EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Save your sermons for someone gullible.

 

[sooda]

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

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.

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.

There is no evidence for David or a United kingdom. These are morality tales borrowed from the cultures around them. Even Hammurabi was earlier.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.


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.

The fact that you have to repeat your atonement on an annual basis is evidence that the atonement is temporary and not permanent. To have an everlasting atonement one must have an everlasting sacrifice. An everlasting sacrifice is one that dies, comes alive again (because God accepts it), and stays alive for ever.

As Jesus said, the greatest thing a man can do is lay down his life for his friends.[John 15:13] Is this human sacrifice? if it is, then it is not abhorrent at all.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There is no evidence for David or a United kingdom. These are morality tales borrowed from the cultures around them. Even Hammurabi was earlier.

Why do you describe yourself as CHRISTIAN, may I ask?

 

[sooda]

Why do you describe yourself as CHRISTIAN, may I ask?

Because of the messages not the epic myths.

 

[rosends]

The fact that you have to repeat your atonement on an annual basis is evidence that the atonement is temporary and not permanent. To have an everlasting atonement one must have an everlasting sacrifice. An everlasting sacrifice is one that dies, comes alive again (because God accepts it), and stays alive for ever.

But where do you get this notion of everlasting atonement? Even in messianic times there will be need for atonement. Once you start with a false presupposition you end up with false conclusions. And a sacrifice that dies and comes back to life is no sacrifice. Also, there is no reason to expect that the messiah (who is not a sacrifice) will stay alive for ever. So, that's more than 3 strikes...

As Jesus said, the greatest thing a man can do is lay down his life for his friends.[John 15:13] Is this human sacrifice? if it is, then it is not abhorrent at all.

But who cares what is written in your fiction gospels? And are you really saying that human sacrifice is acceptable? Yuck.

 

[Wandering Monk]

But where do you get this notion of everlasting atonement? Even in messianic times there will be need for atonement. Once you start with a false presupposition you end up with false conclusions. And a sacrifice that dies and comes back to life is no sacrifice. Also, there is no reason to expect that the messiah (who is not a sacrifice) will stay alive for ever. So, that's more than 3 strikes...

But who cares what is written in your fiction gospels? And are you really saying that human sacrifice is acceptable? Yuck.

Well, it is really worse, because they believe Jesus is God. So God committed suicide to atone for humans.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.'

All that means is that the burden of the covenant rested almost entirely upon God. If you look at ALL the verses of the covenant throughout Genesis, you will find that Abraham's only obligation was concerning circumcision.

This is what Paul says in Hebrews

To me, the Christian scriptures are of intellectual interest, but they carry no more authority than does the Quran or the Vedas. The book of Hebrews I find uniquely annoying in that it bashes the Torah -- something that would never happen if it were truly inspired by God. It was probably written by a Gentile that was out of touch with the Jewishness of Jesus.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:

This is really reaching. You are trying to win the Christian faith/works debate in what is really a Jewish realm, and it just doesn't work. Emunah means both faith and faithfulness. It was Abraham's emunah that was counted for righteousness. It was his emunah that gave him the willing to sacrifice Isaac. In other words, both faith AND works -- they are inseparable. A person's faith is seen by their works.

2. Hosea is a prophet. He does not feature as part of the Torah, the Law.

The prophets INTERPRET the Torah. That is their job. One of the features of interpretation is knowing when to temporarily suspend a law. For example, if someone's life is at stake, we can suspend keeping the sabbath in order to save that life. Thus it is right and good that a prophet can interpret that while there is no Temple, prayers can substitute for sacrifices.


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.[/QUOTE]
Atoning sacrifices could only be made within the Temple. Human sacrifice was an abomination. On both accounts, Jesus could not have been a sacrifice.

 

[Redemptionsong]

All that means is that the burden of the covenant rested almost entirely upon God. If you look at ALL the verses of the covenant throughout Genesis, you will find that Abraham's only obligation was concerning circumcision.

To me, the Christian scriptures are of intellectual interest, but they carry no more authority than does the Quran or the Vedas. The book of Hebrews I find uniquely annoying in that it bashes the Torah -- something that would never happen if it were truly inspired by God. It was probably written by a Gentile that was out of touch with the Jewishness of Jesus.

This is really reaching. You are trying to win the Christian faith/works debate in what is really a Jewish realm, and it just doesn't work. Emunah means both faith and faithfulness. It was Abraham's emunah that was counted for righteousness. It was his emunah that gave him the willing to sacrifice Isaac. In other words, both faith AND works -- they are inseparable. A person's faith is seen by their works.


The prophets INTERPRET the Torah. That is their job. One of the features of interpretation is knowing when to temporarily suspend a law. For example, if someone's life is at stake, we can suspend keeping the sabbath in order to save that life. Thus it is right and good that a prophet can interpret that while there is no Temple, prayers can substitute for sacrifices.


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.

Atoning sacrifices could only be made within the Temple. Human sacrifice was an abomination. On both accounts, Jesus could not have been a sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

I happen to agree that faith and works go together, but to please God our works should always follow faith.

Did Abraham not faithfully take Isaac to Mount Moriah as a sacrifice? Did Isaac not faithfully do as his father bid him, even unto death? Would Abraham not have carried out the sacrifice had God not prevented it?

You seem adamant that Jesus did not make a sacrifice of himself for his friends. I am reminded of a story I heard at Auschwitz 1, in Block 11. A certain inmate, Maximilian Kolbe, a Franciscan priest, was brought to parade following the disappearance of a man from his barrack. Punishment was metered out on ten individuals, one of whom was a Polish family man. Kolbe stepped forward and offered himself in his place, and was sent to the punishment cells to face starvation. On nearing his death, Kolbe was given a lethal injection.

Franciszek Gajowniczek, the man he saved, survived the war and lived into old age.

Kolbe died following the example set by his Lord, knowing the sacrifice of Jesus was far greater. Kolbe was offering an unknown number of years of additional earthly life to Gajowniczek. Jesus promises an eternal life to all those who accept his sacrifice, and follow him.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You seem adamant that Jesus did not make a sacrifice of himself for his friends.

The question is what KIND of sacrifice. Had he i.e. died in their place that would have been one kind of sacrifice. Although I don't think Jesus accomplished anything by his death, I do believe that Jesus thought he was dying on behalf of others, thus it could be considered this sort of sacrifice.

But an atoning sacrifice? Nah. It fails the test on both grounds, as has been previously discussed.

Hope this post clears things up for you.

 

[3rdAngel]

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.

It seems you may not understand what the old and new covenants are. If this is the case your whole OP falls down. What do you think the old covenant is in your view and what is the new referring to (scripture please)?

 

[sooda]

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.

Are you one who thinks Mt Horeb is in Arabia? Its not there either.