Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[fallingblood]

A degree in criminal justice is not even close to a degree in law.
And understanding the "court system" is not even close to understanding law.

Yeah, because I didn't have to study law or the court system during my classes. Even though I had classes on both subjects. You have no idea what constitutes a criminal justice degree.

Nice misrepresentation of your implied courtroom-trial qualifications. . .how honest is that?

It was completely honest. It's not my fault you have no idea what one goes through and learns in order to get a degree in criminal justice.

As honest as your misrepresentation of your implied courtroom-trial qualifications above?

You couldn't show any logical misrepresentation above in the first place. Just ignorance on your part.

Now, that is rich!
Translate: the more a Christian agrees with my misunderstanding of NT theology, the better a representative of Christians it makes him.

Not surprising. . .that's exactly how blindness and denial work. [/quote] Your failure to understand anything really surprises me. Up to this point, you haven't addressed anything I've said in a logical manner, and instead have resorted to attacks based on ignorance.

Because he knows a lot of spot-on NT theology.

Not at all. Because he shows a lot of dishonesty, and won't address the points brought up. Much like you're doing here.

That does not address the point at issue that in Mt 5:18 Jesus is specifically referring to the Decalogue.

Only if you're uninformed. Jesus is speaking of all of the law. He never makes a distinction.

You failed to address anything really.

 

[Harmonious]

Minor, but important, mistake. . .you're linking two doctrines of NT theology that are not linked:

I've linked nothing. I've simply explained that such a thing could not be done.

1) Jesus' fulfillment of the law (Mt 5:17)

Which is impossible to do, as I've explained.

is what makes him the perfect (sinless) atoning sacrifice,

Which he certainly was NOT

according to the regulations for sacrifices in Leviticus.

Oh, hell no.

The perfection of a sacrificial animal has nothing to do with innocence - animals can't be assigned guilt or innocence, as they have no free will. The perfection of an animal means that it was normally formed and healthy. A deformed animal, while worthwhile as an individual animal, is disqualified as a sacrificial animal.

And NO human fits that form. No matter what. EVER. Especially according to the regulations for sacrifices in Leviticus.

2) That "no one has to do the law anymore" to gain righteousness, is not because it has been fulfilled, but because the Levitical law has been set aside,
with the setting aside of the Levitical priesthood which was its basis, as revealed in Heb 7:12, 18.

Which is NONSENSE, and proof that the author of Hebrews was either a supreme ignoramus in Jewish law, a liar, or a moron. None of these descriptions are particularly flattering, but that is all I have to say for the author of Hebrews and his words' validity about Jewish law.

 

[Harmonious]

Thanks for your previous response to my comments below, but I am re-posting because the edits are meaningful.

That remains to be seen.

I dunno'. . .I can understand that interpretation. . .but is it indicated anywhere in the OT text that it was conditioned on anything?

As I said before:

It is hard to answer, because you want a simple yes or no, but the answer isn't that simple.

It doesn't explain in text (that I can remember - I might be wrong about this) that a Cohen who marries a woman he has no business marrying doesn't get the honors that go with the Cahuna passed along. What I know that it DOES is say which types of women a Cohen is forbidden to marry. I am telling you what the results of those relationships are.

At 1 Sam 2:30, the language rather strongly indicates that it was a change on God's part, rather than an enforcement of any pre-stated condition of his:

"The LORD, the God of Israel declares: 'I promised that your house (Eli) and your father's house (Aaron) would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares:
'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.' "

And again, as I said before:

Yeah. I see what you are saying. However, like it is possible for a Cohen to disqualify himself with an inappropriate marriage as I mentioned before, God simply let Eli know that he had hereby disqualified himself and his entire house.

You also have to remember that Torah law is not dispensed in any book other than the Five Books of Moses (with the possible exception of the Book of Esther). Therefore, if what Samuel had to say goes against what Moses had to say, you can be rest assured that Samuel's prophecy only affected the person he was talking to, and not all Cohanim in the world.

NO prophet has the right to gainsay Moses. If he tries, that is proof-positive that he is a false prophet. So... Samuel is NOT a false prophet. Therefore, it is understood that this "change in God's mind" only referred to Eli and his family.

That's a clear statement by God that he is reversing his promise to Eli, rather than enforcing any established condition.

And again:

I just explained that.

So then. . .to address your argument in your terms: just as God reversed his promise of forever to Eli, he can likewise reverse any other promise of forever.

To which I replied:

No, He can't. A promise that was made to the entire nation of Israel cannot be reversed because of one man's bad actions. The one man's bad actions affects only him.

It is not a good analogy.

However, I no longer believe that it was a good attempt. You mostly ignored what I had to say, though you said that you appreciated my comments.

Now, I'm just getting fed up with you.

However, in my terms of the NT, it is not a reversal at all, but rather the carrying out of his one plan from all eternity, to prepare Israel for her Messiah

Grr...

by teaching her through the Law

1) the nature of sin (spiritual defilement),

Actually, the nature of sin is "mistake". It can be defilement, but that can be corrected.

2) the holiness of God (set apart, from sin),

No - the holiness of God is beyond human comprehension.

It also ignores the Jewish concept that a person who has sinned and has returned to God can reach a higher plane of existence and achieve a closeness to God than someone who had never committed that sin, as a person who turns from a sin understands the draw of it and rejects it.

So... All you are doing is ignoring many Jewish ideals, and insulting my intelligence.

You could have brought the same argument without trying to "correct your argument", as you have done nothing to help yourself.

and
3) the only way an unholy people can approach a holy God; i.e., first sin must be dealt with (by atoning blood sacrifices),

Actually, this disregards the entire concept of repentance, and not all of it (actually, MOST of it) has nothing to do with blood sacrifices, and ALL of it has to do with behavior modification.

and then removing the Law when the purpose for which he gave it was accomplished in Jesus Christ.

I see your line of reasoning, but it is completely meaningless to Jews who actually observe the commandments and hold the sanctity of them dear.

And then there's your inconsistency between a promise from God to Aaron with no stated conditions, which you mainain is conditioned on behavior. . .and a promise from God to Moses which is conditioned on behavior (if you--Ex 19:5), which you maintain is not conditioned on behavior.

And I told you then, as now:

Yo - I told you that nothing is simple, and I also told you that I don't know where to find it. My lack of knowledge of where to find something is not a proof that it doesn't exist. It is simply proof that I am not all-knowing.

Your post 2.0 was no better than the first, and the only thing it did was annoy me.

If it was a meaningful exchange between us, you could have simply ONLY given me the highlights that you edited. Now, I'm not sure if I'm just talking to a wall, or what.

 

[Harmonious]

In terms of the NT,God's setting aside the Levitical law is not a reversal at all, but rather the carrying out of his one plan from all eternity, to prepare Israel for her Messiah
by teaching her through the Law

1) the nature of sin (spiritual defilement),

Actually, the nature of sin is "mistake". It can be defilement, but that can be corrected.

2) the holiness (set apart. . .from sin, and to God),

No - the holiness of God is beyond human comprehension.

It also ignores the Jewish concept that a person who has sinned and has returned to God can reach a higher plane of existence and achieve a closeness to God than someone who had never committed that sin, as a person who turns from a sin understands the draw of it and rejects it.

So... All you are doing is ignoring many Jewish ideals.

and

3) the only way an unholy people can approach a holy God; i.e., first sin must be dealt with (by atoning blood sacrifices),

Actually, this disregards the entire concept of repentance, and not all of it (actually, MOST of it) has nothing to do with blood sacrifices, and ALL of it has to do with behavior modification.

and then removing the Law when the purpose for which he gave it was accomplished in Jesus Christ.

I see your line of reasoning, but it is completely meaningless to Jews who actually observe the commandments and hold the sanctity of them dear.

 

[Harmonious]

And then there's your inconsistency between a promise from God to Aaron with no stated conditions, which you mainain is conditioned on behavior. . .and a promise from God to Moses which is conditioned on behavior (if you--Ex 19:5), which you maintain is not conditioned on behavior.

This passage is important to you. I can tell, since you've repeated yourself, saying the same thing three times.

What I will do is tell you that there is no inconsistency except that which you imagine.

I've explained that the promise that God gave to the entirety of the descendants of Aaron, but that individuals can disqualify themselves for that particular privilege of being the elite amongst Jews.

About Exodus 19:5, which you seem to like as an example of the "conditionality" of the covenant... You know, there has never been a time that EVERY LAST JEW stopped following the Torah.

And since the promise was conditional to ALL of Israel following, only when ALL of Israel stops fulfilling our end would such a thing end.

Individuals might have rebelled. Individuals DO make mistakes. But as long as there is at least ONE Jew doing what God commanded, God's condition on Israel has never been abrogated.

 

[Pegg]

You know, to pick ONE verse of confusion and disorientation and generalize that "the prophet didn't know what he was talking about," is intellectually dishonest.

A proper translation actually helps.

27. And I, Daniel, became broken and ill for days, but I rose and did the king's work, and I was terrified about the vision, but no one realized it.

there is no deliberate attempt to be dishonest here...that is what the scriptures I posted state. If you have issue with the scriptures, you should realise that they are not translated the way you state.

Interesting hypothetical, but it DOES apply the way I think it does.

No, it wasn't. The Jews living in the land of Israel was conditional, but there was nothing 'conditional' about the eternal covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Jews at Mount Sinai.

Nope. Because God's eternal promises are eternal.

but now regarding the covenant God made with David for a kingdom...which was also eternal according to scripture:
“Your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.” 2 Samuel 7:16

Psalm 89:34 I shall not profane my covenant, And the expression out of my lips I shall not change.
35 Once I have sworn in my holiness, To David I will not tell lies.
36 His seed itself will prove to be even to time indefinite, And his throne as the sun in front of me

You say that God did not keep his promise to David simply because 'some jews stayed in Babylon'
"Probably because the majority of the Jews chose to stay in Babylon, rather than return to Israel. I'm sure if the Jews left to be in Israel en mass it might have been a different story. However, it didn't happen that way, and all we have is conjecture about what might have been otherwise"
So you are saying that Davids covenant for a kingship was dependent upon how many jews lived in Jerusalem, but the Mosaic Law covenant is in effect forever and its not conditional even though the scripture clearly states "IF YOU WILL KEEP MY COMMANDMENT..."
What is the difference as to why God can't break or change his covenant with Moses, but he can break or change his covenant with David.?

these scriptures seem to be the reverse of the way you are stating.

Because Jews of the then and now had allowed themselves to assimilate with the Greko-Roman non-Jewish culture. It was a function of what the Jews at the time didn't remember to focus on.

but wasnt that the very thing that the jews were punished for in ancient times...the mixing with the pagan world around them...doesnt the mosaic covenant expressly forbid such assimilation? If thats still happening today, how can it be said that the jews still adhere to the mosaic law code?

First of all, the priesthood never went away. They are still alive and well, and as with us as ever. They don't minister in the Temple, because there is no Temple for them to serve in. But that doesn't make them any less Cohanim.

How many of them trace their family back to the tribe of Levi and how do they prove that? I ask this because under the mosaic law, only the levites could serve as priests.
Also, as there is no temple, how do they serve as minsters under the mosaic law...because im sure you know that the mosaic law required the priests to perform very specific functions of service. I know there is no sacrifices anymore, so what do they do exactly?

But why was the Temple permitted to be destroyed? Because the Jews, who were indeed primarily living Torah life-styles, were treating each other with blatant disrespect. The sin of "evil speech" was rampant, as was "baseless hatred".
I would suggest that it is still a problem to this day amongst Jews, which is why the Temple isn't rebuilt today.

it always struck me that in ancient isreal, when the leaders were faithful and carrying out Gods law, the people followed and were also faithful, but when the leaders were corrupt or unfaithful or turned to false worship...so did the people.

This is why something better then the mosaic law was needed... Gods laws needed to be on the hearts of individual jews in order for them to display them in their lives. The mosaic law does not put the law into a persons heart and will never be able to do so because a written set of rules can be adhered to, but the heart can be desiring to do something completely different.

Jeremiah determined that a 'better covenant' was coming. You think this happened in the time of Esther, but I think it came through the words of Jesus...he invited people to join him in worshiping God from the heart and if Gods laws are in the heart, we wont need a set of rules laid out for us.

 

[Harmonious]

there is no deliberate attempt to be dishonest here...that is what the scriptures I posted state. If you have issue with the scriptures, you should realise that they are not translated the way you state.

Actually, they ARE the way I translated it.

The translation that I used before was from the Judaica Press. But after looking in the Hebrew, I can safely say that the translation is accurate. Your translation was wrong, and I took issue with your translation, as well as your implication about it.

but now regarding the covenant God made with David for a kingdom...which was also eternal according to scripture:
“Your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.” 2 Samuel 7:16

Psalm 89:34 I shall not profane my covenant, And the expression out of my lips I shall not change.
35 Once I have sworn in my holiness, To David I will not tell lies.
36 His seed itself will prove to be even to time indefinite, And his throne as the sun in front of me

You say that God did not keep his promise to David simply because 'some jews stayed in Babylon'
"Probably because the majority of the Jews chose to stay in Babylon, rather than return to Israel. I'm sure if the Jews left to be in Israel en mass it might have been a different story. However, it didn't happen that way, and all we have is conjecture about what might have been otherwise"
So you are saying that Davids covenant for a kingship was dependent upon how many jews lived in Jerusalem,

No, no, no, no, no.

David's kingdom IS forever. Just because a king isn't ruling currently doesn't mean that the kingship is finished. In due course, God will deem us worthy to have a king. And there are people who would biologically qualify. We are waiting for the time when the fellow who fits the bill biologically will be prepared to rule all the Jews.

David's kingship was never dependent on how many Jews lived in Jerusalem. But you can hardly have an effective king of the Jews, if the majority of Jews don't live in his jurisdiction.

The family is in place, and ever has been. But the rest of the Jews... not so much.

It wasn't that God didn't keep His promise. But the promise is ineffective if the Jews aren't there to receive it.

but the Mosaic Law covenant is in effect forever and its not conditional

Yup.

even though the scripture clearly states "IF YOU WILL KEEP MY COMMANDMENT..."

What is it with you and smoky? I told you (and him) that the "If you will keep My commandment" thing is about HOW GOD WILL TREAT THE JEWS, not a clause to make the covenant conditional.

What is the difference as to why God can't break or change his covenant with Moses, but he can break or change his covenant with David.?

God didn't break either covenant or promise.

these scriptures seem to be the reverse of the way you are stating.

No - your understanding is the reverse of what the scriptures are stating. Context is key.

I keep saying that. Maybe, some day, someone will pay attention.

but wasnt that the very thing that the jews were punished for in ancient times...the mixing with the pagan world around them...doesnt the mosaic covenant expressly forbid such assimilation?

Yup.

If thats still happening today, how can it be said that the jews still adhere to the mosaic law code?

Do you really mean to tell me that if my neighbor is going against Torah law, that means that I am going against Torah law?

Jews are not monolithic. We are human. And some of us have better rates of success with following the Torah than others.

I can tell you that I live to Torah law to the best of my abilities, as do most of my friends. Not all Jews are Orthodox. Are you honestly going to tell me that NO Jews are Orthodox because SOME Jews are not Orthodox?

Really?

How many of them trace their family back to the tribe of Levi

However many there are.

and how do they prove that?

That isn't your concern. It is enough that they know.

They don't cease to be Levi'im and Cohanim because they can't prove to YOU that they are. They are what they are. They know.

I ask this because under the mosaic law, only the levites could serve as priests.

Yup. Only Cohanim can be Cohanim.

Your point is...?

Ah, maybe you are confused because Rabbis are not all Cohanim. Rabbis are not necessarily priests, and you might think that they are one and the same.

After all, the authors of the NT had quite a problem differentiating them, so it isn't so hard to see that you might have that same trouble. But they aren't the same thing.

Cohanim are Cohanim. Levi'im are Levi'im, and Rabbis come from any tribe they want to.

Also, as there is no temple, how do they serve as minsters under the mosaic law...because im sure you know that the mosaic law required the priests to perform very specific functions of service.

They do what they can with what they have.

They perform Pidyon Haben. They bless Jewish congregations during prayer. They don't go to Jewish cemeteries. They have what to do Jewishly to keep them busy.

Even during Temple times, Cohanim didn't all serve in the Temple at the same time, you see. There was a rotation. They did other things when they were not there.

I know there is no sacrifices anymore, so what do they do exactly?

I gave you a short list, and an explanation.

it always struck me that in ancient isreal, when the leaders were faithfuland carrying out Gods law, the people followed and were also faithful, but when the leaders were corrupt or unfaithful or turned to false worship...so did the people.

You are listing sychronicity, not cause and effect.

This is why something better then the mosaic law was needed...

Nonsense. There has never been a time when NO Jews followed Torah law. I'd say that I'm doing a pretty good job doing them right now. (There is always room for improvement, however...)

But then again, you refer to them as Mosaic law. The law is GOD'S law, as given to the Jews. Moses was only the prophet who delivered them.

Gods laws needed to be on the hearts of individual jews in order for them to display them in their lives.

Yup. In our hearts, in our minds, in our hands, in our actions.

God's laws are beautiful things, especially when Jews follow them to the best of our ability.

The mosaic law does not put the law into a persons heart

Says a non-Jew who doesn't live by said laws, and therefore has no idea about what she speaks.

and will never be able to do so

Says said non-Jew to a Jew who lives by said set of laws... :sarcastic

because a written set of rules can be adhered to, but the heart can be desiring to do something completely different.

And the actions can draw the heart. If a person does the right thing for the wrong reason, and they do it often enough, that person will come to do the right thing for the right reason.

But, of course, this all ignores the Jews who are already living according to Torah law.

No one is perfect, but hey - you can't say that I don't try.

Jeremiah determined that a 'better covenant' was coming.

There was no such thing. If any prophet attempted to say that the covenant that God established between Himself and the Jews was at all overridden, abrogated, or otherwise nullified, that is proof-positive that said prophet was a FALSE PROPHET.

Don't ascribe such things to Jeremiah. There was no "better covenant", but a "reset button" of sorts on the already existing covenant, to enhance the already established relationship.

You think this happened in the time of Esther,

Yup.

but I think it came through the words of Jesus...he invited people to join him in worshiping God from the heart and if Gods laws are in the heart, we wont need a set of rules laid out for us.

Of COURSE that's what you believe. You are a Christian.

And I promise you that you never, ever, have to live by the Torah law. And that was true long before Jesus was ever born.

But please don't tell me to stop doing what God commanded my forefathers, and thereby ME, especially when you don't understand what I'm doing and why.

 

[smokydot]

Actually, the nature of sin is "mistake". It can be defilement, but that can be corrected.
[/color]No - the holiness of God is beyond human comprehension.
It also ignores the Jewish concept that a person who has sinned and has returned to God can reach a higher plane of existence and achieve a closeness to God than someone who had never committed that sin, as a person who turns from a sin understands the draw of it and rejects it.
So... All you are doing is ignoring many Jewish ideals.
Actually, this disregards the entire concept of repentance, and not all of it (actually, MOST of it) has nothing to do with blood sacrifices, and ALL of it has to do with behavior modification.
I see your line of reasoning, but it is completely meaningless to Jews who actually observe the commandments and hold the sanctity of them dear.

This was no addressed to you, since you have commented on it more than once.

 

[Harmonious]

This was no addressed to you, since you have commented on it more than once.

Are you expecting a different answer from someone else?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*sigh*

Good work, Harm*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This was no addressed to you, since you have commented on it more than once.

To edit:

This post was not addressed to you, but since then you have commented on it more than once.

 

[smokydot]

Are you expecting a different answer from someone else?

Not necessarily. . .

 

[Harmonious]

*sigh*

Good work, Harm*

Thank you.

 

[Harmonious]

To edit:

This post was not addressed to you, but since then you have commented on it more than once.

:rainbow1:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This was no addressed to you, since you have commented on it more than once.

More dishonesty.

You didn't address it to anyone, but you clarify yourself using exact phrases from Harmonious's post. Which appears directly above yours.

Just so you can't further edit the post that shows the proof (and, of course, see previous post):

In terms of the NT, God's setting aside the Levitical law is not a reversal at all, but rather the carrying out of his one plan from all eternity, to prepare Israel for her Messiah
by teaching her through the Law

1) the nature of sin (spiritual defilement),
2) the holiness of God (set apart. . .from sin), and
3) the only way an unholy people can approach a holy God; i.e., first sin must be dealt with (by atoning blood sacrifices),

and then removing the Law when the purpose for which he gave it was accomplished in Jesus Christ.

And then there's your inconsistency between a promise from God to Aaron with no stated conditions, which you mainain is conditioned on behavior. . .and a promise from God to Moses which is conditioned on behavior (if you--Ex 19:5), which you maintain is not conditioned on behavior.

< duckin' 'n runnin' from a scolding Jewish matron >

 

[smokydot]

To edit:

This post was not addressed to you, but since then you have commented on it more than once.

Kinda' sorta'. . .almost nearly. . .but not quite hardly.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Amazing how quickly smokydot is willing to forfeit what little credibility that he has.

Unfortunate.

Disappointing.

And now, expected.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Kinda' sorta'. . .almost nearly. . .but not quite hardly.

You've got bigger fish to fry now.

 

[smokydot]

More dishonesty.
You didn't address it to anyone, but you clarify yourself using exact phrases from Harmonious's post. Which appears directly above yours.

Huh? . .are you sure about that?

You might wanna' do some linking back and make sure you got that straight. . .and we'll see if you are honest enough to admit it. . .nope, you're not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Huh? . .are you sure about that?

You might wanna' do some linking back and make sure you got that straight. . .and we'll see if you are honest enough to admit it.

It's not that difficult to go back to the post in question.

Which post were you talking about, then? I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong if it's convincing.