Postrib vs Dispy

[Not Worthy]

The questions that I am asking you are about Judaism, not Christianity.

But this is a Christian thread started by a Christian on a Christian board, so I am talking to you about Christianity, not Judaism, and because I'm not interested in interpreting the Old Testament or the New Testament from a Judaic perspective, your arguments are like the ether to me (meaning the pre-creation void), especially because I know that due to the fact that you are talking about and promoting Judaism and the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures, and doing so in a Christian thread on a Christian board, you will just deny the fact that "throughout your generations" applied only as long as the Covenant of Law given at Sinai remained in place. But because you deny Christ, you deny the New Covenant, and you will insist that God's only covenant with Israel is and remains the covenant made with Israel at Sinai.

You also deny the fact that there has also been a change in the Law, and you deny everything God has done through Christ, so your arguments are like a void to me.

Actually, your arguments mean absolutely nothing to God either because they come from a basis of denying Christ.

[Fenris]

I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent

It certainly sounds like it's the actual rules that are important.

Lev 18  You are to practice My judgments and keep My statutes by walking in them. I am the LORD your God. Keep My statutes and My judgments, for the man who does these things will live by them. I am the LORD.

Lev 19 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

Lev 20 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them

Lev 26 If you follow My statutes and carefully keep My commandments, I will give you rains in their season, and the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.…

Deut 4 See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”

Deut 7  So keep the commandments and statutes and ordinances that I am giving you to follow this day. If you listen to these ordinances and keep them carefully, then the LORD your God will keep His covenant and the loving devotion that He swore to your fathers. He will love you and bless you and multiply you...

and


Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

(as a side note- we are far less than 1,000 generations from the patriarchs, so why does this condition not apply even to today's Jews?)

Deut 11 So if you carefully obey the commandments I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul...

Deut 28 Now if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God and are careful to follow all His commandments I am giving you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth...

Deut 29 So keep and follow the words of this covenant,

Deut 32 Take to heart all these words I testify among you today, so that you may command your children to carefully follow all the words of this law.

Psalm 19 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul

Psalm 105 He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations

Psalm 111 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments:

Ecclesiastes 12  Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

[Not Worthy]

I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent

It certainly sounds like it's the actual rules that are important.

So why didn't they obey them then?

[Fenris]

So why didn't they obey them then?

Why, do you think it's because they knew the actual rules weren't important? Because I know this is going to come as a shocker, but they were exiled for not following the actual rules.

[Not Worthy]

So why didn't they obey them then?

Why, do you think it's because they knew the actual rules weren't important? Because I know this is going to come as a shocker, but they were exiled for not following the actual rules.

That doesn't tell me why they did not obey them, Fenris. Side-stepping the question doesn't answer it. I know why they didn't obey. But I'm asking you, because you're the expert on the Law.

[Fenris]

That doesn't tell me why they did not obey them, Fenris. Side-stepping the question doesn't answer it. I know why they didn't obey. But I'm asking you, because you're the expert on the Law.

Because they fell short. But it isn't impossible to uphold the law.

[Not Worthy]

That doesn't tell me why they did not obey them, Fenris. Side-stepping the question doesn't answer it. I know why they didn't obey. But I'm asking you, because you're the expert on the Law.

Because they fell short. But it isn't impossible to uphold the law.

Is that why God promised them a new covenant?

Before you answer that, I'm sorry. Lately you've implied that I consider myself a prophet (i.e a false prophet) among other things, and then you implied that I'm antisemtic. It hit a very raw nerve - but not because of guilt, but because the opposite is true, in both cases.  But I reacted not only wrongly, but very badly.  And I'm sorry.

[Fenris]

Is that why God promised them a new covenant?

But what is the new covenant.

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

This 'new covenant' is with Judah and Israel, not the whole world. And what is it?

This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts."

It's the same law. We will just do it by our nature.

Before you answer that, I'm sorry. Lately you've implied that I consider myself a prophet (i.e a false prophet) among other things, and then you implied that I'm antisemtic. It hit a very raw nerve - but not because of guilt, but because the opposite is true, in both cases.  But I reacted not only wrongly, but very badly.  And I'm sorry.

I too have used harsher words than I should have, and I apologize for that as well.

Let the debate continue!

[Not Worthy]

I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent

It certainly sounds like it's the actual rules that are important.

Lev 18  You are to practice My judgments and keep My statutes by walking in them. I am the LORD your God. Keep My statutes and My judgments, for the man who does these things will live by them. I am the LORD.

Lev 19 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

Lev 20 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them

Lev 26 If you follow My statutes and carefully keep My commandments, I will give you rains in their season, and the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.…

Deut 4 See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”

Deut 7  So keep the commandments and statutes and ordinances that I am giving you to follow this day. If you listen to these ordinances and keep them carefully, then the LORD your God will keep His covenant and the loving devotion that He swore to your fathers. He will love you and bless you and multiply you...

and


Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

(as a side note- we are far less than 1,000 generations from the patriarchs, so why does this condition not apply even to today's Jews?)

Deut 11 So if you carefully obey the commandments I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul...

Deut 28 Now if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God and are careful to follow all His commandments I am giving you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth...

Deut 29 So keep and follow the words of this covenant,

Deut 32 Take to heart all these words I testify among you today, so that you may command your children to carefully follow all the words of this law.

Psalm 19 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul

Psalm 105 He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations

Psalm 111 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments:

Ecclesiastes 12  Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

I was going to answer this, but I'm just going to leave it, because it's not going to bear fruit, because you know the New Testament scriptures that talk about the Law, and you already have a good idea of what I will answer before I answer it, and you will simply argue it from the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures which cannot be healed as long as the truth regarding both the New Testament scriptures and Christ Himself are rejected out of hand.

As long as you reject both Christ and the New Testament scriptures and their validity, no further discussion of the Law will produce the fruit of opening your eyes to see the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures for what it is. Only God can do that. I'm not going to continue with this discussion. And that does not mean I do not have respect for you, nor that I have any contempt for your views.

[Not Worthy]

Is that why God promised them a new covenant?

But what is the new covenant.

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

This 'new covenant' is with Judah and Israel, not the whole world. And what is it?

This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts."

It's the same law. We will just do it by our nature.

Before you answer that, I'm sorry. Lately you've implied that I consider myself a prophet (i.e a false prophet) among other things, and then you implied that I'm antisemtic. It hit a very raw nerve - but not because of guilt, but because the opposite is true, in both cases.  But I reacted not only wrongly, but very badly.  And I'm sorry.

I too have used harsher words than I should have, and I apologize for that as well.

Let the debate continue!

You never answered the question I asked, you side-stepped it again. But please see my previous post. There's no point in doing this anymore. It will not bear fruit. For some it's an exciting sort of intellectual gaming challenge, but not for me. The only fruit from discussions I'm interested in when I discuss these issues with you is the only fruit Christ is interested in.

[Not Worthy]

I too have used harsher words than I should have, and I apologize for that as well.

Let the debate continue!
[/quote]

Shalom 

[Fenris]

you will simply argue it from the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures

What misrepresentation? The verses say exactly what they say. At least admit that without the NT there's nothing wrong with the Jewish understanding of the bible.

As long as you reject both Christ and the New Testament scriptures and their validity

Yes, and that's the whole point. My views are completely consistent with what my bible says. You can accept that without rejecting your own faith. I have no problem accepting the Christian viewpoint as being consistent with your own bible.

I'm not going to continue with this discussion. And that does not mean I do not have respect for you, nor that I have any contempt for your views.

Peace.

[RandyPNW]

you will simply argue it from the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures

What misrepresentation? The verses say exactly what they say. At least admit that without the NT there's nothing wrong with the Jewish understanding of the bible.

I myself would refer to Rabbinic interpretations as "wrong" not because the Law wasn't correctly being applied, before Jesus, in its own time, but only because it rejects the fulfillment of the Law Jesus exhibited in his history. I fully admit that during the time before Jesus the Law was not explicit, nor clear, about how Israel's Hope would be fulfilled. It was a sorry picture of national failure, again and again, over time.

That doesn't mean there weren't times of success, but the picture always led invariably to a failure of Israel's Hope. So the question is: Is Rabbinic Judaism correct in saying Jesus did not fulfill Israel's Hope?

Well yes, but this is a half-truth, which is no better than a lie. Jesus did fail to bring about the fulfillment of Israel's hope. But he did provide the basis for eternal atonement, which is precisely what the Law had been doing on a temporary basis.

The Law had been providing a band aid for an incurable wound called "sin." And it had been holding up a promise by a means that fell short of eternal atonement.

What Jesus did on the cross and in his ministry did consist of an eternal atonement, and was not in any way opposed to the Law of Moses. On the contrary, it fulfilled that Law and became the exclusive means by which Israel's national Hope can ultimately come to pass in the future.

As a Jew you may and do accept Rabbinic Judaism and its conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah. But you cannot honestly say that Jesus did not fulfill the Law, since during his ministry he pressed for an exhaustive obedience to the Law, curtailed only when he was rejected as the exclusive means of eternal atonement.

I believe it to be true that the Law taught only a temporary means of atonement, even though it was intended to be continuous in operation. It was conditional, and based on Israel's obedience, without which a covenant is broken. The promise of restoration is not based on the operation of the agreement itself, but instead is outside of the domain of the agreement.

Even if God made an agreement to restore a broken Law, it was not the Law itself that was made a permanent feature of the promise, but only the promise that was given to be "everlasting." The Law was conditional, but the promise was everlasting. The Law cannot be conditional and also everlasting. Once it is broken, it is no longer everlasting.

The promise is kept by a non-conditional means of atonement, separated from the defiling influences of flawed priests. That's why only Jesus' atonement could be attached to the promise on an eternal basis. His priesthood was not flawed. As such, it was not a conditional agreement between God and a flawed priesthood.

[Fenris]

I myself would refer to Rabbinic interpretations as "wrong" not because the Law wasn't correctly being applied, before Jesus, in its own time, but only because it rejects the fulfillment of the Law Jesus exhibited in his history.

Which is only true if one accepts the NT as holy wit.

I fully admit that during the time before Jesus the Law was not explicit, nor clear, about how Israel's Hope would be fulfilled.

Sure it was. Deuteronomy 30. C'mon man.

It was a sorry picture of national failure, again and again, over time.

Which and when Israel returns to God. How man times to I have to quote the same chapter?

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today,  then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.  Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back.  He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.  The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.  The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you.  You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today.  Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

That doesn't mean there weren't times of success, but the picture always led invariably to a failure of Israel's Hope. So the question is: Is Rabbinic Judaism correct in saying Jesus did not fulfill Israel's Hope?

Israel's first hope was to be gathered back to the land of Israel. Did Jesus fulfill that?

Well yes, but this is a half-truth, which is no better than a lie. Jesus did fail to bring about the fulfillment of Israel's hope. But he did provide the basis for eternal atonement, which is precisely what the Law had been doing on a temporary basis.

The law isn't about "atonement". It's about carrying out God's will on this earth. God didn't give us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many sins. He gave us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many merits. You're looking at the whole thing exactly backwards.

The Law had been providing a band aid for an incurable wound called "sin."

Sin isn't an "incurable wound ". It's a choice. What did God say to Cain?

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

What Jesus did on the cross and in his ministry did consist of an eternal atonement

If one accept the NT as holy writ.

and was not in any way opposed to the Law of Moses.

It's not necessary in my bible. It is not. And it's not "the law of Moses". It's the law of God.

As a Jew you may and do accept Rabbinic Judaism and its conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah.

It's not "rabbinic Judaism" that leads to that conclusion. It's just Judaism. Without the NT Jesus is unnecessary.

But you cannot honestly say that Jesus did not fulfill the Law

As I've already said, the law isn't something that is "fulfilled". It's something that you do. Every day. And Jesus couldn't have "fulfilled" the law. No one can "fulfill" the law.

I believe it to be true that the Law taught only a temporary means of atonement,

And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't make it so. Again, especially without the NT.

It was conditional, and based on Israel's obedience, without which a covenant is broken.

You keep saying this, but there is no biblical support for this idea. Certainly not in my bible.

The Law cannot be conditional and also everlasting.

Finally, some clarity. Yes. The law can't be conditional and also everlasting. because it's not conditional. It's everlasting.

The promise is kept by a non-conditional means of atonement, separated from the defiling influences of flawed priests.

I don't need priests for atonement. The bible lists many other ways to atone.

Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged

Hosea 14 Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'

Isaiah 40: Comfort, comfort my people,
    says your God.
 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
    and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
    that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
    double for all her sins.

Jeremiah 36  every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.

Isaiah 55 Let the wicked forsake their ways  and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

2 Chronicles 7 And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Micah 6 With what shall I come before the Lord
    and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
    with calves a year old?
 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
    with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
    the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly with your God.

Daniel 4 Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor

[RandyPNW]

I myself would refer to Rabbinic interpretations as "wrong" not because the Law wasn't correctly being applied, before Jesus, in its own time, but only because it rejects the fulfillment of the Law Jesus exhibited in his history.

Which is only true if one accepts the NT as holy wit.

Obviously. And if you stand by Judaism, you're not going to agree with Christian propositions, out of loyalty to a culture, rather than loyalty to the truth.

I fully admit that during the time before Jesus the Law was not explicit, nor clear, about how Israel's Hope would be fulfilled.

Sure it was. Deuteronomy 30. C'mon man.

Sounding like Biden doesn't help your case!

It was a sorry picture of national failure, again and again, over time.

Which and when Israel returns to God. How man times to I have to quote the same chapter?

Just once--I've been reading this passage seriously since the early 70s. Again, it is a sorry picture of national failure, again, and again, over time. I don't know how quoting it helps your case? A promise of restoration implies an eternal promise was made. But it also implies a broken covenant took place. Restoration of a covenant does *not* imply that the covenant continued--only the promise continued. The covenant being restored is not the covenant being continued.

Well yes, but this is a half-truth, which is no better than a lie. Jesus did fail to bring about the fulfillment of Israel's hope. But he did provide the basis for eternal atonement, which is precisely what the Law had been doing on a temporary basis.

The law isn't about "atonement". It's about carrying out God's will on this earth. God didn't give us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many sins. He gave us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many merits. You're looking at the whole thing exactly backwards.

No, not looking at the Law through Jewish eyes is not seeing the Law backwards. It is disagreeing with a Jewish consensus about the Law that it is not about atonement. In fact, it is full of atonement.

For a long while, in biblical times, the Hebrew people felt it was okay to observe both the Law and pagan religion. Am I backwards not to accept the "Jewish consensus" at that time?

The Law had been providing a band aid for an incurable wound called "sin."

Sin isn't an "incurable wound ". It's a choice. What did God say to Cain?

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

I'm not arguing against the idea Cain couldn't do good works. So that has nothing to do with it. Sin is "incurable" because we all have the inward tendency towards sin, a predisposition in our nature to make choices independent of God's Spirit. Even the most righteous among us have this problem--it is indeed "incurable." That's why God consigned all of us to death. No sinner was allowed access to the Tree of Life, though through the process of atonement people could maintain fellowship with God in this life.

What Jesus did on the cross and in his ministry did consist of an eternal atonement

If one accept the NT as holy writ.

It's a fact that the history describes it as such by Jews who founded Christianity.

and was not in any way opposed to the Law of Moses.

It's not necessary in my bible. It is not. And it's not "the law of Moses". It's the law of God.

It's both Moses' Law and God's Law--what a meaningless distinction to make! God gave the Law through Moses to Israel. The hopeless condition of Israel is played up repeatedly in the Jewish Bible, calling upon a Messianic "fix." There did need to be a better redemption than that which had been failing by the Law. That called for a better priesthood and a better Law.

As a Jew you may and do accept Rabbinic Judaism and its conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah.

It's not "rabbinic Judaism" that leads to that conclusion. It's just Judaism. Without the NT Jesus is unnecessary.

That's not true. Christianity was founded by Jews in Judaism. They believed that Christianity was a necessary transition propounded by Judaism itself. Obviously, the majority who remained in original Judaism rejected this transition. The fact it was a majority of Jews that rejected Christianity proves nothing, since Hebrew majorities in the Bible made mistakes again and again, and for very long periods of time.

But you cannot honestly say that Jesus did not fulfill the Law

As I've already said, the law isn't something that is "fulfilled". It's something that you do. Every day. And Jesus couldn't have "fulfilled" the law. No one can "fulfill" the law.

You say that, but the Law expressed the need for closure, and thus for prophetic fulfillment--a resolution to the problem of sin in Israel. And so, prophecy of the final state of Israel is replete in how the Prophets themselves characterized the Law.

I believe it to be true that the Law taught only a temporary means of atonement,

And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't make it so. Again, especially without the NT.

The captivities were living proof that all solutions available under the Law could not prevent Israel's failures. As such, following the Law was only a temporary remedy for human weakness--it invariably failed over time, just as Christian nations invariably fail over time.

It was conditional, and based on Israel's obedience, without which a covenant is broken.

You keep saying this, but there is no biblical support for this idea. Certainly not in my bible.

It's in your Bible, but you choose to stick with your own words. The proposition that obedience leads to blessings and disobedience leads to curses is indeed a "conditional covenant."

The Law cannot be conditional and also everlasting.

Finally, some clarity. Yes. The law can't be conditional and also everlasting. because it's not conditional. It's everlasting.

As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting. It could not be accomplished by a conditional Law that failed repeatedly. It had to be accomplished by what the NT Bible calls "mercy."

Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.

The promise is kept by a non-conditional means of atonement, separated from the defiling influences of flawed priests.

I don't need priests for atonement. The bible lists many other ways to atone.

Listing other means of atonement does not disprove the fact that among the 613 requirements exercising the priestly participation in atonement for Israel remains one of them. It is a fact that priestly rituals of atonement for Israel were required in the Law.

Failure of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods in the matter of atonement indicated that the Law required an upgrade. While it's true that other means of atonement were available, the fact that the priesthood itself failed alone indicated the Law had failed in the matter of atonement.

Are you going to say that there is success under the Law if one breaks the commandment not to murder but succeeds in keeping the commandment to not commit adultery? No, the Law fails with any major transgression in the Law. Locating another means of atonement under the Law does not prove the Law is successful if the priesthood, also required under the Law, fails.

Just as there was, in ancient times, a consensus of Hebrews that embraced both Judaism and paganism, today's Judaism embraces a liberal view of the Law that denies the problem of human sin and the need for atonement from God. It relies on a system that was designed by God only to be temporary until a "fix" could be made--one that "fulfills" the Law, as promised by the Prophets.

The Jews themselves in Judaism therefore produced Christianity. It was not outside of Judaism, but only a remnant within Judaism. And even the idea of a "remnant" of faithful is biblical Judaism.