Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

The post to which you are responding here was addressed to angellous_evangellous. . .and the personal questions were to him.

Yup.
No, angellous had the right of it.
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.
I just answered that.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.

 

[BigRed]

It was fulfilled. . .see 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; cf 2 Sam 8:3.

Nobody has ever questioned that the descendants of Abraham inherited the land.
We all know that they are living in Israel today.

But Abraham was promised the land and he never received even one foot of ground.

Genesis 17:8
"I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Acts 7:5
"But He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that HE WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM AS A POSSESSION, AND TO HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIM.

This is proof positive that Jesus did not fulfill the Law and the Prophets.
Abraham NEVER received what was promised to him.

BigRed

 

[smokydot]

haha - both Jesus AND Paul. :thud:

Ve-e-ery interesting. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well there's no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.

 

[BigRed]

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 was cast outside the camp bearing the disgrace of the sins laid on it (Lev 16:20-22),
as 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.

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 sacrifice of himself.

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

Have you ever noticed the nature of a "shadow?"
A shadow is not real as we understand the physical world.

BigRed
​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have you ever noticed the nature of a "shadow?"
A shadow is not real as we understand the physical world.

BigRed
[/INDENT]

And thank you Plato. :takeabow:

[and smoky thinks that he's presenting the bible without opinion]

 

[Rakhel]

It was fulfilled. . .see 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25; cf 2 Sam 8:3.

1Kings Chapter 4 stops at verse 20 and 2 Samuel 8:3. And David smote Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to extend his dominion to the Euphrates River.
Not too sure where the fulfillment is

 

[smokydot]

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.

heh, heh. . .exce-e-ept the "big deal" made in the letter to the Hebrews ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320006-post527.html

The ancients aren't the basis for Christianity, the NT is. . .and the letter to the Hebrews is saturated with explanations of types, pattern, shadows, signs pointing to
what was to come in the NT (Heb 10:1).

Man, you're abysmal ignorance of the NT is showing again. . .have you even read the whole NT? . .you, of all people, are in no position to speak on
what is "normative NT interpretation."

To quote one who shall remain nameless: you wouldn't know it if it smacked you in the face.

 

[smokydot]

I find that I have to try really, really hard to be wrong.

Well, I must say, your efforts have been greatly rewarded!

 

[Harmonious]

The post to which you are responding here was addressed to angellous_evangellous. . .and the personal questions were to him.

I am aware of that. But my answer remains as a useful answer to you.

It might not have been the answer you are looking for, but you could learn something from what I've said.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, your efforts have been greatly rewarded!

Not quite.

 

[Harmonious]

He's just blindly throwing out verses, Harm*.

:sigh:

 

[smokydot]

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

I'll let you run with that one. . .the truth of the NT is a matter of faith, not proof. . .I believe it. . .you don't.

I don't try to prove it, I merely report what it says. . .

BTW, the Bible says, "There is no God". . .and there you have it. . .the Bible has inadvertently revealed its true position. . .your "scholars" can run with that one also.

 

[smokydot]

It says: Last edited by smokydot; Yesterday at 01:40 PM

True. . .and of absolutely no relevance or bearing on the point at issue. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:sigh:

:biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yep. . .and?

.... and IT'S IRRELEVANT....:cover:

 

[smokydot]

I am NOT going to go through all of Hebrews at this time.
I might, to amuse myself and tell you at a later time, but I won't do it right now.

I was asking in regard to your statements about Paul, I was not asking about the author of Hebrews.

 

[Harmonious]

I was asking in regard to your statements about Paul, I was not asking about the author of Hebrews.

I'll look it up. But as I said, the very fact that he was pushing Jews away from Torah law, and convinced people that "no one comes to God but through Jesus" - that is MORE than enough to show that whatever Paul may have learned as a Pharisee was useless, once he became an idolator, with Jesus as his idol.

 

[smokydot]

Have you ever noticed the nature of a "shadow?"
A shadow is not real as we understand the physical world.
BigRed

Perfect! . .you got it!

A shadow is only a representation of whatever it is that "casts" it. . .as the sacrifices were only a representation of what was to come in the NT (Heb 10:1)

You got it!

 

[smokydot]

And thank you Plato. :takeabow:

[and smoky thinks that he's presenting the bible without opinion]

Yes, indeed, thank you, Plato. . .you explained it perfectly!