Jeremiah 31:32

[Tumah]

I think the fact that the temple was destroyed is evidence that God has replaced the Law covenant with something far better, the new covenant. This is in
line with God's covenant with Abraham that "all the nations of the earth will be blessed by means of him." (Genesis 18:18)

If that were true, then there would have only needed to be one Temple not two. As after the destruction of the first, it would have been evident that G-d was replacing the Law covenant with something far better...

So....the covenant (however you see it) is to be bestowed on every mind and heart?

Or is it intended for those people chosen?

All men?.....or just a few?

Are you asking me?

couldnt it be at all possible that God removed the temple as a way to show his people plainly that the new covenant was in effect?

Dont you think that if God wanted the mosiac law to be the way to approach him, he would have kept the temple standing???

That depends. Do you think that in the time of the Second Temple, if someone lost his parents (and can't perform the commandment to honor his father and mother), would you say that G-d is showing him plainly that a new covenant was in effect?

This YHVH, the lord, talking about the covenant he is going to 'cut' with the HOUSE of Israel, not you, you are not Israel.
Ask: who is the House Israel?

Ahaaa, I see.

 

[Pegg]

That depends. Do you think that in the time of the Second Temple, if someone lost his parents (and can't perform the commandment to honor his father and mother), would you say that G-d is showing him plainly that a new covenant was in effect?

wouldnt this command apply to grandparents, great grandparents... your wifes parents, your cousins parents

It would be a shame to only apply this law to ones own parents. The principle of this law is so much more encompassing.

 

[Tumah]

wouldnt this command apply to grandparents, great grandparents... your wifes parents, your cousins parents

It would be a shame to only apply this law to ones own parents. The principle of this law is so much more encompassing.

Well, it doesn't actually say any of that. And there already is a different verse in Lev. 19 that requires honoring elders. It wouldn't even make sense to aaply it to anyone else's parents besides your own, because the verse specifically says "your father and your mother". The only thing I could hear is maybe your grandparents, since we grandparents seem to be considered parents as well. Maybe, maybe, foster parents. But fine.

The boy was 13, and the only remaining family member to make it out of the Babylonian exile. He won't be married for another 5 years.

And if you come up with some other complete reinterpretation of the Law, allow me to give you another example as there are many.

You don't own any fruit trees. How do you abstain from eating from it for three years?
You don't have any fields. How do you leave the three harvest gifts?
You don't own any four-cornered garments. How do you make tassels?
It's Sunday, how do I rest on Sabbath today?
I have no male children. How do I circumcise them?
I'm a city-boy, I have no fields or animals. How do I give the first-fruits or first born?
I have animals. No donkeys though. How do I redeem my donkey?

You see where I'm going with this?

 

[Pegg]

Well, it doesn't actually say any of that. And there already is a different verse in Lev. 19 that requires honoring elders. It wouldn't even make sense to aaply it to anyone else's parents besides your own, because the verse specifically says "your father and your mother". The only thing I could hear is maybe your grandparents, since we grandparents seem to be considered parents as well. Maybe, maybe, foster parents. But fine.

The boy was 13, and the only remaining family member to make it out of the Babylonian exile. He won't be married for another 5 years.

And if you come up with some other complete reinterpretation of the Law, allow me to give you another example as there are many.

You don't own any fruit trees. How do you abstain from eating from it for three years?
You don't have any fields. How do you leave the three harvest gifts?
You don't own any four-cornered garments. How do you make tassels?
It's Sunday, how do I rest on Sabbath today?
I have no male children. How do I circumcise them?
I'm a city-boy, I have no fields or animals. How do I give the first-fruits or first born?
I have animals. No donkeys though. How do I redeem my donkey?

You see where I'm going with this?

even if a person had no parents because they died, they can still show honour to their parents in many ways. They can continue to speak well of their parents to others so as to keep the parents name alive. If they have siblings they can look after their parents children. If their parents left them property, they can look after the property and treat it respectfully and not squander their inheritance.

Why should honouring your parents end when they are no longer alive???

And in the resurrection, would you not still be obliged to honour them when God restores them to life?

 

[james2ko]

You are the one that is throwing in the word "totally." It doesn't say that in the verse. The Torah stays the same but it will be "renegotiated" for different terms. Namely, that instead of being in our midst, it would be in our hearts. That is the same Torah under a new treaty. Not like the treaty we had before. Notice that verse 31 doesn't say, "Not like the Torah I gave before", it says, "not like the treaty I made before." The treaty was G-d gave us the Torah in our midst and we follow it. We didn't. So G-d will renegotiate a new treat- He will put it in our hearts and we will follow it.

So the law written in our hearts is one renegotiate term. What are the other renegotiate terms (plural)?

See Deuteronomy 12:13-14. Once the Temple was built, sacrifices were only allowed in the Temple. Without the Temple, we are not required to bring sacrifices.

In comparison, if you don't own a fruit tree, are you required to wait three years before eating the fruit of the tree you don't have?

Obviously, if you don't fulfill the requirements necessary to be subject to a Law, you are not required to fulfill it. Since we are not allowed to bring sacrifices outside the Temple and we don't have a Temple, we don't have to bring sacrifices. Same as you wouldn't need to honor your parents if you were an orphan.

You don't need a temple to offer up sacrifices.

Ezr 3:6 From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, although the foundation of the temple of the LORD had not been laid.​

You begin this thread patronizing Christians and you haven't a clue about our scriptures, neither do you know your own. :no: Jesus was right all along:

Mar 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?​

Honestly, I don't know why I'm doing this. I already know that in 4-7 posts, two Christians are going to end up fighting over some completely non-relevant passage in the NT. Maybe one day it will have some benefit.

Neither do I. BTW your prediction did not come to pass. I don't have to tell you what the Torah says about that...or do I?

 

[Tumah]

even if a person had no parents because they died, they can still show honour to their parents in many ways. They can continue to speak well of their parents to others so as to keep the parents name alive. If they have siblings they can look after their parents children. If their parents left them property, they can look after the property and treat it respectfully and not squander their inheritance.

Why should honouring your parents end when they are no longer alive???

And in the resurrection, would you not still be obliged to honour them when God restores them to life?

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just playing around with me?
The child was orphaned as a baby and was taken to another town where no one knew who his parents were. There he kept moving from foster family to foster family until he finally got tired of having no place to call home and he ran away to grow up on the streets of Babylon. There he remains for a few years until Ezra finally leads Israel back to Israel. He gathers up his extra shirt and half-eaten apple and joins the crowd.
Will that work for now, or do I need to write an entire book of historical fiction portraying events that could have happened to create a situation where a child might conceivably have never known his parents nor had any other family to speak of that he might be able to properly apply the Law of honoring ones parents? Is this Aussie humor, that I'm just not getting?

So the law written in our hearts is one renegotiate term. What are the other renegotiate terms (plural)?

The plural was my own. The terms are instead of giving us the Torah in our midst for us to keep, He would give it in our hearts for us to keep.

You don't need a temple to offer up sacrifices.

Ezr 3:6 From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, although the foundation of the temple of the LORD had not been laid.​

You begin this thread patronizing Christians and you don't even know your own scriptures. :no:

What you mean to say is, your reliance on an English translation makes it difficult for you to see differences in words that have similar English translation. What wasn't built in Ezra 3:6 was the היכל. That is not the entire Temple, it is the building that was in the middle that contained the Menorah (lamp), table (for the showbread) and the altar of gold (for incense). But the part you need for sacrifices- the main altar was outside that and was (clearly) already built.

Neither do I. BTW your prediction did not come to pass. I don't have to tell you what the Torah says about that...:

That's fine, because prophecy was already sealed way back in Daniel 9:24.

 

[james2ko]

The plural was my own. The terms are instead of giving us the Torah in our midst for us to keep, He would give it in our hearts for us to keep.

So if it's only suppose to be one term, why did you use the plural? Are we adding words to the Torah?

What you mean to say is, your reliance on an English translation makes it difficult for you to see differences in words that have similar English translation. What wasn't built in Ezra 3:6 was the היכל. That is not the entire Temple, it is the building that was in the middle that contained the Menorah (lamp), table (for the showbread) and the altar of gold (for incense). But the part you need for sacrifices- the main altar was outside that and was (clearly) already built.

This is what you said:

Since we are not allowed to bring sacrifices outside the Temple and we don't have a Temple, we don't have to bring sacrifices. Same as you wouldn't need to honor your parents if you were an orphan.
​

You said since we don't have a temple [not an entire temple]--we don't need to sacrifice. Neither did you say since we don't have an "altar", we don't have to bring sacrifices. Backpedalling/lying again? You make it so easy, Tumah. Keep posting so I can continue proving what Christ said about your spiritual proteges (Pharisees) is the absolute truth.

That's fine, because prophecy was already sealed way back in Daniel 9:24.

Well, at least you do a good job pretending to know your own scriptures. Isn't that what the Pharisees did?

 

[Tumah]

So if it's only suppose to be one term, why did you use the plural? Are we adding words to the Torah?

Really.

This is what you said:

Since we are not allowed to bring sacrifices outside the Temple and we don't have a Temple, we don't have to bring sacrifices. Same as you wouldn't need to honor your parents if you were an orphan.
​

You said since we don't have a temple [not an entire temple]--we don't need to sacrifice. Neither did you say since we don't have an "altar", we don't have to bring sacrifices. Backpedalling/lying again? You make it so easy, Tumah. Keep posting so I can continue proving what Christ said about your spiritual proteges (Pharisees) is the absolute truth.

The Temple is called the בית המקדש "BeIS HaMiKDaSH". The verse in Ezra speaks about the היכל "HeICHaL". The היכל is within the בית המקדש. When people speak about the Temple with a capitol 'T' they are referring to the former. Within the former, is the latter, the temple.
We don't have any of it. We don't have the Temple. We can't do any of the Temple service. Ezra had part of it, they had the courtyard and the altar. So they could bring sacrifices, but couldn't perform the lighting of the Menorah or putting out the showbread.

You're trying to nitpick in order to deflect the issue.
Do sacrifices go on the altar? Yes
Do we have an altar? No
Is the altar in the Temple? Yes
Do we have a Temple? No
Can we bring sacrifices? No

Now what is it you want to address?

Well, at least you do a good job pretending to know your own scriptures. Isn't that what the Pharisees did?

I see.

 

[CMike]

wouldnt this command apply to grandparents, great grandparents... your wifes parents, your cousins parents

It would be a shame to only apply this law to ones own parents. The principle of this law is so much more encompassing.

You are missing the point.

If the circumstances don't apply you do not have to do it.


We don't have to bring sacrifices in the temple because there is no temple.

Btw the sacrifices for sin were only for non intentional sins.


There were no sacrifices for intentional sins.

 

[CMike]

So if it's only suppose to be one term, why did you use the plural? Are we adding words to the Torah?



This is what you said:

Since we are not allowed to bring sacrifices outside the Temple and we don't have a Temple, we don't have to bring sacrifices. Same as you wouldn't need to honor your parents if you were an orphan.
​

You said since we don't have a temple [not an entire temple]--we don't need to sacrifice. Neither did you say since we don't have an "altar", we don't have to bring sacrifices. Backpedalling/lying again? You make it so easy, Tumah. Keep posting so I can continue proving what Christ said about your spiritual proteges (Pharisees) is the absolute truth.



Well, at least you do a good job pretending to know your own scriptures. Isn't that what the Pharisees did?

We know our scriptures far better than you and Christians do.

The Pharisees were right. The Jesus followers were wrong.

 

[2ndpillar]

You are missing the point.

If the circumstances don't apply you do not have to do it.

We don't have to bring sacrifices in the temple because there is no temple.

Btw the sacrifices for sin were only for non intentional sins.

There were no sacrifices for intentional sins.

Dear Mike,
Taking your point of view, "there are no sacrifices for intentional sins", and sin causes a "separation between you and your God" (Is 59:2), how is it that king David recovered after his affair with his friend's wife? And what were his punishments?

 

[Tumah]

Dear Mike,
Taking your point of view, "there are no sacrifices for intentional sins", and sin causes a "separation between you and your God" (Is 59:2), how is it that king David recovered after his affair with his friend's wife? And what were his punishments?

See Psalms 51

 

[2ndpillar]

See Psalms 51

Dear Tumah,
A very good answer. Psalms 51:17, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." David first confesses, and then repents. Psalms 51:3-4," For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me, Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned."
And then David asks for forgiveness. Psalms 51:9, "And blot out all my iniquities." As for his judgment, we all know he lost his kingdom, and lost 7 of his concubines because he judged the rich man who took the only lamb of the poor shepherd, with the maximum weight of the law.

 

[CMike]

Dear Mike,
Taking your point of view, "there are no sacrifices for intentional sins", and sin causes a "separation between you and your God" (Is 59:2), how is it that king David recovered after his affair with his friend's wife? And what were his punishments?

You don't need sacrifices to repent for sin.

That is my point.

G-d told Cain how to repent.

You try to improve and not do it again.

 

[CMike]

Dear Tumah,
A very good answer. Psalms 51:17, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." David first confesses, and then repents. Psalms 51:3-4," For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me, Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned."
And then David asks for forgiveness. Psalms 51:9, "And blot out all my iniquities." As for his judgment, we all know he lost his kingdom, and lost 7 of his concubines because he judged the rich man who took the only lamb of the poor shepherd, with the maximum weight of the law.

Christians once again rewrote Jewish law with the you must have sacrifices to repent.

That was never part of Judaism.

 

[2ndpillar]

Christians once again rewrote Jewish law with the you must have sacrifices to repent.

That was never part of Judaism.

Dear Mike,
Psalms 51 was more than "repentance", which was inferred in the text, and not directly stated. It was about acceptable sacrifice, it was about cleansing, it was about the restoration of the Holy Spirit to David, it was about passing his knowledge on to sinners, it was the statement that "Thou dost not delight in sacrifice,". It was about rebuilding Zion.

 

[james2ko]

We know our scriptures far better than you and Christians do.

That explains Tumah's frequent backpedalling It's true what they say, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt"

The Pharisees were right. The Jesus followers were wrong.

I have proven the opposite in this thread. All you have is an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[james2ko]

The Temple is called the בית המקדש "BeIS HaMiKDaSH". The verse in Ezra speaks about the היכל "HeICHaL". The היכל is within the בית המקדש. When people speak about the Temple with a capitol 'T' they are referring to the former. Within the former, is the latter, the temple.

Could you please point out in the scriptures where the precise term ("BeIS HaMiKDaSH") is used?

We don't have any of it. We don't have the Temple. We can't do any of the Temple service. Ezra had part of it, they had the courtyard and the altar. So they could bring sacrifices, but couldn't perform the lighting of the Menorah or putting out the showbread.

And you are falsely accusing me of deflecting the issue because I am picking apart your argument.

Do sacrifices go on the altar? Yes
Do we have an altar? No
Is the altar in the Temple? Yes
Do we have a Temple? No
Can we bring sacrifices? No

Is the altar the temple? No--you distinguished between the two only after the inconsistency was exposed (backpedalling).
Is a temple necessary to perform sacrifices? No--you said yes.

Now what is it you want to address?

Your scriptural inconsistencies.

 

[CMike]

That explains Tumah's frequent backpedalling It's true what they say, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt"



I have proven the opposite in this thread. All you have is an unsubstantiated claim.

Once again, no substance, just empty rhetoric.

 

[james2ko]

Once again, no substance, just empty rhetoric.

Rhetoric that exposes those and their arguments for what they really are.