Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[TheKnight]

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

No thanks. The reasoning that GOD gave me works just fine.

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's about Israel. The 53rd chapter is (as Poisonshady said) a description of gentile reactions to ISRAEL! The entire book is about Israel.

Don't take my word for it, just go read it. It's obvious. To say that it isn't is to say (essentially) that you lack the ability to read.

Sounds like it would be a good one..

A good claim?

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

What does that have to do with the LAW being forever?

 

[Pegg]

One major problem with that idea is that the prophecies that the NT refers to hardly ever have to do with what the NT writers claim. The vast majority of them are already fulfilled and thus need to be fulfilled no more, or have nothing at all to do with Jesus or the Messiah.

you look at christianity through the eyes of jews who refuse to believe he was the promised messiah...of course you would say this

but when you look at christianity through the eyes of the Jews who did believe Jesus was the promised messiah, then the events of Jesus life in 1st century Palestine were indeed prophecies coming true.

No one is forced to believe the christian view, but you cannot state that it is wrong just because non believing jews ascribe other events to certain prophecies.

Even the Messianic prophecies are not fulfilled by Jesus, and thus rules him out as the Messiah. So there is little reason to think that Jesus fulfilled the law in the manner in which you are saying.

More so, the OT contradicts the NT on various occasions.

not all the messianic prophecies are fulfilled yet... the messiah still has work ahead of him and he will be able to achieve the greatest works promised about him from his vantage point in heaven.

If you think the OT contradictions the NT, can you provide some examples so i can know what you are talking about?

 

[Pegg]

"Now this was John’s testimony...They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”~ John 1:19-21

i dont want to go over all your points, but this one particularly i'll reply to because it does seem like a contradiction between John and Jesus. John said he was not Elijah, Jesus said he was Elijah. Obviously John was John, but the significance of his work was the same as that of Elijah.
The prophecy is:
Malachi 4:3-5 “Look! I am sending to YOU people E‧li′jah the prophet before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. 6 And he must turn the heart of fathers back toward sons, and the heart of sons back toward fathers; in order that I may not come and actually strike the earth with a devoting [of it] to destruction.
This prophecy does not mean that Elijah was going to be raised from the dead to appear again, no. Rather, someone who could be likened to Elijah would appear and would perform similar prophetic work. Jesus knew that John was the one who fulfilled that prophecy and this is why, speaking in past tense,Jesus said "Elijah has already come"

What does "fulfill" mean in the sense? You mean he got rid of it?

no thats not what i mean by fulfill.

When a prophecy is fulfilled, it means it has occurred just as the prophet said it would occur. Once it has occurred it can be said that it is fulfilled. There is an account of jesus telling of a prophecy of Isiah which was fulfilled:

Luke 4:16 "And he came to Naz′a‧reth, where he had been reared; and, according to his custom on the sabbath day, he entered into the synagogue, and he stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed upon him. 21 Then he started to say to them: “Today this scripture that YOU just heard is fulfilled.”
The fact that Jesus, the promised Messiah, had begun his ministry, he could say that the prophecy was fulfilled.

 

[Harmonious]

i dont want to go over all your points, but this one particularly i'll reply to because it does seem like a contradiction between John and Jesus. John said he was not Elijah, Jesus said he was Elijah. Obviously John was John, but the significance of his work was the same as that of Elijah.
The prophecy is:
Malachi 4:3-5 “Look! I am sending to YOU people E‧li′jah the prophet before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. 6 And he must turn the heart of fathers back toward sons, and the heart of sons back toward fathers; in order that I may not come and actually strike the earth with a devoting [of it] to destruction.
This prophecy does not mean that Elijah was going to be raised from the dead to appear again, no. Rather, someone who could be likened to Elijah would appear and would perform similar prophetic work. Jesus knew that John was the one who fulfilled that prophecy and this is why, speaking in past tense,Jesus said "Elijah has already come"

No, actually it means that Elijah will come. He never died. He was translated into heaven in a chariot of fire.

Not someone likened to him. Elijah himself will actually come.

 

[Pegg]

No, actually it means that Elijah will come. He never died. He was translated into heaven in a chariot of fire.

Not someone likened to him. Elijah himself will actually come.

Im sure you dont mean Elijah never died??? Obviously he had to have died however he did not die when taken by the windstorm. He was actually transferred to another prophetic assignment.
Years later Elijah is still alive when Jehoram (son of Jehoshaphat) was king of Judah because Jehoram received a letter from Elijah

2Chronicals 21:12 'Eventually there came a writing to him from E‧li′jah the prophet, saying: “This is what Jehovah the God of David your forefather has said, ‘Due to the fact that you have not walked in the ways of Je‧hosh′a‧phat ...'

the windstorm incident happened shortly after the death of king Ahaziah of Isreal, but the letter he sent to Jehoram of Judah was about 4 years later.

 

[Harmonious]

Im sure you dont mean Elijah never died???

Yes, actually. He never died.

Obviously he had to have died

Not if you read the same Book of Kings as I did. He didn't die.

however he did not die when taken by the windstorm. He was actually transferred to another prophetic assignment.
Years later Elijah is still alive when Jehoram (son of Jehoshaphat) was king of Judah because Jehoram received a letter from Elijah

2Chronicals 21:12 'Eventually there came a writing to him from E‧li′jah the prophet, saying: “This is what Jehovah the God of David your forefather has said, ‘Due to the fact that you have not walked in the ways of Je‧hosh′a‧phat ...'

the windstorm incident happened shortly after the death of king Ahaziah of Isreal, but the letter he sent to Jehoram of Judah was about 4 years later.

He never died.

There is nothing to really say about this. He didn't die, and he is actually still around, if you're lucky enough to see him.

You know, Jews have an interesting custom of setting an extra place for him at our Passover Sedarim, and setting place of honor for him at each circumcision.

And people who are spiritual enough actually get a chance to see him.

No, he didn't die.

 

[Zardoz]

...No, he didn't die.

Indeed, he never died.

 

[Pegg]

Yes, actually. He never died.

ah i never knew that is what is believed about Elijah... I guess that explains why you wouldnt view John as an Elijah then


So just out of interest... has anyone you know actually seen him?

 

[Harmonious]

ah i never knew that is what is believed about Elijah... I guess that explains why you wouldnt view John as an Elijah then


So just out of interest... has anyone you know actually seen him?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

 

[Pegg]

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

whats the consensus on why God would keep Elijah alive for so long? Why not just resurrect him to life when he needs him to act?

 

[free spirit]

This is a common Christian belief, that Jesus fulfilled Jewish law. But is that even possible? As in, can anyone fulfill Jewish law?

To me, it simply doesn't sound right.

iT IS OBVIOUS IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU WILL NEVER KNOW.
i can see that the debate has deteriorated to a fruitless discussion.
therefore I like to say to the believer that in Matthew 5:17, for Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfil.”
We know that all the prophecies that were written about Him in the Old Testament were fulfilled as His life unfolded. But how could Jesus fulfil the law? I believe that in order to fulfil the law He had to die sinless. For we read in Hebrews 9:27: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” It stands to reason that only after death can the judgement be final, because only then men can no longer sin.
We know that Adam could not keep one simple law (Genesis 2:17) and as a consequence mankind had to die. But Jesus, a type of Adam, kept all of the law, despite the temptation within Himself to escape death, as well as the temptation to respond to those who inflicted on Him excruciating pain and verbal abuses. Yet in all that agonising time He did not utter one single complaint or accusing word, but blessed them by forgiving them. Because of that He fulfilled the law (or accomplished God’s will). In consequence He reversed what Adam did, therefore now the entire human race has justification of life.
We should know that much more than justification of life awaits the believers who, through the spirit of Christ, become the adopted sons and daughters of God for we read in Acts 2:33, 38 and 41: ‘”Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear’… And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’… So then, those who had received his word were baptised; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” So, through the Holy Spirit that was given to us, we know that the fulfilment of the law is the true irreversible outcome of His sacrificial mission, for we also read in 1Corinthians 2:10: “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.”

 

[Harmonious]

whats the consensus on why God would keep Elijah alive for so long? Why not just resurrect him to life when he needs him to act?

I don't know what the consensus is.

If I had to guess, I would suggest that it has to do with being able to witness that Jews are, in fact, living Jewishly, particularly HAVING Passover Sedarim and circumcising our sons (which he accused the Jews of not doing in the Book of Kings).

If he was dead, he would have no responsibility as a witness, as the dead have no responsibilities.

At least, that's my take on it.

 

[james2ko]

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.

What is there to address, if the one obviously refuted is you? I say He is sinless and offer written literal proof. You offer your interpretation of a few verses as proof. If this was a court of law, you'd be laughed out of the court room by now.

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. 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.

You can deny it till your fingers turn blue from typing. You contradicted yourself. No explanation no matter how elaborate will change that.

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.

I've already addressed this earlier in the thread.

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.

"Good point" :sarcastic . Sidetrack? If you really wanted to discuss the post , why didn't you copy, paste it and reply to it here? I'm ready when you are :drool:

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.

Or maybe it reflects how self-contradictory you really are; or maybe it's because you agree and are embarassed to admit it now that it's been made public; or maybe it discloses that fact you don't even know what you believe. Make up your mind, which one is it? FB

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.

The law Jesus refers to is the 10 commandments which the text clearly justifies.

Mat 5:18-19 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

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.

Prove it to me from His writings. I posted the verses that refute your point. Yet you continue to offer nothing but conjecture as proof. Here it is again:

Rom 7:12-13 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

 

[smokydot]

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

Your understanding of the NT is so half-baked that the internet doesn't have enough ink to bring you up to speed here.

You troll through the gospels looking for what you can call a "contradiction" and, with little or no understanding of the passage, you claim you have found a contradiction!

Well. . .look what I've found! . .the Bible says,"there is no God". . .now that's an OT contradiction worthy of destroying all the testimony of Jewish history.

That's not my game. . .and I'm gonna' take a pass on playing it with you.

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.
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.
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.

And you'll understand if I take a pass on all the drama. . .

You troll the NT looking for "contradictions" that you think you can win in "debate". . .that's not my game.

I will spend the kind of time and effort it would take to chase down all your half-baked notions and misrepresentations only on someone who is sincerely seeking to understand the NT, rather than to discredit it.

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

 

[smokydot]

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.

I "like" the verses which illustrate principles, as in 1 Sam 2:30.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is there to address, if the one obviously refuted is you? I say He is sinless and offer written literal proof. You offer your interpretation of a few verses as proof.

Opposing your "written literal proof" to "interpretation" proof is intellectually dishonest. The text does not interpret itself or offer its own interpretation, and can't be blindly repeated without bias. This is demonstrated quite clearly from a few points:

1) The text around 2000 years old

2) The text is from a completely different (and unknown unless you have a firm grasp of history) culture and historical context

3) The text is written in a foreign language.... and both the original language and our language are in continual flux. Translation itself is an act of interpretation.

4) There has been hundreds or thousands of years of church interpretation that guide a person to an understanding of a text - and it's like breathing - you may not even know the bias that you have.

Given these points, it's simply impossible to go to an English translation and say that you have a literal reading free of interpretation. The translators interpreted for you, your church interpreted for you, and now you're interpreting it by applying it to whatever argument that you're trying to make.

 

[james2ko]

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

I'll take that over oral traditions steeped in legalism and hypocrisy which miss the spiritual intent of the law.

Says you.

​

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?

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.

That's it!! That's your rebuttal? Because I'm not Jewish I cannot possibly understand? lol

 

[smokydot]

I'm not very interested in finding out what the book of Hebrews states if it contradicts or doesn't add up to what Jesus said.

OUTLINE OF LETTER TO HEBREWS:

Jesus was not an angel, he was greater than an angel. - chp 1
Jesus was a man like us. - chp 2
Jesus was a man greater even than Moses. - 3:1-6

God's own people in the past failed to believe. - 3:7-19
Do not fail to believe again. - 4:1-13

Believe in your new High Priest. - 4:14-5:10***
Consequences of lapsing back into Judaism (falling away, unbelief) - 5:11-6:12

You should believe and hope because of the
---certainty of God's promise - 6:13-7:10,
---guarantee of a better covenant - 7:11-28, and because
---faith in Christ is same faith as in OT - 8:1-10:18.

Therefore, believe and obey your new High Priest, do not lapse back. - 10:19-39
Believe as the ancients believed. - 11:1-38

Jesus is the example of perserverance in belief (faith, not falling away) - 12:1-13
Therefore, do not lapse back into Judaism - 12:14-28

Rules for Christian living, and closing - chp 13

***5:8-9 -- "he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect (complete, a propitiation),
he became the source of eternal salvation (atoning sacrifice) for all who obey him" -- meaning

Jesus learned experientially in suffering the price obedience required.
His trial of obedience was completed in his suffering on the tree.
Completing his obedience then secured his perfection (righteousness), whereas Adam lost his perfection by disobedience.
His secured perfection (righteousness) made him a perfect sacrifice of atonement, and the source of salvation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'll take that over oral traditions steeped in legalism and hypocrisy which miss the spiritual intent of the law.

Do you really think that Christians have done much better?

I mean really?

 

[james2ko]

Opposing your "written literal proof" to "interpretation" proof is intellectually dishonest. The text does not interpret itself or offer its own interpretation, and can't be blindly repeated without bias. This is demonstrated quite clearly from a few points:

1) The text around 2000 years old

2) The text is from a completely different (and unknown unless you have a firm grasp of history) culture and historical context

3) The text is written in a foreign language.... and both the original language and our language are in continual flux. Translation itself is an act of interpretation.

4) There has been hundreds or thousands of years of church interpretation that guide a person to an understanding of a text - and it's like breathing - you may not even know the bias that you have.

Given these points, it's simply impossible to go to an English translation and say that you have a literal reading free of interpretation. The translators interpreted for you, your church interpreted for you, and now you're interpreting it by applying it to whatever argument that you're trying to make.

Fair enough. Since you seem to be well schooled in biblical history and the Greek language you should have no problem enlightening us on the historical, situational, cultural context of the text presented stating Jesus did not sin. And Btw, simply attempting to disprove their validity will not be suffice for me. They were canonized and are currently considered part of the sacred text.