Torah in Christianity

[Brian2]

That is all a very typical understanding, and of course I've heard it before.

However, I believe that it's incomplete, this 'love-only-love' view. See James 2:18

Indeed someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

See, the proper motive for obedience is not to "establish our own righteousness"...
but to demonstrate love in actual actions. Not some nebulous declaration of 'love'.

What you say about James 2:18 is true and unfortunately people point to James and then to Paul as if they were contradicting each other.
James however in this particular place was speaking about works of love and not works of keeping the precepts of the Law.

 

[Rival]

If Jews believed the New Testament I think you would get a different understanding of what the Old Testament says.

This is the whole problem. You need to read the Tanakh on its own terms, not on the NT's terms. Once you do that, it's very different. There's 0 reason to give the NT precedence.

 

[Brian2]

Not always. But sometimes, yes. Especially depending how much the version you prefer is based on the LXX, and which version of that, of course.
And sometimes it wasn't dishonesty but conflation of external ideas and worldviews. This becomes more relevant the further back in time you go.

Yes I have heard about a difference in the ancient Manuscripts that the Jews use compared to other translators, so that would account for some of the differences.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, you began with "I accept the Old." but I have to ask... how? What do you do with
that acceptance? For example, do you observe Shabbat on the seventh day? Surely
you see how important that is to G-d, right? Or do you observe a Sunday sabbath as
many do? Which has no basis in 'old' or 'new'?

I hope you like to read Paul. I think it is good to accept the whole of the scriptures as passed down to us and not reject part because we do not like what it says.
Romans 14:1 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. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

[Harel13]

Yes I have heard about a difference in the ancient Manuscripts that the Jews use compared to other translators, so that would account for some of the differences.

I was actually referring to sources external to the Masoretic tradition. And then it goes deeper than that. One must consider the reasons for the differences.

 

[Brian2]

This is the whole problem. You need to read the Tanakh on its own terms, not on the NT's terms. Once you do that, it's very different. There's 0 reason to give the NT precedence.

It is good to read the Tanakh in the context of the history of the times it was written in.
It is hard for me to divorce my belief in the New Testament from that however.
There is reason to see the NT understanding of the Tanakh also when you actually believe the Gospels.
For a Christian who believed in Jesus that understanding takes precedence.

 

[Rival]

It is good to read the Tanakh in the context of the history of the times it was written in.
It is hard for me to divorce my belief in the New Testament from that however.
There is reason to see the NT understanding of the Tanakh also when you actually believe the Gospels.
For a Christian who believed in Jesus that understanding takes precedence.

But why? What has Jesus "over" the Tanakh? He was just a man.

 

[Brian2]

I was actually referring to sources external to the Masoretic tradition. And then it goes deeper than that. One must consider the reasons for the differences.

Yes the Masoretic text takes precedence for Jews and I think also it is the one that Christians translators usually use. But of course Christian translators seem to be less averse to using other manuscripts which they may consider useful or even possibly more accurate in places.
Once we start getting into the reasons for the differences that is when it is likely go get into a mud slinging contest. And anyway I don't know enough about the languages.

 

[Brian2]

But why? What has Jesus "over" the Tanakh? He was just a man.

That is the why. A Christian sees Jesus to be, at the very least, the Jewish Messiah. A Jew does not.

 

[Rival]

That is the why. A Christian sees Jesus to be, at the very least, the Jewish Messiah. A Jew does not.

Yes, but the messiah has no right to change the law. He's still subordinate to it. The Tanakh doesn't even emphasise the messiah, but the messianic age.

 

[Harel13]

Yes the Masoretic text takes precedence for Jews and I think also it is the one that Christians translators usually use.

It does, but that was not the focus of what I was saying. And again, it depends what era you are talking about later translators may have based themselves more on the MT, but very likely not the earlier ones.

 

[rosends]

That is the why. A Christian sees Jesus to be, at the very least, the Jewish Messiah. A Jew does not.

This, however, is the crux of the problem. The discussion has been to the effect that the Christian should read the "Old Testament" -- if he did he would change his view of his own gospels. And then you defend the gospels through the idea that jesus was the Jewish messiah. But if you read the Jewish bible, you see that the messianic character can not be Jesus, so the conclusion you draw about Jesus must be erroneous. What you are advocating is reading the gospels first and then reading selections of the Jewish texts as seen through the light of extant Christianity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is true but in the context of Christianity and a Covenant where our righteousness is given graciously by God because of our faith in what He has done in sending Jesus to die for us there is a problem in us then turning around and trying to establish our own righteousness by our keeping of the Law.
For a Christian to want to keep the 613 precepts is no problem. But of course people cannot do that without failing and showing that we are not perfect as our heavenly Father is. It is only in accepting the righteousness that God offers that we can be perfect as He is. (Matt 5:48)
It is interesting that once we start concentrating on keeping little bits and pieces of the Law we can miss the overall point of the law, which is to love God and others. We can not see the forest because of the trees.
If I as a Christian however concentrate on the one thing, love, I can fulfil the requirements of the law.
Micah 6:7 Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

This whole thing of imputed righteousness is a wrong headed notion and IMHO a very dangerous idea because it leads to moral complacency. Righteousness is when you aspire to keep God's commandments, when you love God and your neighbor as yourself. That's the only kind of righteousness that's real.

 

[Sedim Haba]

What you say about James 2:18 is true and unfortunately people point to James and then to Paul as if they were contradicting each other.
James however in this particular place was speaking about works of love and not works of keeping the precepts of the Law.

Well, if that's how you wish to see it, I'm not going to change your mind.

"...works of love and not works of keeping the precepts of the Law"

Sad that Xians can't see "precepts of the Law" ARE works of love. NOT burden. G-d's
love for us to give us teachings (that's what Torah means, teachings) for OUR benefit.

Do you have children? If I tell my children to stay out of the cleaner cabinet under
the sink, for their safety, and they disobey it's their safety they put at risk, not mine.
It doesn't matter how much they 'love' me, if they disobey they're going to the hospital
if they from drink from those bottles. Obedience is the first act of love.

I hope you like to read Paul. I think it is good to accept the whole of the scriptures as passed down to us and not reject part because we do not like what it says.

Nothing Paul writes is 'passed down' to we Ebionites, we reject him and Rome.

EDIT: FYI: Ask Sedim Anything!

 

[Starlight]

Yes, but the messiah has no right to change the law. He's still subordinate to it. The Tanakh doesn't even emphasise the messiah, but the messianic age.

Christians believe Jesus Fulfilled the law.
Matthew. 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[rosends]

I fulfilled the speed limit today so tomorrow it no longer applies to me or my kids. Zoom, baby! ZOOM!

 

[Sedim Haba]

Christians believe Jesus Fulfilled the law.
Matthew. 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Why do you stop there, it goes on!...

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

If you say that all has been fulfilled, then you don't expect any second coming, right?

All means all. Either all is done or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Christians believe Jesus Fulfilled the law.
Matthew. 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Fulfilling the law simply means obeying them. Jesus aspired to obey the laws, because he was an observant Jew. The covenant between Israel and God was Jesus' covenant.

It is quite clear from context that Jesus was not teaching that Jews were to stop obeying the laws, since he stated that not a brushstroke would pass away from the Law until heaven and earth have passed away.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but the messiah has no right to change the law. He's still subordinate to it. The Tanakh doesn't even emphasise the messiah, but the messianic age.

A whole age named after Him. He sounds important.
Abraham was important in his age and Moses in his and David in his etc. The Messiah is important in His age and that age goes on forever if Messiah Ben David is on His throne forever. And that age has already begun with the coming of Messiah Ben Joseph who happens to also be Messiah Ben David because of those prophecies that the Jews missed but are plain with belief in Jesus and what is said about Him.
Jesus came as a man under the law and is the judge of all who are and who are not under the law.
Moses gave the Law and Covenant, what right did he have to do that!
Jesus came with the New Covenant, the one promised by God, and gave the new way to fulfil what is given in the Law of Moses.

 

[Rival]

A whole age named after Him. He sounds important.
Abraham was important in his age and Moses in his and David in his etc. The Messiah is important in His age and that age goes on forever if Messiah Ben David is on His throne forever. And that age has already begun with the coming of Messiah Ben Joseph who happens to also be Messiah Ben David because of those prophecies that the Jews missed but are plain with belief in Jesus and what is said about Him.
Jesus came as a man under the law and is the judge of all who are and who are not under the law.
Moses gave the Law and Covenant, what right did he have to do that!
Jesus came with the New Covenant, the one promised by God, and gave the new way to fulfil what is given in the Law of Moses.

What's different? Nothing has changed. Jesus came, he died, the world is the exact same. The Messianic Age is meant to be different, better, peaceful.

Russia just invaded Ukraine.

'Neither shall they learn war anymore.'

Messianic alright!!!!