EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[JJ50]

Baha'u'llah confirms that both Jesus and Muhammad are Messengers from God.

The Gospels and Quran are a neccessary link that foretell of this day we live in, the 'Day of God', no less.

Regards Tony

I disagree.

 

[rosends]

Elijah must prophesy because his job is to announce the arrival of the Messiah. Simply standing around with a sign saying, I'm Elijah, is not enough.

In 2 Kings 2:15 it says, 'And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.'

So Elijah will not be recognized by his name but by his spirit; which means that the message he delivers is all important. Moreover, we are told what that message will be.

Malachi 3:1, 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:'
Isaiah 40:3, 'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
[Now compare this with Mark 1:1-7, Matthew 3:1-6, if you'll allow yourself to study the New Testament.]

One further bit of information that you can confirm, or dismiss, is that the name Elisha means 'God has helped' and the name John means 'Yah has shown favour'. Remarkably similar, and possibly intentionally so, because Jesus says this,
'Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' [Matthew 11:11-15]

OK, have it your way. He prophesizes.
The Return of Prophecy

 

[metis]

Short answer: Life is the payment for sin. Blood must be offered if man is to be redeemed. So, yes, a sacrifice is necessary.

That's simply not true, and some of the Temple sacrifices were sacrifices of grain as allowed in Torah, thus no blood.

Again, you keep missing the point, namely how is it possible that a human can be sacrificed when that would violate Torah and also Christian teachings, and also how could God be sacrificed to God?
Symbolically, it can make sense; but literally it would violate both Jewish and Christian teachings.

It is important for any Christian involved in Bible study to realize that Greek-influenced rhetoric permeates the NT, thus the concept of "essence" is extremely important to understand because it is used so often. Here: Essence - Wikipedia

 

[Wandering Monk]

Blood was not always required as a sin offering. See Leviticus 5:11

 

[metis]

Blood was not always required as a sin offering. See Leviticus 5:11

Exactly.

And, as a matter of fact, most references to God forgiving our sins as found in Torah/Tanakh do not relate to the Temple sacrifices. On top of that, all references in the NT deal with not having Temple sacrifices but deal with confessing our sins to God and asking God for forgiveness while trying to make amends for the damage we may have created.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Exactly.

And, as a matter of fact, most references to God forgiving our sins as found in Torah/Tanakh do not relate to the Temple sacrifices. On top of that, all references in the NT deal with not having Temple sacrifices but deal with confessing our sins to God and asking God for forgiveness while trying to make amends for the damage we may have created.

The idea that blood sacrifices are the ONLY way to atone for sin doesn't address the problem of people who lived far from the Temple or the problem of no Temple. Both situations existed in Jewish history BEFORE Jesus died. Do people really believe that those people's sins couldn't be atoned for?

Did Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, David, have sins that couldn't be atoned for?

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's simply not true, and some of the Temple sacrifices were sacrifices of grain as allowed in Torah, thus no blood.

Again, you keep missing the point, namely how is it possible that a human can be sacrificed when that would violate Torah and also Christian teachings, and also how could God be sacrificed to God?
Symbolically, it can make sense; but literally it would violate both Jewish and Christian teachings.

It is important for any Christian involved in Bible study to realize that Greek-influenced rhetoric permeates the NT, thus the concept of "essence" is extremely important to understand because it is used so often. Here: Essence - Wikipedia

That's a very civil and informative reply. You know I should learn from your example, sometimes.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I disagree.

As you, I and everyone is free to do or not to do.

Regards Tony

 

[Redemptionsong]

I reckon the gospel writers created the character of Jesus to fit in with OTT so called 'prophecies'.

It's easy to think that kind of thing now. But you forget that the Gospel writers were Jews (including Luke, IMO).

This is what these Jews would have known from the Torah. Deut.18:20. 'But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.'

So writing something down meant there was a piece of hard evidence that could be used against you. The price was your life. Would you play with fire just for amusement? What do you gain?

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's simply not true, and some of the Temple sacrifices were sacrifices of grain as allowed in Torah, thus no blood.

Again, you keep missing the point, namely how is it possible that a human can be sacrificed when that would violate Torah and also Christian teachings, and also how could God be sacrificed to God?
Symbolically, it can make sense; but literally it would violate both Jewish and Christian teachings.

It is important for any Christian involved in Bible study to realize that Greek-influenced rhetoric permeates the NT, thus the concept of "essence" is extremely important to understand because it is used so often. Here: Essence - Wikipedia

The sin offering, I believe, ideally involved blood. [See Leviticus 4:1-35.] It was only when people were too poor to afford an animal sacrifice that other offerings were made. [Hence Wandering Monk's reference]

Am I missing the point? I thought I had answered this in my last post to you?

At the physical level, from the view of a bystander, Jesus was not a sacrifice at all. He was crucified by the Romans, at the instigation of the Jewish authorities. This is not a sacrifice; it's a punishment for transgression of supposed crimes.

From the record in the Gospels, we know that Jesus spoke about his coming death. Jesus knew he had to die. He also knew that he would be raised to life again. He must, therefore, have known that he was the Suffering Servant.

Isaiah 53:6,7. 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.'

Does the Tanakh, or New Testament, say that a man should not sacrifice themselves for others? I'd like to see the scripture.

Also, as I explained previously, it is not God that is sacrificed to God. This may be a theological issue for the Roman Catholic Church, but the idea that Jesus Christ is indivisibly God is, IMO and the opinion of the Reformed Church, wrong. Jesus Christ is BOTH the Son of Man, and the Son of God. For this reason, his mother, Mary, was the mother of his humanity. Mary was not the mother of God! Why, I ask, did she offer a sin offering of two turtledoves, or two pigeons? [See Luke 2:24]

 

[metis]

The idea that blood sacrifices are the ONLY way to atone for sin doesn't address the problem of people who lived far from the Temple or the problem of no Temple. Both situations existed in Jewish history BEFORE Jesus died. Do people really believe that those people's sins couldn't be atoned for?

Did Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, David, have sins that couldn't be atoned for?

Good points.

 

[metis]

The sin offering, I believe, ideally involved blood. [See Leviticus 4:1-35.] It was only when people were too poor to afford an animal sacrifice that other offerings were made.

They could offer grain sacrifices, which was done by some, and that does not involve blood. But again, there are other ways for one's sins go be forgiven than through Temple sacrifices, and you can see that if you have a concordance and look up "forgiveness" as it is used in the OT. Note that most of the references to God forgiving us do not relate to Temple sacrifices, and this is what you're missing in this discussion that I was referring to.

He was crucified by the Romans, at the instigation of the Jewish authorities.

It appears that he was crucified by the Romans for violating Roman law, as the Romans didn't enforce Jewish Law. And the way Jesus was crucified indicates that as well.

Does the Tanakh, or New Testament, say that a man should not sacrifice themselves for others?

That's using the word "sacrifice" in a different manner than what the Temple sacrifices were about.

Also, as I explained previously, it is not God that is sacrificed to God. This may be a theological issue for the Roman Catholic Church, but the idea that Jesus Christ is indivisibly God is, IMO and the opinion of the Reformed Church, wrong.

Actually the official doctrine of the RCC more agrees with you than I, so I'm the odd one out here. I just happen to disagree with it.

Anyhow, have a most blessed weekend.

 

[Redemptionsong]

They could offer grain sacrifices, which was done by some, and that does not involve blood. But again, there are other ways for one's sins go be forgiven than through Temple sacrifices, and you can see that if you have a concordance and look up "forgiveness" as it is used in the OT. Note that most of the references to God forgiving us do not relate to Temple sacrifices, and this is what you're missing in this discussion that I was referring to.

It appears that he was crucified by the Romans for violating Roman law, as the Romans didn't enforce Jewish Law. And the way Jesus was crucified indicates that as well.

That's using the word "sacrifice" in a different manner than what the Temple sacrifices were about.

Actually the official doctrine of the RCC more agrees with you than I, so I'm the odd one out here. I just happen to disagree with it.

Anyhow, have a most blessed weekend.

Thanks. Have a restful break.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you accept the idea that the present heaven and earth, calculated from the time of Adam, is to last seven days, or seven thousand years?

Genesis, as a prologue to the rest of the Bible, seems to indicate this time frame. [See 2 Peter 3:8]

I think your idea that Adam is a historical person and that the earth is to last for seven thousand years flies in the face of all evidence.

 

[Catholicus]

Let's not forget God's Blessing and Covenant to the sons of Noah, the only true Blessing and Covenant ever given, unless of course you believe that God somehow made an error with the words God spoke, in which case you would be a blasphemer.
God spoke to the children of Noah. God never spoke again. We know this because we believe God could never make an ommission/error/mistake

Incompleteness isn't omission. But it is incomplete - since the covenant with Abraham is made only with one people, and God remembers and loves the rest of humanity directly (not just indirectly via Abraham and his people).

God spoke again when He walked this earth, having taken on human nature as Jesus of Nazareth, who said at the Last Supper: "I give you a New Covenant in my blood." Jesus is the Fulfilment of the Law; the Christian Church is the New Israel.

That doesn't mean the Old Covenant and Old Israel are superseded; merely extended universally.

 

[Catholicus]

The similarity in the different religions each claiming that their revelation and supersedes the previous Revelation is also common within the OT (Torah and Tanakh). where spiritual laws and revelation as to the nature of God's relation to humanity changed over time. To claim impermanence and no change is common with each religion over time as with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The reality that ancient religions avoid is the spiritual and physical nature of humanity is diverse and evolved over time, and the choose to live and remain in the past paradigme.

Evolution refers to that of new species.

Since the arrival of homo sapiens, humanity has not evolved physically; nor spiritually, since spiritual laws (e.g. "Thou shalt not kill") are even more immutable than the laws of physics.

 

[Catholicus]

They really can't declare both as valid as that would mean that Jews aren't saved by Jesus, as if there's a separate system of salvation for Jews, which goes against the Gospels, Paul's writings and the doctrines of the Church. Dual covenant theology is a heresy. So they don't really make clear statements on it lately, because they don't want to offend Jews.

St Paul says in Romans that it is by God's Providence that the majority of Jews have remained outside the Christian Church, "so that the full number of gentiles can enter into" the Church.

That remains true to this day; the Jews must be the Last people to hear the Gospel (with their ears open to understanding it), just as they were the First.

God clearly won't punish Jews for what He Himself has decreed.

 

[Catholicus]

The Church changed it's position without officially saying it changed its position (VERY Catholic, btw ), and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" states that the Abrahamic Covenant with the Jews is very much valid, plus the belief is that Jesus died for all sinners, not just some.

Where there's a caveat, however, is that the Church also teaches that if one realizes the significance of Jesus and what he died for, but still refuses to join the Church, their salvation could be in jeopardy. However, this pope seems to not care about that position, even going to the point of stating that atheists might even be saved and should be treated as brothers and sisters.

Also, a reminder that the Church is not a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, as it's more the fundamentalist Protestants and JW's that are much more that way.

Some Atheists do believe in God as revealed in Jesus Christ - their hearts are wiser than their atheistic heads.

 

[Catholicus]

No it doesn't. It gives that as a consequence of having our sins forgiven.
The purpose appears to be tied to verse 31 - currently, it's possible to transgress the covenant.


Knowing G-d is not atonement. Knowing G-d is knowing G-d (Pro. 3:6). Atonement does help in coming closer to G-d to some degree.


Naturally. This is what Jeremiah complains about in chapter 7 and 8.


Sacrifices do not provide forgiveness at all. Only repentance does that. That's what Psa. 51 is all about.
Once you internalize that concept, you'll understand that your last sentence here is misplaced.


No it's not. The new covenant isn't saying that only after G-d inscribes the Torah on our hearts will it be possible to internalize it. It's saying that G-d is going to inscribe the Torah on our hearts. Someone who strives to perfect himself by studying the Torah and internalizing it's precepts until it replaces his own base desires - that's perfectly possible albeit exceedingly hard. And David was one of those who reached that level. Most of the rest of us, will have to wait until the new covenant for G-d to do it for us.

I see that you asked a similar question earlier, but I understood previously that you were asking on a national level, not an individual one. As a nation, we do not expect that everyone (and even the majority) will strive as much as David did to attain this level, so it's necessary for G-d to intervene. On an individual level though, it's definitely possible.


No, salvation doesn't mean being saved from Hell. Salvation means being saved from any difficult situation. David went through many and was saved by G-d from all of them. He is perfectly capable of declaring G-d's faithfulness and salvation.


We already know that Paul is on a mission to get gentiles and the way to do that is by anulling the Law and here he's done that by misrepresenting the Psalmist. David is saying in that Psalm the same thing that Jer. 7:21-23 says: G-d doesn't want sin offerings, He wants people not to sin in the first place. That's what David is saying. He doesn't sin so that he could bring sin offerings to make G-d happy. He strives to not sin -to do G-d's Will - in the first place.

Salvation from Hell is the salvation above all others.

Paul doesn't annul the Law (or why else would Catholic moral theology be built around the Ten Commandments ?), he merely points out its limitations - anyone (of any religion) who is saved from Hell, is saved by Jesus's death on the cross, not by the Law.

 

[Catholicus]

God made His Covernant with man that He would never leave man without guidance.

Man was dispersed across the globe and God kept His Covernant and has guided every man and Nation with a Messenger and/or Inspiration.

Our part in that Covernant was to accept God's given Messenger and guidance, as to bring forth an ever advancing civilization based in the Love of and Obedience to God

The story of Adam (man) and Eve (our soul) tells of our struggle to accept Gods Covernants.

The Covernant mentioned in all Holy Books of a day (age) of peace was fulfilled in 1844 with the Bab (Gate) and then Baha'u'llah (Glory of God).

It is again our choice to embrace the Covernant in this age.

Regards Tony

Only Jesus is MORE than a prophet - only Jesus has died for us.