No and no
-
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!
For the Christians (Abrahamic only)
- Thread starter dantech
- Start date
No and no
This is the question I read: Just honest curiosity as to how your scholars have interpreted these issues?
I don't have scholars. Sorry to interrupt. Carry on!
I don't have scholars. Sorry to interrupt. Carry on!
Oak of Justice
Member
Yes the son of man does teach the law of the Lord. He does not view the law as the Jews of this world but as scripture has defined it. Let's look at a few verses about the law.
Psalms;
119:55 I remember your name in the night, O Lord, and keep your law.
119:77 Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.
119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your law is the truth
119:174 I long for your salvation, O Lord, and your law is my delight.
"Since you have rejected knowledge I will reject you from my priesthood. Since you have ignored the law of your God I will also ignore your sons."says the Lord
Psalms;
119:55 I remember your name in the night, O Lord, and keep your law.
119:77 Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.
119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your law is the truth
119:174 I long for your salvation, O Lord, and your law is my delight.
"Since you have rejected knowledge I will reject you from my priesthood. Since you have ignored the law of your God I will also ignore your sons."says the Lord
Reverend Richard
New Thought Minister
Dantech - perhaps I did deviate some from your questions, but I was responding to someone else's sidebar. But you said below....
I guess my point was that, from my perspective as a "former" conservative Christian, Jesus' appearance in the flesh fulfilled all the prophesies. But, according to these same conservative Christians, Jesus also brought with Him the promise of salvation by grace, through faith. But that salvation came with a catch - believe or be damned.
However, now that I have a more objective view of both Christianity and Judaism, I can see that Jesus did not fulfill the Old Testament prophesies, and it was not Jesus that gave us Christianity, it was the apostle Paul who laid the groundwork for it.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Ask Paul.
Basically, my question to you is this.
After reading these verses, it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God. He goes even further and says that we should fulfill these laws, and not ignore a single "iota" or "dot" from these laws.
But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?
Also another thing I was thinking to myself. If we know the Messiah needs to be a descendant of King David, how could it be that Jesus was both a descendant of David, and the son of God.
Again, this is not meant in disrespect, Just honest curiosity as to how your scholars have interpreted these issues.[/quote]
When Jesus came he presented himself as the Messiah thru his words and miracles.
The Jewish people and leaders rejected him, the final straw being when they said his miracles where being done thru the power of satan. If the Jews had accepted him as the Messiah the covenant of the law of Moses would have remained in effect and he would not have died on the cross. God in his foreknowledge knew he would be rejected and with Jesus death on the cross would institute a new covenant for the forgiveness of sin making obsolete the old one, culminating in the destruction of the temple in 70AD making it impossible to fully keep the law of Moses.
After reading these verses, it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God. He goes even further and says that we should fulfill these laws, and not ignore a single "iota" or "dot" from these laws.
But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?
Also another thing I was thinking to myself. If we know the Messiah needs to be a descendant of King David, how could it be that Jesus was both a descendant of David, and the son of God.
Again, this is not meant in disrespect, Just honest curiosity as to how your scholars have interpreted these issues.[/quote]
When Jesus came he presented himself as the Messiah thru his words and miracles.
The Jewish people and leaders rejected him, the final straw being when they said his miracles where being done thru the power of satan. If the Jews had accepted him as the Messiah the covenant of the law of Moses would have remained in effect and he would not have died on the cross. God in his foreknowledge knew he would be rejected and with Jesus death on the cross would institute a new covenant for the forgiveness of sin making obsolete the old one, culminating in the destruction of the temple in 70AD making it impossible to fully keep the law of Moses.
Last edited:
dantech
Well-Known Member
Just because the temple was destroyed, doesn't mean that the covenant needs to be changed because all the laws are not possible to be kept...
For example, there are laws that only apply to men, some only to women, some only to Cohens, and some only based on certain opportunities, etc...
I realize you didn't say that the covenant was changed because the temple was destructed, I'm just saying that has nothing to do with making the old covenant obsolete.
I read through other posts that the religion was given to you by Paul... Then would that mean that Paul spoke to God and was a prophet? would it mean that Paul is the one who made the covenant with God, since he built this religion years after Jesus' death? Also, it says many many times in the old testament that the old covenant is one to stay forever and ever. Now it is agreed by Christians, as well as Muslims, and Jews that the Old Testament is the word of God, isn't it? Well if it is, how would an Almighty Being, one that is pure and perfect in every possible way, "correct" himself by changing the covenant? Anything God says is perfect. Anything perfect does not need any change. any sort of change would mean that he actually is not perfect and learned from a mistake.
If you are wondering about the verses about the law of Moses and eternity, here they are :
Leviticus 3:17 "It is a law forever throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.."
Another question I have is this one:
You say that Jesus died for the sins of man. This is before the "new covenant" and before the whole religion even existed. And it has been very clear that Jesus followed the laws of the old testament and fulfilled them down to the last "iota". If this is true, he never would have died for sins since it was strictly forbidden to make human sacrifices for any reason whatsoever, and still is. What would give him the right to change that law while still under the same covenant?
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Hey dantech you are clearly new to the forums these questions have been asked, debated and discussed many times yet there is no ''real'' answer to them.
The only excuse i have heard is that Jesus(pbuh) brought for a new covenant and fulfilled the need of the laws by sacrificing himself this is what ''Paul'' teaches however human sacrifices are forbidden as you have mentioned and not to forget that the Bible (New/Old-testament) tells us over and over that we are judged by our own actions. There is a clear contradiction if one says that we should abolish the law and when a other says they can never be abolished that's why many people belief that the ''New-Christians'' are Paul followers instead that of Jesus(pbuh).
The only excuse i have heard is that Jesus(pbuh) brought for a new covenant and fulfilled the need of the laws by sacrificing himself this is what ''Paul'' teaches however human sacrifices are forbidden as you have mentioned and not to forget that the Bible (New/Old-testament) tells us over and over that we are judged by our own actions. There is a clear contradiction if one says that we should abolish the law and when a other says they can never be abolished that's why many people belief that the ''New-Christians'' are Paul followers instead that of Jesus(pbuh).
I don't want to go off-topic to much but Muslims do not belief that the old-testament or the torah is fully the word of god. God is perfect humans are not therefore its not that god changes hes mind but that the communities changes. For example Moses(pbuh) was travelling true the desert with the Hebrews to the promised land therefore he needed laws that would give fast-justice however in the time of Jesus(pbuh) people already settled and there were courts so there fore changing the circumstances.
Last edited:
Just because the temple was destroyed, doesn't mean that the covenant needs to be changed because all the laws are not possible to be kept...
For example, there are laws that only apply to men, some only to women, some only to Cohens, and some only based on certain opportunities, etc...
Why would God want Jews to live under the law and then make it impossible for them to keep large parts of it for over 2000 years
Why would he let the Temple be destroyed and the Jewish people be sent into exile for almost 2000 years if he wasnt very angry
I realize you didn't say that the covenant was changed because the temple was destructed, I'm just saying that has nothing to do with making the old covenant obsolete.
There is evidence in the Talmud that as of 30AD God not longer accepted the Yom Kippur sacrifice for the sins of the people.
Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds both state :
"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson cord remained red and the Lords lot came up in the left hand"
70AD - 40 =30AD right when Jesus died and rose
I read through other posts that the religion was given to you by Paul... Then would that mean that Paul spoke to God and was a prophet? would it mean that Paul is the one who made the covenant with God, since he built this religion years after Jesus' death? Also, it says many many times in the old testament that the old covenant is one to stay forever and ever. Now it is agreed by Christians, as well as Muslims, and Jews that the Old Testament is the word of God, isn't it? Well if it is, how would an Almighty Being, one that is pure and perfect in every possible way, "correct" himself by changing the covenant? Anything God says is perfect. Anything perfect does not need any change. any sort of change would mean that he actually is not perfect and learned from a mistake.
Jeremiah 31:31 "behold the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I led them out of the land of Egypt"
Most of the four Gospels is Jesus presenting himself as the Messiah. If the Jewis people had accepted him he would not have died and the Law of Moses would have continued to be the standard. God used his death to bring in the New Covenant and at the same time left the Jewish people trying to live under the law by which no one any longer would be considered righteous since Christs righteousness was now the standard
Another question I have is this one:
You say that Jesus died for the sins of man. This is before the "new covenant" and before the whole religion even existed. And it has been very clear that Jesus followed the laws of the old testament and fulfilled them down to the last "iota". If this is true, he never would have died for sins since it was strictly forbidden to make human sacrifices for any reason whatsoever, and still is. What would give him the right to change that law while still under the same covenant?[/quote]
2 Samuel 21:1-14 The seven decendants of Saul were put to death to atone for their fathers sin against the Gibeonites
Verse 14 "After this God heeded the prayer of the land"
God is not under the law
Isaiah 53: 10 It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief
when you make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days
For example, there are laws that only apply to men, some only to women, some only to Cohens, and some only based on certain opportunities, etc...
Why would God want Jews to live under the law and then make it impossible for them to keep large parts of it for over 2000 years
Why would he let the Temple be destroyed and the Jewish people be sent into exile for almost 2000 years if he wasnt very angry
I realize you didn't say that the covenant was changed because the temple was destructed, I'm just saying that has nothing to do with making the old covenant obsolete.
There is evidence in the Talmud that as of 30AD God not longer accepted the Yom Kippur sacrifice for the sins of the people.
Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds both state :
"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson cord remained red and the Lords lot came up in the left hand"
70AD - 40 =30AD right when Jesus died and rose
I read through other posts that the religion was given to you by Paul... Then would that mean that Paul spoke to God and was a prophet? would it mean that Paul is the one who made the covenant with God, since he built this religion years after Jesus' death? Also, it says many many times in the old testament that the old covenant is one to stay forever and ever. Now it is agreed by Christians, as well as Muslims, and Jews that the Old Testament is the word of God, isn't it? Well if it is, how would an Almighty Being, one that is pure and perfect in every possible way, "correct" himself by changing the covenant? Anything God says is perfect. Anything perfect does not need any change. any sort of change would mean that he actually is not perfect and learned from a mistake.
Jeremiah 31:31 "behold the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I led them out of the land of Egypt"
Most of the four Gospels is Jesus presenting himself as the Messiah. If the Jewis people had accepted him he would not have died and the Law of Moses would have continued to be the standard. God used his death to bring in the New Covenant and at the same time left the Jewish people trying to live under the law by which no one any longer would be considered righteous since Christs righteousness was now the standard
Another question I have is this one:
You say that Jesus died for the sins of man. This is before the "new covenant" and before the whole religion even existed. And it has been very clear that Jesus followed the laws of the old testament and fulfilled them down to the last "iota". If this is true, he never would have died for sins since it was strictly forbidden to make human sacrifices for any reason whatsoever, and still is. What would give him the right to change that law while still under the same covenant?[/quote]
2 Samuel 21:1-14 The seven decendants of Saul were put to death to atone for their fathers sin against the Gibeonites
Verse 14 "After this God heeded the prayer of the land"
God is not under the law
Isaiah 53: 10 It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief
when you make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Bzzzzzzzt!
Thank you for playing. There are the Church Fathers, the apostles and bishops.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Church has never lived in stasis. It is a living, organic Body. Keeping the Jewish Law is fine for Jewish Christians, but when Xy came to the Gentiles, Paul advocated (and secured agreement from the church in Jerusalem) that Gentiles did not have to keep the Jewish Law in order to be followers of Jesus. That tradition has continued to this day.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Only if you cherry-pick.
Love is unconditional.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How absurd! If you can read the bible in English, you have scholars.
You need to first clear up the misconceptions in order to understand what are said.
Unlike other covenants, the Second Covenant is not a "born with" covenant. This covenant is given as a gift when you can choose only when you grow up to have the capability to choose.
Every human since Noah however is covered with a in born covenant. The Jews by default are under the covenant came with the Mosaic Law. The Gentiles are under the covenant (most likely from Noah) came with the "law in heart". So by default, the Jews shall obey whatever Law is specified in their covenant, that is, the Mosaic Law. Non-Jews (Gentiles) on the other hand shall obey the "law in heart".
Only when you grow up as an adult, you will be able to choose to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved. By default, you need to obey the Law as specified in your own in born covenant.
The New Covenant is not meant to deal with what you shall obey. It is very much clear that you should obey the covenant Law. The New Covenant is meant to deal with "what happens when you failed". Without this New Covenant and in the case that you failed the Law (came with your in born covenant), you are considered DEAD!
However with the New Covenant in place, you are considered forgivable!
So basically, the New Covenant doesn't deal with what Law you shall obey, your in born covenant will deal with that. The New Covenant deals with what happens when you failed the Law. You can still be saved by believing in Jesus Christ and obey His teaching and commands. One of His famous teaching/commands is as follows,
Matthew 19:17
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
That's why Christians need to obey the commandments. As for Sabbath, the Christians are "keeping" the Sabbath but in the form of attending Sunday services. They shall save souls even on Sundays as taught by Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This isn't necessarily congruent with historic xtian theology.
This is to drill even deeper than the historic Christian theology. It doesn't contradict the historic theology anyway.
Last edited: