BibleForums Christian Message Board

The 'rapture' is a lie, from the father of lies.

Sometimes bad theology just comes from bad reading comprehension, which is a much more widespread problem in the field of "Bible study" than is usually acknowledged.

Not everything you disagree with needs to be attributed to a conspiracy by the supreme architect of all evil in the universe. Sheesh.

It was exactly 2000 years from Adam until Abram

(Narrator: It wasn't. OP is playing loose with their math, using contradicting versions of the Bible, and in some cases completely making up information to achieve a desired theological outcome.)

There are *many* passages I could cite you, indicating such.

Okay. Start here:

The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.

You said this near the start of the thread. Both Fenris and I asked -- about five or six times now -- for you to cite the part(s) of the Torah which say this. And you conspicuously won't.

Do you, though?

I would insist not, given both you and I have asked them to provide chapter and verse demonstrating

The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.

and they've ignored/refused each time we've asked.

Actually, I really dislike the word "transfiguration." It doesn't roll off the tongue. The Greek word just means "change"... "transform" if you want two syllables. Can we translate it that way?

Jews will not accept this because they have a vested interest in preserving ((their)) religion

You say this like it's some kind of profound observation that members of Judaism... want to preserve Judaism, and hence disagree with an objectively errant take on their religious beliefs.

that had, in reality, been vacated and delegitimized by God.

As you've been told several times, the Torah contains provisions for when the covenant is broken, how covenant-breakers may be disciplined, and how they may be restored.

When the terms of a contract explicitly say "if you break this contract, I will punish you and then restore you", and you pretend that last part doesn't exist, it makes it really hard to believe you're being intellectually honest with this topic.

Probably why you made this claim, but are ignoring my request for you to cite your sources.

Quote

Quote

The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.

You're going to need to provide a chapter and verse from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. I can't think of a single point that says what you're claiming it says.

Did I ever get an answer to this?

I also keep seeing a lot of really bold claims like this in these threads, with no evidence to back it up even when asked.

Plus

Quote

The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.

You're going to need to provide a chapter and verse from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. I can't think of a single point that says what you're claiming it says.

Did I ever get an answer to this?

I also keep seeing a lot of really bold claims like this in these threads, with no evidence to back it up even when asked.

But I did know some Jews expected Elijah to return before Messiah comes.

Judaism expects Elijah to return because Malachi 4 says he will return.

And indeed he did come--Jesus identified John the Baptist as the one portrayed in the image of Elijah.

John denied being the fulfillment of Malachi 4's prophecy about Elijah when he was asked directly in John 1:21. I'm fully aware of the mental gymnastics performed to reconcile the two ideas, but the Occam's Razor here is it's a contradiction.

I do think Moses represented the Law, and Elijah represented the Prophets, because that's what they did.

This is the most transparently circular argument I've read in a long time. "I think this because this is what I say it is."

Hence why I said

It's a super popular Christian claim that "Moses and Elijah represent the Law and Prophets," but I would insist you cite any source from the first century or earlier which claims this.

My point is this -- "Moses and Elijah symbolize the Law and the Prophets" is a claim Christians made up to explain the presence of Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration story because (surprise) the antisemitism present throughout Christian history (starting in the late first century) led Christians to completely ignore the Jewish traditions that converge in the transfiguration story.

Well yea, remember that Jesus told Peter that upon him, as apostle, the Church would be built.

We have to wonder why Mark and Luke both omitted the "on this rock" story completely but kept the transfiguration story if the former was so absolutely essential to understanding the latter. It's because the two stories have nothing to do with each other.

meaning that Moses and Elijah are to be ignored before the voice of Messiah.

The story says no such thing. You're making up details about the story, and changing other details, to force it into the supersessionist/antisemitic box you want Christianity to be.

The transfiguration's purpose -- based on its direct reference to Malachi's prophecy about Elijah, its echo of the Sinai revelation, and the belief that Moses would return alongside Elijah, among other possible allusions to end times beliefs held by Jews at the time -- was to show that the end times had arrived.

It's purpose was not to tell people to ignore the Jewish laws and Jewish prophets so that the Jewish religion would be replaced with a new anti-Jewish religion. If was, it would be in complete contradiction to the Torah's testimony of itself that its laws were "eternal," "forever," "perpetual," "for all generations," never to be added to or subtracted from.