Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[Harmonious]

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

Yes, they do.

They may not know every man on the chain, but yes, they do.

 

[Harmonious]

1 Sam 2:30 shows that God's promise of "forever" can be annulled by God himself. . .

No. The INSTITUTION is forever. INDIVIDUALS can lose their inheritance.

But you choose to take the meaning you like, and ignore the context. But that seems to be one of your deeper faults. This is just your newest example of it.

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

And he has no background in Hebrew or Jewish law to actually understand the legal difference.

I'm also willing to bet he has no idea when Bnei Elohim refers to human nobles, to angels, or to false deities, either. Same word, different meanings. Nothing but familiarity with context will show the difference.

So, that is also not helping your cause.

 

[Harmonious]

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.

They could have done that anyway. God's covenant with Noah pretty much covers that concept. No new covenant with Gentiles is needed.

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

Agreed.

 

[Harmonious]

Thank you for noticing. :hug:

 

[Harmonious]

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.

:yes:

 

[smokydot]

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.

1) First, "old" covenant is simply the implication of Jeremiah's promise from God of a "new" covenant (Jer 1:31-34), and is not indicative
of a close relationship or re-interpretation of it.

2) Second, Heb 8:13 clearly states that the "old" covenant made with Moses on Sinai (Ex 24:7-8) is
obsolete, soon disappearing (Heb 8:13),
inferior, of lesser promises (Heb 8:6), and
faulty (Heb 8:7).

Elsewhere in the NT, it is revealed that the "old" covenant, conditioned on the Mosaic law (if you--Ex 19:5), was added (Gal 3:19, 17-18) to
the justification by faith alone of Abraham (Ro 3:29-4:5),

presented here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2283350-post69.html -- Abraham justified by faith alone, not obedience

to make them aware of what was sin, so that sin would be recognized as sin (Ro 3:20, 7:13, 5:13, 7:7), and the impossibility of righteousness by law-keeping
would lead them to Christ to be justified (made righteous) through faith in him (Gal 3:21-25).

According to the NT, the only relationship between the now obsolete "old" covenant and the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34), made in the blood of Jesus, is
that the former (eternal death through sin against the Law) was given to lead Israel to the latter (eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ).

Now that the new covenant, of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, has been established in the shed blood of Jesus (Heb 9:22), the "old" covenant is obsolete
and has disappeared (Heb 8:13).

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.

According to the NT, Gentiles seamlessly enter the only way anyone enters into the kingdom of God, through faith in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18, 36, 14:6b).

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

Correctly understood in the light of the NT, there is no contradiction between the OT and the NT.

And there is wa-a-ay too much NT theology here to be fully grasped in just one sitting. . .

 

[Harmonious]

1) First, "old" covenant is simply the implication of Jeremiah's promise from God of a "new" covenant (Jer 1:31-34), and is not indicative
of a close relationship or re-interpretation of it.

2) Second, Heb 8:13 clearly states that the "old" covenant made with Moses on Sinai (Ex 24:7-8) is
obsolete, soon disappearing (Heb 8:13),
inferior, of lesser promises (Heb 8:6), and
faulty (Heb 8:7).

And there is wa-a-y too much NT theology here to be fully grasped in just one sitting. . .

The short version:

You have to believe that God lied in the Five Books of Moses, and redefined everything in order for the NT to actually make sense.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Looks lik the NT and I have something in common. . .you don't understand either.

I was referring to enough ink for me, not you, to straigten out all your misconceptions.
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.
Why not try to actually make a logical and honest argument.
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.
Neither is honesty.
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.

 

[smokydot]

Yes, they do.

They may not know every man on the chain, but yes, they do.

Impressive. . .what do you mean by "not know every man on the chain"?

 

[Harmonious]

Impressive. . .what do you mean by "not know every man on the chain"?

I mean exactly what I said.

They may not know every last man, father to son, who goes back to Aaron. But they DO know who they are, and that they have the genealogy, and that they may know some pretty impressive folks who are road markers on the way back.

My family is not made up of Cohanim (even though my father's cousins are). But we know that our family was expelled from Spain in 1492. My grandfather knew every person in the chain from then until his generation, but he never wrote it down.

So, the exact record was lost in 1983, when he died. But that doesn't mean that we are any less connected to the Jews who were expelled from Spain.

I don't know every man in the chain, but we're still there. As are the Cohanim I know.

 

[smokydot]

The short version:
You have to believe that God lied in the Five Books of Moses, and redefined everything in order for the NT to actually make sense.

Not when it is correctly understood, starting with the prefigures or types. . .it is all a seamless whole.

In the light of the NT, it is all part of God's seamless one plan, before the foundations of the world.

 

[Harmonious]

Not when it is correctly understood, starting with the prefigures or types. . .it is all a seamless whole.

Apparently, the concept of "correctly understood" is a matter of belief, which you and I don't share.

 

[smokydot]

I mean exactly what I said.
They may not know every last man, father to son, who goes back to Aaron. But they DO know who they are, and that they have the genealogy, and that they may know some pretty impressive folks who are road markers on the way back.
My family is not made up of Cohanim (even though my father's cousins are). But we know that our family was expelled from Spain in 1492. My grandfather knew every person in the chain from then until his generation, but he never wrote it down.
So, the exact record was lost in 1983, when he died. But that doesn't mean that we are any less connected to the Jews who were expelled from Spain.
I don't know every man in the chain, but we're still there. As are the Cohanim I know.

Interesting. . .that's quite a lineage.

 

[smokydot]

Apparently, the concept of "correctly understood" is a matter of belief, which you and I don't share.

I'm thinkin' that's one thing we can definitely agree on.

 

[Harmonious]

Interesting. . .that's quite a lineage.

Thank you.

 

[Harmonious]

I'm thinkin' that's one thing we can definitely agree on.

It's a beautiful thing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They could have done that anyway. God's covenant with Noah pretty much covers that concept.

No new covenant with Gentiles is needed.


Agreed.

Well, the "need" was there because the Gentiles didn't want to keep dietary laws or the Sabbath. So they could be good Romans and worship G-d.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1) First, "old" covenant is simply the implication of Jeremiah's promise from God of a "new" covenant (Jer 1:31-34), and is not indicative
of a close relationship or re-interpretation of it.

2) Second, Heb 8:13 clearly states that the "old" covenant made with Moses on Sinai (Ex 24:7-8) is
obsolete, soon disappearing (Heb 8:13),
inferior, of lesser promises (Heb 8:6), and
faulty (Heb 8:7).

Elsewhere in the NT

.... the sun is always shining on planet smokydot.

 

[Harmonious]

Well, the "need" was there because the Gentiles didn't want to keep dietary laws or the Sabbath. So they could be good Romans and worship G-d.

The only dietary laws Gentiles had to keep are to make sure that whatever animal it is has the prerequisite of being dead first, and not eating blood.

Non-Jews never had to keep the Sabbath.

God has expectations of non-Jews, and a perfectly functional relationship without a special new one. They COULD be good Romans, or whatever else, and worship God.

There was no need for anything else. There never was.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only dietary laws Gentiles had to keep are to make sure that whatever animal it is has the prerequisite of being dead first, and not eating blood.

Non-Jews never had to keep the Sabbath.

God has expectations of non-Jews, and a perfectly functional relationship without a special new one. They COULD be good Romans, or whatever else, and worship God.

There was no need for anything else. There never was.

They could eat pork and meat sacrificed to idols?