 12:2 "I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

Well when we read that, we see the 12 tribes that sprang from him eventually created one great tribe/nation : ISRAEL.

Topic's author
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
my favourite theologian is marcion of sinope who gave up trying to reconcile the OT and NT and wrote that there are or were two gods,(ie not one)and threw out the OT entirely.  Perhaps the most surprising thing is that he wasn't burned at the stake for it!

I agree, and even now, in this new age, christians, I believe are worshiping the wrong god.
It is all to do with "houses" and which "god" is the ruler of any given age. i.e Abraham,Moses = Ram = Aries who supported the god of that house and this is why that there are many references to the "ram", "rams horns" ect  is mentioned many times during this period in the OT.. Before this period it was the age of Taurus, the Bull and the gods supported by the Pharaohs. You may recall, when the Hebrews were starving and wondering through the parched desert and fed up of Moses barking orders and going awol every other day, they decided it was time they went back to supporting the "old god" and made a calf/bull of gold.
 
 There is also this verse that gives a clue to what was actually going on when Joseph -  he of many colours - Genesis 46:33-34 tells is shepherd family to lie to Pharaoh, saying:


 "And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation?"

"That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians".

There of course is only one explanation for Pharaoh believing every shepherd to be an "abomination". It is because the shepherds supported the Ram god of the house of Aries. 

When Jesus entered the picture that age was coming to an end and the house of the Fish,Pisces was on the horizon. this is why we have many references to fish and fishermen and people being made fishers of men etc. 

Now by all accounts, the age of the fish has also passed. And an interesting clue to that maybe that when a pope dies normally his ring is destroyed and a new "fisherman's ring" is issued to the newly elected Pope. But not in the last case. The fisherman's ring of  Pope Benedict XVI was kept and put into the vatican museum where it is on public view. Interesting also is that Benedict retired, when these posts are supposed to be until death. He was the first pope to retire in over 600 years. Those that "retired" before are suspicious as to whether they were pushed or they jumped.

AND

I don't believe that is was any coincidence that in the same timeframe that the Pope stood down that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams decided to retire too.

AND

who can forget this little telling gem from jesus?

Luke 12:56 Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?

What a giveaway!

#36
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
There of course is only one explanation for Pharaoh believing every shepherd to be an "abomination". It is because the shepherds supported the Ram god of the house of Aries.
It's far from the 'only one explanation', and I don't think it is the most likely one.

I don't think it has anything to do with gods or religion,   I would look to this sort of thing as a less fanciful grounds for the cattle-keeping Egyptians to want to keep sheep out.



Topic's author
#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I would look to this sort of thing as a less fanciful grounds for the cattle-keeping Egyptians

 Yes you probably would  and I believe that  you have purposely missed the point prosser?

It wasn't that they were literal shepherds, (although they must have owned sheep) you clown. It was because they worshipped another god, The god whose sign in the sky was the Aries, the Ram. Whereas the god of gods in Egypt was Amen whose sign was the BULL , Taurus. This is not "fanciful" these are facts. 

The ancients were obsessed with astronomy/astrology, everything was to do with the sky/the heavens and  whose time it was to rule was one of them. Jesus knew the puppet priests didn't have a clue as to who's time it was to rule because they hadn't been taught the " secrets of the heavens"  ASTRONOMY!  The wars began when one house refused to relinquish power to the incoming house as was the rules dictated thousand of years ago when "the heavens" were first mapped out.. This is what split Israel eventually until David reunited the tribes for a war against the Hittites he knew he couldn't win alone and  Just as Jesus was attempting to do. 

Luke 12:56 Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time? The present AGE in other words. 
#38
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
As you say it is for the faithful to reconcile the anomalies.  i look forward to pga's rebuttal!

I'm am not very interested in rubbing theists' noses in the many, many issues there are in the text.   I'd say that Matthew's gospel indicates that early Christians were themselves confused as to which direction to go - were they to be a sect within judaism or something radically new?  it seems possible that the judaic faction in jerusalem shunted the radicalist Paul off to do his thing outside Israel where - they hoped - he could do less harm!

Unfortunately the first few decades/centuries of Christianity's development and growth are a documentary desert.

Topic's author
#39
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
Well this thread is about Israel being a chosen people and it seems not just any gentile riff raff like me could be a part of IS- RA -EL.

I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother. Or it could have been a real Egyptian born in Egypt of an Egyptian mother? 
#40
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother.

I'm not sure where you read that (unless you happen to read Syrian). Under Jewish law, people can convert to Judaism and be as much a "real" Jew (whatever that is) as any other Jew. In fact, a number of Egyptians left Egypt with the Children of Israel and adopted the identity as one of the children of Israel during the Exodus (even without a formal conversion).
#41
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@rosends
Well ya not a Real jew if you have a foreskin are you. 




Topic's author
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
 I'm not sure where you read that (unless you happen to read Syrian). Under Jewish law, people can convert to Judaism and be as much a "real" Jew (whatever that is) as any other Jew.
looks like we both have a case. I just quickly searched this


"Israel's Law of Return stipulates that a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother or someone who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion".The Israeli Chief Rabbinate requires documents proving the Jewishness of one’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother when applying for marriage. The Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) has underlined the basic principle that a child is not recognised by the OCR and other bodies as Jewish unless his or her mother is Jewish, or they underwent a conversion recognized by the body.
#43
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Well ya not a Real jew if you have a foreskin are you. 

A man or a woman? A man is a real Jew regardless of the presence of a foreskin. A woman with a foreskin is a totally separate conversation.
#44
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
The Israeli LOR is pretty clear -- maternal link or proper conversion makes one a Jew. The initial claim was "I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother." The LOR proves that to be wrong.
Topic's author
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
Don't waste my time with semantics. it agrees with what I stated  what " I thought I remembered".


HERE>>>  "I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother." #39

The link I posted states  ""Israel's Law of Return stipulates that a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother".  #42

So its all to do with the MATERNAL and NOT the PATERNAL..LOOK>>>

The Israeli Chief Rabbinate requires documents proving the Jewishness of one’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother when applying for marriage. 

So from memory that wasn't at off or even near off it was right on the money. There is no need to respond to this post.
#46
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Sure there is a need to respond. You are ignoring what the LOR says.

Your claim was "I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother."

In a sense, your claim was 100% right -- you think you remembered hearing something and no one can take your thought away from you.

But what you heard was completely wrong: you include the word "unless" which means to the exclusion of all other factors. And yet, the LOR clearly gives 2 options, not the singular one which you remember as hearing to be the only method. [...or someone who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion]

It isn't semantics to point out how your claim that only 1 method is acceptable is contradicted by the LOR which gives 2 methods.

You don't need to respond to this post. You should, however, be careful about posting vague memories that don't comport with facts.
Topic's author
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
Sure there is a need to respond. You are ignoring what the LOR says.

 I posted what it says here it is again. It is all to do with the MATERNAL and nothing to do with the PATERNAL/

HERE>>>  "I think I remember reading once that one isn't a " real" Jew unless born of a Jewish thoroughbred mother." #39

The link I posted states  ""Israel's Law of Return stipulates that a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother".  #42

So its all to do with the MATERNAL and NOT the PATERNAL..LOOK>>>

The Israeli Chief Rabbinate requires documents proving the Jewishness of one’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother when applying for marriage. 

So from memory, I wasn't far off. Now go and play your silly semantics on someone else. 

#48
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So from memory, I wasn't far off

If you think that omitting half the equation isn't far off, then you should be very comfortable with your position. You said "unless." That means you discounted all conversion. The law includes maternal line and conversion. It would be simpler if you could simply accept that your memory (however accurate to your experience) was in error and you have learned something. Instead you are letting your ego drive the discourse, refusing to accept that you might not know everything.
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

It is verified in many ways with reasonable evidence. 

Well, evidence that you, self-servingly, think of as reasonable. Not exactly a paradigm of intellectual integrity but whatever.
Have you considered maybe it is your evidence that you think of as reasonable that is self-serving? 


How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?
You really don't understand Judaism, right? Some day, after you have had a very basic course in Judaism and Jewish texts, we can continue this. You have yet to define terms you throw around.
Here is a list from Judaism 101:


The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
  • Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
  • Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
  • Ezekiel 38:16
  • Hosea 3:4-3:5
  • Micah 4
  • Zephaniah 3:9
  • Zechariah 14:9
  • Daniel 10:14
They are recognized by Jews. Do you adhere to this list?



Did God promise a new covenant in Jeremiah?
Well, no, not exactly. God promised that the same old content would be instilled directly into the hearts of the Jews in a mode which made traditional "teaching" unnecessary. This renewed covenant is the topic.
While this is partly true, in that He would instill the law directly into the hearts of His people, He also promised a new covenant. 

30 Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
 


31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.

God compares His relationship with Israel in that covenant to a husband in other Scripture. 

Where are the animal sacrifices? Where are the Levitical priests? The NT explains the transition and what happened confirms its writings. This can be logically and reasonably confirmed.
The priests are all around. Go to any Jewish community and ask. The sacrifices? they are in the early parts of each day's prayers. Just check a prayer book and you will see. Judaism already knows what happened. Your texts are unnecessary but thanks.
How do you know the priestly line is unbroken from Aaron?

So are you still sacrifices animals on an altar? For instance, do you still follow Leviticus 5:6 (ESV)
6 he shall bring to the Lord as his compensation for the sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Do you still sacrifice animals on the Day of Atonement?

Here are the 613 Mosaic Commands:



Exodus 24:3, 7
3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do."

7 And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear."


Are you still following the Covenant in all the Lord God has spoken?



#50
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends




Does it follow the Torah? If so, please document how. 
First, you need to take a course on biblical atonement and exactly which sins any sacrifice could expiate. Then you'd need to learn about what was acceptable as even that limited sacrifice. You can also study the other methods, judicial and interpersonal, the text details as methods of atonement. And finally, you should study up on what the corpus of Jewish law is composed of.
I can read the OT. I understand the substitutionary nature of the atonement. I understand the five Levitical offerings and how they apply - the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering.  I understand the seven feast day offerings as they relate to the NT. Everything that Moses told the Israelites to construct was a pattern of a greater truth, a spiritual truth.

Exodus 25:8-9
8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst
9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do.

I can read the OT just like you can. I also understand the spiritual significance of that pattern which the Jews have missed. In every OT writing, there is a picture, a shadow, a type of the Mashiach!


I go, in large, on the knowledge of those who were 1st-century Jews that are recorded in the NT. I go on the evidence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. I go on the fact that the OT prophecies cannot be fulfilled after AD 70. They address an OT people who are in covenant relationship with God. The means they are charged with atoning for sin are no longer available after AD 70.  
Oh. That's cute. I go by the knowledge of those who were Jews from 500 years before to 400 years after. I ignore the fallacious texts which present stories which people confuse with "evidence."
What are the earliest historical records you have of these Jewish writings? How accurately do you believe they have been kept? What is your proof?

What are the earliest copies of the Jewish Torah and Tanakh that you have available today? What century do they date back to?


How do you figure that? It is not the same kingdom or empire. The four kingdoms would affect the Jewish people and they did. 
I don't figure that -- that has been the standard Jewish understanding for over 1000 years

1,000 years? That does not date back to the 1st-century when God judged the nation of Israel with the destruction of its temple and city with the Roman armies.





#51
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Have you considered maybe it is your evidence that you think ofas reasonable that is self-serving? 
 
Sure, and I can understand why anyone outside my system mightthink that. This makes it as persuasive to you as your “evidence” does to me.
 
 
“How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference tothe Messiah?
 
“The following passages in the Jewishscriptures are the ones that Jewsconsider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These arethe ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
 
 
Oh boy. You really need to read a bit more carefully. The jewfaqlist specifically says that it is of verses that Jews “consider to be messianicin nature” or which relate to the end of days. You asked about verses that are “areference to the Messiah.” Those verses do relate to a messianic concept, as domany, many others, but that doesn’t clarify anything because you still don’tunderstand the terms and how the Jewish vision of a messiah works.
 
 
“While this is partly true, in that He would instill the lawdirectly into the hearts of His people, He also promised a new covenant. 
 
Yes, but in what sense was it “new”? Only in the way it isformed with the people, not in its content. So the Torah and all of its lawsand expectations stay the same. So we expect in the future a “new” covenant asone that makes the Torah and all of Judaism inscribed on our hearts. You seemto advocate a totally new-content covenant which the text doesn’t point to.
 
“How do you know the priestly line is unbroken from Aaron?
 
We don’t. We have a chezkas kahuna. The claim was that we don’thave priests. We do.
 
“So are you still sacrifices animals on an altar? For instance,do you still follow Leviticus 5:6 (ESV)
 
“Do you still sacrifice animals on the Day of Atonement?
Of course not. The fact that you ask means that you don’tunderstand Jewish law and are imposing what you think it should be onto it. Youjust happen to be wrong.
 
“Are you still following the Covenant in all the Lord God hasspoken?
I’m trying, every day. I’m following the laws that I am bound byvia the Torah (which is the content of the covenant).
 

#52
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
 I can read the OT. I understand the substitutionary nature ofthe atonement. I understand the five Levitical offerings and how theyapply - the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sinoffering, and the trespass offering.  I understand the seven feast dayofferings as they relate to the NT. Everything that Moses told the Israelitesto construct was a pattern of a greater truth, a spiritual truth.
 
No, everything Moses instructed was a set of laws to live by,and we do. And that you think of a sacrifice as substitutionary simply meansthat you are reading your belief into the text.
 
 
“ I can read the OT just like you can.
 
See, here’s your problem. First, that you think I read the “OT”which I don’t. Next, that you think that that “OT” text somehow encompasseswhat Judaism is and your literal reading in English gives you insights thatpeople within Judaism don’t get.
 
“I also understand the spiritual significance of that patternwhich the Jews have missed. In every OT writing, there is a picture, a shadow,a type of the Mashiach!
 
That is certainly your (arrogant) opinion. We do just finereading it and understanding it without inserting your wishful thinking intoit.
 
 
“What are the earliest historical records you have of theseJewish writings? How accurately do you believe they have been kept? What isyour proof?
 
We have the Mishna which dates to well before the common era. Thediscussions explicating it developed before the common era and continued untilthe text of the Talmud was fixed a couple of hundred years later. You must befamiliar with the Oral law – it was the teachings of the Pharisees which Jesussaid the people should follow, and it was the Talmud which he referenced (atleast 6 different tractates are referenced in Matthew 5 and 6).
 
 
“1,000 years? That does not date back to the 1st-century whenGod judged the nation of Israel with the destruction of its temple and citywith the Roman armies.
 
 
I never said it did. I’m just referencing a writtencommentary which answered your question 1000 years ago.

#53
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

Have you considered maybe it is your evidence that you think of as reasonable that is self-serving? 
 
Sure, and I can understand why anyone outside my system mightthink that. This makes it as persuasive to you as your “evidence” does to me.
And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in a religious box, IMO. 

 
 
“How many passages of the OT can you identify as a reference to the Messiah?
 
“The following passages in the Jewishscriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
 
 
Oh boy. You really need to read a bit more carefully. The jewfaqlist specifically says that it is of verses that Jews “consider to be messianic in nature” or which relate to the end of days. You asked about verses that are “a reference to the Messiah.” Those verses do relate to a messianic concept, as do many, many others, but that doesn’t clarify anything because you still don’tunderstand the terms and how the Jewish vision of a messiah works.
This again is your assumption, yet you do nothing but assert what is and is not without a shred of reasonable evidence in most of your responses. 

 
 
“While this is partly true, in that He would instill the law directly into the hearts of His people, He also promised a new covenant. 
 
Yes, but in what sense was it “new”? Only in the way it is formed with the people, not in its content. So the Torah and all of its lawsand expectations stay the same. So we expect in the future a “new” covenant asone that makes the Torah and all of Judaism inscribed on our hearts. You seemto advocate a totally new-content covenant which the text doesn’t point to.
In the sense that it was a covenant of grace, not works. Do you know what separates Christianity from every other religion? It is a covenant of grace in which God accomplishes what we could not do. The Jews demonstrate repeatedly through the OT that they cannot live by the covenant they agreed to with God. The Mosaic Covenant is just such a covenant of works. It is what the human does that puts them right with God. The NT of grace is what God did in Jesus Christ that the Jew nor Gentile could ever do - that is live a perfectly righteous life before God.  

 
“How do you know the priestly line is unbroken from Aaron?
 
We don’t. We have a chezkas kahuna. The claim was that we don’thave priests. We do.
Again, you are speaking Hebrew to me; in other words, you are speaking above my head with language that is technical to a gentile. 

Deuteronomy 18:5 For the Lord, your God, has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand and serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons, all the days.

So you have no way of knowing if the priest traces his lineage back to Aaron. Therefore, the priesthood today may not be sanctioned by God. You don't know.


 
“So are you still sacrifices animals on an altar? For instance,do you still follow Leviticus 5:6 (ESV)
 
“Do you still sacrifice animals on the Day of Atonement?
Of course not. The fact that you ask means that you don’t understand Jewish law and are imposing what you think it should be onto it. You just happen to be wrong.
The fact that I asked was to hear it from you, not because I don't understand this but to prove the point from you that your people are not following the law as they agreed to follow it. Thus, they are not living by the covenant. They continually broke it. Thus God brought the curses/judgments of the Law upon them.

 
“Are you still following the Covenant in all the Lord God has spoken?
I’m trying, every day. I’m following the laws that I am bound by via the Torah (which is the content of the covenant).

So, again it is a covenant of works. You do what you can, somewhat unsuccessfully by the sounds of it, because you are bound by the works of the Law, living according to the letter of the Law, yet you can't follow the sacrificial system as prescribed in the OT.

***

What do you know of the divorce of Judah and the remarriage of Israel?



Topic's author
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in a religious box, IMO. 

Cough, splutter kettle cough, choke, black choke, cough splutter calling, splutter pot, choke splutter cough. Excuse me while I clean up my keyboard!
#55
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
“ And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in areligious box, IMO. 
 
Absolutely true and I’m ok if people want to stay in their ownboxes. All I chafe at is people telling me I don’t understand my own box.
 
 
“This again is your assumption, yet you do nothing but assertwhat is and is not without a shred of reasonable evidence in most of yourresponses. 
 
So are you saying that you have a clear understanding of thedifference between “messiah” and “messianic concept”? If so, why quote versesabout the latter and then ask about the former? Are you saying that youunderstand the Jewish concept of what makes any messiah (there were many)? Great -- then you won't ask what you asked.
 
 
“In the sense that it was a covenant of grace, not works. Do youknow what separates Christianity from every other religion? It is a covenant ofgrace in which God accomplishes what we could not do.
 
Perfect. So what separates you is a covenant which does not existin the Jewish understanding. That’s fine.
 
“The Jews demonstrate repeatedly through the OT that they cannotlive by the covenant they agreed to with God. The Mosaic Covenant is just sucha covenant of works. It is what the human does that puts them right with God.The NT of grace is what God did in Jesus Christ that the Jew nor Gentile couldever do - that is live a perfectly righteous life before God.  
 
The Jews demonstrate that the covenant we have, one of laws andways of living, is a current and constant relationship which we work towards,hoping to get to the point when living by it will become automatic and not astruggle against any evil inclination.
 
“Again, you are speaking Hebrew to me; in other words, you arespeaking above my head with language that is technical to a gentile. 
 
I am answering your question with a precise answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_priestly_descent
 
“Therefore, the priesthoodtoday may not be sanctioned by God. You don't know.
 
What we do know is that the legal system which establishes thepriests IS sanctioned by God 9 (Deut 17:9). The system holds so the aspects of the systemhold.
 
“The fact that I asked was to hear it from you, not because Idon't understand this but to prove the point from you that your people are notfollowing the law as they agreed to follow it.
 
No, you just don’t know the law so you suppose that we areto follow it based on your limited understanding.
 
“Thus, they are not living by the covenant. Theycontinually broke it. Thus God brought the curses/judgments of the Lawupon them.
 
Only according to your version of the covenant. It just sohappens, it was never the same as our understanding of the covenant so we aren’tbound by your lack of knowledge.

“ So, again it is a covenant of works. You do what you can,somewhat unsuccessfully by the sounds of it, because you are bound by theworks of the Law, living according to the letter of the Law, yet you can'tfollow the sacrificial system as prescribed in the OT.
 
You have 2 different statements here. The first is that I amtrying to live by the law. Sure, not completely successfully, but I try, andthe law makes provisions for how I can improve. The second, about sacrifices,just exemplifies what you don’t understand. Sacrifices were never the end alland be all of Jewish worship, nor were they always necessary. In fact, theywere allowed to be made only at very specific times and with myriad other conditions.We had other systems already in place to supplement and even replace sacrificeswhen the conditions didn’t allow for them.
 
Here is some light reading https://outreachjudaism.org/god-divorce-israel/

#56
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

 I can read the OT. I understand the substitutionary nature of the atonement. I understand the five Levitical offerings and how they apply - the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering.  I understand the seven feast day offerings as they relate to the NT. Everything that Moses told the Israelites to construct was a pattern of a greater truth, a spiritual truth.
 
No, everything Moses instructed was a set of laws to live by, and we do. And that you think of a sacrifice as substitutionary simply means that you are reading your belief into the text.
Your oldest complete text of the Hebrew Bible is The Leningrad Codex, dated to 1008 CE, translated by the Masoretes. The Aleppo Codex is considered older but sections such as the Torah are missing since 1947. "[N]o more than 294 of the original (estimated) 487 pages survived...only the last few pages of the Torah are extant."

Maimonides endorsed it as the most trusted text.


The Masoretic text "is not the original text (Urtext) of the Hebrew Bible. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century."

The oldest copy of the Mishna, the Codex Kaufmann is dated between 950-1050 CE. 

The earliest Christian writings of the OT are traced from around the mid-3rd to 2nd centuries BC, the Septuagint (seventy-two interpreters, six from each of the twelve tribes), a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

"Pre-Christian Jews Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.[14][52] Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.
Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the Septuagint. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the Septuagint, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the Septuagint with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[26]Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel."

"The relationship between the apostolic use of the Old Testament, for example, the Septuagint and the now lost Hebrew texts (though to some degree and in some form carried on in Masoretic tradition) is complicated. The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9.[55] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts. (Matt 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Hosea 11:1.) The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[5][27][56]"

"In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example, Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin (Greek παρθένος, bethulah in Hebrew) that shall conceive.,[57] while the word almah in the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.[58]"

"The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century."
#57
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends


And that you think of a sacrifice as substitutionary simply meansthat you are reading your belief into the text.
The OT or Hebrew Bible contains various references to the sacrifice as representing them by their laying of hands on the animal. The animal was used to atone for their sins, thus it was a substitution. It was not their blood that was shed yet it provided the atonement for THEIR sins. 

sub·sti·tu·tion

noun

  1. the action of replacing someone or something with another person or thing.

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.

Leviticus 4:14-15
14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting. 15 Then the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord, and the bull shall be slain before the Lord.

He shall also do with the bull just as he did with the bull of the sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.

So the offering and the shed blood was a substitute. It was not their blood. 

4And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] upon the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to atone for him.

14When the sin which they had committed becomes known, the congregation shall bring a young bull as a sin offering. They shall bring it before the Tent of Meeting.

15The elders of the community shall lean their hands [forcefully] upon the bull's head, before the Lord, and one shall slaughter the bull before the Lord.

20And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] upon the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to atone for him.

I think your charge is misrepresentative of the plain language presented.

#58
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends

“ I can read the OT just like you can.
 
See, here’s your problem. First, that you think I read the “OT”which I don’t. Next, that you think that that “OT” text somehow encompasses what Judaism is and your literal reading in English gives you insights that people within Judaism don’t get.
You think that your versions of Scripture predate the earlier dated versions and that your versions are properly translated whereas ours are not. You trace your earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Bible to the 900-1050 CE, whereas we trace our earliest copies to the 3rd and 4th centuries. We have lots of earlier copies in comparison. The Mishna did not like the Christological references in the Septuagint so it would give them a reason to ignore or change them. Some Dead Sea Scrolls contain Septuagint reading. So, I have reasons to question your interpretations. 

"Rabbinic Judaism, also called Rabbinism, has been the mainstream form of Judaism since the 6th century CE, after the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. Growing out of Pharisaic Judaism, [AD70] Rabbinic Judaism is based on the belief that at Mount Sinai, Moses received from God the Written Torah (Pentateuch) in addition to an oral explanation, known as the "Oral Torah," that Moses transmitted to the people."

So, from the 4th-6th centuries your system of belief has been identified in writing, tracing back to AD70 and the Pharisees, then to Moses through not only the written Torah but also oral tradition. BUT you have as your earliest extant copy of your traditions and Scriptures one that dates to the 900's and another that dates to around 1008CE. So what evidence do you have that your Hebrew Scriptures are more reliable than the Christian OT? 

If you can't produce any then I contend that the codification of the Scriptures as contained in the Christian Bible is more reliable than yours and that it was not us but your Rabbinical scholars who altered the wording.  
 
“I also understand the spiritual significance of that pattern which the Jews have missed. In every OT writing, there is a picture, a shadow, a type of the Moshiach!
 
That is certainly your (arrogant) opinion. We do just fine reading it and understanding it without inserting your wishful thinking into it.
The question is whose is the wishful thinking and who inserted what?

 
 
“What are the earliest historical records you have of these Jewish writings? How accurately do you believe they have been kept? What is your proof?
 
We have the Mishna which dates to well before the common era. The discussions explicating it developed before the common era and continued until the text of the Talmud was fixed a couple of hundred years later. You must be familiar with the Oral law – it was the teachings of the Pharisees which Jesus said the people should follow, and it was the Talmud which he referenced (at least 6 different tractates are referenced in Matthew 5 and 6).
Show anciently written proof of the Mishna as being before the 2nd century. Who references it? What exactly are you referring to as Pharisitical in Matthew 5 & 6? Jesus was citing the Law of Moses. 

 
 
“1,000 years? That does not date back to the 1st-century when God judged the nation of Israel with the destruction of its temple and city with the Roman armies.
 
 
I never said it did. I’m just referencing a written commentary which answered your question 1000 years ago.

What extant written commentary do you have before AD 900-1000?

"The oldest copy of the Mishna, the Codex Kaufmann is dated between 950-1050 CE." 
"The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud, known as the Munich Talmud (Cod.hebr. 95), dates from 1342"

#59
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
So, wait, let me get this straight. Is your argument that all of Judaism is a vast conspiracy because Wikipedia tells you so?
Are you arguing that particular points which I support with text must be wrong because I can't reassure you that the text exists? I note you haven't countered with any real argument about the points I presented, just more questions steeped in ignorance.

If you wish to do some light reading, start with these

Or don't. Either way works for me.
#60
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
“The OT or Hebrew Bible contains various references to thesacrifice as representing them by their laying of hands on the animal. Theanimal was used to atone for their sins, thus it was a substitution. It was nottheir blood that was shed yet it provided the atonement for THEIR sins. 
 
Except that manty sacrifices were not for sins that wouldrequire the shedding of blood otherwise, so the death of an animal could notsubstitute for anything. Nothing in any of the text you provide says “substitute”– they say “atonement”. Instead of inserting what you believe, read the text.If I commit a sin, I owe something to repay for that act. My loss of somethingand my dedication of something are the sacrifice. When the text demands blood,it doesn’t allow animals to replace it (that’s why there is a death penalty –if animal substitution worked, then killing an animal would substitute forkilling a criminal. But it doesn’t)
 
“So the offering and the shed blood was a substitute. Itwas not their blood. 
But their blood wasn’t demanded. Their repentance and sacrifice were.
 
 
“I think your charge is misrepresentative of the plain languagepresented.
 
I think it is duplicitous for you to define “substitution”but cite text which never uses that term.