EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[sooda]

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?

Does it bother you that 2 million people and their livestock left Egypt and fled to Egyptian Sinai? 60 years later King David's Jerusalem had a population of less than 1,000 people.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Another question arises: why do inanimate objects need to be atoned for? See Leviticus 16:33.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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

A point well made.

Christians view the death of Jesus at Passover as a fulfillment of the Pesach offering that atones for their sins.

But the Pesach is not even close to a sin offering. It's closest analog is the peace offering.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Does it bother you that 2 million people and their livestock left Egypt and fled to Egyptian Sinai? 60 years later King David's Jerusalem had a population of less than 1,000 people.

Good point. This raises another question. Where are the remains of the millions that are supposed to have died in the wilderness?

 

[sooda]

Another question arises: why do inanimate objects need to be atoned for? See Leviticus 16:33.

I think the Levites were writing a free lunch for themselves into the law. The Bible is perfect mess of contradictions.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think the Levites were writing a free lunch for themselves into the law. The Bible is perfect mess of contradictions.

To be fair, the priests could not own land but were scattered among the towns of Israel. Someone needed to support them. (Joshua 13:33)

 

[sooda]

Good point. This raises another question. Where are the remains of the millions that are supposed to have died in the wilderness?

Actually a fundamentalist explained that to me years ago. Moses assigned one tribe to pick up the garbage and hide it so it would never be found. I couldn't find that in scripture BTW.

 

[oldbadger]

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?[/QUOTE]
Well, they were coming from so many provinces to one venue.
Rome was big, but just a capital city.

 

[sooda]

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?

Well, they were coming from so many provinces to one venue.
Rome was big, but just a capital city.[/QUOTE]

The population of Rome was about 450,000 and the population of the whole Roman empire was less than 5 million. The Bible is spectacular at exaggeration.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Does it bother you that 2 million people and their livestock left Egypt and fled to Egyptian Sinai? 60 years later King David's Jerusalem had a population of less than 1,000 people.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, sooda.

How do you get David in Jerusalem 60 years after the Exodus?

To begin with, the Exodus from Egypt did not end up in the Egyptian Sinai, but in Midian, in Arabia.

 

[sooda]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, sooda.

How do you get David in Jerusalem 60 years after the Exodus?

To begin with, the Exodus from Egypt did not end up in the Egyptian Sinai, but in Midian, in Arabia.

I know the Exodus myth..

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient...
Jan 11, 2019 · Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

You couldn't be further from the truth.

The Bible contains history. Prove the history wrong.

The Bible contains prophecy of specific events. Have any not been fulfilled that should have been fulfilled?

Is there any contradiction in scripture that proves that it cannot be God's Word?

Is there doctrine, or teaching, that cannot be assigned to God?

The challenge is yours.

 

[sooda]

You couldn't be further from the truth.

The Bible contains history. Prove the history wrong.

The Bible contains prophecy of specific events. Have any not been fulfilled that should have been fulfilled?

Is there any contradiction in scripture that proves that it cannot be God's Word?

Is there doctrine, or teaching, that cannot be assigned to God?

The challenge is yours.

A lot of prophecy was written after the fact most especially Daniel and Isaiah.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

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

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.

Really? Ask Miriam.

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

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

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

The blood of an unblemished lamb was painted around the doors of the Hebrew houses in Egypt. The effect was to prevent the angel of death, the destroyer, from taking life.

Exodus 12:13; 'And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.'

Exodus 12:23;'For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood on upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.'

So, it wasn't just a case of sitting down for a lamb chop before heading off to the desert!

There is also no foundation to the idea that repentance replaces the need for blood. The once-for-all-time atoning blood is poured out by God Himself as a payment for sin. We sinners must still be repentant if we are to receive the forgiveness that comes from faith in his atoning blood.

As John the Baptist said, 'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:' [Matthew 3:11]

What this tells us is that we must repent and believe in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, because only through resurrection from the dead, and ascension to heaven is the giving of the Holy Spirit made possible.

On the day of Pentecost, following the resurrection, we have this [Acts 2:38], 'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of Holy Ghost.'

It is necessary to repent AND have faith in Christ.

 

[Wandering Monk]

You couldn't be further from the truth.

The Bible contains history. Prove the history wrong.

Where are the bones of the Jews who died in the wilderness after the Exodus? How about their camp sites? Found them yet?

The Bible has history for sure. Some of it is accurate, some is not. Inerrancy requires that it ALL be true!

The Bible contains prophecy of specific events. Have any not been fulfilled that should have been fulfilled?

Such as....

Too bad one of those prophets didn't warn us about Hitler or nuclear weapons, or even give us a good stock market tip.

Is there any contradiction in scripture that proves that it cannot be God's Word?

Who killed Goliath? David or Elhanan?

Is there doctrine, or teaching, that cannot be assigned to God?

The challenge is yours.

We haven't even established God's existence. Bad question.

 

[rosends]

The blood of an unblemished lamb was painted around the doors of the Hebrew houses in Egypt. The effect was to prevent the angel of death, the destroyer, from taking life.

Exodus 12:13; 'And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.'

Exodus 12:23;'For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood on upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.'

So, it wasn't just a case of sitting down for a lamb chop before heading off to the desert!

Well, since this was the last food to be eaten, it was the dessert but anyway, the blood was smeared as a show of faith as the lamb was a god in Egypt. There was nothing about atonement here. You can twist it all you want, but that's the fact.

There is also no foundation to the idea that repentance replaces the need for blood. The once-for-all-time atoning blood is poured out by God Himself as a payment for sin. We sinners must still be repentant if we are to receive the forgiveness that comes from faith in his atoning blood.

Except, as you said, the people were repentant, which would be unnecessary if blood took care of things. So which is it? And why would a one-time pouring of blood do anything if the day of atonement is every year, and sin (and guilt) offerings are every day? Keep making things up. And who cares what the gospels report some guy named John as saying? Human sacrifice is still abhorrent so relying on the death of some Jesus character to accomplish anything is gross. And if he is resurrected then he didn't die as a sacrifice and he couldn't accomplish anything anyway. Get your message straight.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I know the Exodus myth..

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient...
Jan 11, 2019 · Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

'During this period'. Which period?

 

[sooda]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, sooda.

How do you get David in Jerusalem 60 years after the Exodus?

To begin with, the Exodus from Egypt did not end up in the Egyptian Sinai, but in Midian, in Arabia.

Sloppy arithmetic... 40 years in Sinai plus six years at Midian.. and Jerusalem being founded (by David) 1000 years before Christ.

Myths don't have to make sense or add up.

 

[sooda]

'During this period'. Which period?

Click on the link...

 

[Redemptionsong]

Where are the bones of the Jews who died in the wilderness after the Exodus? How about their camp sites? Found them yet?

The Bible has history for sure. Some of it is accurate, some is not. Inerrancy requires that it ALL be true!



Such as....

Too bad one of those prophets didn't warn us about Hitler or nuclear weapons, or even give us a good stock market tip.



Who killed Goliath? David or Elhanan?



We haven't even established God's existence. Bad question.

Inerrancy requires it all to be true. I couldn't agree more! So all you have to do is find ONE clear and unquestionable error that demonstrates contradiction in God's Word. Although minor problems arise with translation and transcribing of text, the overall message must be coherent and 'unbroken'.

Using archaeological evidence from the Sinai isn't going to help because Mount Horeb, or Sinai, is not in the Sinai desert. Researchers have spent centuries looking in the wrong area. It's not surprising that the evidence hasn't been unearthed.

Scripture tells us that Moses led the Hebrews to safety in Midian, not the Sinai desert. Midian occupied the territory to the east of the gulf of Akaba. Even Josephus was aware of this!

Being a book of prophecy does not mean the Bible refers to every event in history. The Bible points to the Messiah and his people. Let's not forget that it's the Messiah who can save from sin and death. Despots and men of violence fill the pages of history, but each will eventually face the judgment of God's Word.

As for the question of who slew Goliath, you probably know that the passage in 2 Samuel 21:19, when compared with 1 Chronicles 20:5 has caused confusion because scholars believe that there was a transcriber's error. Nevertheless, when you pool the evidence, the answer must be that David slew Goliath, and Elhanan slew his brother. I am aware that a rabbinic tradition holds that David and Elhanan are one and the same, but (IMHO) this is unlikely.

As regards establishing God's existence before studying scripture, I would say 'turn that around'. Study scripture and the living God will speak to you.