- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Gollamundi,
You should test your sources.
Judaism about.com reads:
Quote There Have Been Many “New Covenants,” But None Has or Can Replace the Torah
It is easy to prove this is a deception since Jeremiah 31:31-32 explicitly states that the new covenant won’t be like the old covenant that God made with the house of Israel. So is Jeremiah teaching that the new covenant will be added to the old covenant or that it will replace it? In this case I could be said to have given you a false dichotomy as both choices are incorrect in a way since the new covenant fulfills the righteous requirements of the old.
Judaism about.com reads:
Quote The Torah Cannot Be Replaced
Considering your source is probably of the Pharisaical tradition this is blatant hypocorism as they have both added and subtracted from the law. One example is what they call kosher butchering that is obviously not according to Scripture since the law allows the children of Israel to hunt and I cannot conceive of a hunter hanging his potential kill upside down so he can kill it by slitting its neck. That is one way they synagogue of Satan adds to scripture. I can find more as they seem fond or replacing the commands of God with the traditions of man.
To state that replacing a contract with another contract is adding or subtracting to the first contract is a fallacy as the second contract can cover the same things and simply be worded in a new way. In this case God did “add” to what he gave to the Hebrew people as he gives the spirit of righteousness under the new covenant. Mind you the command not to add or subtract is not a command to God but rather God’s command to the people. He also simplified the commands in the Torah with the command live by the spirit. This is not really a new command as the Torah does state “Love your neighbor as yourself”.
Judaism about.com reads:
Quote The “New Testament's” Differing Views of the Torah
This statement pretty much means that your source has does not understand the teachings of the New Testament. Your source criticizes Paul for teaching the old covenant is obsolete and yet Jeremiah states the same thing in Jeremiah 31:31-34. In addition it criticizes Paul for teaching that the old covenant kills which is equivalent to what Jeremiah prophesized in verse 32. The third accusation is that Paul falsely claimed that the old covenant is a curse which is equivalent to stating it kills. It is a curse and it kills because they broke it. They disobey it because it is not in their minds and on their hearts. It is obsolete because it does not put the law in the their minds and write it on their hearts.
Quote (gollamudi @ April 23 2010,17:44) So what do you mean by that even Chrisitanity claims that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
Hi Gollamudi,Who is this comment directed towards?
Adam………….Where i think the confusion comes in is Most think Paul was against the Torah , when in fact he was not, Paul addressed the issue of How we are made right in the eyes of GOD and that can not be by (WORKS) of LAW, So How does law WORK, it WORKS threough the MEDIUM of FEAR, e.g. Ex 20:20 shows this clearly Fear was the bases for obedience to the LAWS. This fear caused those Israelites to be , what Paul called (UNDER The LAW) THAT IS TO SAY , FEAR PUT THEM UNDER CONTROL OF THE LAW. But we know NOTHING is Perfected in fear. Paul never said we should not keep the commandments of GOD or the Laws of GOD , He was not addressing the righteousness of the Law at all , but (HOW) it is truly Kept was His Issue , is it by The WAY LAW WORKS, of BY FAITH in GOD and Jesus Christ , Who writes the law in our inward Parts. Paul said if righteous could come that way then indeed we would be made right that way but the TORAH MADE NO ONE RIGHTEOUS it has not POWER to do that. We are made right by the operation of GOD the Father in our Hearts, that was all of Paul's Issue, Not the righteousness of the law that had nothing to do with is arguments.
Paul's said clearly the law was holy just and good, the Jews try to pit Paul as being against the Torah but that simply is not true. Paul was against using the Torah as a means to make a person right with GOD. The Torah shows us the righteousness of GOD it can never makes us right in our hearts and minds and GOD looks on the INSIDE of US , nor did it make (ANY) of those Israelites right inside either.
Adam, that was Paul's POINT, The righteousness of the law and should we be doing what is written in them was never the issue with him, it was (HOW) we obeyed them NOT should we. Was it by the way LAW WORKS, or by the LOVE of GOD Shed around in our hearts and Minds, by the hand of GOD. IMO
peace and love to you and yours ADAM………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 27 2010,05:44) Adam………….Where i think the confusion comes in is Most think Paul was against the Torah , when in fact he was not, Paul addressed the issue of How we are made right in the eyes of GOD and that can not be by (WORKS) of LAW, So How does law WORK, it WORKS threough the MEDIUM of FEAR, e.g. Ex 20:20 shows this clearly Fear was the bases for obedience to the LAWS. This fear caused those Israelites to be , what Paul called (UNDER The LAW) THAT IS TO SAY , FEAR PUT THEM UNDER CONTROL OF THE LAW. But we know NOTHING is Perfected in fear. Paul never said we should not keep the commandments of GOD or the Laws of GOD , He was not addressing the righteousness of the Law at all , but (HOW) it is truly Kept was His Issue , is it by The WAY LAW WORKS, of BY FAITH in GOD and Jesus Christ , Who writes the law in our inward Parts. Paul said if righteous could come that way then indeed we would be made right that way but the TORAH MADE NO ONE RIGHTEOUS it has not POWER to do that. We are made right by the operation of GOD the Father in our Hearts, that was all of Paul's Issue, Not the righteousness of the law that had nothing to do with is arguments. Paul's said clearly the law was holy just and good, the Jews try to pit Paul as being against the Torah but that simply is not true. Paul was against using the Torah as a means to make a person right with GOD. The Torah shows us the righteousness of GOD it can never makes us right in our hearts and minds and GOD looks on the INSIDE of US , nor did it make (ANY) of those Israelites right inside either.
Adam, that was Paul's POINT, The righteousness of the law and should we be doing what is written in them was never the issue with him, it was (HOW) we obeyed them NOT should we. Was it by the way LAW WORKS, or by the LOVE of GOD Shed around in our hearts and Minds, by the hand of GOD. IMO
peace and love to you and yours ADAM………………….gene
Hi Gene…………Excellent Post brother!peace and love to you and yours………………….Ed J
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 27 2010,05:44) Adam………….Where i think the confusion comes in is Most think Paul was against the Torah , when in fact he was not, Paul addressed the issue of How we are made right in the eyes of GOD and that can not be by (WORKS) of LAW, So How does law WORK, it WORKS threough the MEDIUM of FEAR, e.g. Ex 20:20 shows this clearly Fear was the bases for obedience to the LAWS. This fear caused those Israelites to be , what Paul called (UNDER The LAW) THAT IS TO SAY , FEAR PUT THEM UNDER CONTROL OF THE LAW. But we know NOTHING is Perfected in fear. Paul never said we should not keep the commandments of GOD or the Laws of GOD , He was not addressing the righteousness of the Law at all , but (HOW) it is truly Kept was His Issue , is it by The WAY LAW WORKS, of BY FAITH in GOD and Jesus Christ , Who writes the law in our inward Parts. Paul said if righteous could come that way then indeed we would be made right that way but the TORAH MADE NO ONE RIGHTEOUS it has not POWER to do that. We are made right by the operation of GOD the Father in our Hearts, that was all of Paul's Issue, Not the righteousness of the law that had nothing to do with is arguments. Paul's said clearly the law was holy just and good, the Jews try to pit Paul as being against the Torah but that simply is not true. Paul was against using the Torah as a means to make a person right with GOD. The Torah shows us the righteousness of GOD it can never makes us right in our hearts and minds and GOD looks on the INSIDE of US , nor did it make (ANY) of those Israelites right inside either.
Adam, that was Paul's POINT, The righteousness of the law and should we be doing what is written in them was never the issue with him, it was (HOW) we obeyed them NOT should we. Was it by the way LAW WORKS, or by the LOVE of GOD Shed around in our hearts and Minds, by the hand of GOD. IMO
peace and love to you and yours ADAM………………….gene
Thank you very much brother Gene for your thoughtful reply. But I always wonder if at all Paul was right in substituting Jesus for the sins of mankind what would happen to people who died before Jesus even the O.T saints like Abraham, Moses, David etc?Love and peace to you
Adam“SPIRITUAL SALVATION AND A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH G-D CAN ONLY
COME THROUGH JESUS”
Missionaries claim that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of G-d” (Romans 2:23), and that there is no salvation from sin or any
possibility of a personal relationship with G-d without belief in
Jesus. Specifically with regard to Jews, their argument is that Jews
have always needed animal blood sacrifices to rid themselves of sin.
Since sacrifices were abolished after the destruction of the Temple
in Israel, they claim that today Jews can find salvation from sin
only by believing in Jesus, who “died on the cross and shed his blood
as the final sacrifice.”The Jewish Response:
The notion that we are born condemned, and that without the practice
of animal sacrifices Jews cannot atone for their sins, represents a
blatant misinterpretation of the Jewish Bible.First of all, the Bible teaches that sin is an act, not a state of
being. Mankind was created with an inclination to do evil (Genesis
8:21), and the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and
choose good over evil (Psalm 37:27). Second, G-d gave us a way to
remove our sins. When sacrifices were required they were intended
only for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:1) and served as a means of
motivating individuals to true repentance. Numerous passages,
including Hosea 14, I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14, inform us
that today, without a Temple or sacrifices, our prayers take the
place of sacrifices. In addition, we read, “The sacrifices of G-d are
a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17) and “I
desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of G-d more than
burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6). The Torah teaches that through
repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, everyone has
the ability to return to G-d directly.This concept is beautifully illustrated in the books of Jonah and
Esther, where both Jews and non-Jews repented, prayed to G-d and were
forgiven for their sins without having offered any sacrifices.Missionaries often misinterpret the Jewish tradition that “the
suffering of the righteous is a form of atonement.” Jewish sources
are clear that this concept pertains only to the alleviation of
Divine punishment that was decreed upon the Jewish people as a whole.
It does not pertain to the removal of an individual's sin. Every
person has the responsibility to repent directly to G-d for his own
transgressions. (Ezekiel 18:20)The Hebrew word for repentance is teshuvah–vcua,, and liter-ally
means to “return to G-d.” Our personal relationship with G-d allows
us to turn directly to Him at any time, as it says in Malachi
3:7, “Return to Me and I shall return to you,” and in Ezekiel
18:27, “When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he
has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save
his soul alive.” Additionally, G-d is extremely compassionate and
forgiving as is indicated in Daniel 9:18, “We do not present our
supplications before You because of our righteousness, but because of
Your abundant mercy.”Contrary to the New Testament (Romans 4:15-16) portrayal of the
commandments as a curse and stumbling block, King David says in Psalm
19:7 that “the Law of G-d is perfect, restoring the soul.”King Solomon said that the main purpose of humanity is to believe in
G-d and keep his commandments as is stated in Ecclesiastes 12:13-
14: “The end of the matter, when all is said and done: Be in awe of G-
d and keep his commandments, for that is the whole person.”Deuteronomy 30:11-14 teaches that this path to G-d is unquestionably
within our grasp. Isaiah 42:6 teaches that it is the role of Judaism
and the Jewish nation to show the world this path by serving as
a “light to the nations.”Gollamundi,
Constitutionist made a post in the thread asking what the sould is that addresses some points broght up in this thread. He quoted Levitus 17:11.
Leviticus 17:11(NIV) reads:
Quote For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.
In choosing choosing to sacrifice himself though he was innocent of sin Jesus made atonement for the lifes of all and so fullfilled the criteria for atonement that God stated in the Law.
Quote (gollamudi @ May 19 2010,10:20) So you ignore my post above brother Kerwin?
I did not read it until you let me know it applied to what I was speaking about. I do not read everything because I can only do so much with the time I have.I have read some of it but I want to point out that God does not lie nor does what he state contradict itself. God explicitly states that blood is required to make atonement for ones life and therefore anyone that states differently whether they are Jew or Gentile must explain how God did not mean exactly what he states in Leviticus 17:11.
I plan to look into the argument you found but do you, yourself understand that argument and have you tested if it is true?
As for sacrifices. As far as I understand it the sacrifices are only mandated to be in the temple when there is a temple. If there is no temple then the Jews are free to sacrifice in other places contrary to the teachings of some of their sects.
It is my belief that they did away with the daily sacrifice in fullfilment to the prophecy of Daniel and not because of Jesus who died and was resurected many years previous to their doing away with the daily sacrifice.
Quote (kerwin @ May 19 2010,16:11) It is my belief that they did away with the daily sacrifice in fullfilment to the prophecy of Daniel and not because of Jesus who died and was resurected many years previous to their doing away with the daily sacrifice.
This is exactly what I am arguing here is that Jesus' death can not be taken as a sacrifice to stop the regular sacrifices in the Temple as as many Christians think here. It is because God allowed it on account of sins of Israel by not obeying His commandments and not keeping His Sabbaths. Human sacrifice for atonment of sins was purely the invention of Paul and other earlier Christians.Gollamundi,
Jesus sacrifice did not stop the daily sacrifices but rather rendered sacrifices for sin unnecessary for those who believe. To teach that his sacrifice stopped the daily sacrifices which actually continued until the temple fell some years later is to teach a lie. I do not teach that nor do I believe it. Neither do the writers of the new testiment.
Be careful not to attribute the corrupt and ignorant teachings of those who falsely claim to serve Jesus to his true followers.
You insist on mis-representing what Jesus did as human sacrifice. Human sacrifice requires a priest or priests to sacrifice the victim. Jesus is the only priest that was present at his death and he also was the victim. This is considered self-sacrifice and not human sacrifice. It is equivilent to a soldier giving his life for his country by throwing himself on a grenate to protect his fellow soldiers though Jesus' sacrifice was for the souls of all mankind.
This is too much to claim that Jesus was the only priest available at that time. That too Roman cross was not a place for any Temple sacrifice. It is purely the speculation on your part to say Jesus was the priest to self sacrifice himself for the remission of sins when God never demanded for any human sacrifice for the remission of sins. Instead He hated human sacrifices in general.
Quote (gollamudi @ May 19 2010,13:08) This is too much to claim that Jesus was the only priest available at that time. That too Roman cross was not a place for any Temple sacrifice. It is purely the speculation on your part to say Jesus was the priest to sacrifice to self sacrifice himself for the remission of sins when God never demanded for any human sacrifice for the remission of sins. Instead He hated human sacrifices in general.
As for being a priest scripture does state the anointed one would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek, Psalms 110:4.The act was self sacrifice and so the restriction to the sacrifice may not have applied. I will have to see what I can find out on that issue though.
Self sacrifice is an act of mercy and thus not hated by God.
Quote (gollamudi @ May 07 2010,21:17) “SPIRITUAL SALVATION AND A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH G-D CAN ONLY
COME THROUGH JESUS”
Adam…….Here is something to think about brother, the word (through) Jesus could also imply the (WAY) Jesus did it. Not necessarily the Person him self. Jesus is the example that all must conform to in order to come into the Kingdom of GOD. Think about it brother.peace and love to you and yours Adam…………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 20 2010,01:12) Quote (gollamudi @ May 07 2010,21:17) “SPIRITUAL SALVATION AND A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH G-D CAN ONLY
COME THROUGH JESUS”
Adam…….Here is something to think about brother, the word (through) Jesus could also imply the (WAY) Jesus did it. Not necessarily the Person him self. Jesus is the example that all must conform to in order to come into the Kingdom of GOD. Think about it brother.peace and love to you and yours Adam…………………gene
Hi brother Gene, I appreciate your post but this is purely the interpretation of our Christian writers. It doesn't have any proof in Hebrew scriptures claiming personal salvation comes through Jesus or any human Messiah.Thanks and love to you
AdamGollamundi's source reads:
Quote The notion that we are born condemned, and that without the practice of animal sacrifices Jews cannot atone for their sins, represents a blatant misinterpretation of the Jewish Bible.
I don’t have a clue what your source is speaking of. It is not my belief. I believe one is condemned for sinning. I also believe that all human beings but Jesus are servants to sin because scripture declares “there is no one who does good, not even one”, Psalms 11:3. It is only though obey all Jesus teaches that one can be freed of that servitude to sin.
Do these so called Jews of yours claims scripture is lying when it states “there is no one who does good, not even one”. Do they claim the Anointed One sins? Don’t they believe in the Messianic age?
Gollamundi's source reads:
Quote First of all, the Bible teaches that sin is an act, not a state of
beingAnd what may I ask is a sinner?
Gollamundi's source reads:
Quote When sacrifices were required they were intended
only for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:1) and served as a means of motivating individuals to true repentance.Your source was merely trying to prove their point and thus failed to read more of the Law. In the very next chapter the Hebrew people are instructed to make sacrifices for intentional sins of several types, Leviticus 5:1-13. If I read on I may other instructions as well as I know chapter six also covers some types of intentional sin. I do believe they are correct that one purpose of a sacrifice was to motivate people to change their ways.
1 King 8:44 does not support the claim that prayers replace sacrifices as it mentions praying toward the temple. I have not checked the rest nor do I plan to as I feel that I am wasting my time with an ignorant source.
I will address one final point and that is Psalms 4:6-7
Who do the so called Jews say this scripture speaks of? Does it speak of a righteous man in general?
Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2010,16:23) It is only though obey all Jesus teaches that one can be freed of that servitude to sin. I will address one final point and that is Psalms 4:6-7
Who do the so called Jews say this scripture speaks of? Does it speak of a righteous man in general?
Hi brother Kerwin,
The first sentence in the above post of yours has no proof in Hebrew scriptures.About Psalms 4: The Psalm is addressed to the sons of men by David. Men of high degree, family leaders, who were listening then and who would hear it in the future. Men who were not acquainted with God, for their conviction and conversion to the righteous God. If family and community leaders are converted to belief and trust in the righteous God, the family and community follow suit. Verse 6 & 7 tells us these 'sons of men' were looking to wealth to make them happy, their vanity and deceit lay in trying to increase their wealth their way and were not trusting God. David admonishes them that he is happier with God then they will ever be with only their worldly wealth. “Time of increase” indicates worldly wealth it is temporary, trusting God is eternal.
Gollamundi,
Actually there is support though Jesus' name is not mentioned explicitly. Take Deuteronomy 18:14-22.
Jesus was such a prophet as he promised those that hunger and thirst for righteousness would be filled and those that were in servitude to sin that they would be freed.
The fullfillment of his promise also refers the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 9 versus 1-7 of the book of that same name.
As for Psalms 4:6-7 I think you for explaining your understanding. I must admit though that I actually meant to write Psalms 40:6-7 but inevertantly dropped the 0. I am sorry for that error. Could you please let me hear how you understand Psalms 40 and whom it speaks of? Thank you.
Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2010,18:47) Gollamundi, Actually there is support though Jesus' name is not mentioned explicitly. Take Deuteronomy 18:14-22.
Jesus was such a prophet as he promised those that hunger and thirst for righteousness would be filled and those that were in servitude to sin that they would be freed.
The fullfillment of his promise also refers the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 9 versus 1-7 of the book of that same name.
As for Psalms 4:6-7 I think you for explaining your understanding. I must admit though that I actually meant to write Psalms 40:6-7 but inevertantly dropped the 0. I am sorry for that error. Could you please let me hear how you understand Psalms 40 and whom it speaks of? Thank you.
Hi brother Kerwin,
The writer of Hebrews misquoted the Pslam 40:6-9 the original version is different in fact. The Greek Testament went to some great lengths to demonstrate that the atoning death of Jesus was predicated upon the Jewish Bible. In the book of Hebrews, a verse from the book of Psalms(40) is quoted as evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus was part of G-d's original plan for the world.“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me” (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).
In verse 10 of our passage from Hebrews, we are told that the body spoken of refers to the body of Jesus. However, the Greek Testament took some great liberties in quoting from the book of Psalms, which never mentions a body being prepared:
“Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required” (Psalm 40:6). Notice how King David's original words, “but my ears You have opened” have disappeared entirely in the Hebrews quote. Instead, this New Testament author replaced this expunged clause with the words “But a body you have prepared for Me.” This is a startling alteration of the Jewish scriptures.
Verses 7-9 clearly tell us that God wants us to be focused on obedience before we focus on blood offerings. This is not to say that blood offerings are insignificant and meaningless. God wouldn’t spend so much time talking about them if they wouldn’t be important. But scripture is teaching us that they are only important within the frame work of obedience.
How can Christians claim by quoting Psalm 40:6-9 that God accepted human sacrifice of Jesus when He even not desired any sacrifice ?
gollamudi,
I am not sure that Paul was speaking of Jesus' sacrifice when he quoted Psalms 40:6 as he stated “when Jesus came into the world” or in other words when he was born or possibly conceived.
It is only after he quotes “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” that he mentions Jesus' act of mercy in relation to that scripture. He mentions Jesus' self sacrifice with the words “Here I am, I have come to do your will.”
Paul claims that God set aside sacrifices and replaced them with Jesus' one act of mercy.
I tend to believe Psalms 40 is not speaking of Jesus in particular but instead is speaking of any righteous man. Even then it serves to show how an act of righteousness can replace sacrifices.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
