Mosaic law still present?

[2ndpillar]

This is the wrong verse from Isaiah. The quoted verse is referring to Isaiah himself. You want Isa. 60:3. Unless you think that "in those days" 10 people are going to grab Isaiah's garment?

Again, you thinking yourself wise (Jeremiah 8:9), you fail to realize, the quote is about "My Servant, Israel" not my servant, Isaiah. (Isaiah 49:3). Isaiah is dead and buried, and apart from his words, will not be part of the restoration of the "preserved ones of Israel" (Isaiah 49:6) & (Ezekiel 37:11-12). Try reading the context, and put your Talmud, the work of the scribes, aside.

Jeremiah 8:…8 How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?’ But in fact, the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception. 9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom do they really have?

 

[2ndpillar]

Although Solomon was writing this for Jews, I'm happy to share this wise bit of advice with you.

There was only the kingdom of Israel during the reign of Solomon. There was no split at that time, therefore there was no house of Judah, the Jews, for Solomon to address, only the sons of Israel. Most of them, the "house of Israel" are now "scattered among the nations" (Ezekiel 36:19).

 

[2ndpillar]

...are you planning to bring me to court, that this should be relevant?

You are in the court of public opinion. What you say in general is judged by God, but on a forum, what you say is judged by the forum members. If you make unsubstantiated claims, they will be assessed as such. Make enough of them, and you will be linked to fake news.

 

[Tumah]

Isaiah is the prophet of God, speaking the Word of God. The Word of God was with respect to "My Servant Israel" not my servant Isaiah (Isaiah 49:3).

No, "My Servant Israel" can't "raise up the tribes of Jacob" because they are one and the same. Isa. 49:5-6 is talking about how G-d formed Isaiah from his mother's womb to be a prophet whom He would send to "raise up the tribes of Jacob" etc. Isaiah is the servant here.

[quote]New American Standard Bible Isaiah 49:3
He said to Me, "You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory."[/QUOTE]
This is the problem with Christian Bibles. You've dropped the traditional chapter breaks, so you have no idea what context belongs where. There's a traditional break between verses 4 and 5 and another one after verse 6. You can see this in the DSS as well here. Israel is the servant of G-d. But in verses 5 and 6, Isaiah goes on a tangent where he is the servant.

Again, you thinking yourself wise (Jeremiah 8:9), you fail to realize, the quote is about "My Servant, Israel" not my servant, Isaiah. (Isaiah 49:3). Isaiah is dead and buried, and apart from his words, will not be part of the restoration of the "preserved ones of Israel" (Isaiah 49:6) & (Ezekiel 37:11-12).

Isaiah is dead and buried, but it's his prophecies of Messianic redemption perhaps more so than any other, that has been our light through our exile. He has greatly fulfilled this prophecy.

Try reading the context, and put your Talmud, the work of the scribes, aside.

Just like I would expect a Christian not to quote to me from the NT when debating me, I do not ever quote from the Talmud or even open it up, unless I state so explicitly.

Jeremiah 8:…8 How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?’ But in fact, the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception. 9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom do they really have?

And as before, Jeremiah is talking about scribes who claimed that the Assyrian invasion could be forestalled through sacrifices. No one is making that claim here and these verses have no context in this discussion.

There was only the kingdom of Israel during the reign of Solomon. There was no split at that time, therefore there was no house of Judah, the Jews, for Solomon to address, only the sons of Israel. Most of them, the "house of Israel" are now "scattered among the nations" (Ezekiel 36:19).

So your claiming that the Jews are not the sons of Israel. It's good to know where you stand.

You are in the court of public opinion. What you say in general is judged by God, but on a forum, what you say is judged by the forum members. If you make unsubstantiated claims, they will be assessed as such. Make enough of them, and you will be linked to fake news.

Whether that is true or not, since this is not a court of Law, it's kind of silly to invoke a Law for courts.

 

[2ndpillar]

Just like I would expect a Christian not to quote to me from the NT when debating me, I do not ever quote from the Talmud or even open it up, unless I state so explicitly.

Your foundational reference to the Noachide law was totally from the Talmud. I brought that fact up, not you. The Jewish mind set and traditions are based on the Talmud view.

 

[2ndpillar]

So your claiming that the Jews are not the sons of Israel. It's good to know where you stand.

The sons of Israel stands for all the tribes of Israel, whom Solomon ruled. There was no separate "house of Judah", the Jews, at the time of the writing of Ecclesiastes. You are basing your argument on a state that didn't exist at the time. The Jews include Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. At the time of the writing of Ecclesiastes, there was no separation between Judah, the house of Judah, and Ephraim, the house of Israel. Ephraim, the "house of Israel" (Ezekiel 36:17) is "scattered among the nations" (Ezekiel 37:19). Solomon was speaking to both houses, before they were two separate houses. But the case remains, Solomon addressed "every person" which would include the nations, especially as Abraham was father of the nations, which included his slaves, and members of his household whom he circumcised.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, "My Servant Israel" can't "raise up the tribes of Jacob" because they are one and the same. Isa. 49:5-6 is talking about how G-d formed Isaiah from his mother's womb to be a prophet whom He would send to "raise up the tribes of Jacob" etc. Isaiah is the servant here.

My Servant, Israel, is not the same as "My servant, Israel/Jacob". The "house of Israel" is being gathered out of the nations because of "My holy name, which the house of Israel has profaned" (Ezekiel 36:17 & 22). That is because My holy name is "Israel". "Israel" is my firstborn son . (Exodus 4:22) Isaac's first born son was Esau. Jacob, is not the same as "Israel is my firstborn son". The same confusion would ensue if someone else was named "Tumah" on this forum. God does not intent to glorify Isaiah, such as "in whom I will show My glory" (Isaiah 49:3), or even to glorify Jacob/Israel, who is waiting for the Jacob's final just judgment (Jeremiah 30:11). That just judgment would include the nearing "capture" of "Jerusalem" per Zechariah 14:1-3, and the ensuing valley of judgment (Joel 3:2 & 12), whereas the nations are judged when they come against the restored (Joel 3:1) Jerusalem.

New International Version Exodus 4:22
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,


New American Standard Bible Isaiah 49:3
He said to Me, "You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory."

 

[Desert Snake]

Your foundational reference to the Noachide law was totally from the Talmud. I brought that fact up, not you. The Jewish mind set and traditions are based on the Talmud view.

The Bible doesn't agree with you either. Read acts of the Apostles, and Galatians. You've already admitted that the Apostle Paul, was a learned Pharisee, writing in the time of Yeshua. Now, are you saying that a learned Pharisee, knows less about the religion, than you? I'm not buying it.

And, note that the books were written before canonization, because that will explain some seeming contradictions.

 

[2ndpillar]

The Bible doesn't agree with you either. Read acts of the Apostles, and Galatians. You've already admitted that the Apostle Paul, was a learned Pharisee, writing in the time of Yeshua. Now, are you saying that a learned Pharisee, knows less about the religion, than you? I'm not buying it.

And, note that the books were written before canonization, because that will explain some seeming contradictions.

Paul claims to be a Pharisee of Pharisees, and I have no reason to doubt it, since Yeshua pointed out the hypocrisy of Pharisees, and Paul fits the bill (Romans 7:25). The traditions of men claim Paul was a "learned Pharisee". Yeshua's position about the "learned", the "wise" and "intelligent", was that he praised his Father for hiding these things from them. And apparently, Paul wrote well after his adventure in killing the followers of Yeshua, not during the "time of Yeshua", whom Paul never heard nor saw. Who is the "learned" Pharisee you are clamoring about? It is not the "learned" who enter the kingdom, but those "like children" (Matthew 18:3).

A lot of books were written before the canonization by a leading daughter of Babylon in 367 A.D. in the festal letter, of the festival of Ishtar/Easter, the queen of heaven, of the pagan religion, by the Roman bishop of Alexandria, a major player with regards to the Trinity abomination. What does that have to do with the price of chili?

 

[metis]

Jesus rather clearly was operating out of a Pharisee paradigm, although there's no way to tell today whether he regarded himself as being one. It would be highly unlikely that the Twelve would have even given Paul the time of day if they had not also been of that same or similar orientation.

It is more likely, imo, that Jesus' strong statements against "the Pharisees" was more against the mainline group(s) versus the more liberal Pharisee approach that have been also called "Love Pharisees". IOW, it's likely that it was a "family argument" of sorts, and I think each of know how nasty they can sometimes be.

 

[2ndpillar]

Jesus rather clearly was operating out of a Pharisee paradigm, although there's no way to tell today whether he regarded himself as being one. It would be highly unlikely that the Twelve would have even given Paul the time of day if they had not also been of that same or similar orientation.

It is more likely, imo, that Jesus' strong statements against "the Pharisees" was more against the mainline group(s) versus the more liberal Pharisee approach that have been also called "Love Pharisees". IOW, it's likely that it was a "family argument" of sorts, and I think each of know how nasty they can sometimes be.

No one gave Paul the time of day except the unknown author of 2 Peter, and Paul's supposed associates, such as Luke, who supposedly wrote Acts, and observed nothing, but simply scribed the stories of unnamed others, such as Paul (Luke 1:1-3). All the disciples/servants/slaves of Yeshua were obligated to leave the tares alone (Matthew 13:27-29), that would include to leave alone the head tare, the false prophet Paul. Paul, as the "false prophet" had his place in Scripture (Zechariah 11:7-10) & (Revelation 16:13-16) & (Matthew 7:15-23). Paul's "demon" spirit is now busy gathering the kings/leaders of the world (Revelation 16:13) to come against Jerusalem at YHWH's valley of judgment (Joel 3:2 & 12), (Revelation 16:16), and (Zechariah 14:-3). If you can't detect the spike in lying and frustration of the present world, take a minute to watch the news, preferably Breitbart.org. No use watching the discredited CNN. This is a lead up to the "awesome day of the LORD", whereas there will be "survivors on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem" (Joel 2:31-32). The demons and their surrogates are in full battle mode, knowing their time is short, and somehow thinking they can pull off a coup.

The "liberal" Pharisees, the Progressives of today, who think no "good fruit" is necessary, will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matthew 3:1). They were known as "vipers" around 2000 years ago (Matthew 3:7-10). Today, they would be referred to as the "deceived" (Revelation 13:14).

 

[2ndpillar]

And as before, Jeremiah is talking about scribes who claimed that the Assyrian invasion could be forestalled through sacrifices. No one is making that claim here and these verses have no context in this discussion.

Jeremiah 8 is about "at that time" "they will bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves",... "and they will be dung on the face of the ground", "they hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return". What it not about is an Assyrian invasion of the "house of Israel". What it is about, is how "Judah" was so deceived, and that by the "lying pen of the scribes". You are like the "Christians", you read to fit your scribe written Talmud, whereas the "Christians", read to fit their false prophet Paul. Both have a twisted view of what was written.

 

[Tumah]

My Servant, Israel, is not the same as "My servant, Israel/Jacob". The "house of Israel" is being gathered out of the nations because of "My holy name, which the house of Israel has profaned" (Ezekiel 36:17 & 22). That is because My holy name is "Israel". "Israel" is my firstborn son . (Exodus 4:22) Isaac's first born son was Esau. Jacob, is not the same as "Israel is my firstborn son". The same confusion would ensue if someone else was named "Tumah" on this forum. God does not intent to glorify Isaiah, such as "in whom I will show My glory" (Isaiah 49:3), or even to glorify Jacob/Israel, who is waiting for the Jacob's final just judgment (Jeremiah 30:11). That just judgment would include the nearing "capture" of "Jerusalem" per Zechariah 14:1-3, and the ensuing valley of judgment (Joel 3:2 & 12), whereas the nations are judged when they come against the restored (Joel 3:1) Jerusalem.

New International Version Exodus 4:22
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,


New American Standard Bible Isaiah 49:3
He said to Me, "You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory."

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and if you want to talk about twisting things to come up with an explanation, check out that contortionist act right up there. The subject of the first handful of verses is clearly Isaiah and the message he was given to deliver to the nation.

Jeremiah 8 is about "at that time" "they will bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves",... "and they will be dung on the face of the ground", "they hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return". What it not about is an Assyrian invasion of the "house of Israel". What it is about, is how "Judah" was so deceived, and that by the "lying pen of the scribes". You are like the "Christians", you read to fit your scribe written Talmud, whereas the "Christians", read to fit their false prophet Paul. Both have a twisted view of what was written.

Your're right, that's my mistake. It's the Babylonian invasion. Because you keep confusing prophecies about impending events with prophecies about Messianic events, I lost track of which prophecy you were mistaking. Jer. 8 is talking about the impending Babylonian invasion. The context of Jer. 8 is the Babylonian on the way to the Kingdom of Judah. In Judah, there are people claiming that they only need to bring more sacrifices and G-d will save them. Jeremiah is retorting that G-d doesn't want sacrifices, He wants the people to follow the Law so that they don't need to bring sacrifices. In Jer. 8, he calls them liars, just as he already did in Jer. 7.

And you can keep accusing me of using the Talmud as the basis for my interpretation, even though I have not turned to it once and would not without specifying that that is my source. Each time you do, you demonstrate another problem with your religion.

 

[2ndpillar]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and if you want to talk about twisting things to come up with an explanation, check out that contortionist act right up there. The subject of the first handful of verses is clearly Isaiah and the message he was given to deliver to the nation.

Apparently your Talmud studies have structured your mind against the plain language of the prophets. Isaiah 49:3 is not about Isaiah, who is simply a conduit for the Word of God, and "Me" is about "My Servant Israel", not "Isaiah". The "Me" in Isaiah 49:5, is the same "Me" as in Isaiah 49:3, not Isaiah. It is "My Servant Israel", who will "raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the preserved ones of Israel", not Isaiah. It is the "LORD" (Isaiah 49:7) who is the Redeemer of Israel (Jacob), and the preserved ones of Israel", who is speaking to the "despised one" who will "restore the land". That is with respect to the "end" "time" when the likes of Daniel who entered into their rest until he will "rise again" to his "allotted portion" (Daniel 12:9-13). The only thing at this time that has been "restored" is "Judah" and "Jerusalem" (Joel 3:1). The "house of Israel" remains scattered among the nations" (Ezekiel 36:17 & 19), and has not been restored, and will not be restored until the "whole house of Israel" is "raised" from their graves (Ezekiel 37:11-13) and given "My Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land". You can either believe your own prophets, or lean on the traditions of men, the scribes of Jeremiah 8:8, and your own indoctrinations. You are much like the "Christians", which lean on the lying pen of their own scribe, the Pharisee Paul, and therefore have eyes, but cannot see (Isaiah 6:10). As for your Babylon, it is just but one of many of the nations giving judgment to Judah and Ephraim (Hosea 5). With respect to the end times, the restoration of the whole house of Israel, the nations will be gathered to YHWH's valley of judgement (Joel 3:2 & 12) for what they did to "My inheritance, Israel", after which "Judah will be inhabited forever, and Jerusalem for all generations" (Joel 3:21).

Isaiah 49:3 "And He said to Me, "You are My Servant Israel"

 

[sooda]

Ecclesiastes address is "to every person". His statement isn't to "every person of Israel". The covenant/Commandments applies to "foreigners"/Gentiles, as well (Isaiah 56:6).

Ecclesiastes was originally written c. 450–200 BCE. Traditionally it was claimed that King Solomon wrote it, but that is impossible.

 

[rosends]

I haven't been following this branch of the thread and haven't studied the text in depth but, from a simple read, if the "me" in 49:3 is the same as 49:5 (identical with "my servant Israel") then why would 49:5 have 2 separate subjects, "Jacob" and "I"? 49:5 says, basically, God who formed me is bringing Jacob back. 49:6 does the same thing -- God addresses the "me" and says, it isn't enough that I have done X for you, I also am going to do something for the tribes of Jacob. This makes the "me" distinct from the people of Israel, not the same. 48 seems to set up a separation as well.

Also, your translation of 49:3 doesn't follow the Hebrew -- there must be a stop between "servant" and "Israel." It reads "my servant, you are; Israel..."

 

[2ndpillar]

I haven't been following this branch of the thread and haven't studied the text in depth but, from a simple read, if the "me" in 49:3 is the same as 49:5 (identical with "my servant Israel") then why would 49:5 have 2 separate subjects, "Jacob" and "I"? 49:5 says, basically, God who formed me is bringing Jacob back. 49:6 does the same thing -- God addresses the "me" and says, it isn't enough that I have done X for you, I also am going to do something for the tribes of Jacob. This makes the "me" distinct from the people of Israel, not the same. 48 seems to set up a separation as well.

Also, your translation of 49:3 doesn't follow the Hebrew -- there must be a stop between "servant" and "Israel." It reads "my servant, you are; Israel..."

The "My Servant, Israel, is not referring to either Jacob, Joseph, or the present Ephraim, who is "scattered among the nations?. "My Servant, Israel, would be referring to "the despised one", "to the Servant of rulers" (Isaiah 49:7-8), the one who will be "a light of the nations" (Isaiah 49:6), the one who will "restore the land" (Isaiah 49:8), the one who will "lead them" (Isaiah 49:10), the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10), at the time when the "Lord will extend his hand a second time to recover his people" (Isaiah 11:11). God's first born son was not Jacob, who was actually a second born son of Rebecca and Isaac, but Israel (Exodus 4:22) It is "Israel", the "despised one", who will "raise up the tribes of Jacob" (Isaiah 49:6).

New American Standard Bible Exodus 4:22
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.

Isaiah 11:…9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the sea is full of water. 10 On that day the root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples. The nations will seek Him, and His place of rest will be glorious. 11On that day the Lord will extend His hand a second time to recover the remnant of His people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.…

 

[2ndpillar]

Your're right, that's my mistake. It's the Babylonian invasion. Because you keep confusing prophecies about impending events with prophecies about Messianic events, I lost track of which prophecy you were mistaking. Jer. 8 is talking about the impending Babylonian invasion. The context of Jer. 8 is the Babylonian on the way to the Kingdom of Judah. In Judah, there are people claiming that they only need to bring more sacrifices and G-d will save them. Jeremiah is retorting that G-d doesn't want sacrifices, He wants the people to follow the Law so that they don't need to bring sacrifices. In Jer. 8, he calls them liars, just as he already did in Jer. 7.

Jeremiah 7:6 was about the oppression of the orphan, alien, widow, shedding of innocent blood, and walking after other gods, and to "burn their sons and their daughter in the fire" (Jeremiah 7:31). Sounds like New York bankers and supporters of burning the aborted babies in the basement furnace. If memory serves me right, judgment starts with the "elders before the temple" (Ezekiel 9:6). What has been will be again, there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9) God's beef was with the sacrifice to pagan gods/Baal. (Jeremiah 7:9).

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[1213]

Does the Mosaic law have a relevance in today's society (anywhere or everywhere)? Did Jesus do away with it?

It depends on what it means. Jesus said:


"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

And the law that should be fulfilled, is fulfilled by this:


Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Does the Mosaic law have a relevance in today's society (anywhere or everywhere)? Did Jesus do away with it?

Here's one of those bible webpage articles: (it's long and you find more at the web page, I died blue the short part at the beginning that caused me to post this.) I find this idea proposed a bit absurd. Jesus didn't change the fundamental nature of man.

I rather not be under a set of barbaric code of laws.