Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

Wow. A heart attack.

That's purty serious. I didn't realize that you exploited Leviticus for so many "types."

Actually, I plundered it. . .for all its seeds of NT theology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually, I plundered it. . .for all its seeds of NT theology.

Next time do a better job.

 

[Harmonious]

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

Really? Then, please tell me who you addressed with THESE comment?

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]

Really? Then, please tell me who you addressed with THESE comment?

I neglected to remove them. I did not intend for them to be there. Sorry.

 

[smokydot]

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

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

This, along with the many types explained in the letter to the Hebrews, is what is found in Leviticus. . .which is the seedbed of NT theology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I neglected to remove them. I did not intend for them to be there. Sorry.

hmmmm

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now it's re-posted!

LMAO

Who is it addressed to now?

 

[smokydot]

Next time do a better job.

I didn't do a good job plundering Leviticus' seedbed of NT theology? . .you know of more to plunder? . .please share.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didn't do a good job plundering Leviticus' seedbed of NT theology? . .you know of more to plunder? . .please share.

1) Abandon your search for types.

2) Learn NT theology.

It doesn't matter which comes first. If you learn #2 it will encourage you to push aside #1. And if you abandon #1, your mind will be open for #2.

 

[Pegg]

Actually, they ARE the way I translated it.

well the translation is matter for the translators...i can only go by what i read and thats what i read. The fact that Daniel and Zecharia both indicated that they did not know the meaning of the prophecy
Daniel 12:8 Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand; so that I said: “O my lord, what will be the final part of these things?” 9 And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end

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.

I believe you are speaking about the promised Messiah here. However, i 'd point out the fact that the promised Messiah was never only for the jews. Abraham was told that it would be by means of his seed that 'all the nations will bless themselves" by means of him Gen 22:17-18.

So for Gods promise to Abraham to be fulfilled, then surely a king ruling over one small patch of ground and over one small group of people is not going to accomplish that. Something greater is surely needed. A human ruler is limited in many ways, not only geographically but also by his own inherent limitations and sinfulness.
So can i ask you what the interpretation is of the Pslam where David says "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"
does the promised one actually sit at Gods right hand? or do you think this means something else?



<sorry i skipped a lot here, there are to many points to address in this one post>

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.

well naturally because Torah law is not required by God in order to have a good and righteous standing before him. Abraham did not live by Torah law, nor did Enoch or Noah...none of them and yet they were all approved by God.

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.

im sorry if it appeared I was telling you such a thing...thats most certainly not my intention.

 

[Harmonious]

well the translation is matter for the translators...i can only go by what i read and thats what i read.

Fair enough. However, when you know the language, what you see is far more enlightening.

The fact that Daniel and Zecharia both indicated that they did not know the meaning of the prophecy
Daniel 12:8 Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand; so that I said: &#8220;O my lord, what will be the final part of these things?&#8221; 9 And he went on to say: &#8220;Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end

I'll give you that, but the sweeping generality of "prophets didn't know their own prophecy" doesn't work.

You had two human moments. Please don't try to generalize ignorance of the prophets that way again.

I believe you are speaking about the promised Messiah here. However, i 'd point out the fact that the promised Messiah was never only for the jews.

Of course - the Messiah was for anyone who would live in the land of Israel when he was there, ruling Israel.

He will be a leader, and other nations may look to him for guidance, as he will be a statesman and a scholar, and a just arbiter of law, but his primary job will be to be a king for the Jews.

Just because the Christians have decided on a much bigger role for who or what they claim to be the Messiah doesn't change what the Jews are waiting for.

Abraham was told that it would be by means of his seed that 'all the nations will bless themselves" by means of him Gen 22:17-18.

Indeed.

And when people bless the Jews, they are indeed blessed. And when people curse the Jews... Look - it didn't really go well for Nazi Germany once the Allies came. That is ONE historic example. There are countless others.

Jews have lived all over the world. It seems to be an international phenomenon; when the nations bless the Jews, they are blessed. When they make life difficult for the Jews, they may prosper for a time, but they are doomed to failure, eventually.

This has nothing to do with the Messiah.

So for Gods promise to Abraham to be fulfilled, then surely a king ruling over one small patch of ground and over one small group of people is not going to accomplish that.

So you say. You would be wrong, but that is your right.

Something greater is surely needed.

No, not really.

A human ruler is limited in many ways, not only geographically but also by his own inherent limitations and sinfulness.

Perhaps, but that is what will be.

That is all the Messiah ever was, and ever WILL be. A human, nothing more, nothing less. A seriously impressive human, but just a human.

So can i ask you what the interpretation is of the Pslam where David says "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"

It is a metaphor, especially considering that God is not, never was, and never will be physical.

King David (and his descendants) will serve God, like a "right hand man". Since God isn't physical, He has no "right" or "left" hand at all.

does the promised one actually sit at Gods right hand? or do you think this means something else?

This, like all anthropomorphisms of God, is merely a metaphor.

<sorry i skipped a lot here, there are to many points to address in this one post>

That's cool. We can come back to whatever you'd like, later.

well naturally because Torah law is not required by God in order to have a good and righteous standing before him.

Well... For non-Jews. You would be right.

For Jews... That's another story entirely.

Abraham did not live by Torah law, nor did Enoch or Noah...none of them and yet they were all approved by God.

And none of them were Jews. Odd, that.

Although the argument could be made that Abraham was the first Jew, the full complement of Torah law was not given until Sinai.

No one HAS to follow Torah law, except Jews.

I'm not sure why Christians are so insistent that Torah law is no longer relevant, when it was never relevant for them to start with.

im sorry if it appeared I was telling you such a thing...thats most certainly not my intention.

Interesting.

But when you say that Torah law is no longer necessary, the only ones this has any meaning for are Jews. Therefore, when you say so, you are indeed telling me that I should stop doing what I'm doing.

Non-Jews never had to do more than Seven Commandments, proactively. So, saying that YOU don't have to do more than that is fine.

Saying that the "Old" covenant is irrelevant is basically telling Jews, who were the only ones who had to follow the Torah in the first place, that we don't have to do it anymore.

So don't tell me that the "Old" Covenant and the full complement of commandments that go therewith aren't necessary, or impossible to take to heart, or all the rest of it that you were busy telling me before.

 

[james2ko]

Twisting the evidence. That is exactly what you're doing here. You haven't refuted anything. You've simply supported the idea that the NT contains contradictions. That's all.

Accusations without proof? Perhaps you should reconsider a career in criminal justice

Paul was wrong. Paul was purporting his own theological ideas, and can't even support them all of the time. This is one example of him not being able to support the idea that there is a curse of the law. The law is not a curse. Even the scripture he is citing opposes what he is saying.

Ok we get it. You 're beating a dead horse by stating Paul's theology is wrong for the upteenth time. But you do-se-doed around the question. Once again, What is the curse of the law?

No. The commandments were the law. All of the law. There is no distinction here. Jesus said all of the law. Plus, addresses the Law and the prophets. You can't say that only means the 10 commandments because it isn't logical. Jesus himself uses the law and commands (as in, he isn't saying commandments, he's saying commands) interchangeably. There is a long history of Jewish teachers doing just this, before and after Jesus.

Basically, to accept what you're saying, one has to ignore what Jesus is saying, what other Jewish teachers have said both before and after Jesus regarding the Law, and then assume that there was some distinction which you can't even prove.

Again, there is no a single shred of suggestion that Jesus was only speaking of the 10 Commandments. He states all of the Law, which tells us he is talking about the entire Jewish law, not just a small portion of it.

If you feel Jesus considered the entire Jewish law as one and not distinct, why did the law of Moses and the 10 commandments have different authors, were written on different materials, spoken to the people by different law-givers, placed in different locations in the ark, and contained totally different content?

Furthermore, if Jewish law were all one and not distinct, why was it when the statutes and judgments were delivered by Moses, there were no sacrifices connected to it? (Jer 7:22) Finally, if the law is all one, why was the Priesthood and the laws regulating offerings added, after the close of the Old covenant? (Ex 24).

Only specific scriptural proof from the Holy Bible will be accepted. Oral traditions or personal conjecture mean zero to me.

More so, in context of teachers of the Law, and Pharisees, who Jesus' followers are suppose to follow the law even more strictly then, there is no reason to assume that he is only stating the 10 Commandments. There is no suggestion of that at all in Matthew.

If Jesus meant "all" of the law which includes the sacrifices, as you purport, please explain why didn't Jesus expand on the spiritual intent of the sacrificial law as He did with the Moral Law in Mat 5?

All of the law was given by God. It was spoken by God. So your basis is off anyway.

The only law directly spoken by God to His people are the 10 commandments!

Deu 5:22 "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Context and interpretation are different. You obviously don't seem to know what context is. And yes, I have the correct context, as in context of the whole chapter. In context of all of what Paul is saying in that discussion.

Why do you keep dancing around the question? This isn't "dancing with the stars." It's a simple debate. Here it is again; Since you feel I'm taking this verse out of context, what is your interpretation of Rom 7:12-13?

 

[Pegg]

Well... For non-Jews. You would be right.
For Jews... That's another story entirely.
And none of them were Jews. Odd, that.

Although the argument could be made that Abraham was the first Jew, the full complement of Torah law was not given until Sinai.

No one HAS to follow Torah law, except Jews.

i thought the term 'jew' or 'jewish' simply meant one who follows Judaism...would that be correct?

I'm not sure why Christians are so insistent that Torah law is no longer relevant, when it was never relevant for them to start with.

I would say that is because the first chrisitans were actually jews...and it is the Apostle Pauls (a pharisee) explanation as to why they, the Jews of his day, did not need to continue to be circumsized, or observe the sabbath, or participate in the festivals, or offer sacrifices for sins

but whats even more interesting is that initially they did not understand that the mosaic law had been abolished by God. It was only when God poured holy spirit onto gentile believers that the jewish apostles came to understand that God was accepting people of the nations who had never practiced that law....this indicated to them that the mosaic law was not one of Gods requirements and they began to preach that it had been ended and the new covenant, that Jeremiah prophesied, had been put into effect.

Interesting.

But when you say that Torah law is no longer necessary, the only ones this has any meaning for are Jews. Therefore, when you say so, you are indeed telling me that I should stop doing what I'm doing.

yes i can see how that comes across, so my apologies on that point.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The only law directly spoken by God to His people are the 10 commandments!

Deu 5:22 "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Fallingblood didn't specify "to all your assembly". He said the whole law was spoken by God. And throughout the Torah, you have the words "The Lord said to Moses" or "The Lord spoke to Aaron" or "The Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron".... often instructing Moses and/or Aaron to "Speak to the children of Israel, saying..."

 

[Harmonious]

i thought the term 'jew' or 'jewish' simply meant one who follows Judaism...would that be correct?

Follows Judaism? No. One who IS a Jew, either by birth or conversion.

You can follow whatever you wish. If you liked what you saw, you could follow such things, if it made you happy.

But only a Jew, as I said, by birth or conversion, is required to keep the full complement of Torah laws, as they apply.

I would say that is because the first chrisitans were actually jews...and it is the Apostle Pauls (a pharisee)

That's debatable. That might have been what he was, but when he went off the path, it is clear that wasn't what he remained.

explanation as to why they, the Jews of his day, did not need to continue to be circumsized, or observe the sabbath, or participate in the festivals, or offer sacrifices for sins

Then Paul was dead wrong.

Jews of his day, and every day, at all times, need to continue to be circumcised, and observe Shabbat, and participate in festivals. The whole sacrifice thing has been put on hold until the Temple is rebuilt.

If you want to say that people who followed Jesus were no longer Jews, and THAT is why they didn't have to follow Torah law, well... That doesn't make Paul a Pharisee, it makes Paul an apostate, and telling Jews that "they don't need to continue" to follow Torah law is downright evil, or at best, wrong-headed.

Whatever it was that Paul was selling, it wasn't anything that had to do with the Jews' relationship to God. He tried to redefine the Jewish relationship to God.

If Paul claimed to be a prophet, he was a false prophet. If he made it up, he was a charlatan of the first degree. Whatever it was, it sounds like Paul tried to separate Jews from Torah and God.

I have nothing good to say about Paul.

but whats even more interesting is that initially they did not understand that the mosaic law had been abolished by God.

No, what is even more interesting is that Paul decided that Torah law had been abolished.

God would never have done so, as it was an ETERNAL covenant.

It was only when God poured holy spirit onto gentile believers that the jewish apostles came to understand that God was accepting people of the nations who had never practiced that law....this indicated to them that the mosaic law was not one of Gods requirements and they began to preach that it had been ended and the new covenant, that Jeremiah prophesied, had been put into effect.

This nonsense is all well and good, especially as it is what you believe in.

As far as the truth goes... God ALWAYS accepted gentile believers, and they never had to keep the full complement of Torah law. They had Seven Commandments: the ones that God gave to Noah and his sons and all their wives upon leaving the ark.

Non-Jews NEVER had to follow the Torah, or as you like to call it, Mosaic Law. Only the Jews did.

I will never understand why Christians feel the need to inform Jews that because Apostate Paul decided that Jews didn't have to follow the Torah anymore, and let people know that non-Jews didn't have to follow the Torah (which they never did), that Jews who were content to serve God should STOP following the Torah.

Paul was wrong to tell Jews to stop serving God by following the Torah, because the Apostles were lazy, or so it would seem. Or, maybe Paul was.

Non-Jews certainly don't have to do more than live morally straight lives, and God never asked more from them. Jews have to do as much as we can of what we were given.

We have no need for Jesus, Paul, and the apostles, or rather apostates.

yes i can see how that comes across, so my apologies on that point.

Thank you for saying so.

 

[fallingblood]

Accusations without proof? Perhaps you should reconsider a career in criminal justice

More sidetracking. You've provided all the proof I would need. All anyone has to do with look at your posts.

Ok we get it. You 're beating a dead horse by stating Paul's theology is wrong for the upteenth time. But you do-se-doed around the question. Once again, What is the curse of the law?

So you can't offer any argument. That's fine.

Again, what curse of the law? There is none. Read the scripture Paul is referring to.

If you feel Jesus considered the entire Jewish law as one and not distinct, why did the law of Moses and the 10 commandments have different authors, were written on different materials, spoken to the people by different law-givers, placed in different locations in the ark, and contained totally different content?

Furthermore, if Jewish law were all one and not distinct, why was it when the statutes and judgments were delivered by Moses, there were no sacrifices connected to it? (Jer 7:22) Finally, if the law is all one, why was the Priesthood and the laws regulating offerings added, after the close of the Old covenant? (Ex 24).

Only specific scriptural proof from the Holy Bible will be accepted. Oral traditions or personal conjecture mean zero to me.

Actually, the whole law is accredited to Moses. Just read Deuteronomy. Specifically chapter 31. Kings also talks about the Law of Moses (which has been determined to be the book of Deuteronomy) being found in the Temple during the reign of Josiah.

More so, the Laws are given to Moses at Sinai. It wasn't that God simply gave them the 10 commandments, and then decided to add more laws. God was giving Moses the laws at that time.

And different authors for the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses? They were given at the same time. There was no different author. At least not according to the Bible. I'm guessing you haven't even read Exodus, because it's not supporting your case.

If Jesus meant "all" of the law which includes the sacrifices, as you purport, please explain why didn't Jesus expand on the spiritual intent of the sacrificial law as He did with the Moral Law in Mat 5?

Because he wasn't a priest. There was no need for him to reflect on them. But the NT even gives us evidence that Jesus even participated in those laws, such as his participation in Passover (which included a sacrifice).

If Jesus was talking about just the 10 Commandments, why didn't he state that? Why did he refer to the whole law, if he was just talking about the 10 commandments? Just that fact alone, that Jesus states the whole law, and not just the ten commandments, shows your point is not valid.

The only law directly spoken by God to His people are the 10 commandments!

And he gave the whole law to the people. That doesn't take away the fact that the Law included more than just the 10 Commandments.

Why do you keep dancing around the question? This isn't "dancing with the stars." It's a simple debate. Here it is again; Since you feel I'm taking this verse out of context, what is your interpretation of Rom 7:12-13?

As I've stated, I won't take that verse out of context. You have to read the entire discourse from Paul. Which in doing so, he rejects the law, as in, he states that followers of Jesus do not have to follow it. I've stated this over and over. There is no dancing.

It is funny that you would mention dancing, because your dancing around the subject has resulted in a quite of few points being ignored; as in, you've ignored various points I've made by dancing around them.

 

[fallingblood]

Harmonious: I'm glad to see you in this thread. It's nice to be able to read some well informed posts.

 

[Harmonious]

Harmonious: I'm glad to see you in this thread. It's nice to be able to read some well informed posts.

Thank you very kindly.

 

[smokydot]

1) Abandon your search for types.
2) Learn NT theology.
It doesn't matter which comes first. If you learn #2 it will encourage you to push aside #1. And if you abandon #1, your mind will be open for #2.

That's a formula for what the Bible calls unbelief. . .

of what is not the product of "my search," but of the clear revelation in the NT letter to the Hebrews, of the numerous types (prefigures, patterns, shadows) of Jesus
in the OT;
for example, the letter explains the types: Perfect High Priest, perfect atoning sacrifice, Passover Lamb, blood which cleanses from all sin, Mediator of New Covenant--which are found particularly in Leviticus, the seedbed of NT theology,

but are also found elsewhere, and of which 11 are shown here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html -- 11 types of Jesus in the OT

Each can decide for himself if these types (patterns, shadows) are the plain teaching of the NT letter to the Hebrews. . .so there will be no refutation from me of your objections to its plain words, taken at their plain meaning.

You'll also understand if I take a pass on your unbelief of the revelation of types in the NT letter to the Hebrews, which is one of the major revelations that are the basis
of Christianity. . .

to which you can add: salvation through faith alone (Galatians), Christ, the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians), the total sufficiency of Christ (Colossians), and the incomprehensible sovereignty of God (Romans),

 

[smokydot]

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 into 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 of OT - 8:1-10:18.

Therefore, believe and obey your new High Priest, do not lapse back (fall away into unbelief). - 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 (fall away into unbelief) - 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 his ignominious suffering the price which obedience required.
His trial of obedience was completed (made perfect) by not losing his faith 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 for all who obey him, which includes his command
to believe (Mk 1:15; Jn 1:12, 7:38-39).