For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So wait which Prophets were killed?

 

[Shermana]

So wait which Prophets were killed?

A little quick side tangent on your question, the "Zechariah" that Jesus refers to when he says "From the blood of Abel to Zechariah", was likely a highly esteemed priest, if not a prophet, from right around his time period, not the "minor" prophet Zechariah of the Tanakh.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

A little quick side tangent on your question, the "Zechariah" that Jesus refers to when he says "From the blood of Abel to Zechariah", was likely a highly esteemed priest, if not a prophet, from right around his time period, not the "minor" prophet Zechariah of the Tanakh.

Ah okay, any information on him I could read?

I was curious cause the only prophet I know of that has been said to be killed by a King was Isaiah if I remember correctly?

 

[james2ko]

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?

There is a distinction between the Jews (House of Judah) and Israelites (House of Israel) in both the Old and New Testaments. In the OT, all Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. In the NT, all non-Israelites are gentiles, but not all gentiles are non-Israelites.

 

[captainbryce]

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.

1) But being part of the bloodline doesn't necessarily mean that you are part of the covenant. 2) Nobody knows how long a person's lifetime will be. If you are not circumcised at 8 days old and you die in a car accident at 3 months old, are you part of the covenant? On the one hand you seem to be saying yes, but now it looks like you're saying no.

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.

That's completely besides the point. My question is whether or not the uncircumcised individual would still be considered part of the House of Israel, not the individuals uncircumcised parent. In any case, I don't see how that can be reconciled with scripture (seeing as how it completely negates the purpose of the commandment to circumcise).

Thus, in Rabbinical terms, the child of a Jewish mother who remains uncircumcised would still have a Jewish child if the mother was Jewish.

So then the child would still be considered "Jewish", and included into the covenant without being circumcised? Forgive me but, that also seems to defeat the intent of the commandment. If you can be included into the covenant without being circumcised, then the commandment would essentially have no purpose at all. If you're always going to be

You don't get to claim what makes one a Christian. God does. You are not God.

I didn't make any such claims. I'm simply pointing out cherry picking and hypocrisy. What religion you choose to call yourself isn't my concern. The fact that you claim one thing, then you make hypocritical claims is what I'm pointing out.

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.

No, the NT does not "define" Christians in such terms. It merely points out examples of such individuals who were called "Christians". Nothing in the NT says that Christians must always be Nazarene Jews.

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,

I'm not here to take your challenges or appeal to your superficial sense of pride. I'm here to answer questions about my beliefs, and if necessary see if you can reconcile your statements using a consistent reading of scripture (when you try to insinuate that my beliefs are "wrong"). Your challenges are irrelevant!

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?

I don't see that as "mocking God". You judge me as a liar and spreading false teachings (neither of which can you demonstrate). You're entitled to your opinion, but I've always maintained that it isn't my intention to prove my beliefs to you. I never claimed to be a teacher, and this isn't a recruiting pitch either. Maybe that's what YOU are doing, but that's not why I come here. I see what you're doing as taking the Lord's name in vain. This isn't church! We didn't come here to pray for the souls of our opponents in a religious debate. You are making a mockery of the bible (as you have several times now) by doing this. If you want to pray, don't make a spectacle out of it. I don't want to know about your prayers, so there is no reason to bring that up every other post. Do that on your own time (as Jesus commands) and don't involve me.

Matthew 6:5-6
5 “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. 6 But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

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

See above hypocrite!

I explained to you why I used Paul's teachings to explain things in your own terms to you,

Your explanation doesn't suddenly make your actions any less hypocritical. If you want to use "grafting" as an example, then use it in the manner that Paul actually taught it. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting what he actually taught. Capisce?

I similarly use quotes from Muhammad to explain to Muslims what Islamic belief should entail.

Well then that just makes you presumptuous. I would never have the audacity to tell someone of a different faith what they SHOULD believe (knowing that I don't even believe it). :no:

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.

I did read it, and dismissed it as the horse maneuver that it was. You made a false claim about what grafting meant (as Paul explained it) because your interpretation of his words contradict his interpretation 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.

Except that he DIDN'T teach what you are pretending he taught. He taught THE OPPOSITE. So you're the liar, and therefore still a hypocrite! :yes:

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

Exactly, and you still haven't answered some of the most basic questions.

 

[captainbryce]

There is a distinction between the Jews (House of Judah) and Israelites (House of Israel) in both the Old and New Testaments. In the OT, all Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews. In the NT, all non-Israelites are gentiles, but not all gentiles are non-Israelites.

Okay. I guess that makes sense. Either way, we agree that there is no commandment for a Gentile to be circumcised correct?

 

[james2ko]

Okay. I guess that makes sense. Either way, we agree that there is no commandment for a Gentile to be circumcised correct?

Circumcision is no longer required for the "gentiles" (nations) of the house of Israel or the "gentiles" (nations) of the house of Judah (New Testament Christians).

 

[Shermana]

1) But being part of the bloodline doesn't necessarily mean that you are part of the covenant.

Says where?

2) Nobody knows how long a person's lifetime will be. If you are not circumcised at 8 days old and you die in a car accident at 3 months old, are you part of the covenant? On the one hand you seem to be saying yes, but now it looks like you're saying no.

So the Israelites of Joshua's time weren't part of the Covenant until right before Passover? Got it.

[Q hat's completely besides the point. My question is whether or not the uncircumcised individual would still be considered part of the House of Israel, not the individuals uncircumcised parent. In any case, I don't see how that can be reconciled with scripture (seeing as how it completely negates the purpose of the commandment to circumcise).

You misunderstand, as usual. They would be part of the House of Israel. What part of scripture do you think doesn't reconcile?

So then the child would still be considered "Jewish", and included into the covenant without being circumcised? Forgive me but, that also seems to defeat the intent of the commandment. If you can be included into the covenant without being circumcised, then the commandment would essentially have no purpose at all. If you're always going to be

It says they will be cut off. This is a controversial issue of which the Judaism DIR can provide you with some interpretative issues. I know you think only your interpretation counts and all but it's kind of a grey area. I gave you my opinion on the matter.

I didn't make any such claims. I'm simply pointing out cherry picking and hypocrisy.

You've pointed out neither.

What religion you choose to call yourself isn't my concern. The fact that you claim one thing, then you make hypocritical claims is what I'm pointing out.

The only hypocrisy is with you here. You can claim I am a hypocrite according to your own interpretations as if there's no historical controversy on these issues but until then, again, you're just like a pigeon knocking over the pieces and claiming victory.

No, the NT does not "define" Christians in such terms. It merely points out examples of such individuals who were called "Christians". Nothing in the NT says that Christians must always be Nazarene Jews.

Ok, well we have different ways of interpreting that. It says they were called Christians. Thus, the first people to be called Christians were people who believed like me. That's all you need to know.

I'm not here to take your challenges or appeal to your superficial sense of pride. I'm here to answer questions about my beliefs, and if necessary see if you can reconcile your statements using a consistent reading of scripture (when you try to insinuate that my beliefs are "wrong"). Your challenges are irrelevant!

It's quite obvious you're not willing to actually put yourself at such risk, when it comes to putting your feet to the fire, you balk. I don't. That's all I need to know.

I don't see that as "mocking God".

And I don't see the basis of your accusations as "Superficial sense of pride". Meanwhile you've demonstrated nothing but a superficial sense of pride. I am actually willing to put myself to the fire, you aren't.

You judge me as a liar and spreading false teachings (neither of which can you demonstrate).

I demonstrated them just fine. Obviously you will never agree with it because you insist that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, it's one of the problems of debate without a moderator.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've always maintained that it isn't my intention to prove my beliefs to you.

Then your intention is to expose your debating tactics to the pigeon method?

I never claimed to be a teacher, and this isn't a recruiting pitch either.

You are claiming that you are right and that I am wrong.

Maybe that's what YOU are doing,

The only "recruiting" I am trying to do here is to show my fellow Hebrew how fallacious the Non-Nazarene Antinomian position and why they should not let your blasphemy represent our Messiah who you supercessionists have been attempting to steal for centuries with your grand cultural theft.

but that's not why I come here. I see what you're doing as taking the Lord's name in vain.

How so? How do you define taking his name in vain? Is it vain that I ask him to put those who blaspheme His truth to shame and silence?

This isn't church!

No, really?

We didn't come here to pray for the souls of our opponents in a religious debate.

So what do we do when come to an impasse where each side believes they are right and its a matter of controversial interpretation of where there are many ways of viewing verses and there's no right or wrong answers, and important contentions get brushed off as "Red herrings" and false accusations of not answering questions and personal attacks get flung around? It is my way of showing that you refuse to put yourself on the line after you take the gloves off, and you have taken the gloves off each and every time.

You are making a mockery of the bible (as you have several times now) by doing this.

Sounds like you're doing an immediate about face. By accusing me of mocking the Bible you are indeed preaching and acting as if we are in church.

If you want to pray, don't make a spectacle out of it.

Like when Jesus prayed with the Disciples?

I don't want to know about your prayers, so there is no reason to bring that up every other post. Do that on your own time (as Jesus commands) and don't involve me.

You misunderstand what Jesus meant. Besides, he says when two are gathered in his name, he will do what they ask. You apparently refuse to do that. Why? Because you have something to lose, big time. I don't. And you know it.

Matthew 6:5-6
5 “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. 6 But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

Well then Jesus contradicted himself quite handily when he taught his Disciples the Lord's prayer and told them about 2 gathering in his name.

See above hypocrite!

See above, heretic.

Your explanation doesn't suddenly make your actions any less hypocritical. If you want to use "grafting" as an example, then use it in the manner that Paul actually taught it. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting what he actually taught. Capisce?

What I Capiesce is that you are stamping your feet and acting as if you're automatically proven right and I'm wrong when you have in no way actually debunked my position. Again, playing chess with a pigeon.

Well then that just makes you presumptuous. I would never have the audacity to tell someone of a different faith what they SHOULD believe (knowing that I don't even believe it). :no:

Why not? Atheists debunk Christian practices all the time. Shia and Sunni debate each other all the time. Objective debate is objective debate. Why are you here telling a Jew about your idea of Christianity and how I am wrong?

I did read it, and dismissed it as the horse maneuver that it was.

Manure. A horse maneuver was would be fancy rodeo trick or a cavalry tactic. And all you did was dismiss it. You did not disprove.

You made a false claim about what grafting meant (as Paul explained it) because your interpretation of his words contradict his interpretation of it.

You made a false claim about my claim. Again, all you are capable of doing is calling my claim wrong and repeating yourself.

Except that he DIDN'T teach what you are pretending he taught. He taught THE OPPOSITE. So you're the liar, and therefore still a hypocrite! :yes:

Same thing.

Exactly, and you still haven't answered some of the most basic questions.

For some reason you keep refusing to answer what question you claim I missed, I have to wonder now if this is just your hope of lying and making people believe you.

 

[dantech]

Can I ask a question?
You clearly agree that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid, for the Jews... right?

Why do you believe God would make Covenant A with certain people and Covenant B with other people when both are contradictory? When both covenant's goals are to teach their respective followers what God likes and dislikes, as well as how to earn his forgiveness? Why would he ask different things of different people, that contradict each other, but would consider both righteous if they each followed their respective covenants?

 

[CMike]

Can I ask a question?
You clearly agree that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid, for the Jews... right?

Why do you believe God would make Covenant A with certain people and Covenant B with other people when both are contradictory? When both covenant's goals are to teach their respective followers what God likes and dislikes, as well as how to earn his forgiveness? Why would he ask different things of different people, that contradict each other, but would consider both righteous if they each followed their respective covenants?

Excellent question :yes:

 

[dantech]

Excellent question :yes:

Thank you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Can I ask a question?
You clearly agree that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid, for the Jews... right?

Why do you believe God would make Covenant A with certain people and Covenant B with other people when both are contradictory? When both covenant's goals are to teach their respective followers what God likes and dislikes, as well as how to earn his forgiveness? Why would he ask different things of different people, that contradict each other, but would consider both righteous if they each followed their respective covenants?

I like to think that God found it funny?

 

[dantech]

I like to think that God found it funny?

Twisted sense of humor, don't you think?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Twisted sense of humor, don't you think?

You want to tell God that?

I don't know, look at the world overall...if you believe in God with the vastness of power attribute to God (we aren't talking your greco-roman Gods bound by fate or their own mechanics), you are talking about a being that is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent...who sets up the rules...but can't be held accountable for them. If anyone would have the best sense of humor...it would be God.

 

[dantech]

You want to tell God that?

You're the one who said he found it funny, not me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You're the one who said he found it funny, not me.

lol I don't think it's twisted though.

 

[captainbryce]

Can I ask a question?
You clearly agree that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid, for the Jews... right?

Why do you believe God would make Covenant A with certain people and Covenant B with other people when both are contradictory? When both covenant's goals are to teach their respective followers what God likes and dislikes, as well as how to earn his forgiveness? Why would he ask different things of different people, that contradict each other, but would consider both righteous if they each followed their respective covenants?

I can tell from your question that you don't fully understand the purpose for each covenant, nor my position on them. Therefore I'll try to break this down for you (using scripture as my basis). Bear with me, because this will require some reading. Now, I will answer your second question first. Why would God consider people who kept either covenant as "righteous" (even if they contradict each other). The answer is BECAUSE THEY OBEYED HIM. The person who always obeys the commandments of God (regardless of what the commandment is) is considered righteous. Those who disobey are unrighteous. It's that simple. Now, the first question is more complicated. Why would God make one covenant with a certain people, then a different one for others? That question is answered in Hebrews 8:6-13.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. - [cross reference Jeremiah 31:31-34.]

You started from the presumption that I believe that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid. The answer to that is no. I believe that as long as there is a new Covenant established by Jesus Christ, the purpose of the Old Covenant no longer exists. For anyone who accepts Christ as the savior, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. We are all children of God and all made righteous through faith in Christ. The old covenant no longer serves a purpose. Why would God created two separate sets of rules for two different groups of people? The answer is HE WOULDN'T. He established a certain set of rules for the Jews thousands of years ago, for a specific reason. It was established to do more than just teach people "what God likes and dislikes". The Old Covenant was established to separate the Jews (as God's chosen people) from the Gentiles (who were essentially Godless heathens at the time). It was done to protect the Jewish people and their faith from the influence of people who practiced false religion. But the Jews broke that covenant and misapplied the law (as Jesus demonstrated). That's why God established a new covenant. The people couldn't keep the old laws, but with salvation in Christ they no longer have to. The commandments of Christ and the law of God as taught by him were very simple by comparison.

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Anyone who loved God could follow Jesus' commands, and anyone (Jew or Gentile) can be included into the covenant of Christ, which is why the new covenant is superior to the old one.


Galatians 3:26-29
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That being said, I do not see anything wrong with Jews honoring tradition and living by old covenant laws. If they accept Christ as messiah, then there is nothing wrong with doing that, so long as they understand that it is not works of the law that saves us, but faith in Christ. Some Jews interpret scripture to imply that once a covenant is established, it is there for all time. Some Jews believe in Christ, yet they also believe that the old covenant still exists. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm a Gentile, so who the hell am I to tell other people how to interpret their beliefs. This is not an area of difference that is essential to salvation, so people should practice in accordance with their own conscience. If Jewish Christians believe that it is important to keep the old covenant laws, then they should do that.

Romans 14:1-6
1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

 

[dantech]

I can tell from your question that you don't fully understand the purpose for each covenant, nor my position on them. Therefore I'll try to break this down for you (using scripture as my basis). Bear with me, because this will require some reading. Now, I will answer your second question first. Why would God consider people who kept either covenant as "righteous" (even if they contradict each other). The answer is BECAUSE THEY OBEYED HIM. The person who always obeys the commandments of God (regardless of what the commandment is) is considered righteous. Those who disobey are unrighteous. It's that simple. Now, the first question is more complicated. Why would God make one covenant with a certain people, then a different one for others? That question is answered in Hebrews 8:6-13.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. - [cross reference Jeremiah 31:31-34.]

You started from the presumption that I believe that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid. The answer to that is no. I believe that as long as there is a new Covenant established by Jesus Christ, the purpose of the Old Covenant no longer exists. For anyone who accepts Christ as the savior, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. We are all children of God and all made righteous through faith in Christ. The old covenant no longer serves a purpose. Why would God created two separate sets of rules for two different groups of people? The answer is HE WOULDN'T. He established a certain set of rules for the Jews thousands of years ago, for a specific reason. It was established to do more than just teach people "what God likes and dislikes". The Old Covenant was established to separate the Jews (as God's chosen people) from the Gentiles (who were essentially Godless heathens at the time). It was done to protect the Jewish people and their faith from the influence of people who practiced false religion. But the Jews broke that covenant and misapplied the law (as Jesus demonstrated). That's why God established a new covenant. The people couldn't keep the old laws, but with salvation in Christ they no longer have to. The commandments of Christ and the law of God as taught by him were very simple by comparison.

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Anyone who loved God could follow Jesus' commands, and anyone (Jew or Gentile) can be included into the covenant of Christ, which is why the new covenant is superior to the old one.


Galatians 3:26-29
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That being said, I do not see anything wrong with Jews honoring tradition and living by old covenant laws. If they accept Christ as messiah, then there is nothing wrong with doing that, so long as they understand that it is not works of the law that saves us, but faith in Christ. Some Jews interpret scripture to imply that once a covenant is established, it is there for all time. Some Jews believe in Christ, yet they also believe that the old covenant still exists. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm a Gentile, so who the hell am I to tell other people how to interpret their beliefs. This is not an area of difference that is essential to salvation, so people should practice in accordance with their own conscience. If Jewish Christians believe that it is important to keep the old covenant laws, then they should do that.

Romans 14:1-6
1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Oh wow... I don't even know where to start with this. Don't have the energy right now, will do it later.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I can tell from your question that you don't fully understand the purpose for each covenant, nor my position on them. Therefore I'll try to break this down for you (using scripture as my basis). Bear with me, because this will require some reading. Now, I will answer your second question first. Why would God consider people who kept either covenant as "righteous" (even if they contradict each other). The answer is BECAUSE THEY OBEYED HIM. The person who always obeys the commandments of God (regardless of what the commandment is) is considered righteous. Those who disobey are unrighteous. It's that simple. Now, the first question is more complicated. Why would God make one covenant with a certain people, then a different one for others? That question is answered in Hebrews 8:6-13.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. - [cross reference Jeremiah 31:31-34.]

You started from the presumption that I believe that God's covenant with the Jews is still valid. The answer to that is no. I believe that as long as there is a new Covenant established by Jesus Christ, the purpose of the Old Covenant no longer exists. For anyone who accepts Christ as the savior, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. We are all children of God and all made righteous through faith in Christ. The old covenant no longer serves a purpose. Why would God created two separate sets of rules for two different groups of people? The answer is HE WOULDN'T. He established a certain set of rules for the Jews thousands of years ago, for a specific reason. It was established to do more than just teach people "what God likes and dislikes". The Old Covenant was established to separate the Jews (as God's chosen people) from the Gentiles (who were essentially Godless heathens at the time). It was done to protect the Jewish people and their faith from the influence of people who practiced false religion. But the Jews broke that covenant and misapplied the law (as Jesus demonstrated). That's why God established a new covenant. The people couldn't keep the old laws, but with salvation in Christ they no longer have to. The commandments of Christ and the law of God as taught by him were very simple by comparison.

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Anyone who loved God could follow Jesus' commands, and anyone (Jew or Gentile) can be included into the covenant of Christ, which is why the new covenant is superior to the old one.


Galatians 3:26-29
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That being said, I do not see anything wrong with Jews honoring tradition and living by old covenant laws. If they accept Christ as messiah, then there is nothing wrong with doing that, so long as they understand that it is not works of the law that saves us, but faith in Christ. Some Jews interpret scripture to imply that once a covenant is established, it is there for all time. Some Jews believe in Christ, yet they also believe that the old covenant still exists. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm a Gentile, so who the hell am I to tell other people how to interpret their beliefs. This is not an area of difference that is essential to salvation, so people should practice in accordance with their own conscience. If Jewish Christians believe that it is important to keep the old covenant laws, then they should do that.

Romans 14:1-6
1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Because that was not the covenant God made with them?

God made a Covenant with Israel to only worship him, no others, it's put forth in Deuteronomy "I the Lord God Am One" that was his Covenant with them, to only worship God as the Ultimate. While yes in the Bible it does list other gods for instance in Psalm 81, and the usage of Elohim is indeed plural in relation to gods not singular Gods. Between Israel and God there is only One God to who they must pay homage, request, praise, and worship.

People will turn to this old testament verse to help defend the belief that the Old Covenant was pass:

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.

Which ignores completely the entire verse. It's a new Covenant with Israel and Judah, not the world. It ignores that at the time that Israel did not exist (the lost tribes reflecting the decimation of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians), and that Judah was at war/recently conquered by Babylon.

Of course they ignore the rest of the verse:

after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
35 This is what the Lord says,

he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar—
the Lord Almighty is his name:
36 “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”
37 This is what the Lord says:

“Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,”
declares the Lord.


The "They" is not the world, they is Israel made even clear by the grandiose conditions required for Israel to not exist.

Even more explicitly is the "they will no longer need to tell their neighbors know the lord" the covenant with Israel has them recognizing who the Lord is already, it's written in their hearts.

It further goes that God will not remember the wickedness that Israel had done, nor will he remember their sins, it's a fresh start for these conquered kingdoms.

The chapter Jeremiah 31 in completion does not in anyway shape or form endorse that God has rejected the Jewish System, rather that God would create a new system, which came to past when they returned from exile.

Also to say that fault was found in the old covenant, is to say fault was found in God.

 

[dantech]

Because that was not the covenant God made with them?

God made a Covenant with Israel to only worship him, no others, it's put forth in Deuteronomy "I the Lord God Am One" that was his Covenant with them, to only worship God as the Ultimate. While yes in the Bible it does list other gods for instance in Psalm 81, and the usage of Elohim is indeed plural in relation to gods not singular Gods. Between Israel and God there is only One God to who they must pay homage, request, praise, and worship.

People will turn to this old testament verse to help defend the belief that the Old Covenant was pass:

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.

Which ignores completely the entire verse. It's a new Covenant with Israel and Judah, not the world. It ignores that at the time that Israel did not exist (the lost tribes reflecting the decimation of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians), and that Judah was at war/recently conquered by Babylon.

Of course they ignore the rest of the verse:

after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
35 This is what the Lord says,

he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar—
the Lord Almighty is his name:
36 “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”
37 This is what the Lord says:

“Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,”
declares the Lord.


The "They" is not the world, they is Israel made even clear by the grandiose conditions required for Israel to not exist.

Even more explicitly is the "they will no longer need to tell their neighbors know the lord" the covenant with Israel has them recognizing who the Lord is already, it's written in their hearts.

It further goes that God will not remember the wickedness that Israel had done, nor will he remember their sins, it's a fresh start for these conquered kingdoms.

The chapter Jeremiah 31 in completion does not in anyway shape or form endorse that God has rejected the Jewish System, rather that God would create a new system, which came to past when they returned from exile.

Also to say that fault was found in the old covenant, is to say fault was found in God.

I'd frubal this, but I can't.