Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

More to the point, I would say that YOU don't know accepted manners of speaking 2,000 years ago, and the various words used.
If the English translation of those passages accurately reflects the Greek, and the Greek accurately reflects the Aramaic which Jesus probably used, I can pretty much promise you that Jesus certainly did indeed show egregious disrespect towards his mother.

You may view his behavior as you see fit.
The testimony of the NT is that he was sinless -- Heb 4:15, 7:26; 1 Pe 2:22, 24; 2 Co 5:21; 1 Jn 3:5; Jn 8:46),
and the NT is the authority for what is to be believed by Christians.

 

[james2ko]

Just read Isaiah. All of it, from cover to cover. I mean, it's really really obvious. Who reads a book about one character and then relates one chapter of the book to another character? That's what Christians do.

If you'd like, next time you read it, I'll lend you my spiritual glasses

Isaiah is ALL ABOUT the people of Israel. Especially the "servant songs." Saying it's about Jesus is just unintelligent.

That's not what Poisonshady and fallingblood said in post 218. So can you fellas make up your mind as to who Isaiah is referring to in chapter 52-53 Is it Israel, Gentile nations, The Adams family, or what??

It is sort of like watching the first Spiderman movie, and saying that the scenes where he was working for the Daily Bugle were actually about Clark and not Peter Parker, but maintaining that the rest of the movie was about Peter.

Sounds like it would be a good one..

 

[smokydot]

You know...
It frustrates me when you speak about Jewish law as if you know what you are talking about.

I am speaking only of the law in the OT Scriptures.

The concept of Aaron's descendants as Cohanim is eternal. But individuals can manage to disqualify themselves. But assuming that the Cohanim did nothing to invalidate themselves, they are part of the eternal covenant.

The covenant was conditional, . ."as for me" (Gen 17:4), "as for you" (Gen 17:9). . .what God would do conditioned on what they did.

The condition: total consecration to the Lord, as symbolized by circumsion, which was the sign of God's chosen people through the descendants of Abraham.

They busted their side of the agreement on numerous occasions. . .but God eventually promised to forgive Israel's sin and establish his relationship with her on a new basis (Jer 31:31-34), which is the New Covenant made in the blood of Jesus, as revealed and explained in Heb 8:7-13.

It truly bothers me that you speak of Jewish law as if you know what you are talking about. But you wouldn't know how to perform even ONE of the commandments if the opportunity presented itself to you to do.

Are you being self-righteous?

I am speaking only of the laws given in the OT Scriptures. Jesus didn't seem to think too highly of the traditions developed outside the Scriptures
in relation to them (Mt 15:6).

 

[Harmonious]

Yes, as violations of God's laws, the practice of these are dishonoring to God, which is the reason God revoked his promise to Eli and his descendants, a promise that they "would minister before me forever."

Speaking of which, so where is this priesthood (Ex 29:9) of Aaron today?

What, in the name of all that is pink and fuzzy, are you talking about? There are Cohanim everywhere!

Not every Jew is one, but they are wherever other Jews are. The Temple isn't standing, but that doesn't mean that the Cohanim have disappeared.

I know plenty of them (and, as a divorcee, I am forbidden to marry them, alas!), and I have no idea what you are on about. Some of my father's cousins are Cohanim.

They DO minister, as well as they are able without a Temple. On Biblical holidays they bless Jewish congregations. They perform "pidyon haben". They are forbidden to go to cemeteries.

Just because you are ignorant of the make-up of Jewish communities, you have no right to say that such people don't exist!

Where is it ministering before the Lord forever (1 Sam 2:30)?

No, they are still around and about, and I answered that question already.

Is God a liar?

No - YOU are an ignoramus.

No matter. . .the point is mute, since God proclaimed that he annulled what he did in fact promise to Eli (1 Sam 2:30).

Yes. To Eli. Not to the rest of the Cohanim, who are alive and well today.

And he has annulled it again for different reasons, as revealed and explained in the letter to the Hebrews.

Hebrews was written by an author who had no idea about how Jewish law works. If it has any meaning for you as a Christian, good for you.

However, it is beneath scorn for any Jew who actually understands how Torah law works.

 

[Harmonious]

You may view his behavior as you see fit.
The testimony of the NT is that he was sinless -- Heb 4:15, 7:26; 1 Pe 2:22, 24; 2 Co 5:21; 1 Jn 3:5; Jn 8:46),

It says he's sinless, so you believe he's sinless, even though I've pointed out several egregious sins he committed in this very thread.

Gotcha.

and the NT is the authority for what is to be believed by Christians.

So I understand. But Jesus wasn't a very good Jew. And if you believe your own texts, I'm not quite sure how you believe that he was sinless, unless you conveniently overlook his sins because somewhere else it says that he's sinless.

:sarcastic

 

[Harmonious]

I am speaking only of the law in the OT Scriptures.

Of which you know nothing.

The covenant was conditional, . ."as for me" (Gen 17:4), "as for you" (Gen 17:9). . .what God would do conditioned on what they did.

No, Smoky. The covenant was not conditional. It was eternal.

It fascinates me that you believe you understand what I live and breathe better than I do, because you find a line you like, beat it to death without really understanding it.

But you know, that's okay. You are free to your beliefs.

Just please don't attempt to explain that what Jewish law is, or how it can be fulfilled, as you really wouldn't know one if the opportunity to do one fell in your lap.

 

[smokydot]

So please, explain how Jesus' clear disrespect for his mother, was excusable 2,000 years ago. I'm thinking you actually have no clue to what you're talking about, and thus made a dodge here instead of addressing the question. Because yes, I do understand the culture of Palestine in the 1st century C.E. More specifically, I have knowledge of the Jewish culture in Palestine in the 1st century C.E.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Two contrary testimonies in the NT have been presented. Thus, as contradiction. I don't see why that has to be explained.

Simple. . .he used the same manner of speaking to her while he was hanging on the cross (Jn 19:26). Surely you don't allege that he "disrespected" her then.

You are blindly defending the NT. You can't logically deny that. Because when I present a contradiction, you try to defend the NT by creating some circular reasoning as to why the Bible doesn't say what it does.

You present nothing more than your view of a "contradiction" based on what you think you know about an appropriate manner of address 2,000 years ago. . .with no textual facts to support it.

However, there is more evidence from the NT reports to contradict your unsupported assertion than there is to support it:
1) Jesus used the same manner of addressing his mother as he hung on the cross, which should convince you that it is an appropriate manner of address,
2) that he showed no disrespect is verified by Heb 4:15, 7:26; 1 Pe 2:22, 24; 2 Co 5:21; 1 Jn 35: Jn 8:46.

The NT reports do not present a contradiction regarding the sinlessness of Jesus.
That notion is manufactured from whole cloth by you. . .so this point is closed to further quibbling.

That, or as you did right here, you simply dodge the question.

As I did right here, that question is
1) not dodged,
2) but fully addressed and
3) thorougly refuted. . .and closed to further quibbling.

 

[smokydot]

So that means that if the OT contradicts the NT,

Purely hypothetical. . .you have shown no contradiction. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310744-post267.html

the OT has to be saying something other than what it really states? So thousands of years of understanding, researching, and study all became annulled when some Christians decided to create their own scripture? That makes no sense, and really doesn't look good for God. Because it would means that God wasted all of that time because he just happened to forget to give his people the NT so they could see the OT in the correct light.

You'll have to take that up with God. . .

 

[james2ko]

No, Smoky. The covenant was not conditional. It was eternal.

I'm not so sure God intended "physical" circumcision to be an everlasting covenant to identify His people.

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting [olawm]covenant.
​

According to the Torah, the Hebrew word used for everlasting in Gen 17:13 is "olawm" which could also mean continuous, so long as the factors involved exist. Notice three scriptures, that use the same word for everlasting used in Gen 17:13, where this meaning is made plain. Men could be the slaves of a master forever--meaning till the death of one of the parties:

Exo 21:6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever[olawm].

Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever[olawm] but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Deu 15:17 then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever.[olawm] Also to your female servant you shall do likewise.
​

The ordinance of circumcision was an outward physical sign of one's willingness to obey God and be one of His chosen people. Under the New Covenant, God is calling a spiritual nation composed of individuals converted and regenerated by His Holy Spirit. God's people now are all to be "circumcised" spiritually.

Physical circumcision is no longer necessary for religious or identity purposes. It was a forerunner or type of what God really wanted—circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4). Paul told the congregation in Rome that physical circumcision is of no spiritual benefit (Romans 2:25-29). Probably due to the fact he was aware of these OT verses. Spiritual circumcision is a process of conversion. It's what God really wanted for Israel. And it is what He is bringing to pass in spiritual Israel (Colossians 2:10-11.)

 

[smokydot]

And it should be noted that with the exception of idolatry (and in some opinions the law of establishing a justice system) Christians keep to these fairly well.
There is no such thing.
Where did you get that definition of fulfillment?
Complete? Is there any evidence that it wasn't? Especially when there are verses describing God's laws as perfect (feel free to read Psalm 119. It's all about the laws of God).
That is quite possibly the best and most logical explanation of Christianity I've ever read.
Just read Isaiah. All of it, from cover to cover. I mean, it's really really obvious. Who reads a book about one character and then relates one chapter of the book to another character? That's what Christians do.
Isaiah is ALL ABOUT the people of Israel. Especially the "servant songs." Saying it's about Jesus is just unintelligent.
It is sort of like watching the first Spiderman movie, and saying that the scenes where he was working for the Daily Bugle were actually about Clark and not Peter Parker, but maintaining that the rest of the movie was about Peter.
Heed your own advice. The book upon which your faith is based undeniably refutes all invalid Christian claims.
!!! So you admit! We agree. Argument over. You and I both agree that he didn't do what he was supposed to do. The difference is you think he'll come back, I choose to wait until after he does it.
At the end of the day, that was my number one driving factor from Christianity. Because ultimately Jews and Christians both agree that Jesus didn't fulfill the qualifications for being the messiah in their entirety.
How convenient.

What do you think lasting ordinance means?
Psalm 119:152 (NIV) : " Long ago I learned from your statutes
that you established them to last forever. "

You'll have to ask God, because God is the one who annulled his lasting ordinance to Eli (1 Sam 2:30).

Don't you guys ever get tired of disagreeing with the Bible says? Because you all seem to do it so often.

 

[smokydot]

Of which you know nothing.
No, Smoky. The covenant was not conditional. It was eternal.

What part of:

If you obey me, (then) I will be your God and you will be my people (Ex 19:5; Jer 11:4-5, 7:23; Lev 26:3-covenant blessings, and Lev 26:12-covenant curses)

do you not understand?

It fascinates me that you believe you understand what I live and breathe better than I do, because you find a line you like, beat it to death without really understanding it.
But you know, that's okay. You are free to your beliefs.
Just please don't attempt to explain that what Jewish law is, or how it can be fulfilled, as you really wouldn't know one if the opportunity to do one fell in your lap.

Self-righteousness?

 

[fallingblood]

I disagree.

That's fine, but it doesn't make my explanation go away.

Twisting the facts to blur and confuse the issue seems to be your mo. Which, by the way, I must admit you are very good at. Let me put it to you this way: I pointed out the NT verses that literally state He did not sin. You conveniently reject that part of scripture as being invalid (hmmm.. wonder why?) Then you express your interpretation of a circumstance of which "you feel" He did sin. Thus, I have written literal evidence stating He did not sin. You have circumstantial evidence saying He did. It's a no contest amigo.

I'm not simply rejecting those verses. I'm simply pointing out a contradiction. If the Gospels state that Jesus sinned, which they do, then I tend to agree with them instead of some random Epistle that was primarily included into the Bible simply because it was thought to have been written by Paul. I choose to look at all of the information, and make a decision upon that. I see no reason why any follower of Jesus would make up a story of Jesus obviously sinning. Thus, I take it for a fact that he was a sinner. And being such, there is a clear contradiction.

So I reject part of the scripture as being historically correct as a must. If the scripture says two opposite things, then logically, both can't be correct. If the scripture states that Jesus is sinless, and at the same time, points out where he sinned, then both can't be correct. Since both can't be correct, it is illogical to assume both are. Which is why I've stated repeatedly that the NT contradicts itself.

Furthermore, it is no circumstantial evidence. I don't feel that Jesus sinned. I can look at the Gospels, study them, and clearly see that he did in fact sin by disrespecting his mom. I don't feel that is a sin. I understand that it is a sin, as the Bible clearly states so.

The geneologies in the gospels differ because each gospel writer placed different emphasis on their individual geneologies to appeal to their intended ethnic audience. No contradiction exists.

So even though they clearly disagree, there is no contradiction. Even though they disagree on who Joseph's dad was, they don't contradict each other? I'm pretty sure that falls under the terms of a contradiction.

The curse of the law was completely refuted on another thread. You even gave me frubals and labeled it "good point" see here.

First, it was never completely refuted.

Second, I guess I simply wasn't paying attention, or didn't fully read what you were saying. Because now looking over it again, there are clearly things in that post I highly disagree with. So no, there was no complete refutation.

Paul was familiar with the law. He understood, or perhaps Jesus instructed him while in the desert, that physical circumcision was a type or symbollic of the type of circumcision God really desired for Israel---circumcision of the heart. The physical act of circumcision was never meant to be an everlasting covenant to identify His people. I explain why here.

Paul did not get his teaching from Jesus. Jesus specifically stated that not a single letter of the law should pass. Paul taught something very different. Paul, even though he may have been familiar with the law, simply rejected it even though Jesus taught otherwise.

 

[fallingblood]

You may view his behavior as you see fit.
The testimony of the NT is that he was sinless -- Heb 4:15, 7:26; 1 Pe 2:22, 24; 2 Co 5:21; 1 Jn 3:5; Jn 8:46),
and the NT is the authority for what is to be believed by Christians.

But if the NT contradicts itself, which it clearly does, you are not following the authority of the NT but what tradition teaches. Obviously you are picking and choosing what you want to believe, because the NT doesn't fully agree with itself.

 

[fallingblood]

Simple. . .he used the same manner of speaking to her while he was hanging on the cross (Jn 19:26). Surely you don't allege that he "disrespected" her then.

Not even close. John 19:26 shows no disrespect, and isn't even similar to where he clearly disrespects his mother. Matthew 12:46-50 is more like what I'm talking about. Where Jesus completely rejects his mother. That is very disrespectful. There is no manner of similar speech.

You present nothing more than your view of a "contradiction" based on what you think you know about an appropriate manner of address 2,000 years ago. . .with no textual facts to support it.

That is nothing more than a cop out. If it is just my view, show my view to be in error. It should be simple if it is a false view. Yet, you can't supply anything to show otherwise. My verse is above.

However, there is more evidence from the NT reports to contradict your unsupported assertion than there is to support it:
1) Jesus used the same manner of addressing his mother as he hung on the cross, which should convince you that it is an appropriate manner of address,

You have no idea what I was talking about. So your argument fails.

2) that he showed no disrespect is verified by Heb 4:15, 7:26; 1 Pe 2:22, 24; 2 Co 5:21; 1 Jn 35: Jn 8:46.

You do understand what a contradiction is right? Because all you're doing is showing verses that contradict other parts of the NT. If what I state is true, the Bible contains contradictions, you can not prove one of those contradiction to be incorrect by using a verse that is part of the contradiction. In other words, a contradiction can't prove a contradiction is not a contradiction.

The NT reports do not present a contradiction regarding the sinlessness of Jesus.
That notion is manufactured from whole cloth by you. . .so this point is closed to further quibbling.

Yes, the NT does show a contradiction on the sinlessness of Jesus. The Gospels clearly shows that he sinned. Other verses state otherwise. Thus, a contradiction. I don't need to "manufacture from whole cloth" anything as I can read the NT.

As I did right here, that question is
1) not dodged,
2) but fully addressed and
3) thorougly refuted. . .and closed to further quibbling.

There are many dodges on your part. Even in the material I just addressed. My points were never fully addressed, as where I point out the fact that you dodged my questions. And there has never been a thorough refutation on your part. Instead, there has been dishonesty, ignorance, circular reasoning, and dodging.

So you can "close to further quibbling," but that really only shows another dodge on your part.

 

[fallingblood]

Purely hypothetical. . .you have shown no contradiction. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310744-post267.html
You'll have to take that up with God. . .

Referring to another one of your posts really shows nothing. And honestly, is just a waste of time.

 

[Harmonious]

What part of:

If you obey me, (then) I will be your God and you will be my people (Ex 19:5; Jer 11:4-5, 7:23; Lev 26:3-covenant blessings, and Lev 26:12-covenant curses)

do you not understand?

The covenant isn't conditional, but God's obvious blessing, and OVERT signs of love are conditional.

And what part of:

44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God. (Leviticus 26:44)


do YOU not understand?

You like the verses you favor and ignore the greater context.

 

[james2ko]

That's fine, but it doesn't make my explanation go away.

And neither will mine.

I'm not simply rejecting those verses. I'm simply pointing out a contradiction. If the Gospels state that Jesus sinned, which they do, then I tend to agree with them instead of some random Epistle that was primarily included into the Bible simply because it was thought to have been written by Paul. I choose to look at all of the information, and make a decision upon that I see no reason why any follower of Jesus would make up a story of Jesus obviously sinning. Thus, I take it for a fact that he was a sinner. And being such, there is a clear contradiction.

So I reject part of the scripture as being historically correct as a must. If the scripture says two opposite things, then logically, both can't be correct. If the scripture states that Jesus is sinless, and at the same time, points out where he sinned, then both can't be correct. Since both can't be correct, it is illogical to assume both are. Which is why I've stated repeatedly that the NT contradicts itself.

Perhaps you should ease up on making up pseudo-contradictions in the NT. It's beginning to cause you to contradict yourself.

Furthermore, it is no circumstantial evidence. I don't feel that Jesus sinned. I can look at the Gospels, study them, and clearly see that he did in fact sin by disrespecting his mom. I don't feel that is a sin. I understand that it is a sin, as the Bible clearly states so.

Its no fact Jesus sinned. The fact is clearly He did not.

First, it was never completely refuted. Second, I guess I simply wasn't paying attention, or didn't fully read what you were saying. Because now looking over it again, there are clearly things in that post I highly disagree with. So no, there was no complete refutation.

Yeah. Ok.. Your damage control could use some work..valiant try though

Paul did not get his teaching from Jesus. Jesus specifically stated that not a single letter of the law should pass.

You say, "I can look at the Gospels, study them, and clearly see..." yet you completely missed the context of which law Jesus referred to in Mat 5--- The Ten Commandments.

Paul taught something very different. Paul, even though he may have been familiar with the law, simply rejected it even though Jesus taught otherwise.

Paul did no such thing.

Rom 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.​

 

[Harmonious]

I'm not so sure God intended "physical" circumcision to be an everlasting covenant to identify His people.

Says you.

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting [olawm]covenant.

According to the Torah, the Hebrew word used for everlasting in Gen 17:13 is "olawm" which could also mean continuous, so long as the factors involved exist.

Oh, dear heaven, not another one...

And YOU would know what those factors are, as you are so very well studied on Hebrew and Jewish law, so much that you can tell the difference between what constitutes "forever" and "a long time"?

So much so, that you know HOW to understand the meaning of the commandments, the spirit behind them, the traditions behind them, and all the rest that goes with it?

When all you really have is a concordance and a good guess?

Right. We'll all keep that in mind.

{And for the record, yes, Jewish law talks about owning Jewish slaves, with Olam meaning for "a long time," but CONTEXT is key, and without knowing the language, the belief system, or anything else about Jewish law, you know NOTHING of context.}

And yes, physical circumcision is an eternal covenant between the Jews and God.

 

[Harmonious]

You'll have to ask God, because God is the one who annulled his lasting ordinance to Eli (1 Sam 2:30).

Eli disqualified himself, and this doesn't change God's covenant with the rest of the Cohanim.

:no:

 

[fallingblood]

And neither will mine.

Meaning what? Your explanation has been refuted. I offered a logical rebuttal to your statement. You refuse to address it. Which is why I stated what I did.

Perhaps you should ease up on making up pseudo-contradictions in the NT. It's beginning to cause you to contradict yourself.

There are no contradictions in what I said if read in context. Looking at the information as a whole, two clear and opposite positions appear. One, Jesus is sinful; two, Jesus in sinless. That being so, only one can be correct. Thus, one has to be rejected as historically accurate. That isn't a contradiction, it is a must.

Its no fact Jesus sinned. The fact is clearly He did not.

It isn't clear. If it was so clear that Jesus was sinless, I, as well as others, wouldn't be able to point out where he did in fact sin. The Bible shows that Jesus sinned. Now, it may state otherwise as well, but that only shows that the NT contradicts itself.

So instead of just repeating yourself, show why the obvious sin that Jesus committed, as in rejecting his mother and thus disrespecting his mother is not a sin.

Yeah. Ok.. Your damage control could use some work..valiant try though

Damage control? Why not actually address the matter at hand instead of trying to sidetrack it?

I have no idea what I was thinking when I gave you frubals on that post. Maybe it's because you refuted the post you quoted. Maybe it's because I thought you were saying something else. Or it could be something else. Either way, it does not mean I supported or even agreed with all that you said. So there is no need for damage control. I've stated my points, and me giving you frubals does not make those points less valid.

You say, "I can look at the Gospels, study them, and clearly see..." yet you completely missed the context of which law Jesus referred to in Mat 5--- The Ten Commandments.

The Law doesn't mean the Ten Commandments. It was much more than that. It would be ridiculous to assume that Jesus was only talking about the 10 Commandments when he referenced the law.

The fact that Jesus states that none of the law shall pass shows clearly that he is meaning the entire law. He doesn't state, some of the law will not pass, or parts of the law will not pass. He states that not even a single letter of the Law (which is all inclusive) shall pass.

Paul did no such thing.

Rom 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.​

And yet he instructs his followers that they don't have to follow the law. And maybe you want to read the entire context. Because yes, in Romans, Paul is saying that one does not have to follow the law, and is rejecting it for something else.