Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[james2ko]

Do you really think that Christians have done much better?

I mean really?

Nope..they haven't.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

I don't have the time or interest to delve into that. And, if you notice, that's not what I addressed in my post above and I did that for precisely this reason.

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.

These are completely different questions.

We can address what the text says and means - but its validity is a completely different issue.

Perhaps you think that the text has validity - that Jesus is God? - because this is written in a canonized text?

The fact of the Bible's canonization has never meant that there was a unified interpretation of Jesus's divinity. In fact, this has been the most highly contested doctrine in Christian theology since the beginning.

 

[smokydot]

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!

Are you saying that they have their genealogies going back to Aaron?

No, they are still around and about, and I answered that question already.
No - YOU are an ignoramus.
Yes. To Eli. Not to the rest of the Cohanim, who are alive and well today.
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.

 

[smokydot]

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

I hear ya', Sparky. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hear ya', Sparky. . .

I thought I was Sparky.

A_E or daddy will suffice. For clarity.

 

[smokydot]

No thanks. The reasoning that GOD gave me works just fine.
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.
A good claim?

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

It shows the principle that God's promise of "forever" can, in fact, be annulled. . .as the letter to the Hebrews reveals that it has been in the NT.

And james2ko has presented the principle that the word itself does not always mean forever at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310754-post269.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It shows the principle that God's promise of "forever" can, in fact, be annulled. . .as the letter to the Hebrews reveals that it has been in the NT.

oily cow! hold the phone!

 

[smokydot]

I thought I was Sparky.

Yep, you are.

A_E or daddy will suffice. For clarity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yep, you are.

Thanks, Sparky.

 

[smokydot]

oily cow! hold the phone!

1 Sam 2:30 shows that God's promise of "forever" can be annulled by God himself. . .as the letter to the Hebrews reveals that it has been in the NT.

And james2ko has shown the principle that "forever" does not always mean without ending, at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310754-post269.html

 

[fallingblood]

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

There is one huge problem here. I'm not a religious Jew. So no, I'm not looking at this through the eyes of Jews. I'm looking at this through the eyes of a scholar.

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.

Only if you don't understand what the prophecies stated, or failed to realize that they had nothing to do with the Messiah.

If wanted, I could do the same thing you are doing with the OT to show Jesus to be the Messiah, to myself. I could use the OT, take it out of context, misconstrue various scriptures, etc, to portray myself just as much the Messiah as Jesus was. However, neither is logical.

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.

Actually I can. Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. He did not fulfill Messianic prophecies. Thus, he can't be the Jewish Messiah. It has nothing to do with not believing the Christian view. It has to do with looking at the actual prophecies, what was expected of the Messiah, and understanding. If Jesus doesn't fulfill any of that, then he can't be the Messiah.

More so, one can go back into the OT, understand what they are saying, and see that the majority of prophecies said to be fulfilled by Jesus simply had nothing to do with the Messiah or Jesus. Either they were fulfilled, or had nothing to do with him. This view is created by looking at the verses in context, and understanding what they meant.

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.

Then there is no reason to assume that Jesus is the Messiah. If we all admit he hasn't fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, there is no reason to assume that he is the Messiah.

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

The fact that the OT says that the covenant is forever, and then the NT states otherwise, that there is a new covenant, is a clear contradiction.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The fact that the OT says that the covenant is forever, and then the NT states otherwise, that there is a new covenant, is a clear contradiction.

But "new" does not have to mean that the "old" is supplanted. The "new" covanent is additional, an extention or (re-) interpretation. If there's no close relationship between the two covanents, there's no use in having the "old" and "new."

That might be the point, and obviously Jewish interpretation disagrees, but there is a variety of Christian interpretations that do not supplant the old covanent but supplement it.... with the point being that Gentiles can seamlessly enter into the kingdom of God.

I'm not arguing that there is no contradiction between the OT and NT, but simply that there need not be one here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1 Sam 2:30 shows that God's promise of "forever" can be annulled by God himself. . .as the letter to the Hebrews reveals that it has been in the NT.

And james2k0 has shown the principle that "forever" does not always mean without ending.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Maybe you want to go back and see why I stated what I did. The content in question is some which you have refused to address because you stated "no he didn't, oh yes he did," type of point. This is what I was referring to:

saiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus or the Messiah. It dealt with a prophecy concerning that time period, not the future. Reading the rest of the following verses really shows this. As for Isaiah 9:6, again, can't be Jesus. Jesus never reigned on the throne of David, which verse 7 goes on to state. Neither have to do with Jesus. Which becomes exceptionally clear when they are read in context. Jesus wasn't buried like a criminal. He might have died as a criminal, but being put into a rich man's grave is not how a criminal was buried. It also clearly indicates that he did sin. Thus, one of the two have to be incorrect.

Twisting the evidence is not a way to in anything. It is simply dishonest.

As for being laughed out of a court of law; I highly doubt it. I understand the justice system. I have a degree in criminal justice. I understand the court system. More so, I understand history, and history and court does not require the same type of evidence. So there is a huge problem with your analogy.

Finally, I'm point to scripture. You can try to run around it as much as you want, but until you actually address it, there is no reason to deny that the scripture I pointed out shows that Jesus sinned. And again, the fact that the Bible also says something else only supports another point I've made; that the Bible contradicts itself.

So instead of dodging the actual subject, and misconstruing my argument, you may just want to address it in an honest manner.

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

Show me the contradiction. Attacking me will not make your position any stronger. Not understanding me; and I think that you're doing so on purpose, does not make your position any stronger.

I've already addressed this earlier in the thread.

As have I. Yet, instead of actually really addressing the subject, you just repeated yourself again.

"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:

So, instead of actually addressing anything, you just want to side track more. Honestly, I don't expect much more from the vast majority of Christians anymore. I think it's quite likely that A_E is here to actually give a better representation of Christians.

As for discussing the other post, I see no reason to. You won't even enter into an honest discussion here.

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

And more dishonesty. I don't care that it was made public. Anyone who has read what I've written will clearly see that I don't support your point of view. But I do acknowledge that a Christian such as yourself can make a good point from time to time.

Relooking over that post, I'm assuming I probably just read the first sentence or so, which makes it look as if you were saying that the Jewish law is not a curse. If that is what you are saying, then yes, that is a good point. If I misunderstood you, then no, its a horrible point. Either way, it doesn't matter.

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.

All the laws are called commandments. There are countless other Jews before and after Jesus who referred to the Laws as commandments. The Bible refers to the Laws as commandments. So really, all you're showing is that you are either purposely misunderstanding the Bible, or you're truly ignorant of what the Bible says. Neither one helps your position.

Again, Jesus is referring to all of the commandments, to all of the Laws.

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.

Just read Romans. Chapter 8 is a good place to start. Even Chapter 7 begins to identify a distinction of having to follow the law, and not. I'm not going to take some verses out of context as you have. Because in this case, it is dishonest, and does not portray what Paul is saying.

 

[fallingblood]

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

Just an ignorant attack. I use the internet very little in my research. I use it to find reviews for books that I buy, as well as to search scholarly journals using online databases (which I get free membership to as attending college, where I also am studying religion, with a focus on NT). So instead of attacking me, you may want to actually attack my argument.

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!

Again, an ignorant attack. I don't "troll" through the Gospels. I've read through the Gospels, as well as the NT numerous times in order to gain a better understanding of them. During this scrutiny, contradictions appear. I don't simply deny them because they pose a problem, and see what they can tell me.

I don't blindly read through the NT.

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.

Why not try to actually make a logical and honest argument.

That's not my game. . .and I'm gonna' take a pass on playing it with you.
And you'll understand if I take a pass on all the drama. . .

Again with the drama stuff. I still don't understand what drama I'm trying to create. Honestly, by you stating that all of the time I have to assume you're 14 or 15.

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

Neither is honesty.

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.

Again, an ignorant attack. I'm not trying to discredit the NT. If I was, then my pursuit of eventually going into a Ph.D program in NT studies would be a waste of time. Even my current endeavor in religious studies would be a waste of time. And honestly, I'm not going to waste tens of thousands of dollars attending college and university to just discredit the Bible. That would be a massive waste.

 

[fallingblood]

I thought I was Sparky.

A_E or daddy will suffice. For clarity.

If Smokey adds one more to the mix, we could become the RF trinity. Just think of the power.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

...my pursuit of eventually going into a Ph.D program in NT studies would be a waste of time...

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Good luck, man. Let me know when you're in the application process. It sucks.

It's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get into a humanities Ph.D. program.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If Smokey adds one more to the mix, we could become the RF trinity. Just think of the power.

muwhahahaha

I got dibs on Poisidon.

 

[Flankerl]

But "new" does not have to mean that the "old" is supplanted. The "new" covanent is additional, an extention or (re-) interpretation. If there's no close relationship between the two covanents, there's no use in having the "old" and "new."

That might be the point, and obviously Jewish interpretation disagrees, but there is a variety of Christian interpretations that do not supplant the old covanent but supplement it.... with the point being that Gentiles can seamlessly enter into the kingdom of God.

Then again gentiles could always join jews in that what may be after one dies without a new convenant for gentiles or jews.

So there never was a need for a new convenant. From the perspective of the tanakh or judaism.

 

[Harmonious]

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

Rather, you "like" verses which show you have no comprehension of principles.

But whatever you prefer.