Torah in Christianity

[TrueBeliever37]

You seem confused about the difference between law and covenant.

So you agree there is now a NEW covenant?

 

[Redemptionsong]

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

Unless one understands the fulfilment of the Sabbath as being rest and peace in Christ. The seventh day of God's week is not the same as the seventh day in man's week. Taking each day as a thousand years, God's Sabbath is yet to come.

Do priests rest on the Sabbath?

 

[rosends]

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

Calling something a lamb and its being a lamb are 2 different things.
Something happening on the temple mount, but not on the proper altar doesn't count.
Crucifiction of a scourged sacrifice doesn't count.
The one performing the sacrifice has to be a particular person also.
It doesn't fit at all.

 

[rosends]

Unless one understands the fulfilment of the Sabbath as being rest and peace in Christ. The seventh day of God's week is not the same as the seventh day in man's week. Taking each day as a thousand years, God's Sabbath is yet to come.

Do priests rest on the Sabbath?

The sabbath is fulfilled by keeping its laws, each and every week. The seventh day is the seventh day. Looking at it fancifully, one could find ways to justify all sorts of distinct practices.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The text literally calls the servant Israel.

For the transgression of my people was he stricken - he shall bear their iniquities - he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:8-12 How could that possibly be Israel?

Isn't this someone suffering for God's people? It doesn't sound like an animal to me. Does it to you?

 

[rosends]

For the transgression of my people was he stricken - he shall bear their iniquities - he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:8-12 How could that possibly be Israel?

Isn't this someone suffering for God's people? It doesn't sound like an animal to me. Does it to you?

The text presents the perception of non-Jewish kings about the nation of Israel (named explicitly) suffering for the actions of the non-Jewish nations. Here is what I recently posted explaining the pronouns.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The text presents the perception of non-Jewish kings about the nation of Israel (named explicitly) suffering for the actions of the non-Jewish nations. Here is what I recently posted explaining the pronouns.

Your explanation doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify. How does "for the transgression of my people was he stricken" work into what you just said?

Someone was to suffer because of the transgressions of God's people. Also are you saying Israel was a man of sorrows?

 

[Harel13]

How has this become another Isaiah 53 thread?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Calling something a lamb and its being a lamb are 2 different things.
Something happening on the temple mount, but not on the proper altar doesn't count.
Crucifiction of a scourged sacrifice doesn't count.
The one performing the sacrifice has to be a particular person also.
It doesn't fit at all.

Malachi 3:1. 'Behold, l will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts'.

Do you think Malachi is talking of the temple built with hands, or the temple build without hands?

 

[rosends]

Your explanation doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify. How does "for the transgression of my people was he stricken" work into what you just said?

Someone was to suffer because of the transgressions of God's people. Also are you saying Israel was a man of sorrows?

If you follow the pronouns and the grammar, the kings speak and the people are spoken of as a singular servant of God:
Is 52 mentions God's speaking of "my people" and, starting way back in Is 42, you have statements like "But, you Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend."

So 52 continues with the same singular reference
"My servant shall prosper"

and then talks of how others perceive the servant
"Just as the many were appalled at him"

then there is the (first person plural) statement made by the kings who have been startled
"Who can believe what we have heard?"

so you have the "we" being the kings and their people" and the "he" being the servant/Israel

Note how both those players have been explicitly named and the narrative's continuity is established.

Using that, the "my people" (as a statement made by the kings) transgressed, and "he" (the servant) is paying for it.

Instead of introducing a character not named in the text, and ignoring what is actually happening, you should be able to see the straightforward logic here.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The sabbath is fulfilled by keeping its laws, each and every week. The seventh day is the seventh day. Looking at it fancifully, one could find ways to justify all sorts of distinct practices.

It's not fanciful to understand a day with God as a thousand years. Psalm 90:4 has indicated this to Jewish commentators, and the idea is repeated in the second epistle of Peter 3:8.
'But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day'.

 

[rosends]

Malachi 3:1. 'Behold, l will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts'.

Do you think Malachi is talking of the temple built with hands, or the temple build without hands?

It isn't even clear that he is talking about the "temple." The word is "heichal" or sanctuary. There is discussion among Jewish commentators as to how much human involvement is necessary in the construction of the. Some say a lot, some say a little.

 

[rosends]

It's not fanciful to understand a day with God as a thousand years. Psalm 90:4 has indicated this to Jewish commentators, and the idea is repeated in the second epistle of Peter 3:8.
'But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day'.

And therefore any time you want "day" to mean anything else it does? The text in Psalms actually says "כִּ֤י אֶ֪לֶף שָׁנִ֡ים בְּֽעֵינֶ֗יךָ כְּי֣וֹם אֶ֭תְמוֹל כִּ֣י יַֽעֲבֹ֑ר" "as a thousands years are like a yesterday that has passed" so now every yesterday is 1000 years but not a tomorrow...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Er, because Christians do not believe it is perfect, or at any rate, that it is not a complete expression of what God intends for Man, perhaps?

These are the same Christians that believe the psalmist was speaking for God when he wrote that the Law is perfect. It is a contradiction.

 

[Kenny]

But this idea of 'evolution' bothers me. You're reading it the wrong way around by reading the OT in light of the NT, when it's the NT that has to be held accountable to what is said in the Tanakh. To get out of this, Christians invent the notion of reading the OT in light of the NT, which is just ridiculous. It's like believing in Jesus a priori, then finding reasons to - which is what I see in the NT.

No... I wouldn't see it that way. I think you are reading into that statement.

We do know that the prophets added revelation about God. The Names of God were revealed at different times. It was an ongoing revelations.

thus: He makes the coffee 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

So he revealed the fulness of God and thus, when we read scriptures, it opens up the understanding of what God was saying in the Old Testament. It is the "AH HA" revelation so, indeed, we find the reality of Old Testament by the light given in the New.

Not invented but rather.... understood thereby

 

[sun rise]

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

A) Only for Israelites

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

This is nothing like Christianity.

Each of the major religions have a new beginning/world/humanity/creation where the truth will be a living reality and not scripture. They all see their vision as exclusively theirs. Jews have a living Torah. Christians have the vision outlined in Revelation and so forth.

There may indeed be differences in how that same truth is expressed in deeds but to me it will be the same truth differently expressed not something exclusive to any religion.

 

[lukethethird]

Each of the major religions have a new beginning/world/humanity/creation where the truth will be a living reality and not scripture. They all see their vision as exclusively theirs. Jews have a living Torah. Christians have the vision outlined in Revelation and so forth.

There may indeed be differences in how that same truth is expressed in deeds but to me it will be the same truth differently expressed not something exclusive to any religion.

So you claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

What you call subjective I call fulfillment.

The diverse and conflicting claims of the different religions and churches concerning fulfillment are indeed 'subjective to the point that many disagree.

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

Incoherent. Please try again.

 

[DNB]

This is in religious debates and so is open to everyone.

In trying to understand Christianity and what underpins it, I keep coming up against essentially the belief that the Torah isn't enough, it's not good enough, it doesn't do this or that.

Psalm 19 says 'The Law of the Lord is perfect', and the Torah in Deut 4 says not to add or take away from it, and in Deut 30 it says it is not far away, hard to do etc.

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

Can you still have Christianity if you believe the Torah is perfect? I don't believe you can.

In brief Rival, there is often the employment of hyperbole in God's word, or, at least, such superlatives are literal in a contextual manner.
But, in short, as far as legislation is concerned, the Levitical Law was perfect. But, in regard to the necessity of having a law, we are now in the realm of good and evil, which undermines the principle of perfection as long as there is evil present, somewhere. In other words, as Paul states, the necessity of the law is only justified whenever evil is present - injunctions are designed for the potential of iniquity.
With the advent of Christ, and the notion of faith (which, as love, cannot be legislated), we now become aware of the inferiority of having a judicial system.
Thus, the Mosaic Law fulfilled its purpose to define perfection (in human behaviour), and to expose the propensity of man to sin. Christ fulfilled all the precepts within Law, allowing God to abrogate it and inaugurate the new Law of faith - he that believes shall be saved, and not those who merely act out the Law.

 

[Sedim Haba]

This is in religious debates and so is open to everyone.

In trying to understand Christianity and what underpins it, I keep coming up against essentially the belief that the Torah isn't enough, it's not good enough, it doesn't do this or that.

Psalm 19 says 'The Law of the Lord is perfect', and the Torah in Deut 4 says not to add or take away from it, and in Deut 30 it says it is not far away, hard to do etc.

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

Can you still have Christianity if you believe the Torah is perfect? I don't believe you can.

'Xianity as a whole' was necessarily because... we Jews failed. Our fault, so G-d looked elsewhere.

Too bad, Xianity also failed, so G-d looked to our brother Ishmael.

The 'jury is still out' AFAIK, but it doesn't look good from my perspective....