Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews

[Skywalker]

"Progressive revelation" is a convient concept invented by Christians to explain why the Tanach doesn't fit with the NT.

The Old Testament has progressive revelation. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

the knowledge that the Messiah would have two comings came to humanity gradually, as God’s revelation to mankind was progressive.

The Old Testament clearly teaches that the Messiah would come, but it does not explicitly say that He would come twice. The information God revealed about the Messiah started very basic, with more detail added bit by bit. People living in later times knew more than those who lived earlier. Abraham knew more about the purposes of God than did Noah. David knew more than Abraham. The prophets knew more than David.

The revelation concerning the Messiah progressed over time. Genesis 3:15 is a cryptic first promise of a Messiah. The seed of the woman will destroy the seed of the serpent. Who the seed of the woman is or how He will accomplish His mission is not revealed. Later, David is promised a lasting dynasty, which means that one of his descendants will reign continually. Again, we are not told exactly who this will be or how it will come about. Sometimes, the prophets speak of this reign as if God Himself will sit on the throne (Zechariah 14). At other times, the prophets expect a descendant of David (Psalm 2). Again, the prophets never explain how this will all come together.

 

[Rival]

Paul is rebuking Jewish hypocrisy, in the sense of Jewish superiority. Many contexts of Romans 2:28-29 indicate and add to the Greek for clarification so we get the full sense of it that what Paul is saying, a person is not a Jew if he's one only outwardly, and circumcision is not only outward and in the flesh. In other words, it must also be inward. What Paul is really saying here is between two Jews, who's the real Jew in God's sight, the one who's only a Jew outwardly or the one who's also a Jew inwardly, with a circumcised heart, living a life in obedience to God. I know that because in the very next verse, there are no chapter divisions in the Greek, so chapter 3 verse 1, Paul then asks the question so then what's the advantage in being a Jew? In other words, he's still talking about natural Jews. What does he say in Romans 1:16? I'm not ashamed of the gospel, it's the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. So, he still recognizes there are people called Jews, who need the gospel, and if you read through the rest of Romans, every time he mentions Jews, he's talking about natural Jewish people, but the one that is not just a natural Jew, but a spiritual Jew, in God's sight, is the Jewish believer in Yeshua the Messiah, the one who has been born from above. Gentile Christians are not spiritual Jews. I understand the concept, but in reality, that's not what Paul taught.

Paul seems to have a really twisted view of Jews here. What Jews were going around claiming to have some kind of advantage over non-Jews in the first place?

 

[Harel13]

Paul is rebuking Jewish hypocrisy, in the sense of Jewish superiority. Many contexts of Romans 2:28-29 indicate and add to the Greek for clarification so we get the full sense of it that what Paul is saying, a person is not a Jew if he's one only outwardly, and circumcision is not only outward and in the flesh. In other words, it must also be inward. What Paul is really saying here is between two Jews, who's the real Jew in God's sight, the one who's only a Jew outwardly or the one who's also a Jew inwardly, with a circumcised heart, living a life in obedience to God. I know that because in the very next verse, there are no chapter divisions in the Greek, so chapter 3 verse 1, Paul then asks the question so then what's the advantage in being a Jew? In other words, he's still talking about natural Jews. What does he say in Romans 1:16? I'm not ashamed of the gospel, it's the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. So, he still recognizes there are people called Jews, who need the gospel, and if you read through the rest of Romans, every time he mentions Jews, he's talking about natural Jewish people, but the one that is not just a natural Jew, but a spiritual Jew, in God's sight, is the Jewish believer in Yeshua the Messiah, the one who has been born from above. Gentile Christians are not spiritual Jews. I understand the concept, but in reality, that's not what Paul taught.

a. This is all very nice for Romans, but we were talking about Revelation. Different books, you see.

b. I see. This must be some of that "progressive revelation" Christians claim is a thing in the bible. Though Tanach doesn't indicate that a Jew who doesn't keep the commandments is no longer a Jew, comes Paul, who we all know was the wisest, most righteous man of his generation, and teaches us: whoops, here's a secret Hashem never bothered to tell the other Jews!
Yep, 1200 years or so of delusions.
Fine, so it's not replacement theology. It just goes entirely against the Tanach.

 

[Harel13]

The Old Testament has progressive revelation. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

Genesis 3 is not messianic, so there goes your point. Next?

 

[Skywalker]

Paul seems to have a really twisted view of Jews here. What Jews were going around claiming to have some kind of advantage over non-Jews in the first place?

What Paul said about Jewish hypocrisy in the sense of superiority, also applies to Christians. God has no favorites. 6. Study and Exposition of Romans 2:17-29 | Bible.org

G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology
This passage speaks strongly against hypocrisy and the futility of trusting in religious rites to sanctify or make one right with God. Thus it speaks directly to the area of personal sanctification as well as ecclesiology and the rite of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

While baptism and the Lord’s Supper are necessary rites, they have no value in and of themselves to save or sanctify. They do not function ex opere operato. In the case of the former, it is an attempt through an outward symbol to capture the inward transformation which has already taken place through being joined to Christ by faith. In the case of the latter it is a memorial designed to proclaim a historical fact, that is, the death of Christ, and remind the church of the basis of her forgiveness before God (1 Cor 15:1-11).

Now, we said that in and of themselves these rites do not save or sanctify, but this does not mean that when the worshiper is right with God through Christ (s)he experiences no grace at all. On the contrary, in the performing of the rite, with a heart surrendered and fixed on God through Christ, God infuses sanctifying grace through His indwelling Spirit.

 

[Skywalker]

Genesis 3 is not messianic, so there goes your point. Next?

The Bible is there to make us wise unto salvation it's not going to tell us everything about everything, it can't, its a limited document. 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

The revelation concerning the Messiah progressed over time. Genesis 3:15 is a cryptic first promise of a Messiah. The seed of the woman will destroy the seed of the serpent. Who the seed of the woman is or how He will accomplish His mission is not revealed. Later, David is promised a lasting dynasty, which means that one of his descendants will reign continually. Again, we are not told exactly who this will be or how it will come about. Sometimes, the prophets speak of this reign as if God Himself will sit on the throne (Zechariah 14). At other times, the prophets expect a descendant of David (Psalm 2). Again, the prophets never explain how this will all come together. Jesus questioned the Jewish leaders regarding this tension in Matthew 22:41–45:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied. He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

[Harel13]

The Bible is there to make us wise unto salvation it's not going to tell us everything about everything, it can't, its a limited document. 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

Again, quoting the NT to me won't help.

 

[Skywalker]

a. This is all very nice for Romans, but we were talking about Revelation. Different books, you see.

b. I see. This must be some of that "progressive revelation" Christians claim is a thing in the bible. Though Tanach doesn't indicate that a Jew who doesn't keep the commandments is no longer a Jew, comes Paul, who we all know was the wisest, most righteous man of his generation, and teaches us: whoops, here's a secret Hashem never bothered to tell the other Jews!
Yep, 1200 years or so of delusions.
Fine, so it's not replacement theology. It just goes entirely against the Tanach.

Paul wasn't talking about Jewish people who don't believe in Jesus, he was talking about the Jewish people who were persecuting followers of Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

Again, quoting the NT to me won't help.

Genesis 3:15 has progressive revelation, just like Zechariah 14. There's not even room in the Bible to mention everything about everything, it tells us all we need to know. The Old Testament gives a messianic profile instead of giving all the details for the same reason some people say, why doesn't God introduce himself to me? Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

the Messiah would have two comings came to humanity gradually, as God’s revelation to mankind was progressive.

The Old Testament clearly teaches that the Messiah would come, but it does not explicitly say that He would come twice. The information God revealed about the Messiah started very basic, with more detail added bit by bit. People living in later times knew more than those who lived earlier. Abraham knew more about the purposes of God than did Noah. David knew more than Abraham. The prophets knew more than David.

The revelation concerning the Messiah progressed over time. Genesis 3:15 is a cryptic first promise of a Messiah. The seed of the woman will destroy the seed of the serpent. Who the seed of the woman is or how He will accomplish His mission is not revealed. Later, David is promised a lasting dynasty, which means that one of his descendants will reign continually. Again, we are not told exactly who this will be or how it will come about. Sometimes, the prophets speak of this reign as if God Himself will sit on the throne (Zechariah 14). At other times, the prophets expect a descendant of David (Psalm 2). Again, the prophets never explain how this will all come together.

 

[Harel13]

Paul wasn't talking about Jewish people who don't believe in Jesus, he was talking about the Jewish people who were persecuting followers of Jesus.

Again, that's nice for Paul. It's still has nothing to do with Tanach, and certainly nothing to do with Revelation. Please don't try to deflect or dodge, and let's get back to Revelation.

 

[Skywalker]

Again, that's nice for Paul. It's still has nothing to do with Tanach, and certainly nothing to do with Revelation. Please don't try to deflect or dodge, and let's get back to Revelation.

Revelation 2:9 never says that Jewish people or Jewish people who don't believe in Jesus are of the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

The apostle John was only talking about Jewish people who persecuted followers of Yeshua. What is the synagogue of Satan in Revelation? | GotQuestions.org

In short, the synagogue of Satan was a group of unbelieving Jews who were persecuting Christians. These groups were guilty of slandering the church in Smyrna and opposing the church in Philadelphia in some way.

The majority of the persecution the New Testament church faced came from the Jewish community. Even most of the Roman persecution was an effort to appease the Jewish authorities. This is true of Pilate’s condemnation of Jesus (John 19:1–16) and Paul’s imprisonment by the Roman governors Felix (Acts 24:27) and Festus (Acts 25:16). This pattern held true throughout the Roman world in the first century. As long as Christians were considered a sect of Judaism, they were exempt from the required observance of certain aspects of Roman state religion. However, as Christians were expelled from synagogues and denounced by the Jewish leadership, Rome began to see Christianity as a new religion that did not have these same exemptions. Therefore, Christians outside the protective umbrella of the synagogue were open to Roman persecution.

The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews (the people of God), and they persecute those who believe in Jesus the Messiah (the true people of God). In reality, by rejecting the Jewish Messiah, they have renounced their status as “true” Jews, and that is why Jesus calls them “liars.” This distinction between ethnic Jews and faithful Jews is also seen in Romans 9:6 (“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”) and Romans 2:28–29 (“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter”). By their persecution of the true people of God, these unbelieving Jews had become a synagogue of Satan—a gathering of people who were actually following the devil’s priorities.

 

[Harel13]

Revelation 2:9 never says that Jewish people or Jewish people who don't believe in Jesus are of the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

The apostle John was only talking about Jewish people who persecuted followers of Yeshua. What is the synagogue of Satan in Revelation? | GotQuestions.org

So you agree with replacement theology, then.

 

[Skywalker]

So you agree with replacement theology, then.

Replacement theology is a myth. God has only had one people-those who live by faith.

 

[Harel13]

Replacement theology is a myth. God has only had one people-those who live by faith.

Which is exactly what replacement theology is.

 

[Skywalker]

Which is exactly what replacement theology is.

Replacement theology over emphasizes the role of the church. What is replacement theology?

Allegorizing such a foundational concept as the subject of prophecy opens up many more issues. If the millennial kingdom is for the church, when will the rapture occur? If the prophecies of peace are for the church (Isaiah 32:18), should the church enforce peace in international affairs? If God's plan is for the church to lead (Isaiah 2:2), should the church take over politics? Replacement theology has several consequent beliefs:

- Amillennialism: The belief that the millennial kingdom is not literal, that it began at Christ's resurrection and is manifest either in the hearts of saints in heaven or saints on earth.
- Postmillennialism: The belief that the church is responsible for arranging the "golden age" of Christ's rule in people's hearts, resulting in godly overtones in politics, entertainment, family, and social life.
- Dominionism: Similar to postmillennialism but more extreme; the belief that the church is responsible for reinstating the Old Testament laws in all of the world's governments and societies.

 

[Harel13]

Replacement theology over emphasizes the role of the church. What is replacement theology?

Don't dodge. We can call it Skywalker and GotQuestions's brand of replacement theology. It is what it is.

 

[Skywalker]

Don't dodge. We can call it Skywalker and GotQuestions's brand of replacement theology. It is what it is.

God's covenantal promises to Israel apply to all of Israel, believing and unbelieving. Replacement Theology — Dr. Tim White

And when I look at the relationship between Israel and the Church I see something similar to the relationship between the caterpillar and the butterfly. The butterfly doesn’t replace the caterpillar. The butterfly IS the caterpillar in a more developed and consummate form. The butterfly is what God intended the caterpillar to become. Likewise, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church IS Israel as God always intended it to be. Let me explain that further. I believe that what we see in the NT isn’t the replacement of Israel but an expanded definition of who Israel is. During the time of the old testament one was an Israelite (primarily) because one was a physical, biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. One’s ethnicity was the deciding factor. But with the coming of Christ and the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, the meaning of what constitutes a “true Jew” has undergone revision, or perhaps a better word would be expansion. Not one believing Jewish person has been replaced. Not one believing Jewish person has been set aside or lost their promised inheritance.[1]

Storms writes: “The promises will not be fulfilled exclusively in and for a separate ‘nation’ of ethnic Israelites but in and for all believing ethnic Israelites together with all believing ethnic Gentiles, that is to say, in the Church.”[2] Israel is no longer the exclusive recipient of God’s prophecies in the Old Testament but now the church is also the recipient of not a literal fulfillment but an allegorized fulfillment.

 

[Harel13]

God's covenantal promises to Israel apply to all of Israel, believing and unbelieving. Replacement Theology — Dr. Tim White

And yet the Tanach does not say this. So we have your brand of replacement theology, which is that non-Jewish Christians and Jewish apostates to Christianity will form the "new Israel" and the rest of the Jews will be shunned.

 

[Skywalker]

And yet the Tanach does not say this. So we have your brand of replacement theology, which is that non-Jewish Christians and Jewish apostates to Christianity will form the "new Israel" and the rest of the Jews will be shunned.

Jewish people don't follow the Old Covenant anymore. There are no laws in Israel that criminalize adultery and not following the Sabbath. Orthodox writer Rabbi Chaim Schimmel wrote in the book Oral Torah “Jews never lived according to the actual words written in the Torah, but according to the traditions of the rabbis.” The new covenant that the Rabbis follow is the rabbinical tradition that they made up themselves. The New Covenant that we follow is grounded in God’s Messiah. Rabbis are human beings like pastors and priests, they are not infallible.

 

[Harel13]

Jewish people don't follow the Old Covenant anymore.

Jews never lived according to the actual words written in the Torah, but according to the traditions of the rabbis.”

These two statements are contradictory. I side with the latter, myself.
The rabbis he's talking about are the sages since the time of Moshe. And Jews have never acted as though they follow the literal words of the Tanach. Nor do you yourself, as we've long established, with your claims of extra-biblical traditions and whatnot.
So to use this as proof that Jews who don't convert to Christianity don't deserve to be redeemed is pretty weak and meaningless.