It wasn't just the temple that was destroyed though, was it? The whole city was sacked by the Romans after an horrendous siege. What do you think remained after such a destruction? My sources tell me that the records were destroyed in 70CE. Do you have proof that they were not? Can a person provide a verified genealogy dating back to King David...and how many of such people exist in Israel?
I don't know what your sources are, but they're definitely wrong. Why would someone forget his tribal or familial affiliation just because a record somewhere was destroyed (if there even existed such a record in the first place). Families kept their own records and not all Jewish families lived in Jerusalem. And even among those that did, important families wouldn't forget where they come from between the time the siege began until after the destruction. The descendants of Jeconiah were still known 500 years after the Temple was destroyed, in the family of the exilarchs. Hillel the Elder and his descendant whom you know, Rabban Gamiliel, were from the tribe of Benjamin. We had Rabbis living in Babylon who were from the family of Eli the Priest (there was an issue with them dying young). Your sources are without question, wrong.
I don't know if anyone has verified genealogy nor how one would go about verifying it. These people are not around to ask whether x is indeed their child.
We believe Jesus did. He certainly fulfilled more Messianic prophesy than any other man ever has.
Even if that were true, that is obviously not enough. G-d didn't provide a list or prophecies and just require that the majority of them be fulfilled. He gave the list of prophecies because they would all be fulfilled.
And obviously Jesus fulfill anything that could clearly be described as a Messianic prophecy, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. You have to resort to lifting passages out of context or granting them dual meanings in order to come up with "prophecies" that he fulfilled.
"Elijah" came in the person of John the Baptist. He certainly verified Jesus as Messiah, yet even though the people believed that John was a prophet, the Jewish leaders of the day despised him because he did not support them or their teachings. He exposed them as hypocrites, just as Jesus did.
Who proved that John was Elijah?
You said...."It was through the code of Law that Adam expressed his obeisance to his Creator. Without a Law, there is nothing to obey (Gen. 2:15). But again, this has nothing to do with anything."
Adam was not under any law. He had only one negative command....'don't eat the fruit of the tree that belongs to God or you will die'.
First of all, being under one commandment is still being under a Law. Second of all, he was actually charged with a number of Laws, some of which can be found in Gen. 2:15. Had he and his descendants not been charged with any other Laws, than Cain was unjustly punished. How can he sin, when there is no Law to transgress?
The Law of Moses was given to Israel because of the sin of Adam. Sinful humans need laws...perfect humans don't. Yet free will still needs to be exercised within reasonable limits set by the Creator. The Patriarchs lived before the Law was given and they still knew what God's standards were. Look at Job....and Abraham.
That is a ridiculous assertion. The famous Passover sacrifice was given to remind us that we were taken out of Egypt by G-d. This is totally unrelated to sin. The Thanksgiving sacrifice Law was given as a method to express appreciation to G-d. How does being forbidden from eating from a fruit tree or grape vine for it's first three years relate to sin? How does sitting in a hut in order to recall G-d miraculously taking us out of Egypt in Clouds of Glory, relate to sin? Giving a Levite the First Tithe? Eating the Second Tithe in Jerusalem? Wearing fringes on cornered garments - and there's meant to be a blue one in there? Taking the four species? Spitting into the shoe of a man who refuses to marry his childless dead brother's wife? Etc., etc., etc., etc. No, sorry. The Law of Moses was definitely not given to us because of the sin of Adam. Psa. 119 is not the language that you would use to describe such a Law.
Not only that, but clearly Adam had to be given a Law as we saw above and that was before he sinned. And the reason is obvious. The Law is not because of sin, it's the parameters that determine in which areas of our lives G-d will test us. Adam, whose life time was meant to take place in the Garden of Eden, was tested through his interactions with the Garden: Would he eat from the tree? Would he work the Garden? Would he guard the Garden? Us, whose lives go through multiple phases and experiences are tested through many different ways. Would we show the resolve to refrain from partaking in foods that G-d prohibits? Would we express gratitude to G-d for the miracles that He performed for us in the past, and for the kindnesses He does for us in the present?
I don't know how you determined that Job lived before the Law was given.
Because humans rebelled before they had children, no human was in existence to show them the opposite of what we have now.
Humanity started off on the wrong foot, thanks to the first rebel who tempted the woman.
This doesn't answer the question. That Adam's sin happened before his children were born, tells us nothing about what would have happened after they were born.
All we have ever known is sin and its consequences. All we have ever had to deal with in this life is suffering and death. Look in the Genesis account and see if death was ever to take place as a natural occurrence? We all die because of what Adam did.
If death was not a natural occurrence what purpose does the Tree of Life serve? This was a tree capable of bestowing life. Clearly that means, there was someone who needed it.
God providing his Messiah was to undo the damage Adam did to us. What is the purpose of Messiah's Kingdom to Jews?
The purpose of the Messiah's reign is to provide a framework for us in which we can pursue attachment to G-d without mundane concerns. The Messiah doesn't undo any damage. He's only a man, he can do nothing on his own.
"IF" is a condition. Your scripture says "IF". Your approach to translation is very loose IMO.
No, I mean the other part of the condition. If X happens, THAN Y will occur. There is no than.
The love of a father necessitates discipline when necessary. Under God's law, children who disrespected or called down evil upon their parents were to be put to death.....if Israel disrespected their Father, by disobeying his commandments, what penalty did they expect? How was the love of a father expressed in that case? (Leviticus 20:9) How is it expressed now?
And I agree to all of that. That's been my argument this entire time. When we don't obey G-d, we cause G-d's destruction to fall on us. But not more than that. The covenant always remains so long as the Jewish people do.
The covenant is eternal but according to scripture, “All the nations” will be blessed through Abraham's seed. God told this to Abraham the Hebrew before the Jewish nation had even come into existence. So, while God later dealt with the Jews exclusively for a time, the real, ultimate blessing is for people of all nations.
This is you interpolating your own explanation of what the blessing is that would occur through Abraham. The passage does not say this, nor is there any reason to assume this.
The Jews were merely the ones who would physically produce the Messiah. We have every reason to believe that God was so frustrated with Israel's incorrigible mindset that he actually changed the definition of what it meant to be "Jewish"
We have no such reason, because there is no source that makes this claim.
in order to fulfill his covenant with those who were "not his people" but became his people. (Hosea 2:23)
That's just a play on words from early in the chapter describing the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
I believe that the new covenant is already in force with 'spiritual' Israel because literal Israel simply counted on being Abraham's children....but they never did emulate his faith and obedience, and God's patience has limits.
This is what I believe. I know you will never agree, but I find your arguments very shallow....sorry.
You believe my arguments are shallow, because you want to believe in the NT. Once you remove the NT from the picture, it becomes pretty clear that my arguments are solid and I think that's why you find in general that people who are neither Christians nor Jews tend to believe that Jews have it right when it comes to the Tanach.
-
