prince David (counterfeit) is the little horn,second beast rev 13

[RandyPNW]

I don't disagree with this. It's the whole Jewish mission- a moral "pilot project" so to speak, for all of humanity. God gives the Jews divine revelation at Sinai, and our mission is to show the world how to live a Godly life. There's no need for anything else. 

Yes, but I let God decide "what else" may need to be done.

As a Christian I believe He did this at a time when Israel had come to a very low point in their spirituality, rejecting the reform mission of Jesus and John the Baptist.

If you define "low point in spirituality" as not accepting Jesus, then sure. But that's circular logic.

From your pov maybe. But as a Christian, I take the message of the Gospels seriously. And those accounts suggest that Israel was idolatrous within, as much as Israel was idolatrous without just before the Babylonian Captivity.

When the Romans besieged Masada in the year 73 and it became obvious that the defenders would fall, they committed mass suicide rather than fall into Roman hands. Their leader, Elazar Ben Yair, gave a very poigant speech (as reported by Josephus)

As sad as this event was it reminds me of the time when God used Jeremiah to tell the Jews to surrender to the pagan Babylonians. Those who refused to hear the word of the Lord ended up dead.

It's a very grievous thing. But the Lord meant business. Resisting the Romans was foolish, and ended up getting all of those at Masada killed.

Say what you want about the guy, but he isn't lacking in faith or devotion to God.

Call it "misled faith." I don't doubt they died in devotion to their God. But again, it was in my view a rejection of Jesus' teaching, which called upon the Jews to submit to the Romans. Living under pagan domination is a judgment from God which, if surrendered to, eventually leads to restoration.

So no, I don't consider the first century a "spiritual low point" for Jews.

Since you don't agree with the premise by which I interpret the history prophetically, no sense beating the subject to death with you?

In an idle moment I've observed that Jesus's case would have been stronger if he came before the destruction of the first temple, because idolatry was rife at that time in a way that  it wasn't during the second temple era. But he didn't, so...

God arranged it, as I see it, for Messiah to come after the temple worship had been given a chance to reform, and eventually fail. Messiah came to forgive this failure, to establish a new worship leading to eternal life. Temple worship was never designed to bring eternal life. I believe only Jesus had the authority to grant eternal life. And God chose for him not to do that until he had first suffered along with the complete collapse of Jewish worship under temple law.

Again, Jews were punished for falling short because God expected (and still expects) more, because we know better. Other nations are not held to this exacting standard. Some are actually ok (like America) and some are quite bad. I wouldn't paint all the nations of the world as "sinners" either.

As a Christian I put it similarly, and yet different. Those in covenant with God, whether in covenant of Law or covenant of Christ, are held to a higher standard, knowing God and what He requires. When we deliberately refuse to live by that standard we are punished for it in the hope we will recover our senses.

I don't believe the covenant of Law is in effect any longer, though I do respect the Jewish belief in one God and in His laws. That certainly counts for much in my book.

The only distinction for me is that the covenant Christians have guarantees eternal life, beyond just the blessings that God rains down upon the righteous. There is suffering in life, but afterwards there is blessing for those who prevail in doing right.

But I want to see you blessed forever, and not just temporarily. And I want to see the curses lifted off permanently so that we don't have to suffer anymore. That is the distinction between my religion and your religion.

This is an old argument we've had before. The Prophets predicted not just a corrective punishment, but an all-out "divorce."

No, they didn't. Isaiah says the exact opposite. You may not like it, but the covenant is permanent. There is punishment under the covenant, but no abrogation. See also Lev 26:44.

It's not a matter of what I "like." It's a matter of my personal conviction. I believe the covenant of Law was given in perpetuity up until Israel completely failed under the terms of that agreement. Then God had the choice to retain some of that covenant until full restoration or abandon it entirely. I believe He abandoned it entirely, as indicated by the fact that no temple has been restored, as it was in the days of Nehemiah and just before him.

I'm not saying that God's promise to retain Israel as His people isn't eternal, nor am I saying that divine Law ever ceases to function as such. I'm just saying that I believe the specific covenant agreement God made with Israel on Sinai was *conditional,* which, if broken, could be completely abandoned. And I think it was because the Romans destroyed the temple, and it has never been rebuilt.

Jeremiah predicted that Israel would be restored after 70 years, and the temple would be rebuilt. And it was. But Herod's temple not only is not predicted to be rebuilt, but no time period for its restoration is given. The only thing I have is Jesus' prediction that he himself is the new temple of God. He alone can forgive sin for eternal life. All other sacrifices are repeated year after year. And when there is no temple, no sacrifices can be made at all. This specific covenant *does not function!*

We keep the laws to set an example for the nations to do likewise.

You've already succeeded at that. Israel presently isn't very godly, in my view. Some of you are godly, and I respect that. You continue to model God's Law to the world.

We have debated the identity of the servant in Isaiah in the past. Jews through history have accepted that their mission is to be "a light unto the nations".

Many of what Christians view as Messianic prophecies were allusions of him through historical figures. They are not always direct prophecies. In the case of Isa 53, I think the reference is to Messiah, but it is using language of the day as Israel may have viewed it as something they also have experienced.

Umm yes. Devastation and exile are a punishment for sin. Under the covenant. Read Lev 26 and Deut 28. It doesn't end the covenant though. And again, this supposition that the temples destruction has to be because Jews did not accept Jesus as the messiah is circular logic. Jews understood the destruction's cause being strife between the Jews, which is actually historically true. The year 69 was named "the year of the four emperors"  because Rome went through 4 leaders in the same year. Had the Jews presented a unified front in besieged Jerusalem, the destruction could have been avoided. But there was so much infighting in the city that they could not, and so it was not.

Yes, I know the Jews had internal conflicts at that time. The sins, according to John the Baptist and Jesus, was a rejection of their reform message. They preached that God's Kingdom was soon to arrive. And they declared that the Jews were not ready. They looked good. They looked compliant. But inside they were wolves.

This does not, obviously, refer to Jews as a race, for all time. This was a low point in Israel's history, just as it was before the Babylonian Captivity. But this time the idolatry was internal and not immediately apparent. After Jesus was crucified, Jewish leaders went after Christians among them. Paul was one who went after Christians, and put them to death. This is not just idolatry--it's murder!

This prophecy was fulfilled long before Paul's time. He's quoting out of context, a common theme it seems.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

Yes, sometimes Christians quote this because of the *principle*--it has nothing to do about fulfilling a prophecy in the present. It is a return to the original conditions such that the same principle applies!

I'm fully aware that most Jewish prophecies have been fulfilled already in history. When we look to Jewish prophecies of Messiah we believe they are literal. But they are often given as symbolic allusions, through the histories of the saints, who depict characteristics of the Messiah.

You act like a battered wife! Are you experiencing some kind of military fatigue? I know the Jews have suffered persecution, but not every rock you turn over is anti-Semitism!

Oh so I guess we can just ignore 20 centuries of persecution then. Much of it by so called Christians. Yup, sweep it under the rug with everything else that bothers you.

Yes, they are "so-called Christians" because when an entire State is Christian many within that State are not really Christians or they don't act like Christians. It would be the same with Jews. They may claim to have the standards of God's Law. But does that mean all Jews follow God's Law properly? Of course not.

So we shouldn't denigrate and slander all Jews for what some groups of Jews fail to do right. And you shouldn't denigrate all of Christianity simply because some Christians fail to live by Christ's Law, or because some Christian States are in a state of decline.

I read a book many years ago called "the Fall and Rise of Israel," which gave the entire history of the Jewish experience in the last 2000 years. It's heart-breaking story, but everybody should know these things you speak of.

It's a common antisemitic theme that Jews manipulate others for their own benefit.

I don't care about anti-Semites who think Jews are trying to rule the world! I'm not saying that!!

Can't you tell the difference between that and my saying that the Jews have a *responsibility* to influence the world for good? And they have every right and responsibility to try to influence political leaders in the U.S. to support the state of Israel. They are an important ally!

"Anyone who disagrees with me is crazy". Classy.

Sorry, I just don't like being grouped with anti-Semites. I've supported both Jews and Israel for over 50 years. And to be classed with bigots irritates me majorly. I'm not trying to be classy--just express how I "really feel."

I think I told you before I tried to join a kibbutz in Israel a long time ago, and was almost accepted--not my fault I was turned down. I was going to serve up close to the border with Lebanon during the mid-70s. Not really a safe or well-paying job!

[Fenris]

Yes, but I let God decide "what else" may need to be done.

That's a hole with no bottom. What else? Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and on and on.

From your pov maybe. But as a Christian,

"As a whatever" could bu used to justify any belief at all. Anyways

I take the message of the Gospels seriously. And those accounts suggest that Israel was idolatrous within, as much as Israel was idolatrous without just before the Babylonian Captivity.

Idolatry was not really prevalent during the second temple era. The opposite, those Jews who heard Jesus (a small number, I contend; in any case) rejected him for straying too far from the bible's words. *Not* because of idolatry.

As sad as this event was it reminds me of the time

What it reminds you of is irrelevant. This was not a man who lacked faith, which you seem to think was a big problem at the time.

Call it "misled faith." I don't doubt they died in devotion to their God.

"Their God"? Really now.

But again, it was in my view a rejection of Jesus' teaching, which called upon the Jews to submit to the Romans.

Book, chapter and verse, please?

If the Jews had "submit to pagan domination" a couple of centuries earlier, we wouldn't have the holiday of Chanukah. There would also be no Christianity, as Judaism would have ceased to exist.

Living under pagan domination is a judgment from God which, if surrendered to, eventually leads to restoration.

This is not in the bible anywhere and is definitely an unbiblical concept. Submitting to pagans? No. Repentance leads to restoration. See Deut 30 for the perfect example.

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.

Nothing about submission at all.

Since you don't agree with the premise by which I interpret the history prophetically, no sense beating the subject to death with you?

There's no need to interpret the history "prophetically". Just read the history.

God arranged it, as I see it, for Messiah to come after the temple worship had been given a chance to reform, and eventually fail.

Temple worship never "failed".

Temple worship was never designed to bring eternal life.

The bible doesn't speak of "eternal life" at all, so it's hard to see how temple worship could bring it.

I don't believe the covenant of Law is in effect any longer, though I do respect the Jewish belief in one God and in His laws. That certainly counts for much in my book.

Awesome.

The only distinction for me is that the covenant Christians have guarantees eternal life

Right but this is a new idea not brought forth in the Jewish bible. 

But I want to see you blessed forever, and not just temporarily. And I want to see the curses lifted off permanently so that we don't have to suffer anymore.

Well, that depends on our actions. Every day is a fresh start, in which we can choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing. To lead a biblical life or an unbiblical one. To be worthy of God's blessings or to shun them. This is the human experience.

It's not a matter of what I "like." It's a matter of my personal conviction.

Which you choose because you like it.

I believe the covenant of Law was given in perpetuity up until Israel completely failed

Then it wasn't given "in perpetuity" but until "such and such happened". Which isn't in my bible anywhere. The opposite, take Yom Kippur observance, Lev 23:31

You shall do no work.

Right, a day of rest. How long is this in effect?

It is an eternal statute, throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places.

That's pretty strong language. "Eternal statute." "Throughout your generations". "In all your dwelling placed". It certainly sounds permanent. If it isn't, what stronger language could God have added?

Then God had the choice to retain some of that covenant until full restoration or abandon it entirely.

This isn't in the bible. God is obligated to keep His word, just as man is.

I believe He abandoned it entirely

Ok, and you're free to believe that.

I'm not saying that God's promise to retain Israel as His people isn't eternal, nor am I saying that divine Law ever ceases to function as such. I'm just saying that I believe the specific covenant agreement God made with Israel on Sinai was *conditional,* which, if broken, could be completely abandoned.

But the bible doesn't say that it's conditional. What gives you the authority to tamper with God's word?

And I think it was because the Romans destroyed the temple, and it has never been rebuilt.

There was also no temple between 586BC and 516BC. In a time when the average human lifespan was only 30 years or so, it meant that some Jews lived their entire lives in a world with no temple. Just because the present gap is longer doesn't mean that it's "permanent". Ezekiel foresees a rebuilt temple and gives its floorplab and sacrificial ritual in exhaustive detail over 8 whole chapters.

And I won't even get started about the modern day state of Israel, which was prophesized over 2500 years ago. Actual, literal fulfillment.

And when there is no temple, no sacrifices can be made at all. This specific covenant *does not function!*

as I said, above, just because there's no temple now doesn't mean there will never be one. Someone born in 570BC who does in 530BC would have lived their whole life without a temple. So what? And sacrifice is not "a covenant" as you seem to imply. It's a law under the covenant. And just because some law is not possible to be carried out doesn't mean it isn't in effect. I'm not a farmer so I can't carry out biblical laws pertaining to farming. That doesn't mean those laws aren't in effect. I just can't carry them out at this time.

 

You've already succeeded at that. Israel presently isn't very godly, in my view. Some of you are godly, and I respect that. You continue to model God's Law to the world.

The world isn't very Godly I'm afraid. So we still have much work yet to be done.

Many of what Christians view as Messianic prophecies were allusions of him through historical figures. They are not always direct prophecies. In the case of Isa 53, I think the reference is to Messiah, but it is using language of the day as Israel may have viewed it as something they also have experienced.

Jews today still see it as language they we have collectively experienced over the last 2500 years, and in the end of days that nations of the world will indeed be stunned at this revelation. 

Yes, I know the Jews had internal conflicts at that time. The sins, according to John the Baptist and Jesus, was a rejection of their reform message. They preached that God's Kingdom was soon to arrive. And they declared that the Jews were not ready. They looked good. They looked compliant. But inside they were wolves.

You know, I uh, try not to comment on what people are doing vs what they're thinking. God desires the heart, sure, but he demands Jewish obedience to the law. If it looks good, it is good. I think it's just as likely that early Christians viewed the Jews as "bad" because they rejected the Christian view and not because they were objectively bad. The Romans were barbaric and pagan and actually killed Jesus yet early Christians don't have a bad thing to say about them. Which I find peculiar.

After Jesus was crucified, Jewish leaders went after Christians among them. Paul was one who went after Christians, and put them to death. This is not just idolatry--it's murder!

Eh, I doubt this historicity of this. No Jewish authority at the time had the power to carry out death penalties. And early Christians would have been seen as just one more Jewish sect. Rabban Gamliel certainly saw them that way, and he wasn't a lay person but the leader of the Pharisee movement and the head of the Sanhedrin.

Yes, sometimes Christians quote this because of the *principle*--it has nothing to do about fulfilling a prophecy in the present. It is a return to the original conditions such that the same principle applies!

And in so doing they get to ignore the context of the original prophecy. Which is very clever, I give you, but doesn't make it credible to me in any way.

I'm fully aware that most Jewish prophecies have been fulfilled already in history. When we look to Jewish prophecies of Messiah we believe they are literal.

So a literal ingathering of Jewish exiles? A literal rebuilt temple? Literal universal peace and knowledge of God? Because that's what we're waiting for, too.

And you shouldn't denigrate all of Christianity simply because some Christians fail to live by Christ's Law, or because some Christian States are in a state of decline.

I don't denigrate all of Christianity. Christianity on the whole has been a good faith, civilizing and bringing ethical monotheism to billions of people. I'm just pointing out that the last 20 centuries have not been great in terms of how Jews were treated as a minority religion in Europe.

I don't care about anti-Semites who think Jews are trying to rule the world! I'm not saying that!!

But you're repeating the canard.

Can't you tell the difference between that and my saying that the Jews have a *responsibility* to influence the world for good?

Our responsibility, as I said above, is to be a light unto the nations. We do this by leading by example, by showing the world what moral behavior looks like.

And they have every right and responsibility to try to influence political leaders in the U.S. to support the state of Israel. They are an important ally!

And as I've said numerous times now, American support for Israel is mostly from Evangelical Christians, not Jewish influence.

I think I told you before I tried to join a kibbutz in Israel a long time ago, and was almost accepted--not my fault I was turned down. I was going to serve up close to the border with Lebanon during the mid-70s. Not really a safe or well-paying job!

Ha! No, it wasn't.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, but I let God decide "what else" may need to be done.

That's a hole with no bottom. What else? Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and on and on.

As on Sinai, God can make His voice heard when He so pleases. We shouldn't make up His voice and insert our words into the mouth of a dead idol--I agree.

I believe God is consistent, but I also believe we can be wrong about what "for all your generations" means when dealing with a conditional covenant.

Idolatry was not really prevalent during the second temple era. The opposite, those Jews who heard Jesus (a small number, I contend; in any case) rejected him for straying too far from the bible's words. *Not* because of idolatry.

Don't agree. Those who intermarried with pagan women were engaging indirectly in idolatry. Gradually, closer observation of the Law became a cover for fudging.

But yes, sometimes things got straightened out, apparently. I'm not one of those "all Jews are hypocritical, legalistic Pharisees" kinds of Christians! I believe there were some very faithful Jews under the Law, as even the New Testament points out. Simeon and Ana, as well as John the Baptist, were very faithful Jews under the Law. And Jesus himself gave instructions about the Law in the most demanding way. He indicated that the greatest in the coming Kingdom will be those who emphasized God's Law, instead of compromising it.

But again, it was in my view a rejection of Jesus' teaching, which called upon the Jews to submit to the Romans.

Book, chapter and verse, please?

It's a principle indicated in the book of Jeremiah. 

Jer 38.17 Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, “This is what the Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. 18 But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be given into the hands of the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from them.’”

Matt 22.21 Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

If the Jews had "submit to pagan domination" a couple of centuries earlier, we wouldn't have the holiday of Chanukah. There would also be no Christianity, as Judaism would have ceased to exist.

Underscores  the importance of knowing when to rebel against outside forces and when not to. It's a matter of prophetic revelation. If you are left to your own judgment you could be making a very serious error.

This is not in the bible anywhere and is definitely an unbiblical concept. Submitting to pagans? No. Repentance leads to restoration. See Deut 30 for the perfect example.

Not true. Israel was forced, by God's determination, to have to submit to outside pagan powers, due to their idolatry in the days of the judges. For example...

Judg 3. 8 The anger of the Lord burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years.
3.14 The Israelites were subject to Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years.

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.

Nothing about submission at all.

Dispersal among the nations translates into becoming subject to foreign powers. Daniel and his friends clearly were subject to the king of Babylon. Ezra and Nehemiah clearly were subject to the king of Persia. And Israel ultimately became subject to the Caesars of Rome.

There's no need to interpret the history "prophetically". Just read the history.

The Jewish Bible interprets history prophetically.

Temple worship never "failed".

If you discount the fact God divorced Israel for her idolatry, and if you discount the fact the temple was destroyed, then ok--temple law never failed.

The bible doesn't speak of "eternal life" at all, so it's hard to see how temple worship could bring it.

The Tree of Life in the Garden was  something beyond just continuous existence. I believe it was eternal life, the eternal existence of nations who put their faith in God to overcome death for them.
 

I believe the covenant of Law was given in perpetuity up until Israel completely failed

Then it wasn't given "in perpetuity" but until "such and such happened". Which isn't in my bible anywhere. The opposite, take Yom Kippur observance, Lev 23:31

The Law was conditional, as you can read in the blessings and the curses on the mountains of Ebal and Gerazim. That's in the book of Deuteronomy. That is *conditional.*

But I do agree that the *promises* of God concerning Israel's perpetual existence are different, and can be fulfilled under a "new covenant," as is indicated in Jer 31.31.

That's pretty strong language. "Eternal statute." "Throughout your generations". "In all your dwelling placed". It certainly sounds permanent. If it isn't, what stronger language could God have added?

It was strong language because God didn't want Israel to fail, though He knew they would fail. He knew Israel would be a model to all nations, and therefore knew that all nations would fail and would need mercy.

The language of perpetuity is strong, but is conditioned on the failure of any party in the agreement. God didn't fail on His part of the agreement.

The continual restoration of Israel after failure is due to the eternal promise, which is without conditions. And so, Israel could be restored to the Law after failure, or God could decide to restore Israel without the Law, by a "new covenant," which is precisely what He said would happen.

Of course, as long as the Law was still in effect, God would not spell out the rules for any future "new covenant." That would be like jumping ahead of the game. That would be like marginalizing the importance of a covenant still in effect.

Then God had the choice to retain some of that covenant until full restoration or abandon it entirely.

This isn't in the bible. God is obligated to keep His word, just as man is.

Clearly, Israel could not keep the full temple law while they were in captivity. So they kept what parts of the Law they could keep. They were in compliance with as much of the Law as they could. But they certainly were not in full compliance of temple law, which required meeting 3 times a year in Jerusalem. They couldn't do that while they were captive in a foreign land.

And I think it was because the Romans destroyed the temple, and it has never been rebuilt.

There was also no temple between 586BC and 516BC. In a time when the average human lifespan was only 30 years or so, it meant that some Jews lived their entire lives in a world with no temple. Just because the present gap is longer doesn't mean that it's "permanent". Ezekiel foresees a rebuilt temple and gives its floorplab and sacrificial ritual in exhaustive detail over 8 whole chapters.

It was a vision of the future using the current infrastructure as the symbolism. There is no indication a new temple will ever be built. And 2000 years erases any of the old observances of temple law. What isn't erased, however, are the people themselves, who God has promised will have eternal existence.

And I won't even get started about the modern day state of Israel, which was prophesized over 2500 years ago. Actual, literal fulfillment.

Yea, I've been excited about that since I was a kid in 1967. Back then I was a Lutheran, and as a family we believed God was with the Jewish People and Israel.

Later, after my "Lutheran Period," I began to study how Christians look at Israel prophetically. It was very exciting.

When I visited Israel alone in 1976 I literally saw prophecy come to life as the bus took us in from the airport in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The barren land literally graduated into orchards and modern buildings! Beautiful! If I as a Christian can get this excited, how excited you Jews must be!!

But I understand that some Jews are against the Jewish State due to their fanaticism? It's like the man drowning at sea, praying for God to save him. He sees a helicopter coming to save him, and drives him away, saying he asked "God" to help him--not a helicopter! Some Jews apparently believe that the modern State is so compromised, religiously, that it's better to wait for Messiah?

You've already succeeded at that. Israel presently isn't very godly, in my view. Some of you are godly, and I respect that. You continue to model God's Law to the world.

The world isn't very Godly I'm afraid. So we still have much work yet to be done.

You can drive someone to water, but you can't make him get out and drink. The world has adopted either monotheism or civilized rules of living, based on the God of Israel. Some will not acknowledge that, but I believe it's true. European Civilization is based on Christianity, which in turn was based on the God of Israel and His ethics.

But now we see the world going back to pagan ways. And I believe God will have to eventually step in.

The world is being given over to lawlessness, and so God is giving the world up to plagues and division. God will have to step in, at some point, to recover the blueprint of love and peace through the one God.

I think it's just as likely that early Christians viewed the Jews as "bad" because they rejected the Christian view and not because they were objectively bad. The Romans were barbaric and pagan and actually killed Jesus yet early Christians don't have a bad thing to say about them. Which I find peculiar.

You must not have read much of the Christian Fathers? The Christians wouldn't serve in their armies, and they were killed by the Romans.

They were told by Paul to submit to the authorities and to expect persecution. They were to model patience, forgiveness, and long suffering.

I'm uncomfortable telling a Jew his people, in ancient times, were bad. But that's a part of our Bible. And nothing in your Bible embellishes the truth either. We are all bad at times, or at least, our peoples are.

After Jesus was crucified, Jewish leaders went after Christians among them. Paul was one who went after Christians, and put them to death. This is not just idolatry--it's murder!

Eh, I doubt this historicity of this. No Jewish authority at the time had the power to carry out death penalties. And early Christians would have been seen as just one more Jewish sect. Rabban Gamliel certainly saw them that way, and he wasn't a lay person but the leader of the Pharisee movement and the head of the Sanhedrin.

Yea, some things are buried in history, and we have to decide whether to accept certain historical records. I just have to respond as a Christian as if they are true, because our Scriptures are what they are.

I don't denigrate all of Christianity. Christianity on the whole has been a good faith, civilizing and bringing ethical monotheism to billions of people. I'm just pointing out that the last 20 centuries have not been great in terms of how Jews were treated as a minority religion in Europe.

Very gracious of you to say the good part about Christianity, and I agree about the bad part, as well. I was raised in the Lutheran faith, and am horrified by Luther's apparent transition to anti-Semitic language (he started out favoring the Jews).

I don't care about anti-Semites who think Jews are trying to rule the world! I'm not saying that!!

But you're repeating the canard.

No, that's what you're saying, which isn't true. There are two ways to look at influencing others, by means of reasonable argument or by means of manipulation. You choose to try to fit me into the "manipulation" camp, and I run far away from that. That is indeed the language of anti-Semitism.

Our responsibility, as I said above, is to be a light unto the nations. We do this by leading by example, by showing the world what moral behavior looks like.

And you also could do that by lobbying for the truth. How else can you model the good without speaking of the good? How can you be a good citizen if you don't vote?

That's not manipulation--that's just reasonable citizenship! How can a politician get elected if he doesn't run campaigns and try to argue for what he believes? That's just sensible--that's not manipulation!

And as I've said numerous times now, American support for Israel is mostly from Evangelical Christians, not Jewish influence.

If true, I find that incredibly sad. I think you should speak out on behalf of any good cause, particularly one close to your heart!

I can see how you thought I was perpetuating an anti-Semitic talking point if there really aren't any Jews lobbing for Israel. But my assuming that this was happening isn't anti-Semitism either, nor was I supporting the anti-Semitic talking point. Thanks for the discussion.

[Fenris]

As on Sinai, God can make His voice heard when He so pleases. We shouldn't make up His voice and insert our words into the mouth of a dead idol--I agree.

I believe God is consistent, but I also believe we can be wrong about what "for all your generations" means when dealing with a conditional covenant.

You didn't address my point at all. If you're willing to "let God decide what else may need to be done" then there's no end. It means any and all other religions might also be correct.

Don't agree. Those who intermarried with pagan women were engaging indirectly in idolatry.

That was in the time of Ezra and Nehemia. Hundreds of years before the era we're discussing. And they left their pagan wives, so why is it even a talking point?

Gradually, closer observation of the Law became a cover for fudging.

So closer observation of the Law was actually bad? And yet it's what God desires. Square that circle, if you will.

But yes, sometimes things got straightened out, apparently. I'm not one of those "all Jews are hypocritical, legalistic Pharisees" kinds of Christians! I believe there were some very faithful Jews under the Law, as even the New Testament points out. Simeon and Ana, as well as John the Baptist, were very faithful Jews under the Law. And Jesus himself gave instructions about the Law in the most demanding way. He indicated that the greatest in the coming Kingdom will be those who emphasized God's Law, instead of compromising it.

He actually told his listeners to obey the Pahrisees. That's what I'm doing, where is the problem?

It's a principle indicated in the book of Jeremiah.

Jer 38.17 Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, “This is what the Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. 18 But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be given into the hands of the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from them.’”

I don't think the principle means what you imply it means. Context as always is important. Earlier in the chapter, we have-

This is what the Lord says: ‘Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague, but whoever goes over to the Babylonians will live. They will escape with their lives; they will live.’

God isn't saying "submit to the pagans". He's saying you cannot win this battle, it's suicidal, so don't try and fight it.

This is different from what happened with king Hezekiah, some 130 years earlier.  Isaiah 37, talking about the Assyrian king Sannichereb-

“He will not enter this city
    or shoot an arrow here.
He will not come before it with shield
    or build a siege ramp against it.
 By the way that he came he will return;
    he will not enter this city,”
declares the Lord.
 “I will defend this city and save it,
    for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!”

Followed immediately by

Then the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. 

So obviously king Hezekiah merited a miraculous salvation in a way that king Zedekiah didn't.

In either case, there's no command to "submit to the pagans". There's no inherent benefit or command from God to do so. You'll be interested to know that the Pharisee leadership was opposed to the revolt against Rome, both in 66 and in 132 (Bar Kochba). Not because there was some merit in submission to pagans. They were just being practical; they were wars that couldn't be won.

Underscores  the importance of knowing when to rebel against outside forces and when not to. It's a matter of prophetic revelation.

There was no "prophetic revelation" to rebel against the Greeks. And on paper it looked just as hopeless against the Greeks as the later revolts against the Romans. Yet it worked out, for both our faiths.

This is not in the bible anywhere and is definitely an unbiblical concept. Submitting to pagans? No. Repentance leads to restoration. See Deut 30 for the perfect example.

Not true.

Not true?!! Read Deuteronomy 30. I posted the pertinent paragraph, and you just ignore it like it wasn't there! This is God's word!

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.

Repentance. Not submission.

 

Israel was forced, by God's determination, to have to submit to outside pagan powers, due to their idolatry in the days of the judges.

These are punishments , meant to stir repentance. Lev 26. Deut 28. Are they not in your bible?

There's no need to interpret the history "prophetically". Just read the history.

The Jewish Bible interprets history prophetically.

Umm no, it doesn't.

If you discount the fact God divorced Israel for her idolatry

But not Judah. And while Israel is lost to history, the Jews (Which comes from the word "Judah") are still around. Back in their homeland in fact. As prophesized. Awesome!

and if you discount the fact the temple was destroyed

Temple was also destroyed in 586BCE. So what? It didn't "fail" then.

The Tree of Life in the Garden was  something beyond just continuous existence. I believe it was eternal life, the eternal existence of nations who put their faith in God to overcome death for them.

This is your exposition. Not in the bible.
 

The Law was conditional, as you can read in the blessings and the curses on the mountains of Ebal and Gerazim. That's in the book of Deuteronomy. That is *conditional.*

Nope. You've missed the whole point. The blessings are for *upholding the law.* The curses are for *discarding the law.* Nothing there about the law not being in effect. Exactly the opposite. By treating the law as if it isn't in effect is exactly how you get the curses. Get it?

But I do agree that the *promises* of God concerning Israel's perpetual existence are different, and can be fulfilled under a "new covenant," as is indicated in Jer 31.31.

This covenant? "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."

Sounds like...the law is still in effect, and it will just be in our nature to perform it.

That's pretty strong language. "Eternal statute." "Throughout your generations". "In all your dwelling placed". It certainly sounds permanent. If it isn't, what stronger language could God have added?

It was strong language because God didn't want Israel to fail, though He knew they would fail. He knew Israel would be a model to all nations, and therefore knew that all nations would fail and would need mercy.

The language of perpetuity is strong, but is conditioned on the failure of any party in the agreement.

Yet you can't show me any text that says it's "conditional". Can you blame me for still following it? I don't want to subject myself to those awful curses, after all.

The continual restoration of Israel after failure is due to the eternal promise, which is without conditions.

This is...not what Deut 30 says.

Of course, as long as the Law was still in effect, God would not spell out the rules for any future "new covenant."

Awfully convenient, eh? If only God could have warned us that the covenant was conditional and the law would be revoked, eh?

Clearly, Israel could not keep the full temple law while they were in captivity. So they kept what parts of the Law they could keep. They were in compliance with as much of the Law as they could.

Much as Jews today do.

It was a vision of the future using the current infrastructure as the symbolism. There is no indication a new temple will ever be built.

Have you read the last 8 chapters of Ezekiel? You really should. It goes into small details and doesn't sound "symbolic" at all.

And 2000 years erases any of the old observances of temple law.

Funny you should say that. Because there are mystical societies in Jerusalem right now, today, that teach Kohen-priests how to perform all of the temple law. Preparing for the future, you know.

Yea, I've been excited about that since I was a kid in 1967. Back then I was a Lutheran, and as a family we believed God was with the Jewish People and Israel.

Later, after my "Lutheran Period," I began to study how Christians look at Israel prophetically. It was very exciting.

When I visited Israel alone in 1976 I literally saw prophecy come to life as the bus took us in from the airport in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The barren land literally graduated into orchards and modern buildings! Beautiful! If I as a Christian can get this excited, how excited you Jews must be!!

But I understand that some Jews are against the Jewish State due to their fanaticism? It's like the man drowning at sea, praying for God to save him. He sees a helicopter coming to save him, and drives him away, saying he asked "God" to help him--not a helicopter! Some Jews apparently believe that the modern State is so compromised, religiously, that it's better to wait for Messiah?

Every group has people with differing and odd beliefs. I think they're completely wrong, but they're entitled to their opinion.

You can drive someone to water, but you can't make him get out and drink. The world has adopted either monotheism or civilized rules of living, based on the God of Israel. Some will not acknowledge that, but I believe it's true. European Civilization is based on Christianity, which in turn was based on the God of Israel and His ethics.

But now we see the world going back to pagan ways. And I believe God will have to eventually step in.

I know we've disagreed on this. I don't think there was any time in history where the world at large was "more moral" than today. Medieval Europe was still rather barbaric. Is there a specific century that you had in mind?

You must not have read much of the Christian Fathers? The Christians wouldn't serve in their armies, and they were killed by the Romans.

And yet the bible doesn't have anything bad to say about the Romans. Which, again, I find puzzling.

I'm uncomfortable telling a Jew his people, in ancient times, were bad. But that's a part of our Bible.

And as I've already pointed out, the only reason that we know those Jews fell short is because those very same Jews canonized their harshest critics and turned their criticism into holy writ. Which says something special about them also.   

Yea, some things are buried in history, and we have to decide whether to accept certain historical records. I just have to respond as a Christian as if they are true, because our Scriptures are what they are.

Ok, fair enough.

Very gracious of you to say the good part about Christianity, and I agree about the bad part, as well.

I try to see things as they are. I've been hanging out in Bibleforums a long time, and become quite fond of not only the individuals here, but also the faith they profess and put into practice.

No, that's what you're saying, which isn't true. There are two ways to look at influencing others, by means of reasonable argument or by means of manipulation. You choose to try to fit me into the "manipulation" camp, and I run far away from that. That is indeed the language of anti-Semitism.

OK.

And as I've said numerous times now, American support for Israel is mostly from Evangelical Christians, not Jewish influence.

If true, I find that incredibly sad. I think you should speak out on behalf of any good cause, particularly one close to your heart!

We do! But I think the Evangelicals found their way to the proper conclusion without any help. Which is another reason to love them so much.

Thanks for the discussion.

The pleasure was mine!

[RandyPNW]

You didn't address my point at all. If you're willing to "let God decide what else may need to be done" then there's no end. It means any and all other religions might also be correct.

My 1st answer was that God did not limit Himself to the Covenant on Sinai. God does what God does. I've argued that Israel broke the Covenant many times, but did so in the extreme, to the point of a "divorce," just before the captivities.

Now a covenant may be forgivable when there are slight offenses in the failure to keep all the terms of an agreement. Further work, and the covenant can be retained.

But when the covenant is absolutely decimated, there is no hope for working things out. So my answer was that you can't hold God to a position when it requires a response from Man.

And you can't decide for Him how He's going to fulfill His promise to keep Israel as His people forever. It doesn't have to be only through the Covenant made at Sinai (in my opinion).

Now I could cite the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah. But I've done that before, and it does no good. We will always disagree on what it means. So I'm left with this: God does what God wants to do. He doesn't consult us on what He can or cannot do.

Secondly, I would add that with God we aren't left blind about what God can or will do. He tells us through His prophets what His plans are, depending on how Man responds.

He starts out creating the world. And then, when Man refuses to act out the way he was made in God's image, God places a death sentence over mankind until He puts in place a plan of redemption.

Clearly, the plan can change. It does not open a key hole for pursuit of false religions at all.

Don't agree. Those who intermarried with pagan women were engaging indirectly in idolatry.

That was in the time of Ezra and Nehemia. Hundreds of years before the era we're discussing. And they left their pagan wives, so why is it even a talking point?

I was talking about that time period, in which the Law was practiced. A lot of Christians believe that Jews under the Law were always despicable sinners, as Jesus accused many of them during his earthly ministry.

But the point is not that they were all bad, or that times were always as bad as they were in the time of Jesus. Rather, it is simply that we are all bad to some extent, and if left unattended, the sin will spread to the masses. The lowest common denominator wins.

So the Law was never meant to be the final salvation of the Jews. It was just a temporary reprieve until the inevitable took place.

The system as a whole was cast aside for something that applied more narrowly to the repentant among the people, so that the nation can be built on a better foundation than just the race itself.

He actually told his listeners to obey the Pharisees. That's what I'm doing, where is the problem?

The problem is the "prince of the covenant" was taken away, rendering the covenant of Law moot. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. Not only did the Jews of that time refuse to repent, but they insisted on keeping the Law as a cover for their crimes. Even if you reject Jesus as "prince of the covenant" the testimony that the Law was being misused remains. But Jesus started a new and different covenant with the same general morality as the Law, so that in going away from Israel to the pagans he could begin a whole new process of Law with them, just as he had with Israel.

Keeping the principles of the Law is a good thing. Jesus recommended, while that covenant was still in effect, that his disciples follow the Pharisees in what they taught but not in how they behaved. If you live by the moral principles of the Law you have my 100% support, and I will revere you as a saint.

The problem is, we may be a saint, but we'll never be free of being exposed as flawed. And so, we need mercy too, just as Israel required atonement for their sins. This is how I interpret the purpose of the Law, regardless.

Jesus became the atoning sacrifice for sin--not just for each time we sin, nor for periodic schedules, but for all time. It is the pass to resurrection from the dead, just as he was raised from the dead. If you think his resurrection is speculative, how is it any more speculative that Elijah's flying off to heaven? But I digress...

God isn't saying "submit to the pagans". He's saying you cannot win this battle, it's suicidal, so don't try and fight it.

That's a distinction without a difference. If you can't win the battle, you're under the victor. Either that, or you're dead. You're not embracing paganism. Rather, you're obeying pagan leaders who preside over you.

If you're put in prison, guilty or not, you're forced to submit to the prison guards. You aren't endorsing them as upstanding people, but you're submitting to their authority so that you can eventually get out.

There was no "prophetic revelation" to rebel against the Greeks. And on paper it looked just as hopeless against the Greeks as the later revolts against the Romans. Yet it worked out, for both our faiths.

I disagree. 1st of all, we're never to submit to *paganism.* When Antiochus 4 tried to impose Hellenism on the Jews, they knew they could not submit to that. It was either fight or die.

On the other hand, the book of Daniel seems to recommend resistance by the "righteous."

Dan 8 and 11 suggest that Antiochus has only a limited period of time, after which the Jews will be blessed. How can that happen unless they throw off the yoke of the pagan Greeks?

Dan 12.12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

These are punishments , meant to stir repentance. Lev 26. Deut 28. Are they not in your bible?

I won't perpetuate the argument. The argument is that Israel was made to submit to pagan rulers. Yes, it was a punishment to lead them to repentance.

But not Judah. And while Israel is lost to history, the Jews (Which comes from the word "Judah") are still around. Back in their homeland in fact. As prophesized. Awesome!

The inhabitants of Judah cannot escape the same judgment as befell the Northern tribes. In fact, they were seen as worse.

My assumption is that the Northern tribes were removed permanently because though they were partly ignorant of God's Law, they had adopted idolatry. God could not build a legacy on idolatrous people.

And though Judah retained temple worship and faith in the one true God, they were also guilty of idolatry. Knowing better, they were viewed as worse for ignoring what they knew to be true. But at least there was something to build on, a true monotheism.

The words "divorce" applied to both Israel and Judah. I've given the passages before, but we'll just argue over them again. You would just say Judah returned from captivity, and therefore was not divorced. I would say that they were divorced and forgiven.

Temple was also destroyed in 586BCE.
So what? It didn't "fail" then.

It certainly did for 70 years!

Not in the bible.

Whether or not it is my exposition that the Tree of Life represents Eternal Life, it *is,* in fact, in the Bible. The Tree of Life is in the Bible. We may argue over what the Tree represents, but it is in the Bible.
 

The Law was conditional, as you can read in the blessings and the curses on the mountains of Ebal and Gerazim. That's in the book of Deuteronomy. That is *conditional.*

Nope. You've missed the whole point. The blessings are for *upholding the law.* The curses are for *discarding the law.* Nothing there about the law not being in effect. Exactly the opposite. By treating the law as if it isn't in effect is exactly how you get the curses. Get it?

I get the way you want to read it. But I'm reading between the lines, and it's every bit as strongly put than the actual letters!

A nation breaks the Law. They're punished for a time. Then they break the Law big time. And they're punished in a way that screams: "Covenant broken."

People came to the point of being beyond remedy, according to Jeremiah. They came to the point where they could no longer avert what the "divorce" was, which was an annulment of the Law as a safeguard against defeat by their enemies.

This covenant? "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."

Sounds like...the law is still in effect, and it will just be in our nature to perform it.

As I said, you will not agree on my sense that the New Covenant annuls the Covenant of Sinai. But that appears to be exactly what is said! This is a replacement covenant--one that restores a covenant relationship with Israel without being the original Law.

Perhaps you view it as a document that is ripped up, and a new one exactly like it drawn up? But I read "new covenant," whereas you read, "restored covenant." Maybe we can't resolve this? You don't believe the Law can change, but I do.

I used to be on a forum with a friend who was partly Jewish by bloodline, but a Christian. He often provided proofs from the Talmud for various things.

I believe he produced evidence that some Jewish rabbis believed that the Messianic era will edit the Law somewhat due to changing conditions, just as obedience to the Law in the captivity was altered to accommodate the loss of the temple.

Yet you can't show me any text that says it's "conditional". Can you blame me for still following it? I don't want to subject myself to those awful curses, after all.

I'm not tagging you with any evil at all. You're just following your conscience. We agree on the essential morality of the Law, to treat aliens and foreigners with the same standards we would treat our own.

And we should have just one God and His Law. I just don't happen to think the Law is static.

To apply both to Israel, in their fallen condition, and to the whole world in their fallen condition, the Law of God had to be edited. Banishing the temple law was indicative that God has forgiven the sins that caused it to fail.

But I did show you the conditions of the Law, with the resulting "divorce," which was designed to express exile from the land. It meant Israel could be restored to the land or not, depending on God's wishes. They were restored in the time of ancient Persia. They've been restored in our day.

But I think the Law was edited to end the constant cycle of needing to be forgiven. The idea is to change membership from a nation to a religion so that the nation can be better established on the religion.

In removing temple law the separation between races was dissolved simultaneously. Races and nations may keep their distinctions. But there is no need for separation between us as long as we agree on a single moral standard. It won't be perfect, but we can try, right?

It was a vision of the future using the current infrastructure as the symbolism. There is no indication a new temple will ever be built.

Have you read the last 8 chapters of Ezekiel? You really should. It goes into small details and doesn't sound "symbolic" at all.

I've read the whole book of Ezekiel a lot. All of the cubits get me a little side-tracked, but otherwise, I see it as a reform message for Ezekiel's time. He's using a symbolic vision of the future in the temple language of their day to express the need for moral reform.

Funny you should say that. Because there are mystical societies in Jerusalem right now, today, that teach Kohen-priests how to perform all of the temple law. Preparing for the future, you know.

Yes, there will always be "secret societies." But I try to never learn the "secret handshake," or the secret underclothes (speaking not really of the Jewish societies here, but more of the Masons and the Mormons).

I know we've disagreed on this. I don't think there was any time in history where the world at large was "more moral" than today. Medieval Europe was still rather barbaric. Is there a specific century that you had in mind?

Histories tend to be written with the wars, revolutions, and rebellions in mind. The better generations tend to disappear from our history books, unless something good is done to produce some kind of revolutionary change--something like abolition, for example.

If we examine the fall of any empire or kingdom, I imagine you will trace it to a moral decline among the people and the leadership. That isn't hard to do.

Just look at American society today. It was better, though not perfect, in the recent past. But today, we're going off the deep end.

And yet the bible doesn't have anything bad to say about the Romans. Which, again, I find puzzling.

That's because the criticism of the Romans is done using puzzles! The criticism is deliberately cryptic out of practical reasons, to not get killed.

Furthermore, Christians were taught to be obedient, as much as possible, to the pagan government, as a witness to righteous behavior. There was no sense in encouraging rebellion that will get a whole people killed!

The cryptic language Paul uses in 2 Thessalonians 2 and the riddles John uses in Revelation 17 indicates the Roman government was being viewed in the harshest terms. They just couldn't spell it out.

I think Jesus did the same. But part of Jesus' interest was in bringing God's Law to the pagan nations, to convert them from corrupt behavior to behavior that pleases God. So why would he "curse the darkness?" Better to "light a candle?"

And as I've already pointed out, the only reason that we know those Jews fell short is because those very same Jews canonized their harshest critics and turned their criticism into holy writ. Which says something special about them also.   

Not "the very same Jews." You had some good Jews who roasted the bad Jews. This is true in every nation. You have the good ones and you have the bad ones. You can't say that a few Jews wrote something brutally honest about their own people, and that makes all the Jews brutally honest and good people!

I try to see things as they are. I've been hanging out in Bibleforums a long time, and become quite fond of not only the individuals here, but also the faith they profess and put into practice.

Yes, I've noticed a lot of Christians like you. I also enjoy discussing things with you at times because you're true to your own beliefs without belittling the beliefs of others. That's more noble than many Christians I see on the forums. It's exemplary behavior, indicating you're still a "light to the nations!"

...And I hope the bad Christians don't cause you to change your attitude?

My experience with the Jewish people is, "Leave me alone." It's a breath of fresh air to see someone so liberated and so confident in himself that he braves the rapids.

We do! But I think the Evangelicals found their way to the proper conclusion without any help. Which is another reason to love them so much.

Yes, an old pastor of mine down in S. CA actually invited a Jewish musical group to sing in our church! Our church was a converted nightclub in the round.

That was a bit much for me, since they were not in the least in favor of Christianity. But it does go to show that Evangelicals want to go the 2nd mile with the Jewish People, identifying with their suffering. Christians have suffered a lot too.

[Fenris]

You didn't address my point at all. If you're willing to "let God decide what else may need to be done" then there's no end. It means any and all other religions might also be correct.

My 1st answer was that God did not limit Himself to the Covenant on Sinai. God does what God does. I've argued that Israel broke the Covenant many times, but did so in the extreme, to the point of a "divorce," just before the captivities.

It's not about God "limiting Himself". You're making the point that God's word can be null and void for reasons outside anything that He communicated. To wit, you say that God is displeased with modern day Christians. Fine. What's to stop Him from stating a new religion and chucking Christianity aside? Nothing, according to what you're espousing. If an "eternal covenant" (and yes, that word does appear in the bible) isn't "eternal" after all, why should Christianity be?

 

Now a covenant may be forgivable when there are slight offenses in the failure to keep all the terms of an agreement.

This isn't in the bible anywhere.

But when the covenant is absolutely decimated, there is no hope for working things out.

And yet, millions of Jews today keep the bible's laws. I'd say that things are working out after all.

So my answer was that you can't hold God to a position when it requires a response from Man.

I'm holding God to His own words.

And you can't decide for Him how He's going to fulfill His promise to keep Israel as His people forever. It doesn't have to be only through the Covenant made at Sinai (in my opinion).

And in my opinion, based on what God says in the bible, is that the Sinai covenant is permanent. There's no way out. I can choose not to keep the law, and so incur curses. But I can't remove my own responsibilities under the covenant.

God does what God wants to do. He doesn't consult us on what He can or cannot do.

But God must keep His promises. Numbers 23 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? According to you, the answer is yes, when He feels like it.

Secondly, I would add that with God we aren't left blind about what God can or will do. He tells us through His prophets what His plans are, depending on how Man responds.

Which, again, says nothing about ending His eternal covenant with His people.

Clearly, the plan can change. It does not open a key hole for pursuit of false religions at all.

As I've said, it certainly does.

A lot of Christians believe that Jews under the Law were always despicable sinners

Maybe those Christians should try judging others favorably. It's a good trait to practice, rather than condemning others who don't believe as they do.

So the Law was never meant to be the final salvation of the Jews.

The law was never about "salvation". It was about the Jews being God's moral pilot project to the rest of the world. Maybe the rest of the world should try behaving more morally.

The problem is the "prince of the covenant" was taken away,

I have no idea what this phrase means.

rendering the covenant of Law moot. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

This is not in the bible.

Not only did the Jews of that time refuse to repent,

You can't use the term "the Jews" like this. There were good Jews and bad Jews. Imagine if I said "the Christians". You'd squawk, and rightfully so. Can't paint an entire people with one brush.

but they insisted on keeping the Law as a cover for their crimes.

Again, this is a weird point. If Jews were keeping the law then there weren't any crimes.

But Jesus started a new and different covenant

With what authority? I contend that God Himself has no right to do this

so that in going away from Israel to the pagans he could begin a whole new process of Law with them, just as he had with Israel.

But Jesus never went to the pagans, nor did he tell anyone else to. That was Paul's idea.

The problem is, we may be a saint, but we'll never be free of being exposed as flawed.

Of course we're flawed. God created us that way. That's why He created repentance. You try, fall short, and try again. How could God expect any more than that?

Jesus became the atoning sacrifice for sin--not just for each time we sin, nor for periodic schedules, but for all time.

In the Jewish view this is unnecessary. I can atone for my sins by myself.

That's a distinction without a difference. If you can't win the battle, you're under the victor. Either that, or you're dead. You're not embracing paganism. Rather, you're obeying pagan leaders who preside over you.

Again God gave no "orders" to do so. You're being legalistic, isn't that a bad thing for Christians?

There was no "prophetic revelation" to rebel against the Greeks. And on paper it looked just as hopeless against the Greeks as the later revolts against the Romans. Yet it worked out, for both our faiths.

I disagree. 1st of all, we're never to submit to *paganism.* When Antiochus 4 tried to impose Hellenism on the Jews, they knew they could not submit to that. It was either fight or die.

On the other hand, the book of Daniel seems to recommend resistance by the "righteous."

Dan 8 and 11 suggest that Antiochus has only a limited period of time, after which the Jews will be blessed. How can that happen unless they throw off the yoke of the pagan Greeks?

Dan 12.12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

You haven't addressed my point at all.

I won't perpetuate the argument. The argument is that Israel was made to submit to pagan rulers. Yes, it was a punishment to lead them to repentance.

Exactly my point. Repentance is brought out by the suffering.

The inhabitants of Judah cannot escape the same judgment as befell the Northern tribes. In fact, they were seen as worse.

My assumption is that the Northern tribes were removed permanently because though they were partly ignorant of God's Law, they had adopted idolatry. God could not build a legacy on idolatrous people.

Again, not in the bible. It's something you believe, so you say it.

The words "divorce" applied to both Israel and Judah. I've given the passages before, but we'll just argue over them again. You would just say Judah returned from captivity, and therefore was not divorced. I would say that they were divorced and forgiven.

Not in the bible.

It certainly did for 70 years!

Again, repentance via suffering. Not a failure of the covenant.

Not in the bible.

Whether or not it is my exposition that the Tree of Life represents Eternal Life, it *is,* in fact, in the Bible. The Tree of Life is in the Bible. We may argue over what the Tree represents, but it is in the Bible.

The bible says nothing aside from it's mere existence. I'm not going to invent an entire, separate theology over this. If it was important, God would have said so. he didn't.
 

The Law was conditional, as you can read in the blessings and the curses on the mountains of Ebal and Gerazim. That's in the book of Deuteronomy. That is *conditional.*

Nope. You've missed the whole point. The blessings are for *upholding the law.* The curses are for *discarding the law.* Nothing there about the law not being in effect. Exactly the opposite. By treating the law as if it isn't in effect is exactly how you get the curses. Get it?

I get the way you want to read it. But I'm reading between the lines, and it's every bit as strongly put than the actual letters!

You're inventing things that aren't there.


Lets look at Deut 30 again. This is important.

Chapter begins

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you

Blessings for obedience to the law, and curses for disobedience, as discussed. Continuing-

come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations,

The blessings will happen, and also the curses, of which dispersal is one. And we take them to heart-

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,

Obey him. See, the curses will occur because we're disobedient. But when we obey the law once again-

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

That's it. When we obey once again, God will give us the blessings again. And more, gather us back from the exile. But what's the necessary condition? Obeying the law. Because, you see, it's still in effect. This isn't hidden or requiring exegesis or reading "between the lines". Plain text. Right there. 

A bit further

You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today.

And more

...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.

This is God's word.

They came to the point where they could no longer avert what the "divorce" was, which was an annulment of the Law as a safeguard against defeat by their enemies.

Again, exile was a punishment for not following the law. Not an annulment of the law.

This covenant? "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."

Sounds like...the law is still in effect, and it will just be in our nature to perform it.

As I said, you will not agree on my sense that the New Covenant annuls the Covenant of Sinai. But that appears to be exactly what is said! This is a replacement covenant--one that restores a covenant relationship with Israel without being the original Law.

It says right there "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." Yes, it's the same law.

Perhaps you view it as a document that is ripped up

Nothing was ripped up.

You don't believe the Law can change, but I do.

It's not about belief. If one doesn't accept the NT as holy writ, there's no indication that God will change the law. Quite the opposite, it's permanent. And so is our obligation.

I used to be on a forum with a friend who was partly Jewish by bloodline, but a Christian. He often provided proofs from the Talmud for various things.

I believe he produced evidence that some Jewish rabbis believed that the Messianic era will edit the Law somewhat due to changing conditions, just as obedience to the Law in the captivity was altered to accommodate the loss of the temple.

A Christian providing "Jewish" proofs of Christianity isn't holding any weight with me, sorry.

I'm not tagging you with any evil at all. You're just following your conscience. We agree on the essential morality of the Law, to treat aliens and foreigners with the same standards we would treat our own.

And we should have just one God and His Law.

And our obligation under it.

Mind you, you are not bound by the Sinai covenant, as I am. God expect you to be moral, sure, but you can eat as you like and work freely on the Sabattah.

But I think the Law was edited to end the constant cycle of needing to be forgiven.

Again, why? Life is a constant cycle of self improvement. Or at least it should be. I don't get to wake up one morning and say "I'm good, no more work is necessary!" If I'm not learning and growing every day then I'm not fulfilling my purpose. That includes not just spiritually but in all other ways too.

I've read the whole book of Ezekiel a lot. All of the cubits get me a little side-tracked, but otherwise, I see it as a reform message for Ezekiel's time. He's using a symbolic vision of the future in the temple language of their day to express the need for moral reform.

I don't see how that works. It looks like an actual floorplan with actual sacrifice. Why all the details?

Funny you should say that. Because there are mystical societies in Jerusalem right now, today, that teach Kohen-priests how to perform all of the temple law. Preparing for the future, you know.

Yes, there will always be "secret societies." But I try to never learn the "secret handshake," or the secret underclothes 

So Jews are preparing for temple service. You said it wasn't possible, yet here we are.

I know we've disagreed on this. I don't think there was any time in history where the world at large was "more moral" than today. Medieval Europe was still rather barbaric. Is there a specific century that you had in mind?

Histories tend to be written with the wars, revolutions, and rebellions in mind. The better generations tend to disappear from our history books, unless something good is done to produce some kind of revolutionary change--something like abolition, for example.

I still don't see how the world was "more moral" in times past.

That's because the criticism of the Romans is done using puzzles! The criticism is deliberately cryptic out of practical reasons, to not get killed.

So the early Christians felt free to criticize the Jews because they didn't fear getting killed by them? Yet O thought those Jews were so bad! Interesting.

And as I've already pointed out, the only reason that we know those Jews fell short is because those very same Jews canonized their harshest critics and turned their criticism into holy writ. Which says something special about them also.   

Not "the very same Jews." You had some good Jews who roasted the bad Jews. This is true in every nation. You have the good ones and you have the bad ones. You can't say that a few Jews wrote something brutally honest about their own people, and that makes all the Jews brutally honest and good people!

Why can't I say that? I have the evidence right in from of me. It's called "the bible".

Yes, I've noticed a lot of Christians like you. I also enjoy discussing things with you at times because you're true to your own beliefs without belittling the beliefs of others. That's more noble than many Christians I see on the forums. It's exemplary behavior, indicating you're still a "light to the nations!"

Thank you. May God bless you (although I see that He already does!)

...And I hope the bad Christians don't cause you to change your attitude?

Bad Christians don't get to speak for other Christians or get to define what Christianity is. They're just bad people behaving badly.

My experience with the Jewish people is, "Leave me alone." It's a breath of fresh air to see someone so liberated and so confident in himself that he braves the rapids.

I enjoy conversation and learning. And the friendly company.

Yes, an old pastor of mine down in S. CA actually invited a Jewish musical group to sing in our church! Our church was a converted nightclub in the round.

Nice.

[RandyPNW]

It's not about God "limiting Himself". You're making the point that God's word can be null and void for reasons outside anything that He communicated. To wit, you say that God is displeased with modern day Christians. Fine. What's to stop Him from stating a new religion and chucking Christianity aside? Nothing, according to what you're espousing. If an "eternal covenant" (and yes, that word does appear in the bible) isn't "eternal" after all, why should Christianity be?

Again, my view is that the Eternal Covenant concerns the salvation of the nation--not the preservation of the covenant, as if it is static, and God is unable to change it. And no, God would not change it unless He left the door open for it to be changed. 

Now a covenant may be forgivable when there are slight offenses in the failure to keep all the terms of an agreement.

This isn't in the bible anywhere.

There were provisions in the Law to cover failures in keeping the Law. But the curses of the Law spelled out full-blown exile at some point, where God considered the failure to be too much. Exile was the indicator that the covenant agreement had failed, since the Law had been explicitly given to provide a way to avoid exile.

But when the covenant is absolutely decimated, there is no hope for working things out.

And yet, millions of Jews today keep the bible's laws. I'd say that things are working out after all.

Well, now that my daughter has survived her suicidal tendencies following her divorce, she's doing okay, right?

But the marriage failed! The New Covenant, promised by Jeremiah, would be the equivalent of my daughter marrying a new husband. It is success, yes, but a different covenant.

I'm certainly not suggesting the Jews should marry a different God! No, I'm just suggesting that God left the door open to re-marry Him using a different covenant. ...Not a different Law, but a different *covenant.*

And you can't decide for Him how He's going to fulfill His promise to keep Israel as His people forever. It doesn't have to be only through the Covenant made at Sinai (in my opinion).

And in my opinion, based on what God says in the bible, is that the Sinai covenant is permanent. There's no way out. I can choose not to keep the law, and so incur curses. But I can't remove my own responsibilities under the covenant.

And this is the whole problem, Fenris. Every time I suggest you need a new and different covenant you think I'm telling you to abandon the Law of God. In my view, the Law of God is distinct from the Covenant of the Law.

The Covenant can fail or change, but the Law of God remains the same. It is the *Covenant* that changes.

But God must keep His promises. Numbers 23 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? According to you, the answer is yes, when He feels like it.

Did God really promise to keep the *Covenant* as is forever? This is the whole question.

And I think the answer is, "No!" He only promised to keep His People, Israel, forever, along with a bunch of other nations, when they obtain the same laws and keep them.

Maybe those Christians should try judging others favorably. It's a good trait to practice, rather than condemning others who don't believe as they do.

The problem is in the heart of man--not in a religion. Both Jews and Christians, whether few or many, condemn others. Those who rely on the Law of God and obey it can avoid judgmentalism. Christians would call this "Law" the "Law of Liberty." Jews would call this "Law" the "Law of Sinai."

Christianity is about Eternal Life. The Law of God is about living in righteousness, a prerequisite for Salvation.

The Law was an indictment against the human race for its sin tendencies as they indicate an uncleanness that inevitably leads to sinful behavior.

Jesus is, I believe, the way to avoid condemnation for our failures. Otherwise, you're relying on temple law, which no longer exists. This is why I support divine Law, but not the old covenant of the temple.

The law was never about "salvation". It was about the Jews being God's moral pilot project to the rest of the world. Maybe the rest of the world should try behaving more morally.

Yes, of course. A righteous testimony is critically important. But so is obtaining relief from our guilt. I do understand that you see it as critical to repent of your sin in order to be relieved of guilt. And I do agree with the sentiment expressed in this.

You can't use the term "the Jews" like this. There were good Jews and bad Jews. Imagine if I said "the Christians". You'd squawk, and rightfully so. Can't paint an entire people with one brush.

One can paint with a broad brush if the *majority* incline towards a certain evil behavior. This happens at times in history.

People who follow a perverted cult leader may have begun as decent people. But ultimately the crowd becomes corrupt like the leader.

I wouldn't at all say that a *race* is corrupt except in the context of times when the majority came to follow a particular bad leadership. That, I understand from the NT Scriptures, existed in the time of Jesus. That existed, I understand from your Scriptures, just before the Babylonian Captivity.

We could even generalize about "the Hebrews" in the time when Moses was up on the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments. The people called upon Aaron to lead them in debauchery.

We could therefore generalize that "the Hebrews were idolatrous and immoral." That wouldn't be a blanket statement that all Hebrews for all time are evil people! On the contrary!

but they insisted on keeping the Law as a cover for their crimes.

Again, this is a weird point. If Jews were keeping the law then there weren't any crimes.

Since we don't have a time machine, and are able to go back in time and revisit what really happened in the time of Jesus, I'm just going by my own Scriptures. The Jews, at that time, were said to be using external observances of the Law to hide true inner corruption.

For example, they may have been keeping the Sabbath by not doing any work at all. But while they were doing this they may have been planning to commit adultery with somebody else's wife. The Law, in this case, became a "cover" for hidden sin.

But Jesus started a new and different covenant

With what authority? I contend that God Himself has no right to do this

Right, God has no rights? He certainly wouldn't contradict Himself or prove Himself faithless with respect to His own word!

But the question is: are we trying to prove that God promised something that He didn't really promise? Do the Jews have a vested interest in trying to prove that God promised the existence of temple law for all eternity?

Isaiah even  seems to contradict this by marginalizing the importance of the temple.

Isaiah 66.1 “Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
    Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
    and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord."

But Jesus never went to the pagans, nor did he tell anyone else to. That was Paul's idea.

He anticipated his people, the Jews, were going to kill him. And that happened. And so, he had planned all along to send his disciples to the pagan nations, to try to convert them to the Law of God and to rely on his work of atonement, ie the cross.

Of course we're flawed. God created us that way. That's why He created repentance. You try, fall short, and try again. How could God expect any more than that?

I don't believe God would create us "flawed." But I do agree that He created us with the capacity to reject His word, and so become twisted, or flawed.

In the Jewish view this is unnecessary. I can atone for my sins by myself.

I agree that it is critical for us to make things right, to choose to live righteous lives, and to avoid living perverse lives, which we all do at one time or another.

However, I believe cleansing comes from above. We change our lives, but God cleanses us. Both, in my theology, are necessary.

Legal change is one thing. But spiritual purification is another.

I know it sounds a little "elevated." But I think spiritual cleansing is palpable and real. Our relationship with God is spiritual and real. We need a restored relationship after it has been tarnished or completely broken.

When we change our ways for the better, we eventually *feel* better. Our conscience is healed only when we feel at unity with God once again. I've gone through this myself in my mid-teens. And I've had to go through a restorative process several times in my life.

That's a distinction without a difference. If you can't win the battle, you're under the victor. Either that, or you're dead. You're not embracing paganism. Rather, you're obeying pagan leaders who preside over you.

Again God gave no "orders" to do so. You're being legalistic, isn't that a bad thing for Christians?

A lot of Christians can't even discuss the Law of God without fearing becoming "legalistic." I really don't understand your point here?

I'm not saying God ordered people to serve the cause of paganism. He only ordered Israel to submit to their punishment, which was to live honorably under pagan governors. They had to obey the laws and the authorities of a pagan regime, as long as God exiled them and forced them to live among them.

So the early Christians felt free to criticize the Jews because they didn't fear getting killed by them? Yet O thought those Jews were so bad! Interesting.

The Christians were living under the yoke of Roman rule. No, they couldn't say much bad about them except surreptitiously. They could, however, complain about Jewish abuses of Christians. The abuse, I'm sure, went in both directions.

Yes, I've noticed a lot of Christians like you. I also enjoy discussing things with you at times because you're true to your own beliefs without belittling the beliefs of others. That's more noble than many Christians I see on the forums. It's exemplary behavior, indicating you're still a "light to the nations!"

Thank you. May God bless you (although I see that He already does!)

A lot of Christians dislike me because I sometimes speak unconventionally. I refuse to be put in a box, leaving love cut off from large blocs of people.

Oddly, when I was in Israel, a lady came up to me and said I looked "blessed." You're a good man, Fenris. I don't hate you because you speak your mind. We should all speak our mind, and let God determine what's true. Thanks much!

[Fenris]

Again, my view is that the Eternal Covenant concerns the salvation of the nation

It's fine to believe this, but it isn't stated in the bible anywhere.

There were provisions in the Law to cover failures in keeping the Law. But the curses of the Law spelled out full-blown exile at some point, where God considered the failure to be too much. Exile was the indicator that the covenant agreement had failed

This is untrue, and in fact the text says the exact opposite. Lev 26:44 specifically says that God will not destroy the Jews and thus break the covenant with them. Deut 30 specifically says that when the Jews return to observance of the law they will be brought out of exile. If you want to believe they mean something different than what they say or ignore them outright, that's your business. But you can't insist that I do that just to come to your way of thinking.

Well, now that my daughter has survived her suicidal tendencies following her divorce, she's doing okay, right?

But the marriage failed! The New Covenant, promised by Jeremiah, would be the equivalent of my daughter marrying a new husband. It is success, yes, but a different covenant.

I'm certainly not suggesting the Jews should marry a different God! No, I'm just suggesting that God left the door open to re-marry Him using a different covenant. ...Not a different Law, but a different *covenant.*

Different covenant- same law.

And this is the whole problem, Fenris. Every time I suggest you need a new and different covenant

I don't *need* a different covenant. I'm still bound by Sinai. And so is God.

Did God really promise to keep the *Covenant* as is forever? This is the whole question.

There's nothing to suggest that it's not permanent.

The problem is in the heart of man--not in a religion.

That's the whole point of following the law. That it can change our heart if we follow it and make it part of ourselves.

Christianity is about Eternal Life. 

Which isn't mentioned in my bible, anywhere.

Jesus is, I believe, the way to avoid condemnation for our failures. Otherwise, you're relying on temple law, which no longer exists.

But I don't need sacrifice to earn God's forgiveness.

Yes, of course. A righteous testimony is critically important. But so is obtaining relief from our guilt.

The fixation on guilt is a Christian construct. Christianity ignores all the positive commands in the bible and chooses to focus on the "Thou shalt nots".

We could even generalize about "the Hebrews" in the time when Moses was up on the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments. The people called upon Aaron to lead them in debauchery.

We could therefore generalize that "the Hebrews were idolatrous and immoral." That wouldn't be a blanket statement that all Hebrews for all time are evil people! On the contrary!

Actually it was a few thousand people, as the bible delineates.

Since we don't have a time machine, and are able to go back in time and revisit what really happened in the time of Jesus, I'm just going by my own Scriptures. The Jews, at that time, were said to be using external observances of the Law to hide true inner corruption.

That's not holy writ to me. I can feel free to ignore it, and I am.

Right, God has no rights? He certainly wouldn't contradict Himself or prove Himself faithless with respect to His own word!

Great, then the Sinai covenant is eternal.

But the question is: are we trying to prove that God promised something that He didn't really promise? Do the Jews have a vested interest in trying to prove that God promised the existence of temple law for all eternity?

Judaism isn't about having a vested interest. It's about upholding an ancient covenant with God. Nobody has yet proved satisfactorily to do otherwise.

Isaiah even  seems to contradict this by marginalizing the importance of the temple.

Isaiah 66.1 “Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
    Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
    and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord."

And yet we see this term used even as the temple was standing. Psalm 99 and 132, 1 Chronicles 28, Lamentations 2, etc. It's a poetic term and that's all.

He anticipated his people, the Jews, were going to kill him. And that happened. And so, he had planned all along

Ohhh he planned all along, did he? Shame it doesn't get mentioned before Paul.

However, I believe cleansing comes from above. We change our lives, but God cleanses us. Both, in my theology, are necessary.

OKay, and that's your theology.

I'm not saying God ordered people to serve the cause of paganism. He only ordered Israel to submit to their punishment, which was to live honorably under pagan governors. They had to obey the laws and the authorities of a pagan regime, as long as God exiled them and forced them to live among them.

So the Maccabees were wrong for revolting against the Greeks? Not sure this is a great point.

Oddly, when I was in Israel, a lady came up to me and said I looked "blessed." You're a good man, Fenris. I don't hate you because you speak your mind. We should all speak our mind, and let God determine what's true. Thanks much!

We shouldn't hate anyone for speaking their mind. People have the right to have wrong opinions.