No, I contend that he doesn't see it as an important event for Jews or within the Jewish process towards the messianic age. He sees it as formative for non-Jews and if there is any importance, it is to them in establishing how wrong they are. If Jesus and Muhammed had never appeared, there would be no difference in the arc of Jewish progress towards the future messiah. But without them, the rest of the world might not realize as quickly how wrong they have been. Their appearance doesn't hasten or delay anything, nor is it necessary or instrumental for the Jews. If you look through Maimonides (the section you quoted from) you will notice that once he brings up Jesus and Muhammed, and then discusses their negative impact on the Jews. he doesn't then refer to the Jewish people through to the end of the chapter -- he focuses only on the impact on non-Jews.
While there certainly might be academics (some of whom happen to be Jewish) who have opinions on this, I wouldn't classify them as "Jewish scholars."
No, I contend that he doesn't see it as an important event for Jews or within the Jewish process towards the messianic age. He sees it as formative for non-Jews and if there is any importance, it is to them in establishing how wrong they are. If Jesus and Muhammed had never appeared, there would be no difference in the arc of Jewish progress towards the future messiah. But without them, the rest of the world might not realize as quickly how wrong they have been. Their appearance doesn't hasten or delay anything, nor is it necessary or instrumental for the Jews. If you look through Maimonides (the section you quoted from) you will notice that once he brings up Jesus and Muhammed, and then discusses their negative impact on the Jews. he doesn't then refer to the Jewish people through to the end of the chapter -- he focuses only on the impact on non-Jews.
While there certainly might be academics (some of whom happen to be Jewish) who have opinions on this, I wouldn't classify them as "Jewish scholars."
In one sense, it does, but the text doesn't mention teachers either. The ones who misled people were those who claimed to be prophets, or the ones who were political leaders -- I don't recall any claim that it was the judges who did anything wrong.
(Jeremiah 2:8) The priests did not ask, ‘Where is YHWH?’ Those handling the Law did not know me, The shepherds rebelled against me, The prophets prophesied by Baʹal, And they followed those who could bring no benefit. (Ezekiel 34:7-14)
Shepherds, teachers, leaders, rabbis... Aren't they all the same?
It is serious. We also have records of blessings and curses, of a people who go astray, are punished and who repent. That's the entire book of Judges. We have promises and prophecies of destruction and eventual return. We have statements about the eternal law of God and his promised eternal covenant with his people. We have no record, though, of anyone being allowed to get rid of the laws. So we follow them. The record of the history of the Jewish people and God's stated relationship with us is well documented including time after the bible.
They repented yes. Many times.... As much times as they promised... Then they were rebelling again. Is that not the record?
What eternal covenant did God make with his people?
I recall there being covenants made, and covenants broken.
Some covenants made were extremely bitter - like the one at Jeremiah 3-6 There is an abbreviated version at Jeremiah 6:19. That was Before Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city.
None were sweet, because the Jews broke every one that would have been sweet for them.
However, God had not forgotten his covenant with the faithful man Abraham, so he continued to make covenants that involve that eternal promise. Including the one he made with David.
(Jeremiah 33:14-26) and Abraham's seed.
Hence God made a new covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-34
I assume this is the covenant you are referring to?
I'm glad you brought that up. It might help me get a bit more understanding on why you reject the Greek scriptures.
Would I be correct in saying that you believe these words apply to later generations of the Israelite nation?
Would you mind sharing your thoughts on these scriptures?
You mean, except all the biblical examples? Read up on Chizkiyahu. Read up on Ezra and Nechemiah. Or, just focus on the negative stuff and decide that that is enough for you to paint the absolute and overarching vision of the Jewish people.
Not sure what you have in mind, but to get the overall picture, I can't just read two books, or a few pages in those books, and forget about what happened before, during and after those two books.
Would I not rather be overlooking, or ignoring the overall picture, to focus on two books.
The overall picture was painted from Moses to Malachi. Is that not true?
That picture shows a people saying repeatedly, "All that YHWH says, we are willing to do, and obey, and quickly after, rebel, and break their oath.
Worst yet, instead of listening to those who were repeatedly sent to help them return, they acted all the more stubborn, with murder.
I am not the one who wrote the books.
They were not called a stubborn, stiff-necked, rebellious lot, by me. It was their God, and the messengers of God that stated those thing.
Where did they ever get a good report?
Some children go to school, and never get a good report on conduct. It's not that the teacher wrote a good report, and hid it under her car seat. It's the case that the child really has behavior issues.
Oftentimes, they head in one direction - a correctional center, or prison.
I am not saying all Jews are like those rebellious lot.
There were some humble Jews, who were like Caleb, and Joshua, and Nehemiah , and David, etc.
However, we are here looking at a written record, in documents we both accept.
At least I hope you do.
There is an interesting discussion in the Bartenura commentary about this verse pointing out that the entire time that Joshua was in charge, none of this happened.
Like you mentioning books I have no reason to believe... not to mention, wine.
You never said why you don't believe the Greek scripture. You just said you don't.
I asked, but you don't seem keen on giving an answer.
I'm sure you would want me to explain why I didn't believe the earth was round, rather than just say, "I don't believe that."... if I didn't.
It is a compendium of oral laws and explanations transmitted to Moses at Sinai, along with the application and explanation and arguments about those statements. The backbone is a set of laws which are divine, not man made, and a set of divinely established laws for deriving other elements of practice. Consigning all of it to the "words of men" might be comforting, but is as useful as my saying the same about all the gospels -- words of men, so why listen to them?
I don't believe all of them were the words of men. I was not saying that.
Of course some were what Moses actually wrote, but surely it is expected that explanation and arguments about those statements, will include ideas and traditions of men.
AS the Pharisees taught that there was also an oral torah available at the time, the Sadducee position was one of rejection of available material.
Restating the written law does not make it the oral law. The oral law, beginning as the mishna, was a series of complementary teachings passed down from Moses to Joshua. The beginning of the Ethics of the Fathers (the Mishna, tractate Avot) reads, in part, "Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly." The transmnission was not perfect and the discussions about meaning, precise application and such comprised the conversation which expanded the Mishna into the full Talmud.
I don't think there ever will be. The king can read the entire of the written text and be "finished". He can read a section and be "finished" with that section. Of course, without the oral law, he wouldn't know what to do with this -- he is told to make the sabbath holy, but is never told what that means or how to do it. The king can study the oral law and put the law into practice and still continue to learn it. The greatest sages of every generation never claimed to have "finished" anything.
You've got me on this one.
I don't understand what was not clear in the written Torah about Sabbath keeping.
This is where men would, and apparently have gone wrong, in making arbitrary rules, which are his own, rather than God's. *** it-2 p. 832 Sabbath Day *** The Sabbath was originally intended to be a joyous, spiritually upbuilding time. But in their zeal to distinguish themselves from the Gentiles as much as possible, the Jewish religious leaders, especially after the return from Babylonian exile, gradually made it a burdensome thing by greatly increasing the Sabbath restrictions to 39, with innumerable lesser restrictions. These, when compiled, filled two large volumes. For example, catching a flea was forbidden as hunting. A sufferer could not be given relief unless death threatened. A bone could not be set, nor a sprain bandaged. The true purpose of the Sabbath was made void by these Jewish religious leaders, for they made the people slaves to tradition, instead of having the Sabbath serve men to the honor of God. (Matthew 15:3, 6; 23:2-4; Mar 2:27) When Jesus’ disciples picked grain and rubbed it in their hands to eat, they evidently were accused on two counts, namely, harvesting and threshing on the Sabbath. (Luke 6:1, 2) The rabbis had a saying: “The sins of everyone who strictly observes every law of the Sabbath, though he be an idol worshiper, are forgiven.”
Well, here is one example. In Matt 5:28, Jesus is quoted as saying "every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." From where does he get that? Maybe from the Talmud, Tractate Kallah "He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her."
(Jeremiah 2:8) The priests did not ask, ‘Where is YHWH?’ Those handling the Law did not know me, The shepherds rebelled against me, The prophets prophesied by Baʹal, And they followed those who could bring no benefit. (Ezekiel 34:7-14)
Shepherds, teachers, leaders, rabbis... Aren't they all the same?
In that they are all from one larger group, sure. But then why differentiate by occupation? In another sense, no, they aren't the same. They perform (at different times) similar roles but are very distinct in other ways. Why conflate them at all? If the text says "group A" then why reduce that to any other label?
What eternal covenant did God make with his people?
I recall there being covenants made, and covenants broken.
Some covenants made were extremely bitter - like the one at Jeremiah 3-6 There is an abbreviated version at Jeremiah 6:19. That was Before Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city.
None were sweet, because the Jews broke every one that would have been sweet for them.
The covenant, for example, of the sabbath is eternal. As a matter of fact, Lev 26 ends with the promise of a continued covenant. The Torah itself is that eternal covenant. There is no "new covenant" because the text is very clear saying that the torah is the covenant and the difference is in the nature of the people, not the content. Inventing a "new" covenant instead of reading the texts reference to the new method of reception of the same covenant is useless.
God and others called the people stiff necked and stubborn and also treasured, loved and chosen. Those labels aren't subject to replacement. God speaks of the blessings he confers on the people, and how the people followed him and his laws. He led people to victory and promised to be with them in defeat. A parent whose child gets punished doesn't disconnect from the child and find another one. The parent says "you will always be my child and I will always be there for you. When you straighten out, I will still be there for you and you can move back in."
Like you mentioning books I have no reason to believe... not to mention, wine.
You never said why you don't believe the Greek scripture. You just said you don't.
I asked, but you don't seem keen on giving an answer.
Why don't you believe that Harry Potter is true? Or the Quran? Because those texts lack the authority to claim non-fiction status, they lack the content which would internally validate them and because they exist outside of a theological system which says that they are invalid. Wouldn't it more useful to ask why someone DOES believe something than why not? Why do you believe any of the texts and their claims?
The biblical text only says "don't do work" (using 2 different words for work, defining neither) and says "keep it holy (without saying how). If this is clear to you then you should write a book explaining how you know.
@rosends can you please explain why you take the word and writings (and want me to do the same, apparently) of this modern day person, over first century Jews who were clearly actively alert to prophecy from the word of YHWH?
Why should I accept anything he has to say, over men who followed a messenger of God - namely, John the baptizer?
Why would @rosends refer me to a man born 1900 years after Jews living closer to events, recorded 3000 years previous, and very much involved with prophets fitting prophetic utterances in the Tanakh?
If you remember, I pointed out that he asked a question which challenged the point you were making. Why would his birth year affect the utility of the content he quoted? If you are trying to judge him and not what he said, then there is very little to answer to. You ask why I should take his word over anyone else's but the fact is, he isn't objecting or arguing with anyone -- just answering a point you raised.
But I can assure you that I would rather take his word for it over a person you claim was a messenger of God and whom I say wasn't, if he even existed. R. Ovadia actually existed. And why would I listen to anything you claim is attributed to John when I have the words of the sages who came before he was alive?
For the life of me, I don't know if you're trolling or not, because I don't see how you could miss finding this, this time. You just Google Ovadiah and Bartenura. I take it you forgot the Bartenura part.
In any case, here: Obadiah Bartenura - Wikipedia
In that they are all from one larger group, sure. But then why differentiate by occupation? In another sense, no, they aren't the same. They perform (at different times) similar roles but are very distinct in other ways. Why conflate them at all? If the text says "group A" then why reduce that to any other label?
In that they are closely related is exactly what I am saying.
In other words rabbi and teacher are the same, without getting into technicalities, that are not necessary, since we were not discussing those specifics.
However, if this leads to a war on words, let's forget about that.
Yes, and there is the promise of return for future repentance.
The covenant, for example, of the sabbath is eternal. As a matter of fact, Lev 26 ends with the promise of a continued covenant. The Torah itself is that eternal covenant. There is no "new covenant" because the text is very clear saying that the torah is the covenant and the difference is in the nature of the people, not the content. Inventing a "new" covenant instead of reading the texts reference to the new method of reception of the same covenant is useless.
These covenants are, conditional.
(Leviticus 26:14-17) 14 “‘However, if you will not listen to me or keep all these commandments, 15 and if you reject my statutes, and if you abhor my judicial decisions so that you do not keep all my commandments, and you violate my covenant, 16 I, for my part, will do the following to you: I will punish you with distress, with tuberculosis and burning fever, making your eyes fail and your life waste away. You will sow your seed simply for nothing, for your enemies will eat it. 17 I will set my face against you, and you will be defeated by your enemies; and those who hate you will tread on you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you.
There are eternal, not to a wicked rebellious stiff-necked bunch, but to a remnant that God preserves, for the purpose of his eternal covenant made to his friend Abraham. Genesis 22:18
Hence, why we know that the first century Jews, who accepted the Messiah - Jesus Christ, were part of that remnant, and thus benefactors of the eternal covenant.
When we read Leviticus 26, and other texts, in the Tanakh, we see that clearly stated.
(2 Kings 13:23) However, YHWH extended favor and mercy to them and showed his concern for them for the sake of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He did not want to bring them to ruin, and he has not cast them away from his presence to this day.
Yes, because of that covenant with Abraham, the entire nation of Jews were not exterminated, but just as God saw Joshua and Caleb as faithful, and they became the only survivors, along with the faithful - Moses and his house, etc, who came out of Egypt, the remnant of the Jews that remain in that covenant, are the faithful ... not the ones who deviate from and break it.
The new covenant is mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet.
(Jeremiah 31:31, 32) 31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares YHWH, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares YHWH.”
Which covenant did they break?
(Exodus 19:3-6) 3 Then Moses went up to the true God, and YHWH called to him from the mountain, saying: “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and to tell the Israelites, 4 ‘You have seen for yourselves what I did to the Egyptians, in order to carry you on wings of eagles and bring you to myself. 5Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. 6 You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to say to the Israelites.”
The new covenant is an everlasting covenant?
(Jeremiah 32:38-41) 38 And they will be my people, and I will be their God. 39 And I will give them one heart and one way so that they may always fear me, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 And I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they will not turn away from me. 41 I will exult over them to do good to them, and I will firmly plant them in this land, with all my heart and with all my soul.’”
The new covenant is also conditional.
(Isaiah 55:3) Incline your ear and come to me. Listen, and you will keep alive, And I will readily make with you an everlasting covenant In harmony with the expressions of loyal love to David, which are faithful.
So yes. The Jews who submit to God, indeed benefit from that promise.
I understand you don't accept it, but nonetheless it's there...
(Acts 13:32-37) 32 “So we are declaring to you the good news about the promise made to the forefathers. 33 God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm [Psalms 2:6-8]: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ 34 And the fact that He resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption, He has stated in this way: ‘I will give you the expressions of loyal love promised to David, which are faithful.’ 35 So it also says in another psalm: ‘You will not allow your loyal one to see corruption [Psalms 16:10].’ 36 David, on the one hand, rendered service to God in his own generation, fell asleep in death, was laid with his forefathers, and did see corruption. 37 On the other hand, the one whom God raised up did not see corruption.
(Genesis 49:10 ; Isaiah 9:6, 7)
However, I won't swamp you with scriptures you don't believe.
A question though, now that I have the privilege to speak with a Jew... What do you - as a Jew - believe about the prophecy at Daniel 9... Particularly verses 24-27, and are you still looking for the Messiah, or did that one already arrive?
God and others called the people stiff necked and stubborn and also treasured, loved and chosen. Those labels aren't subject to replacement. God speaks of the blessings he confers on the people, and how the people followed him and his laws. He led people to victory and promised to be with them in defeat. A parent whose child gets punished doesn't disconnect from the child and find another one. The parent says "you will always be my child and I will always be there for you. When you straighten out, I will still be there for you and you can move back in."
Yes. Why are they loved by God, and considered precious to God?
God chose them, not because of anything good on their part, but because of a promise to a friend. Because God is loyal, he will not break that promise, but neither will he forever bear with wickedness and rebellion.
True enough, he leaves the door opened for the prodigal son, and welcomes the returning one who does so, with a complete heart.
(Deuteronomy 9:6) Know, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that YHWH your God is giving you this good land to take possession of, because you are an obstinate people.
(Deuteronomy 7:6-16)
6 For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and YHWH your God has chosen you to become his people, his special property, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 “It was not because you were the most numerous of all the peoples that YHWH showed affection for you and chose you, for you were the smallest of all the peoples. 8 Rather, it was because of YHWH’s love for you and because he kept the oath that he had sworn to your forefathers that YHWH brought you out with a mighty hand, to redeem you from the house of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 You well know that YHWH your God is the true God, the faithful God, keeping his covenant and loyal love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. 10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face with destruction. He will not be slow to deal with those who hate him; he will repay them to their face. 11 Therefore, take care to keep the commandments and the regulations and the judicial decisions that I am commanding you today, by observing them. 12 “If you continue listening to these judicial decisions and you observe them and carry them out, YHWH your God will keep the covenant and the loyal love about which he swore to your forefathers. 13 He will love you and bless you and multiply you. Yes, he will bless you with many children and with the produce of your soil, your grain, your new wine, your oil, the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks, in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give to you. 14 You will become the most blessed of all the peoples; no man or woman among you will be childless, nor will your livestock be without young. 15 YHWH will take away from you all sickness, and he will not bring upon you any of the terrible diseases that you have known in Egypt. Instead, he will bring them upon all those who hate you. 16 You are to destroy all the peoples whom YHWH your God gives over to you. You must not feel sorry for them, and you must not serve their gods, because that would be a snare to you.
God's love is superlative, and his mercy abounds. Isn't God worth honor.
Why don't you believe that Harry Potter is true? Or the Quran? Because those texts lack the authority to claim non-fiction status, they lack the content which would internally validate them and because they exist outside of a theological system which says that they are invalid. Wouldn't it more useful to ask why someone DOES believe something than why not? Why do you believe any of the texts and their claims?
Harry Potter was never written as a documentary of a true life account. It's a fictional novel.
Why are you comparing a novel to books and letters written by followers of a way that was recognized by historians, written by people who were recognized as true disciples of a recognized historical person - namely John the Baptist, and which way carried forward, and was recognized by late first century, and early second century writers?
That's odd.
The Qur'an, recognizes the writings I accept, so why do I need to accept the Qur'an?
Isn't that the same thing as asking why I don't accept Jon Brown's commentary on the Gospels?
Why would I need to accept that?
Are you saying the Qur'an is fiction? Why do you say that?
Could you explain how the Qur'an exist outside of a theological system which says that is is invalid?
I think it's quite reasonable to ask a person why they do not believe something.
If someone asked why I don't believe something, I wouldn't consider that person unreasonable, at all.
For example, if a scientist, Atheist, or skeptic asked me why I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I would consider that person reasonable, and assume they wanted to know, in case it may be, I don't believe because I don't understand something, or maybe I am ignorant, or I just dismiss it without any "valid" reason.
I believe the Christian Greek scriptures because of the Tanakh, which is filled with prophecies from its initiation to its conclusion - prophecies which fulfillment remarkably matches those event in the Christian Greek scriptures.... from beginning to end.
They fit like hand and glove.
If the Tanakh did not exist, the Christian Greek scriptures would be clearly bogus, and if the Christian Greek scriptures were written by one person, it would be questionable, but those two situations do not exist.
To the contrary, just as the Tanakh had various writers at different periods, so too the Christian Greek scriptures.
Yet both together are like a seamless shirt. meshed as one.
How else could that be possible, unless Peter and Paul were right?
(2 Peter 1:20, 21) . . .no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.
(2 Timothy 3:16) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
Would you not say that is why such candor exists in both texts?
I don't think an unfaithful arrogant wicked bunch of people would be so honest to give detailed account of such... how should I describe it... I can't. Even yesterday, doing Bible reading, I said to myself, the nation of Israel in the Bible are a puzzle. I don't understand them.
The biblical text only says "don't do work" (using 2 different words for work, defining neither) and says "keep it holy (without saying how). If this is clear to you then you should write a book explaining how you know.
You mean, according to your theology. Mine says that God gave additional laws.
For the life of me, I don't know if you're trolling or not, because I don't see how you could miss finding this, this time. You just Google Ovadiah and Bartenura. I take it you forgot the Bartenura part.
In any case, here: Obadiah Bartenura - Wikipedia
Oh. I got the wrong guy. I googled Rabbi Ovadiah.
No, I didn't forget the Bartenura part, just wasn't thinking it would matter. Guess I was wrong.
I have no time for trolling.
There is not much difference between 1445, and 1924 though.
The blessings are conditional. The covenant is eternal. If we keep the commandments, we will be punished. This does not mean that we won't then be bound by the commandments. And because we continue to be bound by the covenant, rejecting all false messiahs is pretty straightforward. I mean, why would anyone follow those who rejected God and followed a man when so many who were closer to the time and experience rejected him? God, himself, says that he made his covenant with all Jews of all times, including future Jews (Deut 29:14).
The new covenant is mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet.
(Jeremiah 31:31, 32) 31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares YHWH, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares YHWH.”
Sadly, what you are doing is stopping before the actual wording of the covenant is discussed. God explicitly says that what makes this version new is NOT the content (which is the "Torah", same as it ever was) but that this one is inscribed directly on hearts and doesn't have to be taught. You make the mistake of assuming that the content changes even as the text says otherwise.
The new covenant is also conditional.
(Isaiah 55:3) Incline your ear and come to me. Listen, and you will keep alive, And I will readily make with you an everlasting covenant In harmony with the expressions of loyal love to David, which are faithful.
Actually, that covenant will be with ALL who follow God's laws and choose to obey the Torah. This is the promise that those among the nations who become followers of God in a Jewish sense will be included in an eternal covenant.
A question though, now that I have the privilege to speak with a Jew... What do you - as a Jew - believe about the prophecy at Daniel 9... Particularly verses 24-27, and are you still looking for the Messiah, or did that one already arrive?
Daniel is not included as a prophet in Judaism. Not that he didn't have visions, but that his role (and therefore his visions) were not to serve as messages to the people. There are many understandings of 9:24-27 but, mathematically, those understandings point to specific (and already past) events. Some connect it to the Channukah story, some to Koresh and the rebuilding of the temple in his day.
That's how I feel about the Christian texts -- fiction written to galvanize people behind a newly invented set of beliefs. Surely that's how you feel about the information in the Quran telling you to listen to Muhammed...or do you follow those teachings because they are a "documentary of a true life account"?
So believers believed? Oh. There were plenty who didn't believe. You are choosing the books by those who believed. Why? Judaism had already been carried on and continued to carry on well past the first century, and yet you wonder why. That's odd.
Judaism has central teachings that would place the text of the Quran (in parts and in its whole) as outside that construct and as invalid.
Asking someone why he doesn't believe assumes that the belief is a rational default. Belief isn't. Non-belief and the need to be convinced is a rational default. You are asking "why don't you abandon the need to be convinced, and believe". That's a strange thing to ask.
I believe the Christian Greek scriptures because of the Tanakh, which is filled with prophecies from its initiation to its conclusion - prophecies which fulfillment remarkably matches those event in the Christian Greek scriptures.... from beginning to end.
2 problems.
1. You only understand those "prophecies" through the lens of what those who believe in the Christian writings tell you they say.
2. The later texts were constructed to try and prove themselves by adopting and trying to fit earlier prophetic writings. Reverse engineering doesn't create truth or validity.
When you start with the hand and make the gloves to fit them, gloves fit. If you started with the gloves and they happen to fit, that would be something.
Would you not say that is why such candor exists in both texts?
I don't think an unfaithful arrogant wicked bunch of people would be so honest to give detailed account of such... how should I describe it... I can't. Even yesterday, doing Bible reading, I said to myself, the nation of Israel in the Bible are a puzzle. I don't understand them.
Then why link to it using those words? You wrote "Not according to the record, nor secular sources." And your link from the words "secular sources" is to the mishna page.
The blessings are conditional. The covenant is eternal. If we keep the commandments, we will be punished. This does not mean that we won't then be bound by the commandments. And because we continue to be bound by the covenant, rejecting all false messiahs is pretty straightforward. I mean, why would anyone follow those who rejected God and followed a man when so many who were closer to the time and experience rejected him? God, himself, says that he made his covenant with all Jews of all times, including future Jews (Deut 29:14).
Perhaps we must not be looking at the same covenant.
The Abrahamic covenant is eternal, and there are no conditions.
That was between God, and Abraham, not the Jews.
The covenant God made with the Jews after leading them out of Egypt, was conditional, and not eternal. They broke their agreement, thus invalidating it.
The new covenant God makes is conditional, though eternal, because it involves those of Abraham's seed that will benefit from the Abrahamic covenant.
God did not say the covenant is eternal if...
God said the new covenant is an everlasting covenant, but if you do not... then you will not... Yes, the blessings will not be yours.
However, those who submit to God, will benefit from that covenant.
Sadly, what you are doing is stopping before the actual wording of the covenant is discussed. God explicitly says that what makes this version new is NOT the content (which is the "Torah", same as it ever was) but that this one is inscribed directly on hearts and doesn't have to be taught. You make the mistake of assuming that the content changes even as the text says otherwise.
I don't know where you got that idea. Perhaps you can show me.
I do not disagree with the text.
The new covenant does not include the Torah - oral, or written.
The "old" covenant was made between God and Israel, by a mediator - Moses. Exodus 19
The new covenant is made between God and Israel. Is that not so? Who is the mediator of that covenant?
God forgives their sins, on what basis? Is it, just so? That cannot happen, can it.
(Leviticus 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it.
This is the reason for the required sacrifices and the sprinkling of blood on the alter, isn't it.
(Exodus 29:10-14)
10 “You are now to present the bull before the tent of meeting, and Aaron and his sons will lay their hands on the bull’s head. 11 Slaughter the bull before Jehovah, at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 12 Take some of the bull’s blood on your finger and put it on the horns of the altar, and pour out all the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 13 Then take all the fat that covers the intestines, the appendage on the liver, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, and burn them so that they smoke on the altar. 14 But the bull’s flesh and its skin and its dung, you will burn with fire outside the camp. It is a sin offering. (Exodus 29:35-37)
The entire book of Leviticus describes the sin offering.
Is it possible for a Jew to stop sinning either intentionally, or unintentionally?
I hope you do agree that answer is no.
If the Jews are forever, required to make atonement with sin offerings. That would be quite a burden to carry for all generations. (1 Kings 8:46) . . .If they sin against you (for there is no man who does not sin). . .
(Leviticus 5:5-19) Now if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two young pigeons, he must bring as his offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He should not add oil to it or place frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering.
If, though, he cannot afford a sheep, he must bring to YHWH two turtledoves or two young pigeons as his guilt offering for the sin, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.
If someone sins by doing any of the things that YHWH commands should not be done, even if he is not aware of it, he is still guilty and will answer for his error.
According to the Jew, why is an unintentional sinner guilty of sin worthy of death, and why is the sprinkling and use of blood necessary... In other words, what's the meaning of it?
(Leviticus 7:7) The law regarding the sin offering applies to the guilt offering; it belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it.
(Leviticus 8:14, 15) 14 Then he brought the bull of the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull of the sin offering. 15 Moses slaughtered it and took the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar on all sides, and he purified the altar from sin, but the rest of the blood he poured at the base of the altar, in order to sanctify it to make atonement on it.
Could you please explain, as opposed to saying something like, "For sins.
The new covenant says that God forgives them, and writes his law on their hearts.
Thus they no longer are required to atone for their sins... which mean no more sin offerings on an alter... no more smearing blood on the horns of the alter, nor sprinkling it. No more written or "oral Torah".
Actually, that covenant will be with ALL who follow God's laws and choose to obey the Torah. This is the promise that those among the nations who become followers of God in a Jewish sense will be included in an eternal covenant.
May I ask where you got that from. Could you please provide the Chapter and verse, which says the new covenant includes choosing to obey the Torah?
When you say "ALL", do you mean Gentiles as well? I agree with that.
However, I know how that works with the Christian Greek scriptures, but can you please explain from the perspective of a Jew who has rejected Jesus, and the Christian Greek scripture, how it happens that a Gentile gets into a covenant arrangement made with Israel?
Daniel is not included as a prophet in Judaism. Not that he didn't have visions, but that his role (and therefore his visions) were not to serve as messages to the people. There are many understandings of 9:24-27 but, mathematically, those understandings point to specific (and already past) events. Some connect it to the Channukah story, some to Koresh and the rebuilding of the temple in his day.
Do you accept the Book of Daniel?
Since I am talking to you, and not the Jews with many understandings, what is your understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, and are you still awaiting the Messiah, or did one already arrive.?
That's how I feel about the Christian texts -- fiction written to galvanize people behind a newly invented set of beliefs. Surely that's how you feel about the information in the Quran telling you to listen to Muhammed...or do you follow those teachings because they are a "documentary of a true life account"?
So believers believed? Oh. There were plenty who didn't believe. You are choosing the books by those who believed. Why? Judaism had already been carried on and continued to carry on well past the first century, and yet you wonder why. That's odd.
Asking someone why he doesn't believe assumes that the belief is a rational default. Belief isn't. Non-belief and the need to be convinced is a rational default. You are asking "why don't you abandon the need to be convinced, and believe". That's a strange thing to ask.
2 problems.
1. You only understand those "prophecies" through the lens of what those who believe in the Christian writings tell you they say.
2. The later texts were constructed to try and prove themselves by adopting and trying to fit earlier prophetic writings. Reverse engineering doesn't create truth or validity.
When you start with the hand and make the gloves to fit them, gloves fit. If you started with the gloves and they happen to fit, that would be something.
Then why link to it using those words? You wrote "Not according to the record, nor secular sources." And your link from the words "secular sources" is to the mishna page.
I was saying that according to the secular sources, the Mishnah does not contain all of God's requirements.
However, that is not as important as the record.
A covenant is eternal if it is eternal - it is the marker of a relationship. If I jaywalk in the US, I don't lose my citizenship. The rewards and punishments that come from it don't invalidate it. God says so and promises that if the Jews return, the same covenant applies.
So God cannot forgive sins? The basis would be repentance. If you want a full discussion of biblical repentance (including how blood is not necessary and how sacrifices only atoned for a small group of sins and others required other means) I can give you all sorts of websites that lay it all out. No need to reinvent the wheel.
There are all sorts of offerings and all sorts of sins not covered by offerings. If you don't know that then you need to start from scratch. Would you like some resources and primers?
If the Jews are forever, required to make atonement with sin offerings. That would be quite a burden to carry for all generations. (1 Kings 8:46) . . .If they sin against you (for there is no man who does not sin). . .
(Leviticus 5:5-19)
Could you please explain, as opposed to saying something like, "For sins.
The new covenant says that God forgives them, and writes his law on their hearts.
Thus they no longer are required to atone for their sins... which mean no more sin offerings on an alter... no more smearing blood on the horns of the alter, nor sprinkling it. No more written or "oral Torah".
I don't recall saying (or even thinking loudly) that in messianic days there will be no sins or atonement. There will be sacrifices for those sins that sacrifices atone for and all the other methods for all the other sins.
However, I know how that works with the Christian Greek scriptures, but can you please explain from the perspective of a Jew who has rejected Jesus, and the Christian Greek scripture, how it happens that a Gentile gets into a covenant arrangement made with Israel?
Since I am talking to you, and not the Jews with many understandings, what is your understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, and are you still awaiting the Messiah, or did one already arrive.?
If you think so. You can go back and see what you wrote. I just took your statements and turned them back on you. I can give you a detailed accounting if that would help. Just let me know.
Because that glove is manufactured, not an organic extension which conforms to the hand. If I write something fictional intentionally claiming to fit the demands of an original, you would just buy it because it works so seamlessly?
I was saying that according to the secular sources, the Mishnah does not contain all of God's requirements.
However, that is not as important as the record.
First, in that case, who cares. Does the secular view of the gospels mean anything to you? Second, the Mishna contains God's requirements that God put in the Mishna. Why would it include things that are already in the written text?
A covenant is eternal if it is eternal - it is the marker of a relationship. If I jaywalk in the US, I don't lose my citizenship. The rewards and punishments that come from it don't invalidate it. God says so and promises that if the Jews return, the same covenant applies.
So God cannot forgive sins? The basis would be repentance. If you want a full discussion of biblical repentance (including how blood is not necessary and how sacrifices only atoned for a small group of sins and others required other means) I can give you all sorts of websites that lay it all out. No need to reinvent the wheel.
There are all sorts of offerings and all sorts of sins not covered by offerings. If you don't know that then you need to start from scratch. Would you like some resources and primers?
(Leviticus 4:20) He is to do to the bull just as he did to the other bull of the sin offering. That is how he will do it, and the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.
Oh, okay.
I don't recall saying (or even thinking loudly) that in messianic days there will be no sins or atonement. There will be sacrifices for those sins that sacrifices atone for and all the other methods for all the other sins.
messianic days?
