• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
smokydot said:
Paul, the "Hebrew of Hebrews," the Pharisee (Phil 3:5) could be ignorant of Jewish custom?
Click to expand...
Yup.

Man! . .the only ignorance here is yours. . .
Click to expand...
No, angellous had the right of it.

have you even read the whole NT? . .
Click to expand...
No. But I've read parts of it, and I wasn't impressed. The more I read, the more I realized how ignorant the authors were of simple Jewish law, custom, and philosophy. And it goes downhill from there.

However, I'm guessing that it doesn't really get better as it goes on.

and I'm not talking about understanding it, just reading it, for cryin' out loud.
Click to expand...
I just answered that.

The NT reports that Jesus himself was the reason for "re-interpreting" or "re-inventing" Judaism,
Click to expand...
Ah. So it WAS Jesus' fault. I was so willing to lay blame on Paul.

But now I have even less reason to respect Jesus than I had before reading your post. Good job! :clap

in giving the true meaning of Jewish Scripture, the basis for Judaism, when

1) he explained who he was by Jewish Scripture -- Lk 24:25-27,
2) he presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Jewish Scripture -- Jn 5:39-40, 46-47, and
3) he opened their minds so they could understand "everything which must be fulfilled that is written about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets
and the Psalms" -- Lk 24 44-48.
Click to expand...
All well and good.

Even if I was to accept your premise of "types," the fact is that it works only as a literary device, as far as I'm concerned. As far as Jewish law and a fulfillment of prophecy goes, it means nothing. At all.

It is interesting, but beyond that... Meaningless to me.

And then Jesus personally revealed to Paul these things. . .and more. . .that Paul was not permitted even to tell -- 2 Co 12:1-4, 7; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:3-5.
Click to expand...
So, as I see it, it is the blind leading the blind. Gotcha.

I do realize that you see it under other lights, but considering that you believe that Jesus, who was busy "reinventing Judaism", and Paul, who didn't seem to know what he was talking about to start with (regardless of the fact that he might have once been Orthodox - once he believed that "none comes to God but through Jesus," his Orthodoxy was over), your founts of knowledge leave a lot to be desired if you really want to know anything about Jews.

If you want to know what Jesus believed, well and good. If you want to know what Paul had to teach, bully for you. But what they taught HAS NO RELATION TO NORMATIVE JUDAISM, in their time, or at any other.

There is absolutely no basis in the NT for these latter day, man-made, novel speculations that Paul and the NT writers "had seen a need to re-interpret or re-invent Judaism," when it is Jesus himself who gives the true meaning of Jewish Scripture, the basis of Judaism.
Click to expand...
Whether the fault lies with Paul or Jesus, they are both ignorant people, and their twisted concepts of what Jews believe and passing it off as actual Torah knowledge was fraudulent.

You probably have the idea that either Jesus or Paul had the right to do these things. I find the idea that THEY believed they had the right to do so arrogant on their parts, and that - out of the gate - is a reason to officially ignore anything else they had to say. It can only go downhill from there.

The meaning which Jesus explained was always contained in the prophecies, although hidden,
and was always contained in the "shadows" (representations) of the Mosaic law.
They were nothing new. . .nor are they a "re-invention" or a "re-interpretation" of Judaism.

According to Jesus, they are the true Judaism.
Click to expand...
And from what I can tell from what I HAVE read of the Christian scriptures, Jesus wouldn't have known true Judaism if it smacked him in the face.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Harmonious said:
Even if I was to accept your premise of "types," the fact is that it works only as a literary device, as far as I'm concerned. As far as Jewish law and a fulfillment of prophecy goes, it means nothing. At all.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth - despite smokydot's persistence - the identification of "types" has absolutely nothing to do with normative NT interpretation. It has very little contact with some ancients, but it never was as big a deal as smoky is making of it.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
BigRed said:
You place too much faith in the Book of Hebrews.
There are serious errors in Hebrews that make it unreliable. Very unreliable.
Hebrews9:3-4
3Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;
WRONG! The golden altar of incense was NOT inside the Holy of Holies. It was outside the curtain in the Holy Place.
Look it up in your Bible.
Click to expand...
True. . .and good job, based in facts and knowledge of the record.

I place all my faith in the Word of God written, both in the OT and the NT.

If Apollos, born in Alexandria, was the author of Hebrews, as I think he was, his knowledge of Judaism may well have come from the Jewish Scriptures (Lk 18:24), rather than observance at the Temple in Jerusalem.

And since the ark of the covenant, the stone tablets, Aaron's rod and the jar of manna had long since been destroyed (2Kgs 25:9),
none of these would have been in Herod's Temple during NT times anyway, right?

So perhaps he had in mind
Ex 40:5, which states the gold altar of incense was to be placed in front of the ark of the Testimony, or
1Kgs 6:22, which states that the gold altar of incense belonged in the inner sanctuary, or Most Holy Place; see context: 6:16-22.

Does "in front of the ark" mean inside or outside the Most Holy Place? That could be confusing.
Hebrews 9:4 says Aaron's rod was INSIDE the Ark. But Numbers 17:10 says the rod was placed IN FRONT of the Ark.
Click to expand...
Is that inside or outside the Most Holy Place?
That seems confusing, because there is eminently more significance in them being inside the Most Holy Place instead of outside it.
And there was no such article in Herod's Temple whereby he could check it out.
Hebrews 9:4 says the jar of Manna was inside the ark.
It was placed BEFORE the ark.
Exodus 16:32-34
Then Moses said, "This is what the LORD has commanded, 'Let an omerful of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread that I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.'"
33Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omerful of manna in it, and place it before the LORD to be kept throughout your generations."
34As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the Testimony, to be kept.
Click to expand...
And again, does that mean inside or outside the Most Holy Place, where the significance of the former is eminently more than that of the latter?
And again, there were no such articles in Herod's Temple whereby he could check it out.
It is evident that the omer of manna and Aaron's Rod were not in the ark during King Solomon's days.
1Kings 8:9
There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.
Click to expand...
However, the manna and the staff were in the Most Holy Place. . .adjacent to the ark.
For there was nothing else in the Holy Place but the gold altar, the lampstands and the tables. . .no manna or rod of Aaron.
I think the significance here is the nearness to the ark. . .either in it, or adjacent to it.
Serious Errors. The author of Hebrews was a fraud who did not know the Hebrew Scripture well.
BigRed
Click to expand...
So you see these as material errors?

I don't think I do. . .because the only difference is in the nearness to the ark. . .and it's not like there was anything at the Temple he could check out on it. . .those things had been gone for 600 years (the U.S. is not even half that old). . .they weren't exactly the topic of daily conversation. . .and I'm glad I didn't have to unroll all those scrolls just to find the single part of Scripture I was looking for.

Do you think these errors are really material. . .or are you just looking for some way to discredit the letter to the Hebrews?

Got anything really material that you would like to present?
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
True. . .and good job, based in facts and knowledge of the record.
Click to expand...

BigRed - you should print this post of and put it on your fridge. Or better yet, fold it up and put it in your Bible.

So do you want the metal or the chest to pin it on?:D
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
BigRed said:
Problems with Jesus' Sacrifice for Sins.
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. but He, [Jesus] having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD. [Hebrews chapter 10]
The author of Hebrews compares Jesus' execution on the cross with the animal sacrifices performed by the Levitical priests in the Temple court.
So let's take a closer look at this comparison.
1) The animal had to be perfect. Jesus' skin had been marred by whipping.
2) The genitals of the animal had to be intact and perfect. Jesus was circumcised.
3) The animal had its throat cut. Jesus did not.
4) The animal was skinned and the skin was given to the High Priest. Jesus was not skinned.
5) The animal had its alimentary canal removed and the canal was burned outside the city. Jesus did not.
6) The animal was cut in quarters. Jesus was not.
7) The animal was burned on the Altar in the Temple court. Jesus was not.
8) The animal was sacrificed in the temple court. Jesus was executed outside the city.
9) The animal was sacrificed with Levitical priests officiating. Jesus was executed with Roman soldiers officiating.

The only thing Jesus had in common with the animal is that they both died.
BigRed
​
Click to expand...
How sad that you don't get to determine what are the qualifying comparisons. . .rather, it is reserved for God's revelation in the NT, which is the authority for what is to be believed by Christians.

1) - 2) are "shadows," or representations, of the human and spiritual perfection to come in the NT in the sinlessness of Jesus, which is revealed in the NT and what is to be believed by Christians.

3) - 4) are the regulations for animal sacrifices, which were a "shadow," or representation, of the human sacrifice to come in the NT in Jesus.

5) (a) the blood of the sacrificial animal was carried into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, and
(b) the body parts were burned outside the city. . .as a "shadow," or representation of what was to come in the NT, when

(a) the blood of Jesus was carried into the Most Holy Place that was not a man-made sanctuary
(which was only a copy of the true one), when he entered heaven itself by his own blood
(b) and his body suffered and died outside the city. . .to make his people holy through his own blood,
as the blood of the sacrificial animal, whose body parts were burned outside the city, cleansed God's people from sin .(Heb 9:21-25, 13:11-13)

You left out the sprinkling of its blood on the altar to cleanse it of the sin laid on it in the sacrificial animal.

6) - 7) more of the regulations for animal sacrifices, which were the "shadow," or representation of the human sacrifice to come in the NT in Jesus.

8) the scape goat cast outside the camp bearing the disgrace of the sins laid on it (Lev 16:20-22),
was a "shadow," or representation of what was to come in the NT,
when Jesus was crucifed outside the city, bearing the disgrace of the sins laid on him (Heb 13:13).

9) the High Priest who offered the sacrifice was a "shadow," or representation of what was to come in the NT
when Jesus, the High Priest, offered the perfect atoning sacrifice of himself.

And you'll understand if I believe the NT revelation regarding these things rather than your opinion of them.




​
 
Last edited:
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Harmonious said:
No, no, no.
The golden altar was not behind the curtain. It was in the Holies, outside of the curtain.
That section you've listed refers to the Cohen Gadol (High Priest) on Yom Kippur, who brought a shovel full of coal and a ladle full of spices inside the curtain.
Click to expand...
The coals came from the brazen altar outside the sanctuary, and were placed in the censors of Lev 10:1, then taken into the Most Holy Place, wherein incense was sprinkled on the coals, and the smoke of the incense concealed the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that the High Priest would not die (Lev 16:12-13).
Hebrews is SO full of mistakes that I didn't bother to list them all.
This "golden censer" is at least one or two of them.
Click to expand...
Not according to Lev 10:1.
There WERE a few things put in there. A jar of manna, the broken tablets, and Aaron's staff. (Hey - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Harmonious said:
Yup.
Based on the way he described his understanding of Jewish custom, it is obvious to any small child who is learned in the basics of Jewish custom that Paul was a complete ignoramus when it comes to Jewish law and custom.
If you wish to believe the Christian scriptures, that is up to you.
Just be aware that your belief, especially as espoused by Paul, and reality (particularly when it comes to what is ACTUAL Jewish law and custom) do not match.
Click to expand...
What does not match?
 
B

BigRed

Member
smokydot said:
So Paul was ignorant of Jewish custom?

It's your word against Paul's in the NT, which is what is to be believed in orthodox Christianity. . .that this Paul, who was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee and blameless in legalistic righteousness (Php 3:5-6) was ignorant of the Jewish custom of his day. . .you'll understand, in addition to the assertion being riciculous on the face of it, if I believe the NT because I am a Christian.
Click to expand...

There is evidence that Paul was not born a Jew. That he was a fraud.

Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostatized when she rejected him.[83]
"[The Ebionites] declare that he was a Greek [...] He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law " - Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 30.16.6-9

Examine this Scripture from Paul's writings.
Galatians 3:14
""in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.""

Notice that the pronoun "we" refers back in the sentence to "Gentiles."
By using "we" Paul is including himself into the Gentiles.

I think that Paul inadvertenly revealed his true background....GENTILE.

BigRed
 
H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
smokydot said:
The coals came from the bronze altar outside the sanctuary, and were placed in the censors of Lev 10:1, then taken into the Most Holy Place, wherein incense was sprinkled on the coals, and the smoke of the incense concealed the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that the High Priest would not die (Lev 16:12-13).
Click to expand...
Unless we have a definition for censers, then no, you are wrong.

The coals came from the copper (not bronze!) altar in the Priestly Courtyard, and the shovel full of coals was placed on the floor between the poles of the Ark of the Covenant. The ladle full of spices was dropped onto the coals. If that shovel full of coals is what you are calling a censer, then you might be right. Otherwise, there was no censer.

In the Holies, the chamber outside the Partition, which housed the Menorah and the Golden Table for the Shewbread, there was the Golden Altar, upon which was burned the daily spices and incense, once in the morning, and once in the afternoon.

Not according to Lev 10:1.
Click to expand...
What does the sin of Nadav and Avihu have to do with what the Cohen Gadol was commanded to do on Yom Kippur?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top