When I read what is written, it is certainly a conditional arrangement. The word "because" is used too, so the condition was, God would keep his covenant with Israel as long as they obeyed his commands.....it is a matter of record that they failed time and again.
You are right, I am mistaken. I was referring to the other passage you had quoted Ex. 19:4-6. The verse you are quoting says that following our observance of G-d's commandments, G-d reciprocates with fulfilling the covenant and kindness that He swore to our forefathers. Some generations were successful in this endeavor and they received the fulfillment of the covenant and kindness. Some generations were not, and they lost it.
Just curious as to why you believe that God chose Israel, and for what reason and outcome? What do you see as the 'big picture'?
We were chosen to be given the Torah of G-d as required observance. The world was created to express G-d's kingship. That is made manifest on the individual and national level by fulfilling G-d's Will as it is expressed in the Torah.
Translation is everything. Men have been translating scripture to suit their own ideas for many centuries. The word "if" in Exodus 19:5 means a condition. To claim that it was merely a request, lets Israel off the hook, doesn't it....but that is not how it is translated in your own scripture.
Jesus commented on how scripture was twisted when he was castigating the Pharisees in his day. Has anything changed?
For men, (of any religious persuasion who claim to worship the God of Abraham) twisting the words of scripture in order to retain a convenient belief has become an art form, but for the author of scripture, there is only one translation. I'm sure we will all know his opinion on the truth of translation soon enough.
And like Jesus' speeches, your response sounds nice as but it doesn't really address the issue it claims to be. Essentially all you're saying is that the translation I provided, does not fit with your theological position. That's not a valid argument. I gave you an example where the word clearly has an alternate meaning according to pretty much all translators. If you want to prove that I am wrong, you need to explain why that alternate translation of the word is not valid for this instance...And the reason can't be something along the lines of "that doesn't fit with what I believe about the Jewish people". A good trick that I learned in grade school to make sure that our answers fit the questions was by starting off the answer with wording from the question.
Aside from that, this translation doesn't let Israel off any hook. It simply means that this particular passage is not a command, but a personal request from G-d that we fulfill His Will so that He can reward us as He wants to. It expresses G-d's desire to do good for us. If we need to look at what happens if we don't fulfill G-d's Will, there are plenty of other passages for that. This just isn't one of them.
It clearly states that the old would be replaced by the new. That isn't reneging, it is indicating that the old covenant served a purpose for the time it was in operation, but the new covenant was to be permanent, serving a purpose that was everlasting....the establishment of God's Kingdom in the hands of his Messiah.
Except that's not what it says. If you actually read what it says, you'll see that what the prophet is describing is the same Torah would no longer be external, but internal. no change to the content of the Torah itself is described, only a change to how it is accessed. Not only is that what it literally says, it's impossible for it to say otherwise because of the significant number of verses that claim that the Torah is eternal.
Yes! "The nature of the contract"......the one you make with the Sovereign of the Universe....pretty important huh? How does one break a law of God which carried serious penalties, and treat it like it was something you could merely pay a fine for? I don't see that in God's covenant with Abraham's descendants. A covenant was a legally binding contract with all that is inherent in such arrangements. Where do you see something different?
Because the penalty for breaking the covenant was already stipulated in the covenant at length. See Deuteronomy chapters 28:15-69, 29:17-27. That is the fine we have paid and are paying for breaking the covenant. There is nowhere in those passages that you will find that G-d annuls the covenant between us. That is not what happens. We are penalized, heavily. And after we've paid the fine, we turn to chapter 30:1-10 and we find that the covenant picks up where it left off: we repent and begin following G-d's commandments again, and everything returns to how it should be.
I guess that is the way you read it in order to retain your own belief system. The Law was a written document and it was given so that men would read those laws and keep them under the guidance of those appointed to teach and act as guides or shepherds for the people.
Something written is not easily forgotten but it can be misinterpreted and twisted. The Christian scriptures tell us that the Pharisees invented ways to misinterpret the law and make it seem as if it was being kept when they were actually violating the principles behind it. Jesus mentioned the ways they did this, but it is in Christian scripture, which you reject. (Matthew 15:3-6; Mark 7:9-13)
Unfortunately, it appears that while you are good at rhetoric, you are not very good at looking in the mirror. Perhaps it's your own translation that is the twisted one, that allows you to hold onto your belief system?
The Christian scriptures is great at leveling claims, but, not so great at proving that it's claims are valid. Which is understandable as it was clearly written with intent to arouse the unlearned masses against the Rabbis of the time, so details like 'proof' and 'sound critique' aren't really as necessary as a fiery, heart-stirring messages. But for the learned among us, it does leave a lot to be desired.
The Pharisees in Jesus' day were strictly legalistic, but forgot the mercy and love
No they didn't.
that was to be incorporated in the administration of the law
No it wasn't. That doesn't even make any sense. Can you imagine a judge who decides to let you go for manslaughter because he loves you so much. A judge doesn't have that kind of authority and neither do the Rabbis.
Isn't that why the Talmud was written?
The Talmud was written to elucidate the Laws of the Mishnah and provide other theological inheritances to the next generation.
Isn't that the code by which devout Jews live, even today?
No, the Talmud isn't a codified text. The Halachah, which is derived from certain parts of the Talmud, is the code by which we live. The Talmud speaks on a broader range of topics that just Law.
How did the Talmud come to be viewed as more important than the word of God?
It didn't. Christians just say it because it helps with their self-esteem. The content of the Talmud is important inasmuch as it elucidates the message G-d is trying to convey to us and also passes to us the traditions of our forefathers. It doesn't really have it's own inherent importance.
It teaches Jews to think legalistically, not in terms of God's justice, mercy and love.
Have you ever wondered why it is that you believe that these things are mutually exclusive? Are Christians prohibited from becoming Supreme Court judges, because their study of law teaches them to think legalistically instead of in terms of G-d's justice, mercy and love? Is it impossible for a judge to also be a philanthropist?
Instead of just repeating what you've heard, why don't you think about whether the claims even make any sense? Is there any reason why one can't think legalistically and also be a bastion of justice mercy and love? Do you know for sure that the Talmud doesn't teach about justice, mercy and love?
And as a follow-up, does it sound logical to you that G-d should devote virtually entire Books to legal codes while at the same time teach that one shouldn't focus their attention on following the legal codes therein? Do you not believe that He could have simply left out the legal code part and spent all that room focusing on teaching justice, mercy and love? Or perhaps reworded the commandments to indicate their lack of importance?
I can only say that your position doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in relation to what we find G-d having said.
Ritual 'performance' then replaces the more important aspects of worship as I see it. I don't think God wants mere performance. There are so many other important things to devote time and attention to.
This does not follow from what you were saying before. But let's be honest, you're not really trying to level a solid argument, you're just regurgitating the same critiques that Christians ignorant of what is actually taught in any major Jewish texts have been leveling at Jews.
You think performance replaced important aspects of worship because your religion doesn't really have any ritual. My religion on the other hand, has for instance, Leviticus which is almost an entire Book dedicated to ritual commandments that G-d commanded us. This indicates that ritual is in fact very important to G-d. In fact, it is so important to G-d that He's willing to penalize us with death and destruction for not abiding by this ritual. That sounds like He gives it a lot more importance than you do.
But a point that Christians have difficulty with - and I lay the blame at the hands of the authors of the NT - is that while ritual is important,
not only ritual is important. It is also important to correctly relate to the ritual in it's capacity of bringing one closer to G-d through it's meaning and spirit. In other words - and you may want to sit down for this one - BOTH ritual performance AND spirit of the ritual are VITAL. Fulfilling the spirit without the ritual is like a lost, wandering soul. Fulfilling the ritual without the meaning, is like a dead body. Christians typically refuse to believe that Jews believe in the existence of a "spirit of the Law" because we don't believe that this spirit of the Law is what Christians claim it to be. But unlike Christians who fabricate a spirit of the law by generalizing from a handful of basic concepts, the Jewish spirit of the Law uses a finer brush: each Law is meant to integrate within us a new concept or angle to a concept. We literally have hundreds if not thousands of books teaching us these things. And they're all based on the Talmud and associated works.
Upholding God's laws is important, but 'living' the the principles of 'love of God and neighbor' were the foundations of the Law....now inscribed on hearts.
Only the first 5 words here are true. The following statement is a [perhaps intentional] mangling of a principle first enunciated by Hillel. And the last 4 words are obviously false as can be seen from walking outside.
The people who don't vote, know that there is no one worth voting for.