• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You're adding to the text. Show me the words "Son of God" in Job.

The statute is eternal, we simply don't have a temple.

The existance of Messianic Jews is irrelevant to whether or not the New Covenant annuls the Old Covenant.


Sure it does.

Deuteronomy 4:2. "... do not add or remove ... "

In Job 9: 32-35 he said, "If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot." That is a reference to the Messiah. There was a reason God mentioned that verse because God is not the author of confusion. That verse is a clear reference to the Messiah.

The existence of Messianic Jews are relevant because the New Covenant doesn't annul the New Covenant.

Deuteronomy 4:2 says not to add to the Bible, but the other books of the Tanakh are additional writings. They don't add to the Bible because they have an order and a purpose. The same applies to the New Covenant of the Messiah.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
In Job 9: 32-35 he said, "If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot." That is a reference to the Messiah. There was a reason God mentioned that verse because God is not the author of confusion. That verse is a clear reference to the Messiah.
I'm not sure what text you are working with.
-----------
32 For He is not man like me, that I should answer Him, 'Let us come together in debate.' לבכִּֽי־לֹא־אִ֣ישׁ כָּמ֣וֹנִי אֶֽעֱנֶ֑נּוּ נָב֥וֹא יַ֜חְדָּ֗ו בַּמִּשְׁפָּֽט:
33There is no arbiter between us, who will place his hand on both of us. לגלֹ֣א יֵֽשׁ־בֵּינֵ֣ינוּ מוֹכִ֑יחַ יָשֵׁ֖ת יָד֣וֹ עַל־שְׁנֵֽינוּ:
34Let Him take His rod off me, and let His terror not frighten me. לדיָסֵ֣ר מֵֽעָלַ֣י שִׁבְט֑וֹ וְ֜אֵֽמָת֗וֹ אַל־תְּבַֽעֲתַֽנִּי:
35I will speak and I will not fear Him, for I am not so with myself. להאֲדַבְּרָה וְלֹ֣א אִֽירָאֶ֑נּוּ כִּֽי־לֹא־כֵ֥ן אָ֜נֹכִ֗י עִמָּדִֽי:
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ignored: It's not in the Torah. :D


Did you take a look at the verse: Job says "there is no mediator". Job 9:33.

View attachment 46396


You're changing the subject. The subject is the New Covenant. The New Covenant as described by the Christian bible contradicts Torah. As I showed you, the literal words of the Torah say that the temple service of atonement is an eternal statute. The New Covenant described in the Christian bible ends an eternal statute. That's a contradiction. You said:



Sorry, you're wrong. The New Covenant excludes the Old Covenant. It removes an eternal statute.

Yahweh being a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is why the Mediator doctrine doesn't involve belief in another God.

Job was writing that before the coming of the Messiah, and he was talking about the coming Messiah, who would be God. There is no mediator and only God can reconcile sinful man to himself, not just for forgiveness, but so that we could have a close relationship with God.

The New Covenant doesn't forbid the Old Covenant or even the temple priests, because the Jewish Christians believed in both the Old and New Covenant. Isaiah 66:23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come to worship before Me," says the LORD.

How does the New Covenant exclude the Old Covenant if some people follow both covenants? Just because they are often practiced separately doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Job knew that the Son of God was to be his mediator.
You're adding to the text. Show me the words "Son of God" in Job
In Job 9: 32-35 he said, "If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot." That is a reference to the Messiah. There was a reason God mentioned that verse because God is not the author of confusion. That verse is a clear reference to the Messiah.
So, just to be clear. When you said: "Job knew that the Son of God was to be his mediator." You added the part about "Son of God".

It's time to show some integrity and admit that you are misquoting and adding things to the text. Please do so.
The existence of Messianic Jews are relevant because the New Covenant doesn't annul the New Covenant.
Saying that doesn't make it true.

Maybe you're making up your own version of the New Covenant? Here's the text of how the New Covenant is described in the Christian bible:

Hebrews 8:13

Screenshot_20201226_164550.jpg

"He has made obsolete the first."

Deuteronomy 4:2 says not to add to the Bible, but the other books of the Tanakh are additional writings. They don't add to the Bible because they have an order and a purpose. The same applies to the New Covenant of the Messiah.

No. 4:2 specifically says do not add or remove to the mitzvot, the commandments.


Screenshot_20201226_165238.jpg

Yahweh being a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is why the Mediator doctrine doesn't involve belief in another God.
Ignored: Yahweh referencing Father, Son, Holy Spirit is not in Torah.
Job was writing that before the coming of the Messiah, and he was talking about the coming Messiah, who would be God. There is no mediator and only God can reconcile sinful man to himself, not just for forgiveness, but so that we could have a close relationship with God.
Ignored: Equating the Messiah with God is not in Torah
The New Covenant doesn't forbid the Old Covenant or even the temple priests, because the Jewish Christians believed in both the Old and New Covenant. Isaiah 66:23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come to worship before Me," says the LORD.
Please see my comment above showing the text of Hebrews 8:13. You are making up your own definition of New Covenant. The verse from Isaiah is irrelevant.
How does the New Covenant exclude the Old Covenant if some people follow both covenants?
Perhaps you should describe an example where you think both covenants are followed?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The original Jewish Christians didn't change. THEY DISAPPEARED! Even the writings of Jude describe that they were starting to have problems. That is why there are no Jews today who descend from James, Peter, Paul, etc. It is because of their Avodah Zara ideas, like the ones mentioned in John 1 and also the entire book of Hebrews, as well as others.

They changed because of influence of people who had different beliefs. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

Rejection of Jewish Christianity
In Christian circles, "Nazarene" later came to be used as a label for those faithful to Jewish law, in particular for a certain sect. These Jewish Christians, originally the central group in Christianity, were not at first declared to be unorthodox but were later excluded and denounced. Some Jewish Christian groups, such as the Ebionites, were considered to have unorthodox beliefs, particularly in relation to their views of Christ and gentile converts. The Nazarenes, holding to orthodoxy except in their adherence to Jewish law, were not deemed heretical until the dominance of orthodoxy in the 4th century. The Ebionites may have been a splinter group of Nazarenes, with disagreements over Christology and leadership. After the condemnation of the Nazarenes, "Ebionite" was often used as a general pejorative for all related "heresies".[127][128]

Jewish Christians constituted a separate community from the Pauline Christians. There was a post-Nicene "double rejection" of the Jewish Christians by both gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. It is believed that there was no direct confrontation or persecution between gentile and Judaic Christianity. However, by this time the practice of Judeo-Christianity was diluted both by internal schisms and external pressures. Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy and imposed itself on the previously Jewish Christian sanctuaries, taking full control of those houses of worship by the end of the 5th century.[129]
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
So, just to be clear. When you said: "Job knew that the Son of God was to be his mediator." You added the part about "Son of God".

It's time to show some integrity and admit that you are misquoting and adding things to the text. Please do so.

Saying that doesn't make it true.

Maybe you're making up your own version of the New Covenant? Here's the text of how the New Covenant is described in the Christian bible:

Hebrews 8:13

View attachment 46398
"He has made obsolete the first."



No. 4:2 specifically says do not add or remove to the mitzvot, the commandments.


View attachment 46400

Ignored: Yahweh referencing Father, Son, Holy Spirit is not in Torah.

Ignored: Equating the Messiah with God is not in Torah

Please see my comment above showing the text of Hebrews 8:13. You are making up your own definition of New Covenant. The verse from Isaiah is irrelevant.

Perhaps you should describe an example where you think both covenants are followed?

I believe that Job was talking about how he knew God was to be his mediator, since he also referred to God as his redeemer. Bible Gateway passage: Job 19:25-27 - New International Version

Messianic Jews are relevant to the New Covenant not annulling the Old Covenant. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

Jewish Christians (Hebrew: יהודים נוצרים‎) were the followers of a Jewish religious sect that emerged in Judea during the late Second Temple period (first-century). The sect integrated the belief of Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and his teachings into the Jewish faith, including the observance of the Jewish law. Jewish Christianity is the foundation of Early Christianity, which later developed into Christianity. Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of a deified Jesus after his earthly ministry, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers. Modern scholarship is engaged in an ongoing debate as to the proper designation for Jesus' first followers. Many see the term Jewish Christians as anachronistic given that there is no consensus on the date of the birth of Christianity. Some modern scholars have suggested the designations "Jewish believers in Jesus" or "Jewish followers of Jesus" as better reflecting the original context.

The inclusion of gentiles led to a growing split between Jewish Christians (i.e. the Jewish followers of Jesus) and gentile Christianity. From the latter, Nicene Christianity eventually arose, while mainstream Judaism developed into Rabbinic Judaism. Jewish Christians drifted apart from mainstream Judaism, eventually becoming a minority strand which had mostly disappeared by the fifth century. Jewish–Christian gospels have been lost except for fragments, so there is considerable uncertainty as to the scriptures used by this group.

The split of Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries CE.[1][2] While the First Jewish–Roman War and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE were main events, the separation was a long-term process, in which the boundaries were not clear-cut.[1][2]

God has made obsolete the first means that Christians don't have to practice the Old Covenant. People follow it depending on if it's relevant to their walk with God.

Genesis 1:26-28 refers to Yahweh as the Trinity. Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26-28 - King James Version

The Messiah is called the Everlasting Father. Why Does Isaiah Call Jesus the Everlasting Father? Isaiah 9:6 | Brent Riggs - Serious Faith

A son can also be a father. Jesus being the Son of God doesn't mean He isn't the Everlasting Father.

Here's an example of where both covenants are followed. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

Most historians agree that Jesus or his followers established a new Jewish sect, one that attracted both Jewish and gentile converts. The self-perception, beliefs, customs, and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus, Jesus’s disciples and first followers, were grounded in first-century Judaism. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century CE, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy, Marcionites, Gnostics and the Jewish followers of Jesus.[41] According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism.[42]

The first followers of Jesus were essentially all ethnically Jewish or Jewish proselytes. Jesus was Jewish, preached to the Jewish people, and called from them his first followers. According to McGrath, Jewish Christians, as faithful religious Jews, "regarded their movement as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief-that Jesus was the Messiah."[43]

Jewish Christians were the original members of the Jewish movement that later became Christianity.[12][44][1][2] In the earliest stage the community was made up of all those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.[1][2][45] As Christianity grew and developed, Jewish Christians became only one strand of the early Christian community, characterised by combining the confession of Jesus as Christ with continued observance of the Torah[12] and adherence to Jewish traditions such as Sabbath observance, Jewish calendar, Jewish laws and customs, circumcision, kosher diet and synagogue attendance, and by a direct genetic relationship to the earliest followers of Jesus.[12][44][1][13]
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what text you are working with.
-----------
32 For He is not man like me, that I should answer Him, 'Let us come together in debate.' לבכִּֽי־לֹא־אִ֣ישׁ כָּמ֣וֹנִי אֶֽעֱנֶ֑נּוּ נָב֥וֹא יַ֜חְדָּ֗ו בַּמִּשְׁפָּֽט:
33There is no arbiter between us, who will place his hand on both of us. לגלֹ֣א יֵֽשׁ־בֵּינֵ֣ינוּ מוֹכִ֑יחַ יָשֵׁ֖ת יָד֣וֹ עַל־שְׁנֵֽינוּ:
34Let Him take His rod off me, and let His terror not frighten me. לדיָסֵ֣ר מֵֽעָלַ֣י שִׁבְט֑וֹ וְ֜אֵֽמָת֗וֹ אַל־תְּבַֽעֲתַֽנִּי:
35I will speak and I will not fear Him, for I am not so with myself. להאֲדַבְּרָה וְלֹ֣א אִֽירָאֶ֑נּוּ כִּֽי־לֹא־כֵ֥ן אָ֜נֹכִ֗י עִמָּדִֽי:

In verse 33 Job was pointing to the future hope of the Messiah. An arbiter is a mediator and an advocate. That verse hints that the Messiah is more than a mere political figure. In Job 19:25 says, "“For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth”. The Old Testament talks about the Messiah being the Redeemer and God in human form. God is not a man like us means that God is not one of us-God is our Father.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I believe that Job was talking about how he knew God was to be his mediator, since he also referred to God as his redeemer. Bible Gateway passage: Job 19:25-27 - New International Version
So you concede that you were wrong to add "Son of God" to the verses in Job, right?
Nope, the word Yahweh does not exist in those verses. Remember this is what you said:
Yahweh being a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is why the Mediator doctrine doesn't involve belief in another God.
This is not in Torah. Not in Genesis, not anywhere. I challenge you to find any verses that put those things together. You won't find it. It contradicts Deuteronomy 6:4.
Screenshot_20201226_173602.jpg

Messianic Jews are relevant to the New Covenant not annulling the Old Covenant. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia
This link is irrelevant to The New Covenant in Christianity.
God has made obsolete the first means that Christians don't have to practice the Old Covenant. People follow it depending on if it's relevant to their walk with God.
Agreed. Christians don't have to practice the Old Covenant. They are not part of the Old Covenant at all. It's an agreement, a contract of sorts, between the Jewish people and our God.

This is completely irrelevant. Not only that, Isaiah cannot be talking about Jesus. Remember? Jesus is quoted in the NT saying he was NOT the Prince of Peace. He disqualified himself. Matthew 10:34.

Screenshot_20201226_174844.jpg

A son can also be a father. Jesus being the Son of God doesn't mean He isn't the Everlasting Father.
Ignored: irrelevant
Here's an example of where both covenants are followed. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia
OK. The prolem here as I see it is the belief in Jesus as described in the NT as the messiah, as God violates some very clear verses in Torah. If you go way back in time, before the NT was written then what you're talking about is an elimination of the requirements of conversion? That's your definition of the New Covenant? No one needs to convert into Judaism anymore? They can just choose to label themselves Jewish?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
The Torah and the Tanakh are in the Christian Old Testament. The New Testament is not idolatry or paganism or strange worship. The God of the New Testament is holy and just just like the God of the Old Testament.

The Hebrew Tanakh is not in the Christian Old Testament. If it were you and most of the Christians in the world would be able to read Hebrew/Aramaic. By you own admission in another thread you do not read Hebrew. MANY concepts in the New Testament are Avodah Zara. This is why many Jews during the inquisition were did everything they could to escape, fake compliance with the forced conversation to Christianity, or they died (at the hands of the Christian Inquistion) rather than become Christians. In fact, there are a number of people in the modern era who found out that they descend from Jews forced to convert to Christianity who have returned to the Torah, rejecting Jesus and the texts he inspired.

Besides, there are no testaments for Jews. That is a Christian thing.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The original Jewish Christians didn't change. THEY DISAPPEARED! Even the writings of Jude describe that they were starting to have problems. That is why there are no Jews today who descend from James, Peter, Paul, etc. It is because of their Avodah Zara ideas, like the ones mentioned in John 1 and also the entire book of Hebrews, as well as others.

The belief that the New Testament is Avodah Zara is influenced by the Talmud, and the Talmud is from the rabbis, not the Torah. Jesus in the Talmud - Wikipedia
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Hebrew Tanakh is not in the Christian Old Testament. If it were you and most of the Christians in the world would be able to read Hebrew/Aramaic. By you own admission in another thread you do not read Hebrew. MANY concepts in the New Testament are Avodah Zara. This is why many Jews during the inquisition were did everything they could to escape, fake compliance with the forced conversation to Christianity, or they died (at the hands of the Christian Inquistion) rather than become Christians. In fact, there are a number of people in the modern era who found out that they descend from Jews forced to convert to Christianity who have returned to the Torah, rejecting Jesus and the texts he inspired.

Besides, there are no testaments for Jews. That is a Christian thing.

The belief that the New Testament is Avodah Zara comes from rabbinic Judaism and the Talmud. Jesus was not a rabbi in the sense of modern day Judaism. It didn't exist in the New Testament times. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

The inclusion of gentiles led to a growing split between Jewish Christians (i.e. the Jewish followers of Jesus) and gentile Christianity. From the latter, Nicene Christianity eventually arose, while mainstream Judaism developed into Rabbinic Judaism. Jewish Christians drifted apart from mainstream Judaism, eventually becoming a minority strand which had mostly disappeared by the fifth century. Jewish–Christian gospels have been lost except for fragments, so there is considerable uncertainty as to the scriptures used by this group.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Like I said, Avodah Zara. That will do it for me. I am doine here.

Avodah Zara means foreign worship and idolatry and strange service. How is Jesus being Yahweh a self contradiction? Yahweh is more than Jesus, Yahweh is also the name of the other members of the divine essence of the Trinity. I didn't say Jesus is the Father. Jesus being the son of God and the everlasting Father isn't a self contradiction because a son can be a father. All fathers are also sons.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When David killed righteous Uriah, was it God's will? When Israel forsook their God, was it God's will? When a person sins, is it God's will? Is everything God's will, or is there also coincidence?
Free will means owner of personal choice.

Laws of stone in space science thinker male theist. Quotes .law of God will changed freely. Without cause and without factor.

Space contracts. Mother of God held laws and balances. Space womb.

Law teaching space the body of constantly naturallly changed. No factoring. No charge. No numbers hence no payment. God did it freely itself originally. Destroy life anytime.

Relative ignorance male scientist. Self taught self ignorant.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The Mishnah is not the Torah. It is an interpretation of the Torah. During the first century, different Jews had different interpretations about the Torah and the Tanakh.
The Mishnah, is a record of the Oral Law that was given at Sinai. The point is that the definition of Avodah Zarah was not something made up after Jesus in the Talmud. It's older than that. Perhaps it's not important to you. But it shows that there was a history of avoiding strange and foreign gods and practices. For example:
Yahweh is also the name of the other members of the divine essence of the Trinity.
This ^^ is strange. You're ignoring Deuteronomy 6:4.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
No. Sorry. It comes from the Mishnah, and that pre-dates Jesus.

Mishnah - Wikipedia

Just FYI. You aren't going to get anywhere with him on this one. Based on what he posted, and also his refusal to answer the questions I had about early Christian history, you are going to be in a loop. It is best to do what we were warned to do in sitautions like this.

אין כורתין ברית לעובדי עבודה זרה, כדי שנעשה עימהם שלום ונניח אותם לעובדה--שנאמר "לא תכרות להם ברית" (דברים ז,ב​

הנוצריים עובדי עבודה זרה הן, ויום ראשון יום אידם הוא. לפיכך אסור לשאת ולתת עימהן בארץ ישראל, יום חמישי ויום שישי שבכל שבת ושבת; ואין צריך לומר יום ראשון עצמו, שהוא אסור בכל מקום. וכן נוהגין עימהן, בכל אידיהן​
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
So you concede that you were wrong to add "Son of God" to the verses in Job, right?

Nope, the word Yahweh does not exist in those verses. Remember this is what you said:

This is not in Torah. Not in Genesis, not anywhere. I challenge you to find any verses that put those things together. You won't find it. It contradicts Deuteronomy 6:4.
View attachment 46401

This link is irrelevant to The New Covenant in Christianity.

Agreed. Christians don't have to practice the Old Covenant. They are not part of the Old Covenant at all. It's an agreement, a contract of sorts, between the Jewish people and our God.


This is completely irrelevant. Not only that, Isaiah cannot be talking about Jesus. Remember? Jesus is quoted in the NT saying he was NOT the Prince of Peace. He disqualified himself. Matthew 10:34.

View attachment 46402

Ignored: irrelevant

OK. The prolem here as I see it is the belief in Jesus as described in the NT as the messiah, as God violates some very clear verses in Torah. If you go way back in time, before the NT was written then what you're talking about is an elimination of the requirements of conversion? That's your definition of the New Covenant? No one needs to convert into Judaism anymore? They can just choose to label themselves Jewish?

Other verses mention Redeemer who will stand on the earth, and the verse about the arbiter describes an advocate and a mediator. Job was talked about the Son of God aspect of the Trinity, based on how those verses match the New Testament. In Genesis 1:26, God says, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". That is a reference to the triune name of God Yahweh. The name Yahweh is mentioned in Exodus and 1st Samuel of the Tanakh. 7 Meanings of Yahweh and Why It's Such an Important Name for God

Yahweh | Translation, Meaning, & Facts

Yahweh being one is a reference to rejecting the doctrine of polytheism, not that three persons are of the same essence. Trinity - Wikipedia

It's an example of how the Old and New Covenant can exist together beautifully.

That doesn't mean that Christians can't be a part of the Old Covenant.

When Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace, he meant that the gospel divides people. The context of that verse was not whether or not Jesus was the Prince of Peace.

A gentile has to convert to Judaism to be Jewish. I have relatives who grew up Catholic but married Messianic Jews and became Jewish.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Mishnah, is a record of the Oral Law that was given at Sinai. The point is that the definition of Avodah Zarah was not something made up after Jesus in the Talmud. It's older than that. Perhaps it's not important to you. But it shows that there was a history of avoiding strange and foreign gods and practices. For example:

This ^^ is strange. You're ignoring Deuteronomy 6:4.

The Mishnah is also an interpretation of the oral law of Moses. Deuteronomy 6:4 is not about the Trinity, its about not following polytheism. Polytheistic gods are different from the Trinity. When Jesus prayed not my will but thine be done he was talking about how the wills of the Father and the Son are in alignment. Jesus was loving, holy, and righteous. The gods of polytheism never died on the cross for the sins of people. They were not holy and righteous. They married human women.
 
Top