Torah in Christianity

[rosends]

1. For Christians, the Messiah did fulfill the prophecies. The Jews state the prophecies to mean what they think they should mean, not necessarily what God meant.

And since the prophecies were given to the Jews, one might think that Jews understand them. I mean, do you ask Russians about the meaning of the US constitution?

3. Do the Jews keep the law of Moses regarding stoning? See Deuteronomy 22:21-24 and Numbers 15:30-36 and Leviticus 20:13-27 and Leviticus 24:23 If not - why not?

Yes, absolutely we do. We just know more of the laws than most others so we know when we are not allowed to stone. Did you know that by the year 30 CE, Jewish authorities were no longer able to deal with capital cases and impose death penalties?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fulfilled to the letter' - for instance, there are laws for women and priests etc. that Jesus couldn't fulfil. I'm not here to debate you on the messiah point today [], but I am thinking of passages such as this,

He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Jesus both takes away and adds to the Torah here, thus changing it - an act which is forbidden. How is this justified by Christians?

Hi Rival. Good afternoon. I hope you are well. You ask a pertinent question and one I'm afraid many will not be able to answer. The question is, Did Yahshua come away to do away with the Law, and if so, why, when the Hebrew Scriptures clearly tell us that the Law is good.

Firstly, Yahshua did not come to do away with the commandments. That's a Satanic lie that has crept in Chr-stianity who is saying by sinning, dying, we will not die, just like he said to Eve. No, sinners - those who violate the Biblical Law - will die. They won't receive eternal life. Matthew 19:16 "16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments."

Yahshua was teaching the commandments, he was a Rabbi.

However, you fail to realise Isaiah 42:21 which says: "It pleased Yahweh, for his righteousness’ sake, to magnify the law, and make it honorable."In the above quote you used, about that of adultery and divorce, it's clear that Yahshua wasn't undermining Moses but magnifying the Law. You look and read what Yahshua said, about not only not murdering another, but holding hatred against someone, usually the root cause of murder, you realise he was magnifying the Law.

Why should the Law need to be magnified if it is already perfect? And yet, there in Isaiah you can read it for yourself, it pleased Yahweh to do this. Yes, the Law is perfect. I can read the Law in the Hebrew Scriptures You Shall Not Steal and I know that it is also telling me that I should, if possible, work for my livlihood. In a sense, we are being commanded to work. This would be magnifying the Law. Yahshua didn't come up with some strange new idea, he was simply magnifying the Laws that we already have.

Matthew 5:17 says "17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." He came to fulfil, which means, to do. He came to do the law, not destroy it. He said this early on in his ministry. That's why I maintain that those groups which believe in keeping more of Yahweh's Laws (the Biblical Laws) are closer to Yahweh than those that do not.

Why did Yahshua come? He came to magnify the law and make it honorable. He came to save His people from their sins by being the sacrificial Lamb that comes to take away the sins of the world and he came to give the Holy Spirit to His people to help them to keep Yahweh's Laws (Acts 5:32). Don't you realise that Abraham's son was also to be offered to Yahweh on Mount Moriah? Only through Yahshua can we have access to Yahweh and be granted entrance in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good fruit grows on good trees. What makes a tree 'good' is the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and I think we can only tell by the spiritual fruit whether someone is spiritually minded. Also I think a person who has the fruits of the spirit must have the spirit, and it is the only indication that they do.

Jesus is not 'anointed' as the heir to the throne until his baptism by John. He doesn't declare himself as God's 'anointed' until he preaches at the synagogue in Nazareth [Luke 4:16].

The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and there was a miracle of conception. Is there any reason why the Word should not be made flesh and live under the law before living by the Spirit? This would allow Jesus to be a mediator between two covenants.

Faith in Jesus Christ is not at the expense of works. It's all a matter of getting the order right! Ultimately, it's the faith of Christ in us that does the good works, otherwise we would have reason to boast.

This is my understanding.

Its just a different semantic construction, and it conveys that Jesus is the heir. It has to do with the 'Son' aspect of the Trinity but isn't a proof of the Trinity. In a way it shows that the idea of the trinity could be already present in John. Since the light is in the word, it has this idea also that extends to the rest of us becoming sons of God like Jesus is. We become the heirs of the Logos. In this way the word becomes flesh and is tabernacled among us. This special usage of light seems to be only used in the gospel of John, so in a different gospel where Jesus says "You are the light of the world" there could be a different meaning there.

I have not got, for myself, a close final understanding of the anointing practices. These are very interesting though. I suspect there are some secrets surrounding them. There's a psalm (133) of ascents 3 verses long about the anointing of Aaron. I suppose that as the priests ascended the dais that the singers must have repeated the words, because it so short of a psalm. They sang that dwelling in unity was like the oil as it dripped down over Aaron's beard. In another psalm Aaron and Moses are figures who represent the meeting of truth and mercy. Harsh truth meets gentle mercy. Justice meets forgiveness. The oil has something to do with this. It is probably related to our communion, too; since communion is about people coming together and overlooking differences.

About Mary and the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit which separates Israel from the nations, I think she is giving birth to a child which shall take many people out of one world to place them into a different world. They will be made holy by his breath, that holy spirit which is going into the child through Mary. So in that sense I think that we have a bit of mixed figures a little difficult for me to easily harmonize with John's peculiar language, but the idea is the same. In some of the gospels Jesus is born with a strange knack for scripture and wisdom, however he is not made complete until he learns obedience and dies.

On your comment about faith before works: Love draws us and mercy draws us towards God, and then both faith and faithfulness follow. Love also is the only thing which opens a space for truth, because it drives fears away.

 

[Mister Emu]

The Torah is subject to circumstance and makes provisions for those circumstances. It mentions that if Israel does not obey, they will be sent into exile; this naturally lends itself to the idea that there will be Torah in exile. One has a perfect Torah in imperfect conditions. The Torah is perfect, this does not mean circumstances will be.

You're making my argument for me now. God provides according to the circumstances and the alteration of circumstances leading to new provisioning doesn't reflect negatively on the perfection of anything.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, and I think we can only tell by the spiritual fruit whether someone is spiritually minded. Also I think a person who has the fruits of the spirit must have the spirit, and it is the only indication that they do.


Its just a different semantic construction, and it conveys that Jesus is the heir. It has to do with the 'Son' aspect of the Trinity but isn't a proof of the Trinity. In a way it shows that the idea of the trinity could be already present in John. Since the light is in the word, it has this idea also that extends to the rest of us becoming sons of God like Jesus is. We become the heirs of the Logos. In this way the word becomes flesh and is tabernacled among us. This special usage of light seems to be only used in the gospel of John, so in a different gospel where Jesus says "You are the light of the world" there could be a different meaning there.

I have not got, for myself, a close final understanding of the anointing practices. These are very interesting though. I suspect there are some secrets surrounding them. There's a psalm (133) of ascents 3 verses long about the anointing of Aaron. I suppose that as the priests ascended the dais that the singers must have repeated the words, because it so short of a psalm. They sang that dwelling in unity was like the oil as it dripped down over Aaron's beard. In another psalm Aaron and Moses are figures who represent the meeting of truth and mercy. Harsh truth meets gentle mercy. Justice meets forgiveness. The oil has something to do with this. It is probably related to our communion, too; since communion is about people coming together and overlooking differences.

About Mary and the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit which separates Israel from the nations, I think she is giving birth to a child which shall take many people out of one world to place them into a different world. They will be made holy by his breath, that holy spirit which is going into the child through Mary. So in that sense I think that we have a bit of mixed figures a little difficult for me to easily harmonize with John's peculiar language, but the idea is the same. In some of the gospels Jesus is born with a strange knack for scripture and wisdom, however he is not made complete until he learns obedience and dies.

On your comment about faith before works: Love draws us and mercy draws us towards God, and then both faith and faithfulness follow. Love also is the only thing which opens a space for truth, because it drives fears away.

It strikes me that, despite the overshadowing of Mary to bring about a miraculous conception, her baby, Jesus, was born 'under the law'.

It says in Galatians 4:4, 'But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons'.

What do you think this means?

 

[Brickjectivity]

It strikes me that, despite the overshadowing of Mary to bring about a miraculous conception, her baby, Jesus, was born 'under the law'.

It says in Galatians 4:4, ' But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons'.

What do you think this means?

I appreciate the question.

First of all, of all of the books in the bible I do not like Galatians. I don't trust it, because it makes a very stupid argument and contradicts Romans, too. Its not all bad though. Its just that I would have liked the NT to present a consistent front at least on ideas about atonement and Judaism and where we gentiles come into the mix. Galatians is very serious though and is not in some dreamworld like some of the gnostic gospels, so it feels like Paul's other letters. It just doesn't ring true to me, and it isn't canon to me. In fact you could tear it out and nothing would be missed. It is a lot of whiny critical ranting full of bad arguments that are not needed...mixed with interesting comments.

Here is a direct contradiction between Galatians and Romans:

• [Gal 5:6 NIV] 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
• [Rom 3:1-2 NIV] 1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Here is the worst argument in the bible and possibly in all of ancient History:

• [Gal 3:15-22 NIV] 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

The imposter pretending to be Paul argues that the law of Moses never was anything of note. It just didn't matter, and we should ignore it. Because there was already a covenant with Abraham the law doesn't matter. Centuries of Jews keeping the law were just a prank. There was never any need for them to go through all of that, because God had made a promise that would be kept no matter what. This argument saws off not only Jews but Christians as well. There is no need for us, either; because God made a promise to Abraham. In fact there is no need for anybody to do anything at all whatsoever, because God made a promise to Abraham. More than that we have the covenant of Noah which comes before Abraham, so we also don't need Abraham. The imposter's logic is terrible. Mine probably is, too; but Galatians does not seem to fit in with the rest of the bible. Why is it canon?

Now there are some ideas here worth grabbing at, but he's not convincing anyone of anything. The only reason to pay any attention is that its in our canon but rather than helpful it is contradictory, confusing and defamatory.

It says in Galatians 4:4, ' But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons'.

What do you think this means?

To me he's forgetting that gentiles are under Noahide laws. Once the Jews are free of Moses terrible and oppressive laws, who will free us from the terrible and oppressive laws of Noah? Who will undo the regimes of Abraham? Or did Jesus death redeem us from those as well?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I appreciate the question.

First of all, of all of the books in the bible I do not like Galatians. I don't trust it, because it makes a very stupid argument and contradicts Romans, too. Its not all bad though. Its just that I would have liked the NT to present a consistent front at least on ideas about atonement and Judaism and where we gentiles come into the mix. Galatians is very serious though and is not in some dreamworld like some of the gnostic gospels, so it feels like Paul's other letters. It just doesn't ring true to me, and it isn't canon to me. In fact you could tear it out and nothing would be missed. It is a lot of whiny critical ranting full of bad arguments that are not needed...mixed with interesting comments.

Here is a direct contradiction between Galatians and Romans:

• [Gal 5:6 NIV] 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
• [Rom 3:1-2 NIV] 1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Here is the worst argument in the bible and possibly in all of ancient History:

• [Gal 3:15-22 NIV] 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

The imposter pretending to be Paul argues that the law of Moses never was anything of note. It just didn't matter, and we should ignore it. Because there was already a covenant with Abraham the law doesn't matter. Centuries of Jews keeping the law were just a prank. There was never any need for them to go through all of that, because God had made a promise that would be kept no matter what. This argument saws off not only Jews but Christians as well. There is no need for us, either; because God made a promise to Abraham. In fact there is no need for anybody to do anything at all whatsoever, because God made a promise to Abraham. More than that we have the covenant of Noah which comes before Abraham, so we also don't need Abraham. The imposter's logic is terrible. Mine probably is, too; but Galatians does not seem to fit in with the rest of the bible. Why is it canon?

Now there are some ideas here worth grabbing at, but he's not convincing anyone of anything. The only reason to pay any attention is that its in our canon but rather than helpful it is contradictory, confusing and defamatory.


To me he's forgetting that gentiles are under Noahide laws. Once the Jews are free of Moses terrible and oppressive laws, who will free us from the terrible and oppressive laws of Noah? Who will undo the regimes of Abraham? Or did Jesus death redeem us from those as well?

Steady on!

Let's take a closer look at the two passages that you believe are contradictory (despite the fact that Paul is responsible for both).

Galatians 5:6 is talking specifically about the practice of circumcision. Being circumcised, and being uncircumcised, mean nothing 'in Christ' Why? Because Jew and Gentile are one body in the Spirit of Christ.

Rom.3:1,2. is about being the chosen people of God, 'the circumcision'. Paul is making the case that being a Jew is really about inward faith, not the outward marks made in the flesh. This is totally consistent with the passage in Galatians because both make clear that the only way to please God is with a contrite and humble heart (circumcision of the heart). Both Jew and Gentile can approach God 'through faith which worketh by love'.

What Paul says about the Law is also perfectly legitimate. Only leading individuals such as Moses and Joshua lived by faith [see Hebrews 11]. The majority of the children of lsrael followed the Law, to a lesser or greater extent, as delivered by the prophets, judges and kings. This law was good, but the people continually sinned.

Here are the words of Isaiah 64:6.
'But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as the leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away'.

The law requires that a man DO all that the law demands. This law is necessary and good because it provides justice. We are taught to distinguish between what is right, and what is wrong. Where would we be without justice?

God has not done away with justice. He has simply offered everyone an opportunity to receive mercy in advance of his own judgment.

If you think you can stand before the judgment seat of God with any assurance of salvation (without Christ) then you're a better person than me!

Are your sins not as 'scarlet'? Will they be 'as white as snow'?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is the Father who is doing the adopting.
What makes you think you are part of the family? Do you have God's Spirit also?

God is not part of teh people of Israel. It is the people of Israel who do the adopting, or , as in your case, choose NOT to adopt.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. Jesus fulfilled all the 'suffering servant' prophecies and promises to return to fulfil the rest. Which of the 'suffering servant' prophecies has he not fulfilled?
2. You're quite right. God is not a man. The question is whether the Messiah, the mediator between God and man, is fully God and fully man. There is only one mediator, and he's unique.
3. The heart of the Torah is holiness. This has not been achieved by any man accept Jesus Christ. Or, are you of the opinion that not all men are sinners?

There are no suffering servant prophecies about the messiah. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.

I stand by what I said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

3. Do the Jews keep the law of Moses regarding stoning? See Deuteronomy 22:21-24 and Numbers 15:30-36 and Leviticus 20:13-27 and Leviticus 24:23 If not - why not?

Remember that there is no Torah without Oral Torah. How Torah has been interpreted is critical. In the case of teh penalties listed in the torah, they are teh maximum penalty. Judged could and did meet out lesser penalties. Capital punishment was rare -- a court that handed out even a single execution in 70 years was called a bloody court.

Jews today do not live in theocracies -- we observe the criminal law of whatever country we live in.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Steady on!

Let's take a closer look at the two passages that you believe are contradictory (despite the fact that Paul is responsible for both).

Galatians 5:6 is talking specifically about the practice of circumcision. Being circumcised, and being uncircumcised, mean nothing 'in Christ' Why? Because Jew and Gentile are one body in the Spirit of Christ.

It doesn't seem so to me, since his argument is not only about Christians, saying Moses laws are all cruft added because of sins until Jesus comes. This opposes what other Paul is saying. One Paul says the law and circumcision have value and commission someone to preserve the oracles of God. The other Paul says the law and circumcision has no value at all, not to anyone, neither to Jews nor Christians. So is there a point to being a circumcised keeper of the law or not? One says there is. One says there isn't.

Rom.3:1,2. is about being the chosen people of God, 'the circumcision'. Paul is making the case that being a Jew is really about inward faith, not the outward marks made in the flesh. This is totally consistent with the passage in Galatians because both make clear that the only way to please God is with a contrite and humble heart (circumcision of the heart). Both Jew and Gentile can approach God 'through faith which worketh by love'.

What Paul says about the Law is also perfectly legitimate. Only leading individuals such as Moses and Joshua lived by faith [see Hebrews 11]. The majority of the children of lsrael followed the Law, to a lesser or greater extent, as delivered by the prophets, judges and kings. This law was good, but the people continually sinned.

Here are the words of Isaiah 64:6.
'But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as the leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away'.

The law requires that a man DO all that the law demands. This law is necessary and good because it provides justice. We are taught to distinguish between what is right, and what is wrong. Where would we be without justice?

God has not done away with justice. He has simply offered everyone an opportunity to receive mercy in advance of his own judgment.

If you think you can stand before the judgment seat of God with any assurance of salvation (without Christ) then you're a better person than me!

Are your sins not as 'scarlet'? Will they be 'as white as snow'?

The law itself requires a circumcised heart, so this is not a Christian invention. Following the law requires internally following it. For example its not enough to not murder, but you must also not think of murdering another person, internalizing the law. Proverbs witnesses that this has always been understood and is not new, not an invention of Paul or something Jesus has introduced. The body has emissions which must be controlled, and so does the heart. Its a simple lesson taught in the law. Christians are really supposed to be learning about it through studying the law rather than hearing it second hand reading Paul's letters. So the law cannot be something merely added because of sins as it retains its position for teaching, and it cannot be something merely added for sins because it must be preserved by circumcised people who follow it: Cantors, people qualified to preserve it made so by keeping it. And can they keep it alone? No, because it must be kept by a community. What is a community of people who keep the Torah? They are Jews. Therefore we must always have Jews who keep the Torah, and this is inconsistent with what Galatians says. This suggests Galatians is written by an imposter Paul.

• [Deu 30:6 NIV] 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
• [Pro 4:23 NIV] 23 Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.

 

[Rival]

You're making my argument for me now. God provides according to the circumstances and the alteration of circumstances leading to new provisioning doesn't reflect negatively on the perfection of anything.

No, because the minute the circumstances are optimal again the Torah can be observed the way it's meant to be. The circumstances aren't meant to change for the worse.

So none of this explains why Jesus thinks he can change it on divorce, or why Christianity claims sacrifices are no longer needed. The Torah is meant to be forever.

IOW there's meant to be a theocratic Israel with a temple. Christianity doesn't seem to believe this even though this is what the Torah instructs for Israel.

 

[Sedim Haba]

I'm not sure how this answers the question, but so far, interestingly, you seem to think that some form of Christianity isn't the best way to go about anymore.

Xianity was never the answer for Jews, it was made for Edom, by Paul.
Xianity has almost nothing to do with Yeshua's teachings, which were about t'shuvah.
Of course, it didn't take long for things to go completely wrong, so IMHO then G-d
tried again with our brother Ishmael. Personally, I don't know how well that's going,
but the plain fact is that G-d is no longer interacting with humans, as far as I can tell.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It doesn't seem so to me, since his argument is not only about Christians, saying Moses laws are all cruft added because of sins until Jesus comes. This opposes what other Paul is saying. One Paul says the law and circumcision have value and commission someone to preserve the oracles of God. The other Paul says the law and circumcision has no value at all, not to anyone, neither to Jews nor Christians. So is there a point to being a circumcised keeper of the law or not? One says there is. One says there isn't.


The law itself requires a circumcised heart, so this is not a Christian invention. Following the law requires internally following it. For example its not enough to not murder, but you must also not think of murdering another person, internalizing the law. Proverbs witnesses that this has always been understood and is not new, not an invention of Paul or something Jesus has introduced. The body has emissions which must be controlled, and so does the heart. Its a simple lesson taught in the law. Christians are really supposed to be learning about it through studying the law rather than hearing it second hand reading Paul's letters. So the law cannot be something merely added because of sins as it retains its position for teaching, and it cannot be something merely added for sins because it must be preserved by circumcised people who follow it: Cantors, people qualified to preserve it made so by keeping it. And can they keep it alone? No, because it must be kept by a community. What is a community of people who keep the Torah? They are Jews. Therefore we must always have Jews who keep the Torah, and this is inconsistent with what Galatians says. This suggests Galatians is written by an imposter Paul.

• [Deu 30:6 NIV] 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
• [Pro 4:23 NIV] 23 Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.

We can agree that a circumcised heart is essential to the keeping of the law. Outward observance is not enough for God.

Deuteronomy 30:6 does not say that the heart of the Jew under the law is circumcised. Based on the Abrahamic covenant, the requirement was to do as commanded, and receive outward circumcision. But outward circumcision is not proof of inward circumcision of the heart. If lsrael had been obedient to all the Law they would have pleased God and been blessed in their land. History proves otherwise.

There are other passages of scripture, found amongst the Prophets, that clearly demonstrate that God was not happy with the hearts of men under the law.

Jeremiah 24:7. 'And l will give them an heart to know me, that l am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and l will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart'.

Ezekiel 11:19,20. 'And l will give them one heart, and l will put a new spirit within you; and l will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and l shall be their God'.

Do you notice that the future tense is used? When do you think lsrael received this 'new spirit' and 'heart of flesh'?

If lsrael hasn't yet received a new spirit or heart of flesh, why are you claiming that the law is sufficient in bringing men to a knowledge of God?

 

[Brian2]

God is not part of teh people of Israel. It is the people of Israel who do the adopting, or , as in your case, choose NOT to adopt.

You can adopt me into or reject me from Judaism but it is only God who adopts people as His children and who rejects people from being His people.
Judaism rejected Jesus and God rejected Judaism.
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
Jesus is the vine and the Jews have been cut out of the vine, but as Paul said, can be re-grafted in more readily than the Gentiles can.
So which Jews were the remnant whom God adopted as His children and gave His Spirit to in the New Covenant?
The life in the branches comes from the vine. It is a gift and it causes us to grow.

 

[Rival]

You can adopt me into or reject me from Judaism but it is only God who adopts people as His children and who rejects people from being His people.
Judaism rejected Jesus and God rejected Judaism.
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
Jesus is the vine and the Jews have been cut out of the vine, but as Paul said, can be re-grafted in more readily than the Gentiles can.
So which Jews were the remnant whom God adopted as His children and gave His Spirit to in the New Covenant?
The life in the branches comes from the vine. It is a gift and it causes us to grow.

And the Islamic God rejected Christians. So I guess you'd best become a Muslim.

But a pity, that was also rejected and replaced by Bahaullah, so best become a Baha'i.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You can adopt me into or reject me from Judaism but it is only God who adopts people as His children and who rejects people from being His people.
Judaism rejected Jesus and God rejected Judaism.
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
Jesus is the vine and the Jews have been cut out of the vine, but as Paul said, can be re-grafted in more readily than the Gentiles can.
So which Jews were the remnant whom God adopted as His children and gave His Spirit to in the New Covenant?
The life in the branches comes from the vine. It is a gift and it causes us to grow.

I'm sorry but what you are saying is just absurd. If a family wants to adopt a child, it is not God that does the adoption, but the family. Nor can you adopt yourself into a family. And the People of Israel are essentially a large family. Of which you are not part.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There are no suffering servant prophecies about the messiah. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel.

I stand by what I said.

Ok. Let's imagine there are no suffering servant prophecies. This means that the Messiah, when he does come, will be coming as King of Kings and Judge.

Zechariah 9:9. 'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***'.

Oh. Where's the white charger? Where are the host of heaven? Is the King riding an ***?!

 

[Rival]

Is the King riding an ***?!

The *** is a work animal, a symbol of peace. A horse, as would be expected, is a symbol of war.

 

[Brian2]

I'm sorry but what you are saying is just absurd. If a family wants to adopt a child, it is not God that does the adoption, but the family. Nor can you adopt yourself into a family. And the People of Israel are essentially a large family. Of which you are not part.

I am speaking about becoming an adopted child of God however, the Father being God.
You might not like God's adoption of Gentiles as HIS children but that adoption is the choice of God. All Jews can do is accept or reject people into Judaism.
There is another covenant God made and most Jews rejected it and those who are part of it have been adopted to be children of God and given God's Spirit.