Postrib vs Dispy

[keraz]

Leviticus 26:21-28 describes two sets of punishments, against the House of Israel, Leviticus 26:21-22, multiplied by seven and against the House of Judah; Leviticus 26:23-45. Multiplied by seven times seven.
Note; that Leviticus 26:41-42 clearly says: IF their stubborn spirit is broken and they accept their punishment in full.
THEN; I shall remember My Covenant with Abraham and shall remember the holy Land.

I believe these prophesies relate to Ezekiel 4:4-6, where we are told the times for the punishment by exile for both Houses.
For Israel, it is 390 X 7 = 2730 years.  For Judah it is 40 X 7 X 7= 1960 years.

Israel, the ten Northern tribes were conquered by Shalmaneser in 722-721 BC, but finally exiled by Sargon 2, circa 715 BC.  This means their exile is over just about now.

Judah the Jewish people were exiled for the second time in 70 AD. Their final return, when they repent and accept Jesus as Messiah, will be 1960 years later, in 2030. When Jesus Returns. Zechariah 12:9-14

[agnostic]

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.

[agnostic]

Leviticus 26:21-28 describes two sets of punishments, against the House of Israel, Leviticus 26:21-22, multiplied by seven and against the House of Judah; Leviticus 26:23-45.

Israel is named precisely once in Leviticus 26, in verse 46, as "the people of Israel", where context plainly shows it refers to every person who had followed Moses to Mount Sinai after the escape from Egypt. Judah is not named a single time in the chapter. There's no justification for this arbitrary chopping of 26:21-22 as "against the House of Israel" or 26:23-45 as "against the House of Judah".

Why do the two people with the theologies most hostile to Jews keep making up details nowhere to be found in the Bible, where those made-up details promote an antisemitic supersessionist theology? Seriously? How is this dishonesty at all excusable?

[Fenris]

Leviticus 26:21-28 describes two sets of punishments, against the House of Israel, Leviticus 26:21-22, multiplied by seven and against the House of Judah; Leviticus 26:23-45. Multiplied by seven times seven.
Note; that Leviticus 26:41-42 clearly says: IF their stubborn spirit is broken and they accept their punishment in full.
THEN; I shall remember My Covenant with Abraham and shall remember the holy Land.

And Lev 26:44 says  Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them.

You have not referenced this verse no matter how many times I point it out.

I believe these prophesies relate to Ezekiel 4:4-6, where we are told the times for the punishment by exile for both Houses.
For Israel, it is 390 X 7 = 2730 years.  For Judah it is 40 X 7 X 7= 1960 years.

Israel, the ten Northern tribes were conquered by Shalmaneser in 722-721 BC, but finally exiled by Sargon 2, circa 715 BC.  This means their exile is over just about now.

I majored in mathematics in college, and I have to tell you, I have no idea where these numbers are coming from or what they mean.

Their final return, when they repent and accept Jesus as Messiah

There is no obligation in the bible to "accept" anyone as the messiah.

[greenonions]

I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.

Galatians 2:19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. That 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.

Another important aspect of the New Covenant besides having the law written in the heart, is that iniquity is forgiven (Jeremiah 31:33-34). Christians believe this complete forgiveness of sins is only possible through the blood of Jesus Christ, who takes away our sin forever. In the Torah, the Day of Atonement only took away sins at that moment and needed to be repeated year after year. Christians believe the Day of Atonement points to Jesus' ultimate sacrifice.

[RandyPNW]

Again, if you read the bible very carefully, there are no conditions under which the covenant is terminated. None. Zero. There's no opting out. We're bound to God and obligated to follow the rules He gave us whether we like it or not.

There are *many* passages I could cite you, indicating such. Usually they're just rationalized away. For example, God tells Moses He's prepared to completely dispose of Israel, and create a whole new nation out of Moses. But He really wishes to show mercy to Israel before doing that.

The lesson is clear. God extends His mercy. But His mercy has limits.

This was given not just to the Northern Kingdom but also to the Southern Kingdom:

Isa 50.1 Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

OMG at least quote the whole verse, because this is disingenuous in the extreme-

This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away."


"I didn't send you away because of divorce, I sent you away because you sinned. "

And the previous chapter creates context.

And Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me."  Shall a woman forget her sucking child, from having mercy on the child of her womb? These too shall forget, but I will not forget you.

The exile was for sin, but there will be an ingathering when we again deserve it, and it will be gorious.

My friend, I read this very differently from how you do. It's not that I'm chopping up passages to read it a particular way that favors my position. I read this as God saying, in effect, "If I wanted to just dispose of you, out of dislike, or with no sense of mercy, I would've written out a bill for divorce, just as a man might do who is displeased with something about his wife. But now I'm divorcing you, not because I disliked you, but because you have abandoned me for other lovers. So I am indeed divorcing you!"

Divorce was used, by the Prophets, as an indication of an irrevocably broken covenant under the Law.

No, it's not, and that's the whole point. Exile is a punishment under the covenant, not a breaking of the covenant. If the covenant was broken God would have destroyed us, as so many other nations have vanished form the earth. But God specifically said otherwise, to wit, Lev 26:44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God.

Again, we read this differently. The punishments for disobedience are still under the Law, but only up until there is an exile. "Divorce" is a metaphor for exile. Once disobedience has reached this point, the agreement is off, just as any party who fails a contract no longer has a contract.

There is some confusion here, however, as to what "covenant" we're talking about. I don't believe the Abrahamic Covenant will ever fail. But the application of that covenant to all Israel does indeed fail, because not everybody in Israel remains true to God. Their part in Abraham's Covenant can fail, even if God will find those who will meet His conditions for fulfilling the covenant.

The Law pointed out that all were guilty, to some degree, under the Covenant of Abraham. All Israel were God's People, but all were going to fail to some degree.

And so, what was the point at which people under this Covenant could fail completely? Or are you saying that *nobody* can ever completely leave God and fail completely? Of course, some did fail, and were cut off from the Covenant.

When the whole nation went astray, then the whole nation was cut off from the Covenant. This did not mean the Covenant could fail. It's just that God had to find new people to fulfill the promise. And so, Israel was restored.

But one day Israel's restoration no longer required restoration to the Law. This did not mean they would not be restored to the Abrahamic Covenant, but only that it at some point would no longer require the Law. Once they had had their sins atoned for for all time, no sacrifice and no purification ritual would be required any longer, which in turn would no longer require temple to separate God from the people, and there would no longer be need for a priesthood to stand between God and the people.

[agnostic]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

Not true. My answers are the answer to this. I just provided the account in which God said He was willing to destroy the nation completely, replacing it with a new nation beginning with Moses. This alone disproves your dishonest claim that I'm conspicuously avoiding your question.

Two, I argued that the blessings and curses of the Law are different from divorce, that Israel is allowed a certain amount of failure before divorce. But once national apostasy takes place, the resulting exile is defined as a "divorce." And I gave you several passages that refer to the divorce, as equally applicable to northern and southern kingdoms.

Three, I could add more by showing that there were bursting points at which the covenant was broken, such as where the Prophets said that God would no longer relent from His promise of punishment by exile.

Four, I could add more by showing that the wicked are promised eternal judgment, which is in fact a complete failure under the Law.

Five, I've argued that national restoration after exile is not a continuation of the Law, but rather, a resuscitation of the Law, meaning that the Law had failed, but had been mercifully allowed to resume.

The continuation of Moral Law is something God built into man's creation, and it would continue regardless of Israel's covenant under Law failing. But God resumed the covenant of Law for Israel after failure because He was showing that mercy triumphs over failure of the Law.

Six, I've showed in Jer 31.31-32 where the Law of Moses had to be replaced with a new Law. This implied that the Law of Moses had failed.

Seven, I could show that Israel repeatedly, throughout her history, turned away from God, as a nation, and embraced foreign gods, which amounted to spiritual adultery. Again, this constitutes conditions for divorce, and a resulting national judgment indicates that God essentially acts not just as if a curse of the Law is in place, but more, the ultimate curse of exile and complete failure.

When Israel continued to follow the Law of Moses in exile, they were graciously given hope in a restored covenant of the Law. But in the meantime, they were in only partial compliance with the Law, not having temple, priesthood, or sacrifices. For all intents and purposes, they could *not* have been in compliance with the Law, but only in partial compliance with a Law that was demonstrably broken.

I suggest this, friend, that the curses of the Law were not the kinds of sins that were covered by sin offerings and guilt offerings. Rather, they amounted to an indictment against Israel for spiritual adultery, with the promised consequence of termination of the covenant agreement, or divorce. It was in fact a complete failure of the covenant under the Law, though not God's failure to fulfill His promise to save Israel.

My argument is that with the fact of spiritual adultery taking place nationally in Israel there would be a consequent exile. And I'm saying that this exile is, in fact, divorce, or a termination of God's covenant with Israel under the Law. Fortunately, mercy triumphs over the failure of the Law.

[agnostic]

Eleven paragraphs, and you still didn't cite where the Torah says

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

Do you genuinely not understand how disingenuous that is?

[RandyPNW]

Eleven paragraphs, and you still didn't cite where the Torah says

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

Do you genuinely not understand how disingenuous that is?

No, I answered the question. Apparently you don't like the answer. I did, in fact, answer the question directly. You seem to want me to cite an article from an outdated contract to show that the contract is no longer valid.

Reality check: the contract is not going to stipulate that it is broken while it is still being enforced. But it is, in fact, prophesied within this contract that if the infractions are carried farther than the contract can tolerate, an end of the contract itself will result.

Once again, the contract itself stipulated that some failures would be tolerated. This was part of the continuing contract. But at the point where recovery was long-term, provisions for failure would no longer suffice. Beyond mere defeats in battle with enemies, the entire nation would be exiled, which was the equivalent of a failed contract.

The end of the contract consists of an end of one of the parties to the contract, which was in history the end of Israel as "God's People" under the contract of the Law. The fact God found another way to keep them as "His People," apart from their meeting the conditions of the Law, indicated that even though the contract of Law was broken, they could continue to be God's People by mercy.

Again, since you have trouble understanding the argument, the prophecy contained within the Law states that when the failures under the Contract exceed the maximum limit, and exile results, it is an indication that the Contract was finished. Its restoration does not mean it wasn't dead, at least for a time. Clearly, exile equals Dead Contract.

The contract is broken when one of the parties fails to meet their part of the agreement. Israel failed their part of the agreement. They failed to be in conformity with the law of marriage to God. This was not a matter of temporary lapses, which was tolerated under contract of the Law. No, a complete national abandonment of the Law of their God constituted a complete failure under the Law, indeed a failure of the Contract of the Law.

God tolerated a lot of sin before giving Israel over to their adultery. It is when the nation, as a whole, committed to spiritual adultery, which was idolatry, that the marriage failed, and the contract ceased. This wasn't a temporary lapse, or a partial lapse by only some of the people. This was a complete national succumbing to idolatry, abandoning their contract with God under the Law. This was the complete failure of that Contract, and in fact a Divorce!

Do I need to repeat this again? I know it doesn't fit your way of thinking.

[Fenris]

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

Just one would suffice. Just one.

Usually they're just rationalized away. For example, God tells Moses He's prepared to completely dispose of Israel, and create a whole new nation out of Moses.

Yet He doesn't.

The lesson is clear. God extends His mercy. But His mercy has limits.

Yes? I'd like a biblical verse for that too, if you please.

My friend, I read this very differently from how you do. It's not that I'm chopping up passages to read it a particular way that favors my position. I read this as God saying, in effect, "If I wanted to just dispose of you, out of dislike, or with no sense of mercy, I would've written out a bill for divorce, just as a man might do who is displeased with something about his wife. But now I'm divorcing you, not because I disliked you, but because you have abandoned me for other lovers. So I am indeed divorcing you!"

But the verse says the exact opposite. What gives you any right to take a verse in the bible, a direct quote from God in fact, and say that it means the opposite of what God said? Do you think that God will forgive you for doing that?

Again, we read this differently. The punishments for disobedience are still under the Law, but only up until there is an exile.

No. Again, that's the opposite of what the bible says. Read Leviticus 26:44. I've posted it numerous times and you have yet to acknowledge it. "Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God." Stop ignoring it. It's the exact word of God.

And so, what was the point at which people under this Covenant could fail completely? Or are you saying that *nobody* can ever completely leave God and fail completely?

Yes, that's right. There's no opt out clause. A Jewish person who doesn't believe in God and sins continuously is still obligated to follow the law. That they choose not to doesn't exempt them. Are you understanding me?

[Fenris]

No, I answered the question.

He asked for a verse, any verse, which you did not provide. You type whole paragraphs of your thoughts without citing a single biblical verse to support them.

[Fenris]

I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.

Now see, this is a different and interesting opinion.

[agnostic]

The lesson is clear. God extends His mercy. But His mercy has limits.

Yes? I'd like a biblical verse for that too, if you please.

I remember this one!

Lamentations 3:22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end

... Wait.

[agnostic]

No, I answered the question.

You absolutely did not.

You said

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

and in response, both Fenris and I have asked several times for you to cite even a single verse from the Law which says what you claimed it says. After several back-and-forths, you finally acknowledged the request, but still refused to quote any part of the Torah which says this thing.

You typed nineteen paragraphs defending your claim, even insisting you did provide a chapter-and-verse reference, yet nowhere in any of your comments in this thread can we find a citation from the Torah that says what you originally claimed.

At what point can we just call this obvious lie a "lie"?