For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[dantech]

Well in the Christian Bible the Covenant of God seems to be explicitly about "Killing with Water"

Is the entire chapter "noahs sacrifice with his sons" part of the entire covenant or just that one part?

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.
First what chapter is "noahs sacrifice with his sons"? Between which and which verse.

What do you call the Entire covenant? Sorry, just really don't understand the question or what you don't understand.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.
First what chapter is "noahs sacrifice with his sons"? Between which and which verse.

What do you call the Entire covenant? Sorry, just really don't understand the question or what you don't understand.

Sorry let me try to be clear

When reading Chapter 9 it begins with Noah and his Sons offering a Sacrifice and God gives them certain Commands to follow (I assume that part is not a covenant?)

When you get to the middle of Chapter 9 you get the covenant as I had posted let me show you in its entirety:

9 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

This seems to show that the only Covenant God has with groups outside of Jews is not to destroy the world with Water.
I guess my question is whether or not the way the description is given here in the translations accurate?

 

[dantech]

Sorry let me try to be clear

When reading Chapter 9 it begins with Noah and his Sons offering a Sacrifice and God gives them certain Commands to follow (I assume that part is not a covenant?)

When you get to the middle of Chapter 9 you get the covenant as I had posted let me show you in its entirety:

9 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

This seems to show that the only Covenant God has with groups outside of Jews is not to destroy the world with Water.
I guess my question is whether or not the way the description is given here in the translations accurate?

Basically, it means that after the rage God experienced after witnessing all the evil that was in the world, to the point that made him create a flood to destroy mankind and start over, God decided :Never again. That is what God has decided and promised to Noah and his sons. In the Talmud they define seven laws that Humans must follow to abide to this covenant.
These seven laws are as follows:
The prohibition of Idolatry.
The prohibition of Murder.
The prohibition of Theft.
The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
The prohibition of Blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Basically, it means that after the rage God experienced after witnessing all the evil that was in the world, to the point that made him create a flood to destroy mankind and start over, God decided :Never again. That is what God has decided and promised to Noah and his sons. In the Talmud they define seven laws that Humans must follow to abide to this covenant.
These seven laws are as follows:
The prohibition of Idolatry.
The prohibition of Murder.
The prohibition of Theft.
The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
The prohibition of Blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

So as long as those things were done, God would not flood the world again?

 

[dantech]

So as long as those things were done, God would not flood the world again?

Well, please don't ask for sources because I don't have my books with me, but if a Gentile follows these 7 laws, then according to the Talmud, they have a place in The World To Come. I don't think that if we don't follow these 7 laws, that God will make a flood since he has promised he never will again.

Also, the Noahide laws are more lenient to non-Jews than their corresponding laws are to Jews, since Gentiles do not have to abide to an Oral Torah as the Jews do. For example, worshiping God as a human (Jesus) is not a sin for Christians, but it is for a Jew.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well, please don't ask for sources because I don't have my books with me, but if a Gentile follows these 7 laws, then according to the Talmud, they have a place in The World To Come. I don't think that if we don't follow these 7 laws, that God will make a flood since he has promised he never will again.

Also, the Noahide laws are more lenient to non-Jews than their corresponding laws are to Jews, since Gentiles do not have to abide to an Oral Torah as the Jews do. For example, worshiping God as a human (Jesus) is not a sin for Christians, but it is for a Jew.

Also I'm not being argumentative for the sake of arguement but attempting to understand the lines between Judaism and Christianity.

I'm curious about the nature of covenants, because it's a give and give relationship. The verse to me makes it confusing whether or not the breaking of the covenant would result in flooding.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, Where do you learn that the New Covenant replaces the previous one?

When Moses made a covenant with God, the Israelites didn't stop circumcising, did they? What evidence do you have that shows that when a new covenant is made, that it replaces the previous one.

Boom, headshot.

 

[captainbryce]

Where did you learn that the NT replaces the "old one"?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3522283-post127.html

 

[captainbryce]

But God didn't make that covenant with Gentiles. He made it with Jesus (a Jew), and most of his followers were Jews. Most non-converted Gentiles today probably have Jewish ancestors from 2000 years ago.

Even if this was true (which I don't see how it could possibly be), how would that be relevant? I thought in order to be considered "Jewish" you had to be Jewish on your mother's side, and/or have converted to Judaism yourself? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But having some Jewish ancestry doesn't automatically include you in the old covenant does it? What would be the official teaching of orthodox Jews on this matter?

 

[Shermana]

I thought in order to be considered "Jewish" you had to be Jewish on your mother's side

That is a later Rabbinical ruling as a reaction to large amounts of Jewish women being raped by their captors and the lack of Jewish men, one of which I disagree with, the Text seems to make it abundantly clear that it is Paternal descent which matters. This is also the Karaite position and that of various Jewish enclaves like the Mountain Jews of the Caucusus.

 

[captainbryce]

Boom, headshot.

Dude, it wasn't a headshot when you brought it up. You tried to argue this point earlier on this thread, I defeated it (citing scripture), you then used some cherry picking hypocrisy, I pointed that out, then you ran for the hills and decided to discontinue the discussion (ie: you LOST). Deal with it!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is a later Rabbinical ruling as a reaction to large amounts of Jewish women being raped by their captors and the lack of Jewish men, one of which I disagree with, the Text seems to make it abundantly clear that it is Paternal descent which matters. This is also the Karaite position and that of various Jewish enclaves like the Mountain Jews of the Caucusus.

Ironically it's far easier to trace lineage through mothers (Mitochondrial DNA), than it is for fathers who give no Mitochondria. At least it was last time I read up on it

 

[captainbryce]

That is a later Rabbinical ruling as a reaction to large amounts of Jewish women being raped by their captors and the lack of Jewish men, one of which I disagree with, the Text seems to make it abundantly clear that it is Paternal descent which matters. This is also the Karaite position and that of various Jewish enclaves like the Mountain Jews of the Caucusus.

Very well then. Now how about answering the second part of my question: does simply having had some Jewish ancestry in the past (of which you can neither confirm nor deny) automatically include you in the old covenant? Yes or no?

opcorn:

 

[Shermana]

I believe it very well may, the text seems to make it clear that bloodline includes you in the covenant whether you believe in it or not.

 

[Shermana]

Dude, it wasn't a headshot when you brought it up. You tried to argue this point earlier on this thread, I defeated it (citing scripture), you then used some cherry picking hypocrisy, I pointed that out, then you ran for the hills and decided to discontinue the discussion (ie: you LOST). Deal with it!

You defeated nothing, I didn't "Cherry pick", I wasn't being hypocritical, and I didn't "run for the hills", and this is about all your argument involves each and every time, claiming victory and knocking over the pieces. Deal with it.

If you want to take your chances as a "Doer of lawlessness", I can't stop you.

 

[captainbryce]

I believe it very well may, the text seems to make it clear that bloodline includes you in the covenant whether you believe in it or not.

So a person who has 80% Gentile blood, and possibly 20% Jewish blood (unconfirmed), who has not been raised in a Jewish household, has professed no faith in Judaism, and is not circumcised is considered to be "a Jew" according to traditional Jewish teachings? I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm genuinely curious as to how a Rabbi would answer this question.

 

[captainbryce]

You defeated nothing, I didn't "Cherry pick", I wasn't being hypocritical,

If you claim to be a Christian, yet simultaneously reject the teaching of the Apostles and most of the New Testament because you disagree with it, that's called Cherry picking! When you cite one of Paul's teachings to make a point, but reject most of his other teachings because you disagree, that's called hypocrisy. It is what it is!

and I didn't "run for the hills",

When you don't answer a simple question (the answer of which backs you into a corner), that's called running for the hills.

 

[Shermana]

So a person who has 80% Gentile blood, and possibly 20% Jewish blood (unconfirmed), who has not been raised in a Jewish household, has professed no faith in Judaism, and is not circumcised is considered to be "a Jew" according to traditional Jewish teachings? I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm genuinely curious as to how a Rabbi would answer this question.

If the bloodline descends through a long chain of Paternal descent (i.e. Great-great- Grandfather to Great-grandfather- to grandfather, to father,).

A RABBI would however say that this is the case in Maternal terms replace "Grandfather" with "GrandMother").

Now not being circumcised ever in his lifetime makes him cast out from the assembly, but he is still part of the bloodline, or the "Seed" as its called.

I.e. If an uncircumcised Israelite parent has a child, that child is still a part of the House of Israel if the parent was a bloodline member. Thus, in Rabbinical terms, the child of a Jewish mother who remains uncircumcised would still have a Jewish child if the mother was Jewish.

 

[Shermana]

If you claim to be a Christian, yet simultaneously reject the teaching of the Apostles and most of the New Testament because you disagree with it, that's called Cherry picking! When you cite one of Paul's teachings to make a point, but reject most of his other teachings because you disagree, that's called hypocrisy. It is what it is!

You don't get to claim what makes one a Christian. God does. You are not God. Neither am I. But unlike you, I think he has plenty of spare time to show us directly which one of us is arrogantly, presumptiously lying about what he wants taught. Not only that, but the NT defines "Christians" as Nazarene Jews under Peter's authority (under James's supervising) in Antioch before Paul entered the picture. I have refrained myself from wishing more than just a humbling for you, but so far you have dodged and looked for excuses to not take the challenge I offered you, calling me prideful when asked, and mocking God as if he has "better things to do". Well if you care about the souls of others, you should want false teachers put to silence, right?

So how about joining me in this prayer: "May False teachers be silenced and put to dreadful shame". Amen?

I explained to you why I used Paul's teachings to explain things in your own terms to you, but you are apparently unwilling to register the reason in your militant denial of basic common sense. I similarly use quotes from Muhammad to explain to Muslims what Islamic belief should entail. I also think Paul was right about a few things regarding Christology. A broken clock is right twice a day. I can't tell if you didn't read what I said or just refuse to accept the reality of it. That's not hypocrisy, that's called using Paul's epistles with someone who believes in Paul's epistles to discuss what Paul taught. If this concept goes over your head, I can't help you.

When you don't answer a simple question (the answer of which backs you into a corner), that's called running for the hills.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shermana]

When you don't answer a simple question (the answer of which backs you into a corner), that's called running for the hills.

I believe I asked you for the question you claim I ran from, since I only saw one question mark in that entire post of yours. Did you reply to that or did you simply forget about that? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume blatant dishonesty and simple absent-mindedness instead.