Torah in Christianity

[Harel13]

So, if by some technicality some legal requirement is fulfilled purely by random happenstance, is the letter of the law fulfilled? ya, I guess. Is the spirit of the law there? not at all. Does it count? yes, but should it?

"Should" something be or not is the not the subject here.
As such, I find your example irrelevant.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

I'm returning to the thread to comment about something...Somebody said to you (it was not I) that the new covenant this and that and so forth, and I disagreed but didn't want to insert into another conversation at that time. Now I don't know where the post is!

Somebody was saying that the new covenant mentioned by a certain Jewish prophet meant that the Jews had broken the covenant, so that it could be replaced. Actually no, that is not the position of Christianity. I don't blame anyone for thinking that it is since Galations is in the canon. Its a confusing book, a bad and a destructive book. Its not a good book. If you put that book into heaven it would disintegrate. It reigns in hell.

The position of Christianity is best understood I think starting from a different place in the prophets from which the crystal of understanding can grow -- understanding the foundations of Christianity. It does not begin with a conversation about Israel failing or being replaced. It begins with a conversation about Ezekiel's temple, which is described in a vision as a temple so enormous that it would be physically preposterous. Also it begins with some comments in Zechariah such as:

• [Zec 14:20-21 NIV] 20 On that day holy to the Lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD Almighty.

Now I am, sad to say, not well versed. I've never had a class on Ezekiel. I'm talking about prophets and scriptures, but I'm not going to pretend I've got it all memorized and understood. All I wish to point out is that the temple is talking about something more than just a temple structure, and I point out that its court of the gentiles is enormous. Not only that but holiness, rather than being a simple property which people and things have, becomes something which spreads outwards from that temple. It is a noun which becomes a verb. This I believe has to do with the promise to Abraham that all nations will be blessed through Abraham; and I think Ezekiel is talking about a vision of peace for everyone everywhere.

This is not the same as Noahidism. Ezekiel's vision is far reaching, a vision of a transformed and peaceful world even far beyond where Jews live and where they do not have influence. The children of Abraham are everywhere, holy by degrees. This I think is where our thoughts of catholicism begin.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus is God's son because he is identified as such in the gospels and the gospels are authoritative because they identify him as God's son. Got it.

Jesus was raised from the dead by God and God said Jesus is His Son. God gives evidence that it is He who said Jesus is His Son.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

'Old' is just as relevant now according to 'New'

Matthew 5:17-18

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jews won't accept the 'new' because Xians won't accept the 'old'.
Just as the adversary wants.

I accept the Old. There are all kinds of things we wouldn't even understand without the Old. If the Jews would believe what the Old says, then they would believe in the New. Messiah didn't abolish the law, he fulfilled all things required under the law. At the cross he said It is finished. The veil of the temple was rent in two, signifying the end of the Old and the beginning of the New.

I believe both Covenants are the word of God. But I understand that we are now under the New Covenant. The Old itself foretold of the New.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

People want a sequel or reboot for reasons.

 

[rosends]

Jesus was raised from the dead by God and God said Jesus is His Son. God gives evidence that it is He who said Jesus is His Son.

OK, I'll try a different tactic:

Jesus was not raised from the dead by God and God did not say Jesus is His Son. God never gave evidence that it is He who said Jesus is His Son

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If the Jews would believe what the Old says, then they would believe in the New.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that Jews do not accept the Tanakh. Nothing could be further from the truth. So because your premise is false, your conclusions are also false.

 

[Harel13]

If the Jews would believe what the Old says, then they would believe in the New

Oddly, Jews believe almost the opposite:
If Christians would believe what the Tanach says, then they would not believe at all in the NT.

 

[Sedim Haba]

"Should" something be or not is the not the subject here.
As such, I find your example irrelevant.

@ 3:15 AM, I'm surprised I could write a coherent sentence.

But somehow, I think anything I write you will find irrelevant, so why bother?

 

[Harel13]

@ 3:15 AM, I'm surprised I could write a coherent sentence.

But somehow, I think anything I write you will find irrelevant, so why bother?

Your call. I started with what I thought was a simple question and you steered away from that.
Anyway, have a nice...pre-dawn?

 

[Sedim Haba]

There are all kinds of things we wouldn't even understand without the Old. If the Jews would believe what the Old says, then they would believe in the New. Messiah didn't abolish the law, he fulfilled all things required under the law. ...

As I told Brian2 in a previous post: Torah in Christianity

Matt 5:17-18 'Til all be fulfilled' ... if you claim that all has been fulfilled, (as you just did)
to that I say, 'then you don't expect any second coming!' right?
All means all. Either all is done or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

I believe both Covenants are the word of God. But I understand that we are now under the New Covenant

Yes, you began with "I accept the Old." but I have to ask... how? What do you do with
that acceptance? For example, do you observe Shabbat on the seventh day? Surely
you see how important that is to G-d, right? Or do you observe a Sunday sabbath as
many do? Which has no basis in 'old' or 'new'?

The Old itself foretold of the New.

The Torah is eternal, as G-d said. However, each generation must make it new,
or rather, renewed.

 

[Brian2]

It means exactly what it says:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Clearly rebukes those who claim the Torah is null and void because of some 'new'
covenant, yes? The few Xians who will even acknowledge 'Til all be fulfilled' will say
that all has been fulfilled, and to that I say, 'then you don't expect any second coming!'
All means all. Either all is done or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

Let's read on:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Pretty much the same, eh? Let's read on...

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Ah! Here's where things get tricky. How do you out-Jew a Jew? It makes sense to
think this can't be done. However, in Judaism there's this thing called Kavanah (Intent).

Kavanah - Wikipedia

... and what is the Kavanah of the Pharisees, that Yeshua sees?

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long" (Matt.23:5)

There it is. The lessons of the Sermon on the Mount and all subsequent teachings.
If there is a 'new' covenant, it's not in abandoning what's been given on Mt. Sinai.
It's in how one approaches obedience to Torah and G-d; the sadly lost lesson:

Where is your heart?

If I obey the command to love then I have fulfilled the law.
If God sees me in Christ as perfect then I am more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.
That is the only way that I can be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.
Isn't God our righteousness? Jehovah Tsidkenu.
Isn't it a wrong motive to obey the law to establish our own righteousness in the eyes of God.
If I teach people to love and if I myself love God and people then would that not be seen as teaching and obeying the Law since love is the fulfilment of the Law.

 

[Brian2]

OK, I'll try a different tactic:

Jesus was not raised from the dead by God and God did not say Jesus is His Son. God never gave evidence that it is He who said Jesus is His Son

That is honest.

 

[Sedim Haba]

If I obey the command to love then I have fulfilled the law.
If God sees me in Christ as perfect then I am more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.
That is the only way that I can be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.
Isn't God our righteousness? Jehovah Tsidkenu.
Isn't it a wrong motive to obey the law to establish our own righteousness in the eyes of God.
If I teach people to love and if I myself love God and people then would that not be seen as teaching and obeying the Law since love is the fulfilment of the Law.

That is all a very typical understanding, and of course I've heard it before.

However, I believe that it's incomplete, this 'love-only-love' view. See James 2:18

Indeed someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

See, the proper motive for obedience is not to "establish our own righteousness"...
but to demonstrate love in actual actions. Not some nebulous declaration of 'love'.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Isn't it a wrong motive to obey the law to establish our own righteousness in the eyes of God.

no, there is nothing wrong in wanting to be a righteous person.

 

[Brian2]

Oddly, Jews believe almost the opposite:
If Christians would believe what the Tanach says, then they would not believe at all in the NT.

If Jews believed the New Testament I think you would get a different understanding of what the Old Testament says.

 

[Harel13]

If Jews believed the New Testament I think you would get a different understanding of what the Old Testament says.

If Christians believed the Tanach I think you would get a different understanding of the NT.

 

[Brian2]

no, there is nothing wrong in wanting to be a righteous person.

That is true but in the context of Christianity and a Covenant where our righteousness is given graciously by God because of our faith in what He has done in sending Jesus to die for us there is a problem in us then turning around and trying to establish our own righteousness by our keeping of the Law.
For a Christian to want to keep the 613 precepts is no problem. But of course people cannot do that without failing and showing that we are not perfect as our heavenly Father is. It is only in accepting the righteousness that God offers that we can be perfect as He is. (Matt 5:48)
It is interesting that once we start concentrating on keeping little bits and pieces of the Law we can miss the overall point of the law, which is to love God and others. We can not see the forest because of the trees.
If I as a Christian however concentrate on the one thing, love, I can fulfil the requirements of the law.
Micah 6:7 Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

 

[Brian2]

If Christians believed the Tanach I think you would get a different understanding of the NT.

Well the Tanach and the Old Testament of course are usually quite different in places,,,,,,,,,,and I don't think it is because the translators are dishonest or ignorant of the language.
But yes a more thorough understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures would give Christians a better understanding of the New Testament.

 

[Harel13]

and I don't think it is because the translators are dishonest or ignorant of the language.

Not always. But sometimes, yes. Especially depending how much the version you prefer is based on the LXX, and which version of that, of course.
And sometimes it wasn't dishonesty but conflation of external ideas and worldviews. This becomes more relevant the further back in time you go.