Torah in Christianity

[Redemptionsong]

Gen 9:16
Ex 31:16
Lev 24:8
Sam 2 23:5
Is 24:5

It is also in Gen 17 3 times

As I see it, the passages in Genesis refer to the everlasting covenant, as do 2 Samuel and Isaiah.

My issue is specifically with the covenant of law made with Israel at Sinai. There are only two references here that refer to this covenant, and both talk specifically about only one commandment being of an everlasting nature; the keeping of the Sabbath.

It makes me wonder why this is.

 

[rosends]

So perfect doesn't really mean perfect it means perfect.

Wot.

Especially as the "perfect" sacrifice was neither of an acceptable animal type, nor offered as a sacrifice where a sacrifice is.

 

[Harel13]

Especially as the "perfect" sacrifice was neither of an acceptable animal type, nor offered as a sacrifice where a sacrifice is.

Obviously because it was perfect in itself and needed no other conditions to be perfect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This makes no sense though. The Torah is not some game to be won. It's an eternal theocratic law that claims to be forever. It's for all Israelites at all times, wherever they live. It's not some competition to see who can be the most righteous, it's the social system by which God expects his people to live, as with any other law.

The explanation Paul gives in the Epistles is that the Torah is the law for the living, and Christians have "died through baptism" and are therefore released from the law.

The example he gives is how death of a spouse ends a marriage; if the surviving spouse remarries, they aren't being a bigamist, because death released the spouse from the original marriage.

It makes sense (sorta) if we remember that baptism originally involved holding the new Christian underwater until they had a near-death experience. At the time, this NDE was taken as having been literal death. Christians thought that they had literally died, despite the fact that they were still walking around, doing stuff, being alive, etc.

 

[rosends]

As I see it, the passages in Genesis refer to the everlasting covenant, as do 2 Samuel and Isaiah.

My issue is specifically with the covenant of law made with Israel at Sinai. There are only two references here that refer to this covenant, and both talk specifically about only one commandment being of an everlasting nature; the keeping of the Sabbath.

It makes me wonder why this is.

And here I thought you said "the covenant made with Moses and Israel was never intended as an everlasting covenant" which would include the covenant of the Sabbath which was, as you concede, of an everlasting nature. Of course, one could point out that God might not have called any other particular covenant "eternal" because he knew that there would be a breaking of it (Deut 31).

 

[Kenny]

. . . a subjective tribal claim by Christianity for the fulfillment of prophecy.

What you call subjective I call fulfillment.

A problem with 'What if. . . ? assertions.

This would be an important point that that God is above the diverse and conflicting human cultural and tribal views of the different ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All claims that 'God's ways' are reflected in their understanding of their own scriptures only and no others.

I think Rival knew the context. It is an actual quote from the TaNaKh and God does know more that we do.

Again . . . What if . . . ? is not an adequate argument for a religious claim, because it is simply an argument that can be made from any religious perspective.

I believe Jesus it make references to changing the Law, for example divorce, which is followed too variably in the Christian world.

[/QUOTE]

Again, used in context of "in actuality" and not in the literal sense that you read it as.

 

[rosends]

To me, it means Torah was while the Imams of guidance were there a perfect book with a perfect law. Then when Imams about to go hidden, because people rejected them, Jesus (a) has to annul some rituals meant for them and society to come to them through.

Islam is more of a compromise in all that. Since the ghayba could be long before Imam comes back and this was always to be prepared for as possible and it's universal not particular to a time and place, there was more of a pragmatic shariah for the world.

Moses' (a) and his code was particular to preparing for "the one who you will send" in his own words. Time and place changes needs of people and application of the light.

The light revealed by God is perfect for the time and place. Gospels were perfect to prepare people AFTER disappearance of Imams, and so were in principle less perfect, but more perfect for that temporary situation - and this was to be done by the church but only realizing that the Church is vulnerable and fallible and can go wrong.

Islam true perfection will only occur through Imam Mahdi (a), it's then his light is complete upon humanity when application of the Quran finally occurs and justice occurs and is not only talked about in theory but applied.

Quran doesn't give exact details of how much Zakat to pay, because perhaps, that changes over time. Perhaps are more justice becomes practically achievable and rights established, zakat amount changes. And it perhaps it was never universal, but even had brackets for richer to pay more then someone who needs the money or is not as rich.

There was also more dynamic approach, for example, you can separate your Salah in five times, or combine Dohr and Asr in either time and same with Maghrib and Isha. This was to keep things dynamically easy for believers.

Whatever they find more ease and peace in, they were allowed to practice.

The ultimate thing is God commands to justice and goodness, and said there is two ways to prove God enjoins something, by khabar (news) or by knowledge. Knowledge is a means - you can using reasoning with Quran and brings proofs indirectly, and narrate hadiths that reason properly. It doesn't have to be direct khabar.

I think that you really should study the notion of the oral law in its source and the value/authority of the rabbinic voices in crafting, deriving or otherwise "creating" law. It is much more complex and at the same time, simler. Best of luck.

 

[rosends]

Obviously because it was perfect in itself and needed no other conditions to be perfect.

Scourging makes perfect?

 

[Kenny]

@KenS goes from the most basic principle, the law of love. From that perspective, what the NT has done is to take two quotes from the OT and given them supreme importance:

• Deuteronomy 6:5 “And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”
• Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the LORD.”

To me, going from that perspective is really answering the OP by giving differing importance to different parts of the OT rather than treating all of the as having equal importance or getting confused by the details.

• 
  

Loved the different way of saying it... you have taught me. Thank you!

 

[Rival]

Scourging makes perfect?

Yes.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So in a roundabout way you're saying the Torah is imperfect?

It requires very specific sacrifices and offerings that don't work? It goes on at length about offerings, sacrifices and so on for no apparent reason, because at the end of the day they achieve nothing?

What about Jeremiah 31:31-32 where he said he would make a new covenant with the house of Israel - Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers...?

Is YHWH saying in a roundabout way that the first wasn't perfect? If not WHY is he making any changes whatsoever?

All God's ways are perfect aren't they? Psalms 18:30
Why did he say in Isaiah 65:17 that he was going to create new heavens and a new earth? Does that mean what he did the first time wasn't perfect??

 

[Rival]

What about Jeremiah 31:31-32 where he said he would make a new covenant with the house of Israel - Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers...?

Is YHWH saying in a roundabout way that the first wasn't perfect? If not WHY is he making any changes whatsoever?

This has already been explained to you. The difference is the law will be written on their hearts. There are no changes made to the law. He's saying the covenant was broken and needed renewing.

 

[rosends]

What about Jeremiah 31:31-32 where he said he would make a new covenant with the house of Israel - Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers...?

Is YHWH saying in a roundabout way that the first wasn't perfect? If not WHY is he making any changes whatsoever?

The text indicates that there will be a new covenant but that the content will be the same. Then the text details that what will be different is the mode of the covenant, that it will be inscribed directly on the hearts and not taught (verse 34), but the text also details that it will be with the same players, and it will still be the Torah (same content).

 

[Harel13]

Scourging makes perfect?

It's like minus times minus.

 

[1213]

...
Can someone please explain to me, if the Torah is perfect, which the Tanakh says it is, why is Jesus or Christianity as a whole necessary? There shouldn't be any need for any 'new' revelation or upgrade, per the Torah itself (it would be adding or taking away).
..

I think God's law is perfect, no need to update. And I don't think that was the goal of Jesus. Jesus was send to do this:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Luke 4:18-19

And I think he also came to establish the new covenant that was promised in Torah:

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deuteronomy 30:6-9

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.
Jeremiah 31:31-34

By the words Jesus declared, that change of heart can happen. And when it happens, it can be said person is born anew as Jesus taught.

A born-again child of God (kolumbus.fi)

Because of that, Jesus actually confirms God's law, He writes it to person's heart.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This has already been explained to you. The difference is the law will be written on their hearts. There are no changes made to the law. He's saying the covenant was broken and needed renewing.

He said it would be NEW and that it would NOT be according to the covenant made with their fathers when he took them out of Egypt. Jeremiah 31:31-32

If it was already perfect in the way you say, then WHY was he making any changes whatsoever?

 

[Rival]

Because of that, Jesus actually confirms God's law, He writes it to person heart.

That's why Christians don't follow most of it? The law written on hearts is,

A) Only for Israelites

B) The exact same Torah, nothing obsolete or unnecessary.

This is nothing like Christianity.

 

[Rival]

He said it would be NEW and that it would NOT be according to the covenant made with their fathers when he took them out of Egypt. Jeremiah 31:31-32

If it was already perfect as you say, then WHY was he making any changes whatsoever?

You seem confused about the difference between law and covenant.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Especially as the "perfect" sacrifice was neither of an acceptable animal type, nor offered as a sacrifice where a sacrifice is.

Given that Jesus is referred to as 'the lamb of God' by John the Baptist, speaking prophetically, and that the sacrifice took place within God's temple, many would say it fits perfectly!

 

[Link]

I think that you really should study the notion of the oral law in its source and the value/authority of the rabbinic voices in crafting, deriving or otherwise "creating" law. It is much more complex and at the same time, simler. Best of luck.

I'll look into it.