EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[oldbadger]

I am happy to acknowledge that I do have faith, but for me faith involves both the head and the heart!

I can acknowledge mostly anybody's religion, as long as it does not lead to outrages, murders and tyrannies.

The big difference between our approaches to history is that you rely wholly on secular documentation and archaeological discovery.

Wrong. You got that 100% totally incorrect.
A very high % of Jesus history can be gleaned from the gospels. It's just that archeology, numismatics, other historical records, geography, weather patterns, local cultures, farming techniques, and a mass of other research can help to build a more clear picture for objective research.

The difference is that new information can alter the historical view whereas folks who are determined to follow an agenda won't be able to look objectively at anything.

See how you presumed what I think and how I research? Agenda!

From my perspective of faith, the Bible contributes the richest source of reliable historical information. Time and time again, the information provided by the Bible is proved to be correct.

Yes...... but you tend to forget or ignore the problems within it's records.

Luke understood clearly....

You have no knowledge about how clear Luke was about anything.
I have read that Luke's gospel was not named until the 3rd or 4th centuries. @sojourner an ordained priest in his church may be able to correct me about that.

..... that Herod the Great had registered the Jews of Judea [in 4BC] in response to Caesar Augustus' request. This was not a typical Roman census, and therefore does not appear in Roman accounts. That is why, in accordance with Jewish custom, the registration of Joseph and Mary took place in the ancestral town of Bethlehem.

That is simply a really stretched manipulation in order to get history to fit a gospel.

How much do you know about 'Typical Roman Censuses'?

One technique used of assessing how much Tribute would be paid to Rome from the provinces of Palestine was by collecting and counting the kidneys from sacrificial lambs, taken at a single feast. Over 400,000 vistors were expected to attend the major feasts.

Temple coinage was strictly controlled by Rome, and silver purity and coin weight were both tightly controlled, and no other coinage acceptable, which is how the money-changers got to run such a corrupt racket.

If you look closely at the relationship between Herod and Augustus, which was marred by Herod's support of Antonius (Mark Antony), you will see that Herod was doing his best to ingratiate himself with Augustus. Herod wanted freedom to deal with his own sons, and to demonstrate to Rome that a Jewish king could govern effectively over a distinctively Jewish territory (Judea).

Herod was a secure Client King.

You have done everything possible to draw an earlier census out, for Luke's account to be accurate, but I still wait to see the evidence which was found (in Tivoli?) to show this.

See what historians think:-
Kilman
Scholars have debated about the historicity of this first census since there is no record of it in the Roman archives. Their chief argument is that Augustus would not have imposed a census for the purpose of taxation in the kingdom of a client king like Herod. Herod had his own tax collectors and paid tribute to Rome from the proceeds. They further pose that the census in 6 CE was imposed because Herod's nutty son Archelaus had been deposed and Judea was placed under direct Roman rule. These are good arguments.

See a brief account (wiki) of the life of Quirinius (and see how Luke got the name Cyrenius) :-
Quirinius
Born into an undistinguished family in the neighborhood of Lanuvium, a Latin town near Rome, Quirinius followed the normal pathway of service for an ambitious young man of his social class. According to the Roman historian Florus, Quirinius defeated the Marmaridae, a tribe of desert raiders from Cyrenaica, possibly while governor of Crete and Cyrene around 14 BC, but nonetheless declined the honorific name "Marmaricus".[2] In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus.

From 12 to 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5–3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won the campaign by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.[3] For this victory, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia.[4]

By 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.[5] When Augustus' support shifted to his stepson Tiberius, Quirinius changed his allegiance to the latter. Having been married to Claudia Appia, about whom little is known, he divorced her and around 3 AD married Aemilia Lepida, daughter of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and sister of Manius Aemilius Lepidus, who had originally been betrothed to Lucius Caesar.[6] Within a few years they were divorced: in 20 AD he accused her of claiming that he was her son's father, and later of trying to poison him during their marriage. Tacitus claims that she was popular with the public, who regarded Quirinius as carrying on a prosecution out of spite.[7]

After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6 AD, Iudaea (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius appointed as prefect. At the same time, Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes.[8] One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this order.[9]

The Jews already hated their pagan conquerors, and censuses were forbidden under Jewish law. The assessment was greatly resented by the Jews, and open revolt was prevented only by the efforts of the high priest Joazar.[10] Despite efforts to prevent revolt, the census did trigger the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the formation of the party of the Zealots, according to Josephus.[11]

There is a reference to Quirinius in the Gospel of Luke chapter 2, which links the birth of Jesus to the time of the Census of Quirinius.

Quirinius served as governor of Syria with authority over Iudaea until 12 AD, when he returned to Rome as a close associate of Tiberius. Nine years later he died and was given a public funeral.

See one example of a kidney count (taken earlier by Agrippa) :-
[/QUOTE]

 

[Redemptionsong]

First admit you didn't know the context. I provided it, because I wanted to be nice. Nevertheless you ought to be doing your own homework. Paul is apparently toxic for you since you won't research the background. Quote mining him is a mistake. I'm not kidding you.

'Quote mining' is an emotive phrase and does not do justice to the approach I choose to take with scripture. For those of us who do believe in the Bible as God's inspired word, it is better to quote the inspired writer than edit the words oneself. This does nothing to undermine an argument, as the relevant quotations still have to be chosen in response to the topic discussed. If one chooses incorrectly, it will soon be shown that there's a contradiction or weakness in the argument.

If you wish to demonstrate that my argument is incorrect, then find scriptures that prove that my understanding of the issue is erroneous. Simple.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I can acknowledge mostly anybody's religion, as long as it does not lead to outrages, murders and tyrannies.


Wrong. You got that 100% totally incorrect.
A very high % of Jesus history can be gleaned from the gospels. It's just that archeology, numismatics, other historical records, geography, weather patterns, local cultures, farming techniques, and a mass of other research can help to build a more clear picture for objective research.

The difference is that new information can alter the historical view whereas folks who are determined to follow an agenda won't be able to look objectively at anything.

See how you presumed what I think and how I research? Agenda!


Yes...... but you tend to forget or ignore the problems within it's records.


You have no knowledge about how clear Luke was about anything.
I have read that Luke's gospel was not named until the 3rd or 4th centuries. @sojourner an ordained priest in his church may be able to correct me about that.


That is simply a really stretched manipulation in order to get history to fit a gospel.

How much do you know about 'Typical Roman Censuses'?

One technique used of assessing how much Tribute would be paid to Rome from the provinces of Palestine was by collecting and counting the kidneys from sacrificial lambs, taken at a single feast. Over 400,000 vistors were expected to attend the major feasts.

Temple coinage was strictly controlled by Rome, and silver purity and coin weight were both tightly controlled, and no other coinage acceptable, which is how the money-changers got to run such a corrupt racket.


Herod was a secure Client King.

You have done everything possible to draw an earlier census out, for Luke's account to be accurate, but I still wait to see the evidence which was found (in Tivoli?) to show this.

See what historians think:-
Kilman
Scholars have debated about the historicity of this first census since there is no record of it in the Roman archives. Their chief argument is that Augustus would not have imposed a census for the purpose of taxation in the kingdom of a client king like Herod. Herod had his own tax collectors and paid tribute to Rome from the proceeds. They further pose that the census in 6 CE was imposed because Herod's nutty son Archelaus had been deposed and Judea was placed under direct Roman rule. These are good arguments.

See a brief account (wiki) of the life of Quirinius (and see how Luke got the name Cyrenius) :-
Quirinius
Born into an undistinguished family in the neighborhood of Lanuvium, a Latin town near Rome, Quirinius followed the normal pathway of service for an ambitious young man of his social class. According to the Roman historian Florus, Quirinius defeated the Marmaridae, a tribe of desert raiders from Cyrenaica, possibly while governor of Crete and Cyrene around 14 BC, but nonetheless declined the honorific name "Marmaricus".[2] In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus.

From 12 to 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5–3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won the campaign by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.[3] For this victory, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia.[4]

By 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.[5] When Augustus' support shifted to his stepson Tiberius, Quirinius changed his allegiance to the latter. Having been married to Claudia Appia, about whom little is known, he divorced her and around 3 AD married Aemilia Lepida, daughter of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and sister of Manius Aemilius Lepidus, who had originally been betrothed to Lucius Caesar.[6] Within a few years they were divorced: in 20 AD he accused her of claiming that he was her son's father, and later of trying to poison him during their marriage. Tacitus claims that she was popular with the public, who regarded Quirinius as carrying on a prosecution out of spite.[7]

After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6 AD, Iudaea (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius appointed as prefect. At the same time, Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes.[8] One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this order.[9]

The Jews already hated their pagan conquerors, and censuses were forbidden under Jewish law. The assessment was greatly resented by the Jews, and open revolt was prevented only by the efforts of the high priest Joazar.[10] Despite efforts to prevent revolt, the census did trigger the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the formation of the party of the Zealots, according to Josephus.[11]

There is a reference to Quirinius in the Gospel of Luke chapter 2, which links the birth of Jesus to the time of the Census of Quirinius.

Quirinius served as governor of Syria with authority over Iudaea until 12 AD, when he returned to Rome as a close associate of Tiberius. Nine years later he died and was given a public funeral.

See one example of a kidney count (taken earlier by Agrippa) :-
View attachment 30469

[/QUOTE]

There is nothing in the evidence you present that undermines Luke's claim that Herod conducted an earlier registration within Judea.

The issue is not about the census of 6 AD.

Nor is there adequate evidence to show that Quirinius did not have a short spell as governor of Syria in 4 BC.

My hope is that, in the near future, further discoveries will be made that confirm the report made by Luke to be incontrovertibly true. In the meantime, as a man of faith, I am happy to believe his record.

If you really want to undermine the Bible as the inspired word of God, you must demonstrate that the Bible itself is contradictory. God is not proved wrong by a resort to man's claims and limited knowledge. God can only be proved less than perfect, and not a reality, by clear evidence of 'internal' error and imperfection.

That's your challenge.

 

[JJ50]

There is nothing in the evidence you present that undermines Luke's claim that Herod conducted an earlier registration within Judea.

The issue is not about the census of 6 AD.

Nor is there adequate evidence to show that Quirinius did not have a short spell as governor of Syria in 4 BC.

My hope is that, in the near future, further discoveries will be made that confirm the report made by Luke to be incontrovertibly true. In the meantime, as a man of faith, I am happy to believe his record.

If you really want to undermine the Bible as the inspired word of God, you must demonstrate that the Bible itself is contradictory. God is not proved wrong by a resort to man's claims and limited knowledge. God can only be proved less than perfect, and not a reality, by clear evidence of 'internal' error and imperfection.

That's your challenge.[/QUOTE]

You first have to prove that god exists. There is much that is wrong in that book, especially the deeds attributed to the god character, which are evil.

 

[Brickjectivity]

'Quote mining' is an emotive phrase and does not do justice to the approach I choose to take with scripture. For those of us who do believe in the Bible as God's inspired word, it is better to quote the inspired writer than edit the words oneself. This does nothing to undermine an argument, as the relevant quotations still have to be chosen in response to the topic discussed. If one chooses incorrectly, it will soon be shown that there's a contradiction or weakness in the argument.

If you wish to demonstrate that my argument is incorrect, then find scriptures that prove that my understanding of the issue is erroneous. Simple.

I don't wish to prove anything and have shown everyone here a clear example of what is going on in Christianity today.

 

[oldbadger]

="Redemptionsong, post: 6180639, member: 53579"]
There is nothing in the evidence you present that undermines Luke's claim that Herod conducted an earlier registration within Judea.

Yes there is........ Luke did not claim any such thing.

The issue is not about the census of 6 AD.

There is no evidence to show any other, and certainly no evidence that 'All the Roman World' went walkabout either for the phamton census nor the real one.
Poor old Luke really had to twizzle and twozzle with that on in his attempts to fit prophesy in to his story.

Nor is there adequate evidence to show that Quirinius did not have a short spell as governor of Syria in 4 BC.

There is probably a special term for such claims, that make a Claim and supply proof in the form of 'no evidence to gainsay it'.

You're wriggling so hard that it could help you to lose weight.

My hope is that, in the near future, further discoveries will be made that confirm the report made by Luke to be incontrovertibly true. In the meantime, as a man of faith, I am happy to believe his record.

Of course you do. You need to fit historical truth to jump up and prove your religion's claims. I don't mind that.
But objective folks will make sure that nobody cheats .....

If you really want to undermine the Bible as the inspired word of God, you must demonstrate that the Bible itself is contradictory.

Don't you talk rubbish like that. !! Insults!
I decided to study the history of the Jesus story and found what I found.
It made no difference to me because unlike you I didn't need to make anything fit.

God is not proved wrong by a resort to man's claims and limited knowledge. God can only be proved less than perfect, and not a reality, by clear evidence of 'internal' error and imperfection.

That's your challenge.

I am a Deist.
You cannot know what that is.

But I can tell you this: Only a few hundred years ago people like me, if they had been found, would have been tied to a stake and burned alive...... by Christrians. That was how Christianity proved its history back then.

Now that was no way to win any debate. At least I am reasonably safe to debate freeely now. True?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes there is........ Luke did not claim any such thing.


There is no evidence to show any other, and certainly no evidence that 'All the Roman World' went walkabout either for the phamton census nor the real one.
Poor old Luke really had to twizzle and twozzle with that on in his attempts to fit prophesy in to his story.


There is probably a special term for such claims, that make a Claim and supply proof in the form of 'no evidence to gainsay it'.

You're wriggling so hard that it could help you to lose weight.


Of course you do. You need to fit historical truth to jump up and prove your religion's claims. I don't mind that.
But objective folks will make sure that nobody cheats .....


Don't you talk rubbish like that. !! Insults!
I decided to study the history of the Jesus story and found what I found.
It made no difference to me because unlike you I didn't need to make anything fit.


I am a Deist.
You cannot know what that is.

But I can tell you this: Only a few hundred years ago people like me, if they had been found, would have been tied to a stake and burned alive...... by Christrians. That was how Christianity proved its history back then.

Now that was no way to win any debate. At least I am reasonably safe to debate freeely now. True?

There is clear evidence that Luke knew the difference between the Quirinius census and the earlier registration under Herod!

If you bother to read Acts 5:33-40 you will see that there is a speech attributed to the Pharisee Gamaliel. In the speech there is a reference to 'Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing'.

We know that Luke wrote the book of Acts. He must, therefore, have known about the census of Quirinius because, through Gamaliel, he refers to the uprising by Judas the Galilean, which occurred at the time of the taxing. This insurrection is mentioned by Josephus [Antiquities bk.20, 5.1.]

This proves that Luke was not confusing the registration under Herod with the census, or taxing, during Quirinius' second term of office in Syria.

If one cross-references with Matthew's Gospel, we have confirmation that the first registration took place during Herod's reign. Matthew 2:1: 'Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king'.
In verse 19 of chapter 2 of Matthew, we are told of the death of Herod, and in verse 22 we hear of Archelaus who 'did reign in Judea in the the room of his father Herod,'.

Luke continues his history after the boyhood of Jesus is over. If he has mistaken the time of the birth, then he must also have mistaken the later events. In Luke 3:23, we are told that 'Jesus began to be about thirty years of age,' It was then that he received baptism.

You can also check these for accuracy.

Luke 3:1,2;
'Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
Annas and Caiaphas being the High Priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.'

So the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius must have been when Jesus was 'about thirty' years of age.

Tiberius became emperor in (about) 14 A.D. The fifteenth year would be 29 A.D. This is when John's ministry occurred and when Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan. Pilate's dates of governing in Judea are put at 27 AD - 36 AD, or thereabouts.

All this information helps to demonstrate that Luke could not have been ten years out in his calculations.

It's ridiculous to even suggest that Jews living in Judea would accept an account [Luke's Gospel] that did not contain verifiable historical markers. Luke includes these markers, and satisfies his readership.

If you are a deist then, of course, the Word of God is going to sound like nonsense to you! What place is there for special revelation, or for the indwelling Holy Spirit?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't wish to prove anything and have shown everyone here a clear example of what is going on in Christianity today.

Really? What's going on? Please enlighten me.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There is nothing in the evidence you present that undermines Luke's claim that Herod conducted an earlier registration within Judea.

The issue is not about the census of 6 AD.

Nor is there adequate evidence to show that Quirinius did not have a short spell as governor of Syria in 4 BC.

My hope is that, in the near future, further discoveries will be made that confirm the report made by Luke to be incontrovertibly true. In the meantime, as a man of faith, I am happy to believe his record.

If you really want to undermine the Bible as the inspired word of God, you must demonstrate that the Bible itself is contradictory. God is not proved wrong by a resort to man's claims and limited knowledge. God can only be proved less than perfect, and not a reality, by clear evidence of 'internal' error and imperfection.

That's your challenge.

You first have to prove that god exists. There is much that is wrong in that book, especially the deeds attributed to the god character, which are evil.[/QUOTE]

I believe the scriptures are the best piece of evidence we have for God's existence. So I don't try to prove God's existence before encouraging a person to read the scriptures. I say, read the scriptures, and through them you'll find God!

That's why the challenge passes to you. I've already encountered my Saviour through the signpost of scripture.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, you see, that's the problem you have. He ISN'T going to make a sin offering, or any offering. The text says what he is going to do. You have decided that the text is leaving something out. That's called an invention on your part. The "sin offering" is a korban chatat which, first, isn't vicarious, so Aaron couldn't offer it for the people, and second, only applied to particular unintentional sins which wasn't the case. So your interpolation of a sin sacrifice is doubly wrong.


Now you are talking about a korban Asham which only relates to six particular categories of sin (none of which is the one mentioned in the text). The sacrifice is offered by the person to the priest who performs the sacrifice and the priests keep the extra and can eat the meat (that's the meaning of "it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby." This is confirmed by 7:8 which adds that even the skin belongs to the priest even though it isn't eaten). So, again, the person involved has to bring the sacrifice to the priest and that doesn't happen here.

You realize that this proves MY point, right? That prayer can replace sacrifice -- the upraised hands in prayer can be accounted as sacrifice meaning that no actual blood is spilled. Well done. Good point.

Let me begin by making clear that I am referring to the 1985 JPS edition, which does not make extensive use of the KJV, as did the 1917 JPS 'The Holy Scriptures'.
The preface to the 1985 edition begins with these words,
'This translation of Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures, produced by the Jewish Publication Society, was made directly from the traditional Hebrew text into the idiom of modern English. It represents the collaboration of academic scholars with rabbis from the three largest branches of organized Jewish religious life in America.'

The translators have chosen to use the word 'expiate' in Numbers 17:12, because they knew that a sacrifice was involved. The marginal notes confirm this belief, because they say, 'It is thus Aaron's expiation ritual that halts the plague. Similarly, David stops a plague by building an altar and offering a sacrifice on it (2 Samuel 24:18-25).' [Note, the comparison is theirs!]

If this is not evidence enough, we can look to Exodus 30, and there find out more about the altar of incense. [JPS] Exodus 30:6,7 says, 'Place it in front of the curtain that is over the Ark of the Pact - in front of the cover that is over the Pact - where I will meet with you. On it Aaron shall burn aromatic incense: he shall burn it every morning, when he tends the lamps, and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps - a regular incense offering before the LORD throughout the ages.'
Again, in the marginal notes of the 1985 JPS, it states concerning the incense altar, 'Maimonides holds that it is to counteract the stench of the animals being slaughtered and sacrificed (Guide of the Perplexed 3.45).

I can't find a single passage in Exodus or Leviticus to confirm your belief that incense was used to expiate or atone for sins (of any kind). Maybe you could show me one?

As regards Psalm 141:2, I'm surprised that you should seek confirmation in a passage of scripture that relates to the Messiah and the Messianic age. For Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah, and await another Messiah, there is only one covenant in place, and that is the covenant of Moses.

Did Moses say that you should stop making animal sacrifices? The only reason sacrifices of blood are not made today is because the Temple no longer exists. If you had the chance to restart sacrifices, are you not under an obligation to do so? How can you keep the law without making blood sacrifices?

The prophets let us know that God is angry [Hosea 6:6,7], but this is not because His sacrificial system was faulty, but because the people did not make a holy sacrifice. 'For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings. But they, to a man, have transgressed the Covenant.'

Christians live in the new covenant, and it's the new covenant that permits prayer in place of sacrifice, but only because the blood sacrifice of Christ was for all time. Meanwhile, Jews are awaiting the new covenant. For Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah, the old covenant still exists, along with the sacrifices!

Are we not led back to the story of Cain and Abel? Only Abel offered the blood of a lamb.

 

[rosends]

The translators have chosen to use the word 'expiate' in Numbers 17:12, because they knew that a sacrifice was involved.

No, they used it because it is an English word which has as its definition "atone for". That you connect the etymologies is your own problem. It isn't essential to the use and meaning of the word. The text makes explicit what the mechanism was but because you don't like it, you insert something completely non-textual. Then you compare it to another plague in which David is not given any particular method of stopping the plague. The thing is, in this case, with Aaron, he IS given a method of stopping the plague. If there was a simple sacrifice necessary, why would he need direction? The point is that he was specifically told ONLY to give the incense. The fact that sacrifice is omitted is very telling.

I can't find a single passage in Exodus or Leviticus to confirm your belief that incense was used to expiate or atone for sins (of any kind). Maybe you could show me one?

I note that you quote Maimonides, but not the Rabbeinu Bechaya who writes about anyone who claims that the incense (ketoret) is just to cover smells "G‑d forbid that the great principle and mystery of the ketoret should be reduced to this mundane purpose." You might want to read up on the use of the incense on Yom Kippur in places where there was no offering or foul odor. Again, you have decided that what the text says is not enough for you so you insert something which the text is careful to omit. That is, again, your problem. By the way, can you shoe me any place where a meal offering can atone for sins besides the explicit text where it says that they can? Same thing.

Did Moses say that you should stop making animal sacrifices? The only reason sacrifices of blood are not made today is because the Temple no longer exists. If you had the chance to restart sacrifices, are you not under an obligation to do so? How can you keep the law without making blood sacrifices?

Well, our intent is, yes, to restart animal sacrifices when the 3rd temple is rebuilt and the promised messiah arrives. The fact that this hasn't happened is proof positive of Jesus' failure. We need more than a physical building, by the way, but that's more than you will understand. So under the covenant of Moses (an unwieldy phrase) we cannot have sacrifices today.

Christians live in the new covenant, and it's the new covenant that permits prayer in place of sacrifice, but only because the blood sacrifice of Christ was for all time. Meanwhile, Jews are awaiting the new covenant. For Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah, the old covenant still exists, along with the sacrifices!

That's a sad and erroneous statement:
1. There is no new covenant
2. Jewish law instituted prayer instead of sacrifice
3. Human sacrifice is abhorrent
4. The "old" covenant" does still exist but people who don't understand it, well, don't understand it.

Are we not led back to the story of Cain and Abel? Only Abel offered the blood of a lamb.

Yes, Gen 4:4, Abel brought the choicest and Cain didn't. But agricultural offerings were required (without blood) so what he did was not wrong. His method, not bringing the choicest, was the problem.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's a sad and erroneous statement:
1. There is no new covenant
2. Jewish law instituted prayer instead of sacrifice
3. Human sacrifice is abhorrent
4. The "old" covenant" does still exist but people who don't understand it, well, don't understand it.

1. I'm happy to call the better covenant 'the everlasting covenant made with Abraham'. The significant difference remains the Messiah.

2. Mosaic law does not institute prayer instead of sacrifice, which is why Jews are under an obligation to return to animal sacrifice when the opportunity arises! Do the declarations of the prophets supersede the Torah for Jews? Not until the Messiah comes, so you tell me.

3. Human sacrifice is abhorrent, but maybe it's worth noting the historical circumstances under which Jesus was put to death. The High Priest at the time, Caiaphas, was the man who decided that 'it was expedient that one man should die for the people.' [John 18:14] It was Caiaphas who counseled the Jews to arrest Jesus and put him on trial! If anyone was guilty of a 'human sacrifice', it was the Jewish High Priest.

 

[SugarOcean]

When I asked a Jew about whether the new covenant made the old covenant obsolete, here was his response.

"I will start with a verse “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” Psalm 19:8
God law is perfect. Let me begin…
So why is there a contradiction you ask.

Where a new vs old concept maybe confused is in Jeremiah. The issue at hand is a discussion with the Jewish people. Let me explain by citing Jeremiah 31:31 claiming it speaks of a “New Covenant” that makes the covenant of Torah Law obsolete, as the New Testament says, “By calling the new covenant ‘new’, He has made the first obsolete" – Hebrews 8:13 which you cited in your discussion raises this.

This claim that you say contradicts dozens of passages that say the commandments are eternal, for example, "The statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9. God also promised He would never break His covenant with the Jews as it says, “I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them” – Leviticus 26:44. In context, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new and improved covenant. In addition to not being broken by God, this covenant will no longer be broken by the Jewish people because, in the future messianic age, God will give the Jews a new heart, and they will no longer be tempted to transgress the commandments. (See Ezekiel 36:26-27)

In conclusion confounding terms in the word maybe where the confusion begins that is statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9.

Unfortunately the Christian who was queried was not well read in the scriptures.
Matthew 5
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5 - Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament
Begin at verse 17 on.
The new testament did not abolish the old testament. The old testament was the foundation for the old testament. Jesus was "I Am" , of the old testament. Jesus was the prophesied Messiah spoken of in the old testament.
If the new testament invalidated the old testament the new testament would cease to exist. Because it is grounded in the promises of the old.
In Matthew 5 Jesus even reiterates the commands of God contained in the old testament.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5 - Complete Jewish Bible

17 “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah — not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachers and P’rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

21 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not murder,’ and that anyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment. 22 But I tell you that anyone who nurses anger against his brother will be subject to judgment; that whoever calls his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing!’ will be brought before the Sanhedrin; that whoever says, ‘Fool!’ incurs the penalty of burning in the fire of Gei-Hinnom! 23 So if you are offering your gift at the Temple altar and you remember there that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift where it is by the altar, and go, make peace with your brother. Then come back and offer your gift. 25 If someone sues you, come to terms with him quickly, while you and he are on the way to court; or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer of the court, and you may be thrown in jail! 26 Yes indeed! I tell you, you will certainly not get out until you have paid the last penny.

27 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom. 30 And if your right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom.

31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get.’32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and that anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery.

33 “Again, you have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not break your oath,’ and ‘Keep your vows to Adonai.’ 34 But I tell you not to swear at all — not ‘by heaven,’ because it is God’s throne; 35 not ‘by the earth,’ because it is his footstool; and not ‘by Yerushalayim,’ because it is the city of the Great King. 36 And don’t swear by your head, because you can’t make a single hair white or black. 37 Just let your ‘Yes’ be a simple ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ a simple ‘No’; anything more than this has its origin in evil.

38 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to stand up against someone who does you wrong. On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! 40 If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! 41 And if a soldier forces you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it for two! 42 When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something from you, lend it to him.

43 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Love your neighbor — and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 Then you will become children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun shine on good and bad people alike, and he sends rain to the righteous and the unrighteous alike. 46 What reward do you get if you love only those who love you? Why, even tax-collectors do that! 47 And if you are friendly only to your friends, are you doing anything out of the ordinary? Even the Goyim do that! 48 Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 5:5 Psalm 37:11
2. Matthew 5:21 Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17
3. Matthew 5:27 Exodus 20:13(14); Deuteronomy 5:17(18)
4. Matthew 5:31 Deuteronomy 24:1
5. Matthew 5:33 Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:3(2); Deuteronomy 23:22(21)
6. Matthew 5:35 Isaiah 66:1
7. Matthew 5:35 Psalm 48:3(2)
8. Matthew 5:38 Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21
9. Matthew 5:43 Leviticus 19:18

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. I'm happy to call the better covenant 'the everlasting covenant made with Abraham'. The significant difference remains the Messiah.

I've read the Abraham account many times, and never once does it say anything about God dying for our sins so that we can go to heaven.

2. Mosaic law does not institute prayer instead of sacrifice

Hosea 14:2 The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as calves (sacrifices).

3. Human sacrifice is abhorrent

Therefore God neither requires nor accepts it.

 

[rosends]

1. I'm happy to call the better covenant 'the everlasting covenant made with Abraham'. The significant difference remains the Messiah.

The better covenant? The covenant will be renewed. Same content. Different people.

2. Mosaic law does not institute prayer instead of sacrifice, which is why Jews are under an obligation to return to animal sacrifice when the opportunity arises! Do the declarations of the prophets supersede the Torah for Jews? Not until the Messiah comes, so you tell me.

So, clearly, you don't understand what Mosaic law is. Moses, himself, prayed to God for forgiveness. You also seem to be stuck on the literal text alone (which is strange, considering how your argument is predicated on your inserting something not in the text). So it is difficult to help you when you wallow in such ignorance.

3. Human sacrifice is abhorrent, but maybe it's worth noting the historical circumstances under which Jesus was put to death. The High Priest at the time, Caiaphas, was the man who decided that 'it was expedient that one man should die for the people.' [John 18:14] It was Caiaphas who counseled the Jews to arrest Jesus and put him on trial! If anyone was guilty of a 'human sacrifice', it was the Jewish High Priest.

Your claims are based in gospel accounts which are effectively fiction to me. Why should I care what agendized picture was drawn through those texts?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I've read the Abraham account many times, and never once does it say anything about God dying for our sins so that we can go to heaven.


Hosea 14:2 The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as calves (sacrifices).


Therefore God neither requires nor accepts it.

1. If you've read the account of Abraham, you will know that the covenant God made with him was based on faith. In Genesis 17:1-8 the LORD appeared to Abraham and talked to him. The promise made was to 'establish my covenant between me and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant'. Abraham was told, 'I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.'

The king that makes the covenant everlasting is the Messiah. Only He has an everlasting kingdom. Even the land that is promised for an inheritance is only a picture of the eternal city.

Then you have the testing of Abraham. Was Abraham prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac?

This is what Paul says in Hebrews, ''But now they [Jews] desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared them a city.
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him as a figure. [a type of the Messiah]'

2. Hosea is a prophet. He does not feature as part of the Torah, the Law. Hosea points us to the Messiah, and the Messianic age. I live in that age, but you do not because you reject the Messiah [the Suffering Servant]!

3. There are different uses of the word 'sacrifice'. To force death on another living being can be seen as a sacrifice, but self-sacrifice is a different form of sacrifice. With Jesus, both forms are applicable. He was made a human sacrifice by the High Priest and by the Romans. Yet, from the point of view of God, Jesus gave himself for others. He knew he had to die, and allowed it to happen!

At the time of his arrest, Jesus sad: 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more that twelve legions of angels? But now then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?'

In other words, Jesus could have opted out of crucifixion, but knew that to do so was not in his Father's will!

 

[Redemptionsong]

The better covenant? The covenant will be renewed. Same content. Different people.

So, clearly, you don't understand what Mosaic law is. Moses, himself, prayed to God for forgiveness. You also seem to be stuck on the literal text alone (which is strange, considering how your argument is predicated on your inserting something not in the text). So it is difficult to help you when you wallow in such ignorance.

Your claims are based in gospel accounts which are effectively fiction to me. Why should I care what agendized picture was drawn through those texts?

If people are to become different, whilst the covenant remains the same, then how are people going to become sinless/holy without God doing a work on their behalf?

Without God as our Saviour, we remain stuck in a mire of our own making. We need a new heart, and the only way to get it is from God. But for the Holy Spirit to be given, which gives us a new heart, we must first have the problem of death dealt with. All have sinned and all will die, so until death is abolished we cannot hope for an eternal life, in an eternal kingdom.

The only way to pay for our sin and trespasses is through the sacrifice of blood. You cannot get atonement without blood. This is the law of Moses, the Torah. Was blood shed on the Day of Atonement? Was it not to cover the sins of a repentant people? Was an unblemished lamb not sacrificed at Pesach as 'the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover'?

Can you be delivered from Egypt without the blood of the Lamb?

 

[JJ50]

If people are to become different, whilst the covenant remains the same, then how are people going to become sinless/holy without God doing a work on their behalf?

Without God as our Saviour, we remain stuck in a mire of our own making. We need a new heart, and the only way to get it is from God. But for the Holy Spirit to be given, which gives us a new heart, we must first have the problem of death dealt with. All have sinned and all will die, so until death is abolished we cannot hope for an eternal life, in an eternal kingdom.

The only way to pay for our sin and trespasses is through the sacrifice of blood. You cannot get atonement without blood. This is the law of Moses, the Torah. Was blood shed on the Day of Atonement? Was it not to cover the sins of a repentant people? Was an unblemished lamb not sacrificed at Pesach as 'the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover'?

Can you be delivered from Egypt without the blood of the Lamb?

A mere belief with not one shred of evidence to support it, as I have said many times the Bible is no sort of evidence whatsoever.

 

[rosends]

If people are to become different, whilst the covenant remains the same, then how are people going to become sinless/holy without God doing a work on their behalf?

A fine question. And that's why the text is a messianic prophecy and a proof that no future messiah has come yet. You should reread that section. It explicitly states how it is going to work. Now, whether people will be "sinless" is a matter of understanding. There will still be certain sins in the future, and pure/impure.

Without God as our Saviour, we remain stuck in a mire of our own making. We need a new heart, and the only way to get it is from God. But for the Holy Spirit to be given, which gives us a new heart, we must first have the problem of death dealt with. All have sinned and all will die, so until death is abolished we cannot hope for an eternal life, in an eternal kingdom.

This is the theology you abide by. I don't agree to your underlying assumptions.

The only way to pay for our sin and trespasses is through the sacrifice of blood.

As shown, textually and theologically not true. You start with this as your contention and have to misread text to interpolate blood where there is none.

You cannot get atonement without blood.

Really? Ask Miriam.

Was it not to cover the sins of a repentant people?

If blood did the job, why did people have to be "repentant"?

Was an unblemished lamb not sacrificed at Pesach as 'the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover'?

Yes, for dinner, not for atonement. They ate it. It had nothing to do with sins.

Can you be delivered from Egypt without the blood of the Lamb?

I'm in New Jersey. Can you be delivered from ignorance while you cling to misunderstandings?

 

[sooda]

I can acknowledge mostly anybody's religion, as long as it does not lead to outrages, murders and tyrannies.


Wrong. You got that 100% totally incorrect.
A very high % of Jesus history can be gleaned from the gospels. It's just that archeology, numismatics, other historical records, geography, weather patterns, local cultures, farming techniques, and a mass of other research can help to build a more clear picture for objective research.

The difference is that new information can alter the historical view whereas folks who are determined to follow an agenda won't be able to look objectively at anything.

See how you presumed what I think and how I research? Agenda!


Yes...... but you tend to forget or ignore the problems within it's records.


You have no knowledge about how clear Luke was about anything.
I have read that Luke's gospel was not named until the 3rd or 4th centuries. @sojourner an ordained priest in his church may be able to correct me about that.


That is simply a really stretched manipulation in order to get history to fit a gospel.

How much do you know about 'Typical Roman Censuses'?

One technique used of assessing how much Tribute would be paid to Rome from the provinces of Palestine was by collecting and counting the kidneys from sacrificial lambs, taken at a single feast. Over 400,000 vistors were expected to attend the major feasts.

Temple coinage was strictly controlled by Rome, and silver purity and coin weight were both tightly controlled, and no other coinage acceptable, which is how the money-changers got to run such a corrupt racket.


Herod was a secure Client King.

You have done everything possible to draw an earlier census out, for Luke's account to be accurate, but I still wait to see the evidence which was found (in Tivoli?) to show this.

See what historians think:-
Kilman
Scholars have debated about the historicity of this first census since there is no record of it in the Roman archives. Their chief argument is that Augustus would not have imposed a census for the purpose of taxation in the kingdom of a client king like Herod. Herod had his own tax collectors and paid tribute to Rome from the proceeds. They further pose that the census in 6 CE was imposed because Herod's nutty son Archelaus had been deposed and Judea was placed under direct Roman rule. These are good arguments.

See a brief account (wiki) of the life of Quirinius (and see how Luke got the name Cyrenius) :-
Quirinius
Born into an undistinguished family in the neighborhood of Lanuvium, a Latin town near Rome, Quirinius followed the normal pathway of service for an ambitious young man of his social class. According to the Roman historian Florus, Quirinius defeated the Marmaridae, a tribe of desert raiders from Cyrenaica, possibly while governor of Crete and Cyrene around 14 BC, but nonetheless declined the honorific name "Marmaricus".[2] In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus.

From 12 to 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5–3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won the campaign by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.[3] For this victory, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia.[4]

By 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.[5] When Augustus' support shifted to his stepson Tiberius, Quirinius changed his allegiance to the latter. Having been married to Claudia Appia, about whom little is known, he divorced her and around 3 AD married Aemilia Lepida, daughter of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and sister of Manius Aemilius Lepidus, who had originally been betrothed to Lucius Caesar.[6] Within a few years they were divorced: in 20 AD he accused her of claiming that he was her son's father, and later of trying to poison him during their marriage. Tacitus claims that she was popular with the public, who regarded Quirinius as carrying on a prosecution out of spite.[7]

After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6 AD, Iudaea (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius appointed as prefect. At the same time, Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes.[8] One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this order.[9]

The Jews already hated their pagan conquerors, and censuses were forbidden under Jewish law. The assessment was greatly resented by the Jews, and open revolt was prevented only by the efforts of the high priest Joazar.[10] Despite efforts to prevent revolt, the census did trigger the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the formation of the party of the Zealots, according to Josephus.[11]

There is a reference to Quirinius in the Gospel of Luke chapter 2, which links the birth of Jesus to the time of the Census of Quirinius.

Quirinius served as governor of Syria with authority over Iudaea until 12 AD, when he returned to Rome as a close associate of Tiberius. Nine years later he died and was given a public funeral.

See one example of a kidney count (taken earlier by Agrippa) :-
View attachment 30469

[/QUOTE]

Good post. Don't you think 400,000 visitors is a high count for visitors? How does that compare to the population of first century Rome?