Promise-Law connection

[Fenris]

Well, that's at least admitting that what Paul and Jesus said was not anti-Semitic!

Um, I never claimed that they were anti-Semitic.

In fact, both of them condemned Israel for their anti-Christian attitude,

This is an anachronism, as Christianity didn't exist during their lifetime.

The point is, this condemnation of Israel in their time did indicate that both Jesus and Paul foresaw the devastation that Israel saw in 70 AD, and following.

I mean, everyone saw it coming. One didn't have to be a prophet.

This I've explained is a *divorce* between God and Israel.

Lev 26 etc. Exile is not a "divorce" it's a temporary state due to disobedience. Lev 26:44 says that the covenant will never be broken and Deuteronomy 30 says what happens when the Jews return to God- the exile ends.

And since there's a modern day state of Israel...

But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."

There is no way out. The covenant is permanent.

What Jesus was saying was that the practice of the Law would fail to keep Israel in relationship with God

We have a relationship with God whether we are obedient or not. God states that Israel is His firstborn. One's child remains one's child even if they are disobedient.

Just "offering animal sacrifices under the Law" would not bring about peace in their land.

No, because offering sacrifice is not sufficient. Sacrifice isn't magic. God expects us to love Him and uphold His covenant by following His laws. This is all over the bible.

[Fenris]

This is another example of how disingenuous you're being about what the Bible says about the Law. You're literally saying that "the Law" and "Mercy" are mutually exclusive concepts. As if the Law and the Prophets never talk about mercy. Like... that's not a defensible misrepresentation of the Old Testament.

So here's how I see the role of mercy.

Your father gives you a long list of chores to do. You do them to the best of your ability, and when you fall short, you ask him for mercy.

You don't throw the list out and rely on mercy.

[agnostic]

If I may ask, what is the source of these documents?

Community Rule, the Thanksgiving Hymn (one of several), and Songs of the Sage are from the Dead Sea Scrolls, written between 50 and 200 years before Paul (depending on the individual book).

Apocalypse of Abraham was written around 70-100 CE in Hebrew (maybe Aramaic). We don't know where it was written, but Judea is likely based on the language and the book's spread in Europe and Asia.

Testament of Abraham is from Egypt, written in Greek (not uncommon in the Diaspora), also around the end of the first century CE.

These are all Jewish texts, covering a wide range of time and a decent geographical spread. They're also all from authors who expected the end times were about to happen, similar to Paul. It's reasonable to think their shared idea of end times "justification" was common to apocalyptic forms of second temple Judaism.

[RandyPNW]

he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.

Where?

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

The qualifying word you used was "only," and I don't see Jesus saying only he could fulfill the law in that verse. Seems to me you're adding a word to change what he says.

When Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, he was not saying he came so that others would fulfill the Law. The implication is that *only he* had come to fulfill the Law. When he was dying on the cross he said, "It is finished." The implication was not the others too were finishing it!

I am not being disingenuous.

Refusing to provide book, chapter, and verse when asked over and over, but pretending you already did, is 100% disingenuous.

What a bunch of baloney. I've given you Scriptures. I've given you the words that indicate "cancellation" of the covenant, of the Law. Jer 31 indicates a new and different covenant would emerge because the first had failed. But you just keep repeating that I'm disingenuous. Maybe if you keep repeating it long enough you might actually believe it?

James indicated

I wasn't asking about James. At the very beginning, you claimed, "The Law says this." James is not a book of the Law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are.

James explains the Law the same way I explain the Law, that mercy had to rule, not just under the Law, but also apart from the Law, because the Law *had failed!* Mercy triumphs over the Law. If not, the people under the Law were lost forever!

But you're stubborn, and you'll refuse to accept the argument. So this is just for anybody else who may be interested. I know the type that you are. You will concede nothing. You will be generous for nobody. Good people are generous even with those with whom they disagree. You refuse to do that.

I've already showed you that Moses foresaw the failure of Israel under covenant of the Law in Deuteronomy.

Deut 31.16 They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.

We finally have a book, chapter, and verse.

I don't know about this particular thread, but I've been arguing these things for years. And I've long been giving the relevant Scriptures, and have not failed to provide them when asked for them. To say I've "finally" given a Scripture is a ruse, and I've seen it before.

Except it doesn't say what you claim it says. All this verse says is Israel will someday disobey the stipulations of the covenant. It doesn't say the covenant will be abrogated and replaced. And since literally just the previous chapter says, plain as day, that disobedience to the covenant will be followed by a restoration of obedience to the covenant, your interpretation of this verse is simply wrong. As Fenris and I have pointed out from the very start, you keep purposely ignoring that part: the covenant expected disobedience, yeah, but it also spells out that restoration is also part of the covenant. There is no permanent abrogation ever anticipated in the Law. That is a much later Christian concept you're jamming backwards into the Law while completely disregarding whole chunks of the Law which talk about failure and restoration, which is why you took so long to scrounge up a single verse that still doesn't say what you claim it does.

False, I have a different interpretation than you do. I see the Law as cancelled because in any covenant agreement, when one of the parties fails to meet the conditions, the contract fails, the covenant is abrogated.

The Law failed not just because of sin, but because of widespread, nation-wide sin. It was the failure of the whole nation that brought about the nullification of the covenant, and not just occasional sins.

So the promise of restoration was not a declaration that the Law hadn't failed, but rather the promise of mercy *after failure.* You keep saying I ignore things, but you're just in disagreement, while failing to recognize that I'm answering you.

[RandyPNW]

In Christianity, the Law was fulfilled in Christ--not in Israel.

the law is not something to be "fulfilled". Its something that you do. Every day. As circumstances apply. I mean, if I give a lot of charity one day, is my obligation to give charity "fulfilled"? Am I no longer obligated to care for the poor?

I'm fully aware of this Jewish argument, which Christians, whether of Jewish extraction or not, would heartily disagree with. The Law was both a moral code and a prophecy. It was predictive of what was needed for the Messianic Kingdom to come. When Jesus came he understood this, and claimed to be the Prophet of which the Law spoke, the one "like Moses," who heard the words of God. It laid down the rules for a genuine prophet, but it also spoke of THE Prophet, the Messiah, in my view.

And my argument is that since Moses anticipated the failure of his system, the Law, he expected the promises given to Abraham to be fulfilled through mercy, and not through that system. Jeremiah understood that when he said (ch 31):

"It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

Nobody could fulfill the Law

Well, the entire law didn't apply to any one person. Some parts of the law apply to men, some to women, some to priests, some to non priests, some to farmers, some to businessmen, etc

Christians see the entire Law fulfilled in the one man, the Messiah Jesus. All of the moral righteousness of the Law was perfect in him. All of the pictures of redemption, that only applied temporarily by an imperfect priesthood, was fulfilled by the more perfect priesthood of Jesus, the offering of himself.

The many laws of purification indirectly related to Christ's more permanent purification, relieving Israel from seeking temporary means of purification using elements that only symbolized internal purification. Dietary constraints that Israel used, showing their need for purification and separation from sin was not necessary for Jesus. His pure food came from the word of God, and he offered that to Israel, with eternal redemption, to bring the hope of restoration to Israel.

[RandyPNW]

Well, that's at least admitting that what Paul and Jesus said was not anti-Semitic!

Um, I never claimed that they were anti-Semitic.

Not my point.

In fact, both of them condemned Israel for their anti-Christian attitude,

This is an anachronism, as Christianity didn't exist during their lifetime.

It depends how you define "Christianity." Normally, you would find "Christianity" wherever you find the ministry of Christ.

The point is, this condemnation of Israel in their time did indicate that both Jesus and Paul foresaw the devastation that Israel saw in 70 AD, and following.

I mean, everyone saw it coming. One didn't have to be a prophet.

The Jews inside Jerusalem didn't see 70 AD coming--certainly not the way it ended up.

This I've explained is a *divorce* between God and Israel.

Lev 26 etc. Exile is not a "divorce" it's a temporary state due to disobedience. Lev 26:44 says that the covenant will never be broken and Deuteronomy 30 says what happens when the Jews return to God- the exile ends.

And since there's a modern day state of Israel...

You see, my friend, we have a disagreement, and it is not "ignoring one another," nor being "dishonest." It is an honest disagreement. For me, an "exile" implies the failure of a covenant designed to keep a nation inside the Promised Land. As long as Israel remained inside the land, they were married. Once they stepped into exile, they were "divorced." This is the metaphorical language of the Prophets, in my opinion.

Restoration of the state of the Law has nothing to do with it. Israel could, by God's mercy, return to the land and be forgiven for breaking the Law. The Law had been broken, and the covenant of the Law had failed, but it could be restored. It didn't mean failure hadn't taken place--it just means that mercy triumphs over judgment.

But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."

There is no way out. The covenant is permanent.

This also is where we can have a respectful disagreement. For me the basic Abrahamic Covenant can never fail, because it relies upon a divine promise, which cannot fail. However, there is paraphernalia associated with the Promise that can be abrogated and removed. Both circumcision and the entire Law can be removed from the Abrahamic Covenant and still see God's Promises fulfilled for Israel! This takes place not by the covenant of Law, but rather by a new covenant of mercy.

What Jesus was saying was that the practice of the Law would fail to keep Israel in relationship with God

We have a relationship with God whether we are obedient or not. God states that Israel is His firstborn. One's child remains one's child even if they are disobedient.

God's children are named only among those who are faithful to the covenant. Jacob was accepted by God, and Esau was not. God cuts off disobedient children, whether you consider them "children" or not. God's Kingdom is holy, and He will not have "unholy" children with Him in His eternal Kingdom.

Just "offering animal sacrifices under the Law" would not bring about peace in their land.

No, because offering sacrifice is not sufficient. Sacrifice isn't magic. God expects us to love Him and uphold His covenant by following His laws. This is all over the bible.

I've never said animal sacrifices were "magic!" God required them as a self-recognition that Israel lacked the purity necessary to obtain restoration to the Tree of Life. It was a condition required for relationship with God under covenant of the Law. And if the Law of sacrifices was to be kept, then the whole Law had to be kept.

What is important about the Law of Sacrifice is to understand not just that it is to be done, but also what it means to convey. It suggests that a greater sacrifice would be needed to bring about resolution of the problem of the Law itself, that nobody in Israel was perfect enough to bring about Israel's eternal salvation.

The lesson of both the Law and Israel's history was that they were too flawed to bring about their own national salvation for all time. A Messiah had to come, who was perfect enough to accomplish this. And I believe he had to be God Himself, or as we say, "God's Son." We call him "God in the flesh."

All sin in men and in Israel renders illegitimate the work of eternal redemption, whether for Israel or for the world. Only a perfect man could attain this. But we have a man that attained it not for himself, but for all who would follow him in his own spiritual righteousness, Israel's Messiah and Lord.

[Fenris]

I'm fully aware of this Jewish argument, which Christians, whether of Jewish extraction or not, would heartily disagree with. The Law was both a moral code and a prophecy. It was predictive of what was needed for the Messianic Kingdom to come.

This is Christian dogma. But I don't see it in the bible.

And my argument is that since Moses anticipated the failure of his system, the Law, he expected the promises given to Abraham to be fulfilled through mercy, and not through that system.

And yet we are commanded to follow the law as "eternal statute", "throughout your generations" "in all your dwelling places" etc. I mean, it certainly sounds permanent. If God did indeed want it to be permanent, what stronger language could He possibly use?

Jeremiah understood that when he said (ch 31):

"It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

Very next verse For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.

Same law.

Christians see the entire Law fulfilled in the one man, the Messiah Jesus.

Yes, I know. And I don't understand it. Because no one person could do the entire law.

The many laws of purification indirectly related to Christ's more permanent purification, relieving Israel from seeking temporary means of purification using elements that only symbolized internal purification. Dietary constraints that Israel used, showing their need for purification and separation from sin was not necessary for Jesus. His pure food came from the word of God, and he offered that to Israel, with eternal redemption, to bring the hope of restoration to Israel.

So he didn't follow all the law after all? I thought you said he did.

[Fenris]

God's children are named only among those who are faithful to the covenant. Jacob was accepted by God, and Esau was not.

Actually, weirdly enough, Esau was Jewish.

I've never said animal sacrifices were "magic!" God required them as a self-recognition that Israel lacked the purity necessary to obtain restoration to the Tree of Life.

"restoration to the Tree of Life" is not part of Judaism. You're creating a problems that don't exist and then creating ways to solve them that aren't necessary.

It was a condition required for relationship with God under covenant of the Law. And if the Law of sacrifices was to be kept, then the whole Law had to be kept.

What is important about the Law of Sacrifice is to understand not just that it is to be done, but also what it means to convey. It suggests that a greater sacrifice would be needed to bring about resolution of the problem of the Law itself, that nobody in Israel was perfect enough to bring about Israel's eternal salvation.

Sacrifice isn't about "eternal salvation" and it never was. Again, you're creating problems so you have the opportunity to create a solution. But the problems don't exist.

The lesson of both the Law and Israel's history was that they were too flawed to bring about their own national salvation for all time. A Messiah had to come, who was perfect enough to accomplish this.

This isn't what the prophets say at all. Most of them (specifically Isaiah) say that when we return to God and repent, He will send the messiah. Ezekiel says that God will send the messiah whether we deserve it or not, for the sake of His name. In either case, the messiah isn't part of the process. We, human beings, specifically Jews, are. And when we merit it on a national level, the messiah is the reward.

[RandyPNW]

God's children are named only among those who are faithful to the covenant. Jacob was accepted by God, and Esau was not.

Actually, weirdly enough, Esau was Jewish.

I agree, and that's the whole point. Belonging to race is not the critical thing, though it was important. God was honoring a family-the family of Abraham!

But it was critically important that there be the faith of God, ie faith in the God of Abraham. Without that loyalty, which at that time was under the Law, true "belonging" to Israel was not there. Unfaithful people, therefore, could be cut off.

It isn't that they were illegitimate Hebrews or Jews. Rather, it was that they disqualified themselves from remaining in the society of the same. They were sent packing.

I've never said animal sacrifices were "magic!" God required them as a self-recognition that Israel lacked the purity necessary to obtain restoration to the Tree of Life.

"restoration to the Tree of Life" is not part of Judaism. You're creating a problems that don't exist and then creating ways to solve them that aren't necessary.

As a Christian I'm not concerned what "Judaism believes." Of course, I do care about the fate of the Jewish People with God! Access to the Tree of Life is a continuing issue for me, as a Christian. It's where I wish all peoples to get to.

It was a condition required for relationship with God under covenant of the Law. And if the Law of sacrifices was to be kept, then the whole Law had to be kept.

What is important about the Law of Sacrifice is to understand not just that it is to be done, but also what it means to convey. It suggests that a greater sacrifice would be needed to bring about resolution of the problem of the Law itself, that nobody in Israel was perfect enough to bring about Israel's eternal salvation.

Sacrifice isn't about "eternal salvation" and it never was. Again, you're creating problems so you have the opportunity to create a solution. But the problems don't exist.

Again, that's your belief--not mine. Obviously, before Christianity began the Jews were not intended to understand the fulfillment of the Law in Christ. They were only given to learn the lessons derived from obeying the Law.

In my view, offering sacrifices informed Israel that they needed them, being imperfect human beings. It was a lesson derived from the Garden of Eden story, in which Adam and Eve sinned and came to be prohibited from access to the Tree of Life.

So sacrifices were given under the Law. And in the history of Israel, as told by the Prophets, Israel failed under the Law, delegitimizing the sacrifices under the Law. So it is in my opinion to be concluded that a greater sacrifice needed to be offered *beyond the Law* to cover those who had failed not just one thing, but the whole Law!

Cleary, sacrifices under the Law were not enough if the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices all failed! That's why Christians believe that Christ came to fulfil this need for mercy beyond the Law itself.

The lesson of both the Law and Israel's history was that they were too flawed to bring about their own national salvation for all time. A Messiah had to come, who was perfect enough to accomplish this.

This isn't what the prophets say at all. Most of them (specifically Isaiah) say that when we return to God and repent, He will send the messiah. Ezekiel says that God will send the messiah whether we deserve it or not, for the sake of His name. In either case, the messiah isn't part of the process. We, human beings, specifically Jews, are. And when we merit it on a national level, the messiah is the reward.

I don't disagree except with your conclusion that Messiah was necessarily a perfect priest to atone for Israel's ins. Obviously, such a Messiah was not spelled out under the Law, because I believe Messiah came to establish a new covenant. While the old covenant of Law was still in effect, it was to remain a mystery how Messiah would provide everlasting atonement for Israel.

Some things Jews just don't know because they are self-satisfied with their old system, and are not open to God revealing new mysteries to them. But in the history of Israel it's apparent that Israel missed something! Jesus may seem strange to Jews who insist on continuing under a Law that is broken. But he fits the need for a "spotless lamb."

[Fenris]

As a Christian I'm not concerned what "Judaism believes."

If you're appealing to the Jewish bible, it should be of at least some interest to you.

[quote

Again, that's your belief--not mine. Obviously, before Christianity began the Jews were not intended to understand the fulfillment of the Law in Christ.

And yet you claim it's in the Jewish bible.

In my view, offering sacrifices informed Israel that they needed them, being imperfect human beings.

What anyone needs is not sacrifice, but repentance and mercy. Of course we're imperfect, God created us that way. So why would He expect perfection from his imperfect creations?

So sacrifices were given under the Law. And in the history of Israel, as told by the Prophets, Israel failed under the Law, delegitimizing the sacrifices under the Law. So it is in my opinion to be concluded that a greater sacrifice needed to be offered *beyond the Law* to cover those who had failed not just one thing, but the whole Law!

Yes. Your opinion.

Cleary, sacrifices under the Law were not enough if the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices all failed!

But the sacrifices didn't fail. It was people that failed, by believing that sacrifices were some sort of magic, and that they didn't have to change their behavior because they brought sacrifice. It's right there in Isaiah 1: “The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. ... Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

God wants us to be good, not bring sacrifice while behaving badly.

I don't disagree except with your conclusion that Messiah was necessarily a perfect priest to atone for Israel's ins.

Yeah but this isn't in the bible anywhere. The messiah isn't a a priest and in any case priests bring sacrifice, they aren't sacrificed themselves.

Obviously, such a Messiah was not spelled out under the Law

Well. That's kind of a problem then, isn't it?

Some things Jews just don't know because they are self-satisfied with their old system

I don't think self-satisfied is the right word. God told us to follow the law, and we're following it. Why should I listen to a person who tells me not to? How could I even defend myself before God for doing that?!

[agnostic]

The Law says it will be permanently broken and replaced by something completely different. Here's a verse from Amos. Here's another from Matthew. Oh, you want a verse from the Law because that's what I said? Here's one from Paul, and another from Psalms. Here's several dozen paragraphs where I don't cite any scripture at all. What? I'm not being disingenuous! Of course I cited a verse from the Law to back up what I'm saying! Here's a quote from Jeremiah and another from James, just to prove I quoted a verse from the Law! You think I'm being dishonest when I claim I said one thing when my post history proves I said something else? After another twenty seven paragraphs, I will deign to cite a single verse from Deuteronomy. No, I didn't take several dozen comments spread across four threads to finally answer your request. You are playing games and a ruse and you don't even believe what you're saying.

This gaslighting is ridiculous.

[RandyPNW]

If you're appealing to the Jewish bible, it should be of at least some interest to you.

I refer to the Jewish Scriptures. But my arguments do not rest solely on the Jewish Scriptures. Christian truth *requires* a NT fulfillment, and therefore, trying to argue the NT from OT truth is an exercise in futility. It is to remain in an unfulfilled state of mind.

As I've said before, the Law was a state of mind that at best contained a mystery of what its fulfillment would be. In a nutshell, the purpose of the Law was to lead to *final national salvation* for Israel, as opposed to momentary deliverances. How that would specifically result in resurrection and eternal life were hinted at but not explained in detail until the NT era.

What anyone needs is not sacrifice, but repentance and mercy. Of course we're imperfect, God created us that way. So why would He expect perfection from his imperfect creations?

He doesn't expect perfection. Would He have given Israel the Law, requiring atonement for sins, if He expected perfection? No. But to say nobody needed sacrifice is bizarre, since that's exactly what God required of Israel!

But the sacrifices didn't fail. It was people that failed, by believing that sacrifices were some sort of magic, and that they didn't have to change their behavior because they brought sacrifice. It's right there in Isaiah 1: “The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. ... Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

God wants us to be good, not bring sacrifice while behaving badly.

Failing people fail to prove true faith in making sacrifices. Sinners give offerings with an impure heart. That's why God wanted true repentance together with sacrifices made to Him.

When a system of sacrifices, such as the Law, failed, a completely transcendent system of atonement for sin must apply, from heaven, to cover a system of sacrifices that were rendered irrelevant due to failed people offering those sacrifices.

Yeah but this isn't in the bible anywhere. The messiah isn't a a priest and in any case priests bring sacrifice, they aren't sacrificed themselves.

Christians believe that Messiah was called to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Again, Jewish Scriptures are not in themselves sufficient to prove Christian truth. They are just support. The idea was that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood never could achieve the perfection necessary to get to the Tree of Life on behalf of Israel.

I don't think self-satisfied is the right word. God told us to follow the law, and we're following it. Why should I listen to a person who tells me not to? How could I even defend myself before God for doing that?!

Go ahead and follow the Law Fenris. I'm just trying to be a brother human being to you and tell you what I think is best for you. Fighting between religious sects accomplishes nothing. The best we can do is share our own truth, if we think it will help. If it doesn't help, God bless you.

[Fenris]

He doesn't expect perfection. Would He have given Israel the Law, requiring atonement for sins, if He expected perfection? No. But to say nobody needed sacrifice is bizarre, since that's exactly what God required of Israel!

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Micah 6: Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

You were saying?

The point of sacrifice is to stir repentance. That's it.

Again, Jewish Scriptures are not in themselves sufficient to prove Christian truth.

Bingo! You get it.

Go ahead and follow the Law Fenris.

I'm going to uphold the covenant my ancestors made at Sinai, as countless Jews before me.

God bless you.

And you as well.

[RandyPNW]

He doesn't expect perfection. Would He have given Israel the Law, requiring atonement for sins, if He expected perfection? No. But to say nobody needed sacrifice is bizarre, since that's exactly what God required of Israel!

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Micah 6: Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

You were saying?

The point of sacrifice is to stir repentance. That's it.

The point is, God required of Israel animal sacrifice. Period. We shouldn't deemphasize that. To explain the purpose of it is still to focus on its being required by God. To do it with the proper motive is, as you say, the important thing. But it remains important that it be done. To say that we should love others by being genuine is not to say that we shouldn't love others, but only be genuine.

Again, Jewish Scriptures are not in themselves sufficient to prove Christian truth.

Bingo! You get it.

Yes, I do. The NT was a "mystery" in the Jewish Bible. But it was meant to be understood when it was realized, because of the Jewish background that supported it.

And there are too many reasons, in history, for not ignoring it.
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.
2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.
3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law, which is the failure of the priesthood to preserve Israel in their land. It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.

[Fenris]

Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Micah 6: Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

You were saying?

The point of sacrifice is to stir repentance. That's it.

The point is, God required of Israel animal sacrifice. [/quote]You're just hand waving away the verses I posted. Same bible.

Yes, I do. The NT was a "mystery" in the Jewish Bible. But it was meant to be understood when it was realized, because of the Jewish background that supported it.

But Jews don't think the Jewish religion does support it.

And there are too many reasons, in history, for not ignoring it.
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.

Most, perhaps all of the NT was written after the temple was destroyed anyway. So it could just as likely be a "prediction" after the fact. And even if he said it beforehand, so what? The temple in his day was built by the wicked Herod. And it didn't conform to the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple (see Ez 40-48). It would have to be destroyed regardless. 

2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.

Neither was there sacrifice from 586BC to 516BC. Judaism survived that too.

3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law, which is the failure of the priesthood to preserve Israel in their land. It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.

Please show me where. Because not one observant Jewish person believes this.