Law vs grace

[Not Worthy]

Why didn't Israel obey the Law? Or why did they fall short?

Bear in mind that what is contained in the New Covenant books (a.k.a New Testament books) are the things taught by a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth and His Jewish apostles:

Israel fell short because they could not obey. They could not obey (and therefore fell short), because of sin dwelling in all the descendants of Adam (Romans 7:14-25)

The Law was holy and just and good,, but the descendants of Adam cannot make themselves holy out of their own efforts, that's why they fell short.

And when they fell short, they broke the covenant:

"And the land is defiled under its people; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance,

and have broken the everlasting (‛ôlâm) covenant." (Isaiah 24:5; Jeremiah 31:32).

Note: the word ‛ôlâm does not necessarily mean "forever and ever in perpetuity". There are many verses in the Hebrew Bible where it clearly does not mean "forever and ever".

And so a new covenant is necessary whereby God is writing His Law in their hearts.

No human who is descended from Adam can "just do it by nature" unless God is writing His Law in their hearts.

But the covenant of Law needed a mediator between God and Israel (Exodus 19:9-15), and that mediator, was Moses.

Likewise the New Covenant needs a mediator between God and Israel, and because the New Covenant is eternal ("I will remember their sins no more"), the New Covenant needs a mediator between God and Israel who abides forever, and that mediator, is Messiah, who put an end to sacrifice and offering when He offered Himself (Daniel 9:24, 26-27).

Of necessity it would have needed to be done "once for all", otherwise God would still remember their sins.

greenonions put it correctly in Post # 22 here:
https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=100.msg928#msg928,

but I've changed the wording slightly:

START QUOTE 

Another important aspect of the New Covenant (besides Christ the vine writing His Law – the fruit of the Spirit - in the heart of those who abide in the vine), is that iniquity is forgiven (Jeremiah 31:33-34). As Christians we know that this complete forgiveness of our 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).

As Christians we know that the Day of Atonement points to Jesus' ultimate sacrifice: "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more." (Jeremiah 31:34b)

END QUOTE

In other words, God will never ever remember their sins - something that is impossible while the blood of an animal is making atonement for sins year after year (and other sacrifices for sins in-between each Day of Atonement).

Only the High Priest could enter the most holy place in the temple - and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement. When Jesus died, the veil in the temple between the most holy place and the holy place was torn in two.

"Nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once for all into the Holy of Holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12).

"Once for all" because God had promised, "I will remember their sins no more".

And since it was the Law that required atonement be made year after year for sins, "In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13). 

"So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ so that you should be married to Another, even to Him raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God." Romans 7:4

The covenant of Law was ratified with blood - the blood of an animal:

Exodus 24:8 "Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."

Christ's blood is the blood of the New Covenant:

Matthew 26;28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The Messiah would need to be from the seed of Abraham, and the Messiah is a Jew, and so were all 12 of His chosen apostles.

But Messiah, unlike all other men begotten of a genetic descendant of Adam, was indeed conceived by, and born of, a virgin woman. He is the seed of Abraham and of Israel, through whom all the nations of the earth are blessed.

How does God write His Law on the heart of those who believe Him?

The only way, is through the only mediator of the new covenant: i.e Messiah, who said,

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can all of you, except all of you abide in me." (John 15:4)

What the Jewish apostles of a Jewish man taught in the new covenant books is true.

[agnostic]

I know that because you are arguing from a position of attempting to bring the discussion back to what I believe to be the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures regarding the Law and the New Covenant (and attempting to prove the Judaic view because you are convinced of the Judaic view), you will probably wind up repeatedly side-stepping my questions (as you did in the quotes below), and hence taking  the subject off-course to make me answer things that have nothing to do with the subject.

Excellent form of public discourse. Start a new conversation by backtracking your claim not to want to talk about a subject, and immediately accusing the person you wanted to talk with of derailing the conversation before it's even happened.

[Not Worthy]

I know that because you are arguing from a position of attempting to bring the discussion back to what I believe to be the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures regarding the Law and the New Covenant (and attempting to prove the Judaic view because you are convinced of the Judaic view), you will probably wind up repeatedly side-stepping my questions (as you did in the quotes below), and hence taking  the subject off-course to make me answer things that have nothing to do with the subject.

Excellent form of public discourse. Start a new conversation by backtracking your claim not to want to talk about a subject, and immediately accusing the person you wanted to talk with of derailing the conversation before it's even happened.

Maybe so, maybe not. But the day you stop agreeing with everything and anything Fenris says, and the day you say something positive, is the day I'll shake from shock (because till now everything you ever post if you're addressing someone who disagrees with Fenris, has been extremely negative and attacking),  As a result whether or not your criticism is valid, it means nothing, due to the way it's delivered.

[Fenris]

Why didn't Israel obey the Law? Or why did they fall short?

Because that's the human experience. You try, fall short, pick yourself up, and try again. Hopefully you learn and grow and become better.

things taught by a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth and His Jewish apostles:

This is just a bad appeal to authority. "Because Jesus was Jewish, Jews should listen to him". So was Karl Marx. And the Marx brothers for that matter.

[RandyPNW]

things taught by a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth and His Jewish apostles:

This is just a bad appeal to authority. "Because Jesus was Jewish, Jews should listen to him". So was Karl Marx. And the Marx brothers for that matter.

How silly! Jesus was a recognized rabbi by the Jews of his day, and his statements exude wisdom and knowledge of the Scriptures. Jesus' Apostles, likewise, showed unusual devotion to Judaism, even though their understanding of it evolved under the guidance of Jesus. We're not talking Jewish ethnicity alone, but more, about ethnicity and religious devotion.

[Fenris]

How silly!

Anything you don't agree with is silly. I know, I know. And it's also not respectful to the person you're having a discussion with.

Jesus was a recognized rabbi by the Jews of his day

By some Jews.

Let's do some quick math. In Jesus's day, there were perhaps 8 million Jews in the world. Jesus's ministry lasted what, two years? So let's say that in those two years he preached to or met 80,000 Jews. That would be 1% of the world's Jews. That means 99% of the world's Jews had not met or heard him before he was killed on the crucifix. And even of that 1%, some liked him and some didn't. So I don't think this is a good appeal to authority given what a small percentage of the entire people we are talking about.

And don't even get me started on Paul, because it looks like nobody liked him.

and his statements exude wisdom and knowledge of the Scriptures.

I can agree with this. The problem is that in this sense he's no different from other Pharisee rabbis. Take the sermon on the mount. Basically every idea he espouses can be found in the bible or the Talmud. So he's no more authoritative than anyone else.   

Jesus' Apostles, likewise, showed unusual devotion to Judaism, even though their understanding of it evolved under the guidance of Jesus. We're not talking Jewish ethnicity alone, but more, about ethnicity and religious devotion.

Again this is not a good appeal. Many rabbis were martyred in the first and second centuries for the "crime" of teaching Torah. Why is their sacrifice any less significant than the disciples? Simply because you don't like their theology?

[RandyPNW]

How silly!

Anything you don't agree with is silly. I know, I know. And it's also not respectful to the person you're having a discussion with.

No, I agree--we shouldn't denounce a view simply because we disagree with it, characterizing it as silly, preposterous, etc. My point here is that it really is silly, not colored by my own personal prejudice. You are taking a world-renowned religious leader and comparing him to Karl Marx and the Marx Brothers. Again: how silly!

Jesus was a recognized rabbi by the Jews of his day

By some Jews.

Let's do some quick math. In Jesus's day, there were perhaps 8 million Jews in the world. Jesus's ministry lasted what, two years? So let's say that in those two years he preached to or met 80,000 Jews. That would be 1% of the world's Jews. That means 99% of the world's Jews had not met or heard him before he was killed on the crucifix. And even of that 1%, some liked him and some didn't. So I don't think this is a good appeal to authority given what a small percentage of the entire people we are talking about.

And don't even get me started on Paul, because it looks like nobody liked him.

Again, you're absurd. Israel was small when Jesus was there, and he attracted the masses. Word about him got to Rome. Jews elsewhere certainly didn't hear his message, but that's not the point. Israel is the point--the place where Jewish religion gathered together.

Paul is not only not hated, but he is the largest part of the NT letters, and has been embraced by Christians throughout history. What a ridiculous argument!

The Church was originally Jewish, and embraced Paul, including James, Jesus' brother. Peter, the leader of the 12 disciples of Jesus also embraced Paul. What ridiculous notion are you trying to project?

and his statements exude wisdom and knowledge of the Scriptures.

I can agree with this. The problem is that in this sense he's no different from other Pharisee rabbis. Take the sermon on the mount. Basically every idea he espouses can be found in the bible or the Talmud. So he's no more authoritative than anyone else.   

I don't care if you accept him as different or not. The point was that he was a respected Jewish leader who then was suddenly turned upon. The Jewish remnant that became Christian interpreted this to be a new direction for Judaism, quite apart from the Law. It was viewed as a "fulfillment of the Law."

Jesus' Apostles, likewise, showed unusual devotion to Judaism, even though their understanding of it evolved under the guidance of Jesus. We're not talking Jewish ethnicity alone, but more, about ethnicity and religious devotion.

Again this is not a good appeal. Many rabbis were martyred in the first and second centuries for the "crime" of teaching Torah. Why is their sacrifice any less significant than the disciples? Simply because you don't like their theology?

The argument is against your comparison of Jesus' ethnicity with the ethnicity of Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx wasn't put to death for his faith.

[Fenris]

No, I agree--we shouldn't denounce a view simply because we disagree with it, characterizing it as silly, preposterous, etc. My point here is that it really is silly, not colored by my own personal prejudice. You are taking a world-renowned religious leader and comparing him to Karl Marx and the Marx Brothers. Again: how silly!

Karl Marx also created a religion of sorts, with billions of followers throughout history. I don't think it's silly to compare him to other religious figures.

Again, you're absurd.

You're being rude. Stop. Please.

Israel was small when Jesus was there, and he attracted the masses.

80,000 people seems like a lot. But it would only have been 1% of the world's Jews at that time, a majority of whom didn't even live in Judea.

Word about him got to Rome.

Debatable that this happened during his lifetime.

Jews elsewhere certainly didn't hear his message, but that's not the point. Israel is the point--the place where Jewish religion gathered together.

The people is what's important. Not the land. God's covenant is with the people. Wherever they may be.

 

Paul is not only not hated, but he is the largest part of the NT letters, and has been embraced by Christians throughout history.

Yes. But he wasn't embraced by any of the Jews in his time, unlike Jesus. Which is odd. But a different discussion.

What a ridiculous argument!

What a rude thing to say.

The Church was originally Jewish, and embraced Paul, including James, Jesus' brother. Peter, the leader of the 12 disciples of Jesus also embraced Paul. What ridiculous notion are you trying to project?

At this point, I get the notion that you're a rude individual.

I don't care if you accept him as different or not. The point was that he was a respected Jewish leader who then was suddenly turned upon.

As above, he was respected by some of those who heard him, which was a tiny portion of the Jews alive at the time.

The Jewish remnant that became Christian interpreted this to be a new direction for Judaism, quite apart from the Law. It was viewed as a "fulfillment of the Law."

Only a tiny portion of the Jews who heard him became Christians. If most of the Jews at the time didn't view him as authoritative, why should a Jew today? Because a gentile tells us to?

The argument is against your comparison of Jesus' ethnicity with the ethnicity of Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx wasn't put to death for his faith.

No, but lots and lots of Jews have been. Millions in the last century alone. Why is their sacrifice somehow less important?

[RandyPNW]

No, I agree--we shouldn't denounce a view simply because we disagree with it, characterizing it as silly, preposterous, etc. My point here is that it really is silly, not colored by my own personal prejudice. You are taking a world-renowned religious leader and comparing him to Karl Marx and the Marx Brothers. Again: how silly!

Karl Marx also created a religion of sorts, with billions of followers throughout history. I don't think it's silly to compare him to other religious figures.

Why don't you just admit it--it's a bad choice in comparisons? Karl Marx was a political philosopher--not a religious leader. Lenin and Stalin were leaders--Marx was not.

Again, you're absurd.

You're being rude. Stop. Please.

You're the one who's rude, being on a Christian discussion website insulting our religious leader by comparing him to an atheist philosopher and a group of comedians! You stop it!

Paul is not only not hated, but he is the largest part of the NT letters, and has been embraced by Christians throughout history.

Yes. But he wasn't embraced by any of the Jews in his time, unlike Jesus. Which is odd. But a different discussion.

I can't believe you. I've already told you, and you don't seem to get it: Christianity was started by Jews! Clearly, James and Peter both accepted Jesus and were Jews! What's the matter with you?

What a ridiculous argument!

What a rude thing to say.

The only one being rude around here is you. I'm not comparing Moses or any of the Prophets to comedians. I'm not even comparing your rabbis to comedians. But that's what *you're* doing!

The Church was originally Jewish, and embraced Paul, including James, Jesus' brother. Peter, the leader of the 12 disciples of Jesus also embraced Paul. What ridiculous notion are you trying to project?

At this point, I get the notion that you're a rude individual.

I don't particularly care for your comparisons either. If you want to insult the founder of our religion, do it on a Jewish website.

I don't care if you accept him as different or not. The point was that he was a respected Jewish leader who then was suddenly turned upon.

As above, he was respected by some of those who heard him, which was a tiny portion of the Jews alive at the time.

That's your point of view. As the Son of God Jesus could use his disciples to spread his faith around the world, including a good number of Jews. I understand that this cannot be proven. At the same time it's a fact that Jesus' words have been spread around the world, creating a very large religion.

The Jewish remnant that became Christian interpreted this to be a new direction for Judaism, quite apart from the Law. It was viewed as a "fulfillment of the Law."

Only a tiny portion of the Jews who heard him became Christians. If most of the Jews at the time didn't view him as authoritative, why should a Jew today? Because a gentile tells us to?

No, you should listen to my statements as authoritative if indeed they are authoritative--not because I'm a Gentile, but because I'm a Christian. Jesus gave me the key to your salvation. And if you don't want that key, you can have the other key--your choice. It's tough love, friend.

The argument is against your comparison of Jesus' ethnicity with the ethnicity of Groucho Marx. Groucho Marx wasn't put to death for his faith.

No, but lots and lots of Jews have been. Millions in the last century alone. Why is their sacrifice somehow less important?

I never once said the death of Jews were unimportant or insignificant. The loss of any human life is tragic. But God put us all to death for any sin. We need to look to Him for redemption, for atonement for sins, for eternal atonement for sin. Jesus offers that, by forgiving mankind for his own death.

[RabbiKnife]

My daddy can beat up your daddy.//

[Fenris]

Why don't you just admit it--it's a bad choice in comparisons? Karl Marx was a political philosopher--not a religious leader.

My point being, Jews are an unusually productive people who have created globe spanning movements, from science, to political philosophy, to entertainment, to religion. That doesn't mean that those movements are ipso facto correct.

You're the one who's rude, being on a Christian discussion website insulting our religious leader by comparing him to an atheist philosopher and a group of comedians! You stop it!

I'm comparing a Jewish person to other Jewish people.

I can't believe you. I've already told you, and you don't seem to get it: Christianity was started by Jews! Clearly, James and Peter both accepted Jesus and were Jews! What's the matter with you?

I can't believe you. I've already told you that socialism was started by Jews! What's the matter with you?

The only one being rude around here is you. I'm not comparing Moses or any of the Prophets to comedians. I'm not even comparing your rabbis to comedians. But that's what *you're* doing!

To be Jewish is to be a comedian. In Exodus 14, the Jews don't just complain that Moses took them to die in the desert. No. They complain "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? "

I don't particularly care for your comparisons either. If you want to insult the founder of our religion, do it on a Jewish website.

I haven't insulted anybody. Why you choose to take offense I have no idea.

That's your point of view.

It's fact.

As the Son of God Jesus could use his disciples to spread his faith around the world, including a good number of Jews. I understand that this cannot be proven. At the same time it's a fact that Jesus' words have been spread around the world, creating a very large religion.

And yet very few Jews. Weird. I know there are Christian theological reasons for this happening (Romans 11, for example) but you'd rather ignore that because it doesn't fit your own personal theology.

No, you should listen to my statements as authoritative if indeed they are authoritative--not because I'm a Gentile, but because I'm a Christian.

Ah. So now merely being a Christian makes your opinion authoritative. Fascinating.

I never once said the death of Jews were unimportant or insignificant.

What you said is that Christianity should be viewed as correct because Christians were martyred. I simply pointed out that Jews have been martyred too. 

[Fenris]

My daddy can beat up your daddy.//

Don't make me come over there.

[RandyPNW]

Why don't you just admit it--it's a bad choice in comparisons? Karl Marx was a political philosopher--not a religious leader.

My point being, Jews are an unusually productive people who have created globe spanning movements, from science, to political philosophy, to entertainment, to religion. That doesn't mean that those movements are ipso facto correct.

I get that part. Your choice in comparisons make the point, but are clearly insulting. Moving on...

I can't believe you. I've already told you, and you don't seem to get it: Christianity was started by Jews! Clearly, James and Peter both accepted Jesus and were Jews! What's the matter with you?

I can't believe you. I've already told you that socialism was started by Jews! What's the matter with you?

You said Jews didn't accept Paul. My point was that Jews not only accepted Paul, but they started the Christian Church!

The only one being rude around here is you. I'm not comparing Moses or any of the Prophets to comedians. I'm not even comparing your rabbis to comedians. But that's what *you're* doing!

To be Jewish is to be a comedian. In Exodus 14, the Jews don't just complain that Moses took them to die in the desert. No. They complain "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? "

Yes, Jews have had many great comedians. God was the 1st great Comedian. But the Jews followed soon after, being His children.

I don't particularly care for your comparisons either. If you want to insult the founder of our religion, do it on a Jewish website.

I haven't insulted anybody. Why you choose to take offense I have no idea.

The subject is now officially old.

That's your point of view.

It's fact.

As the Son of God Jesus could use his disciples to spread his faith around the world, including a good number of Jews. I understand that this cannot be proven. At the same time it's a fact that Jesus' words have been spread around the world, creating a very large religion.

And yet very few Jews. Weird. I know there are Christian theological reasons for this happening (Romans 11, for example) but you'd rather ignore that because it doesn't fit your own personal theology.

The story of Elijah who thought he alone retained worship of the true God. There are times when the nation, as a whole, falls away. And it may take a very long time to bring the nation back into conformity with God's Law.

You should, however, take note of the fact Jews *started Christianity!* It wasn't initially a "Gentile religion!"

No, you should listen to my statements as authoritative if indeed they are authoritative--not because I'm a Gentile, but because I'm a Christian.

Ah. So now merely being a Christian makes your opinion authoritative. Fascinating.

You misrepresent what I said. Being a Christian and having divine authority is what gives me authority (if in fact that is true)--not just being a Christian. Did being a Jewish priest give him automatic authority in ancient times? Certainly not if he was out of compliance with God's laws.

I do believe that I live in conformity with Jesus' Law. And so, he has given me the key to your salvation--it is the Gospel of Jesus--the Gospel of his resurrection. There is no other way to be saved.

I never once said the death of Jews were unimportant or insignificant.

What you said is that Christianity should be viewed as correct because Christians were martyred. I simply pointed out that Jews have been martyred too.

You draw a lot of false conclusions from what I say. You should view something as correct not because it is Jews, nor because Jews die. You shouldn't view something as correct because it is Christians, nor because Christians are persecuted.

No, you should view something as correct because the word of God within your conscience speaks moral truth that convicts you to behave in accordance with it. Beyond that, there is the historical realities confirming it, or not.

[RandyPNW]

My daddy can beat up your daddy.//

Time to close up shop and go home?

[Fenris]

I get that part. Your choice in comparisons make the point, but are clearly insulting.

So Jews creating something is only significant if you find it significant. Moving on...

You said Jews didn't accept Paul. My point was that Jews not only accepted Paul

Why do I know your bible better than you do?

2 Corinthians 11 I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers...

Yes, Jews have had many great comedians. God was the 1st great Comedian. But the Jews followed soon after, being His children.

There ya go!

The story of Elijah who thought he alone retained worship of the true God. There are times when the nation, as a whole, falls away. And it may take a very long time to bring the nation back into conformity with God's Law.

That's all true, and yet it proves nothing. "Jews haven't adhered to God, Jews aren't Christian, ergo, Christianity must be correct" isn't the proof you think it is.

You should, however, take note of the fact Jews *started Christianity!*

Jews have started many things.

It wasn't initially a "Gentile religion!"

No, but it became one when the Jews in general rejected it. Again (and why am I having to tell you this?) read Romans 11.

You misrepresent what I said. Being a Christian and having divine authority is what gives me authority (if in fact that is true)--not just being a Christian. Did being a Jewish priest give him automatic authority in ancient times? Certainly not if he was out of compliance with God's laws.

Ah. So finally you see the subtle point. You believe that you have divine authority, but of course it is possible that you do not.

I do believe that I live in conformity with Jesus' Law. And so, he has given me the key to your salvation--it is the Gospel of Jesus--the Gospel of his resurrection. There is no other way to be saved.

Possibly. Or possibly not.

You draw a lot of false conclusions from what I say. You should view something as correct not because it is Jews, nor because Jews die. You shouldn't view something as correct because it is Christians, nor because Christians are persecuted.

But that's a point that you made, not me. "Christians were martyred, so Christianity is correct."

No, you should view something as correct because the word of God within your conscience speaks moral truth that convicts you to behave in accordance with it.

It's the word of God in the bible that's significant.

Beyond that, there is the historical realities confirming it, or not.

Agree. And there's only one bronze age, middle eastern people and faith still in existence. Who have, after millennia of exile, returned to their homeland.  Which is historically interesting at a minimum.