Torah in Christianity

[rosends]

I didn't say that. Let's look at what I said again.

"Please don't post the Hebrew without translation. WHY? To impress? Intimidate?"

I said post with translation. Not for Jews, but for everyone else, or your post is just grandstanding.

You asked why I do something and I explained why. Your perception of my reasoning is just that, yours.

 

[Brian2]

Those things under the law don't apply to Jews either if they accepted the Messiah. (The apostles were all Jewish.) There is no difference between Jew or Gentile under the new covenant. Anyone from any nation can be one of God's people through obedience to his word.

That's true.
Jews cannot seem to get past the Law and being obedient to the Law but the interesting thing is that for a Jew the Law would be analysed by a Rabbi to see what to do in a situation not covered specifically by the Law and a similar thing happens in the New Covenant for Christians.
But of course there are specifics instructions in the Law which Christians can choose to do or not and they do not necessarily have any bearing on salvation in the New Covenant. (eg the food laws, festivals etc)
I imagine it is laws such as these which a Jew would think should also be written on our heart in the New Covenant.

 

[Rival]

Jews cannot seem to get past the Law and being obedient to the Law

Do you think maybe this is because the whole of Judaism is based on this? That the giving of the Torah on Sinai was, like, the main event? I mean, what better is there to do that what God wants you to do and gives you an instruction book for it? There wouldn't be a Judaism without the Torah.

I wonder why Christians can't seem to get past Jesus.

 

[Harel13]

I wonder why Christians can't seem to get past Jesus.

I was just thinking the same thing...

 

[MyM]

The Torah is contained within. Much is narrative. BUT do you accept any of it? Don't you proclaim it's corrupt? Isn't that disingenuous to comment on Torah?

You cannot tell me where all of it is Sure in the bible there are words of God obviously, words of man-most definitely-words of historians-sure there are, words of theologians-of course it shows, but to say this is ALL from God, no one on earth can prove this. The Torah is not the same as in the time of Moses peace be upon him. Yes, the "true" Torah is from God. The true messages from the messengers peace and blessings be upon them all, are from Allah. But to claim the Bible is the word of God, is false because God doesn't talk in such a manner of confusion and hypocrisy.

And Allah knows best

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Do you think maybe this is because the whole of Judaism is based on this? That the giving of the Torah on Sinai was, like, the main event? I mean, what better is there to do that what God wants you to do and gives you an instruction book for it? There wouldn't be a Judaism without the Torah.

I wonder why Christians can't seem to get past Jesus.

The basic issue here is what is the instruction book now. The Old Covenant foretold of a New Covenant. You just won't accept the New Covenant. The Old Covenant foretold of a coming Messiah. You claim he hasn't come, based on your own notions of what was required. Yet it is past time for him to have come.

 

[Sedim Haba]

You cannot tell me where all of it is Sure in the bible there are words of God obviously, words of man-most definitely-words of historians-sure there are, words of theologians-of course it shows, but to say this is ALL from God, no one on earth can prove this. The Torah is not the same as in the time of Moses peace be upon him. Yes, the "true" Torah is from God. The true messages from the messengers peace and blessings be upon them all, are from Allah. But to claim the Bible is the word of God, is false because God doesn't talk in such a manner of confusion and hypocrisy.

And Allah knows best

As I stated, much is narrative. Probably not written by Moses.

Then there is recordings of the conversations between G-d and Moses.
They would be of extreme importance. Do you accept these as being true?
Then there are what we consider actual words of G-d, spoken by Him:

Genesis 1:3 "And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

Do you accept these quotes in Torah as being true? IDK, I'm sincerely asking.

 

[Sedim Haba]

The basic issue here is what is the instruction book now. The Old Covenant foretold of a New Covenant. You just won't accept the New Covenant. The Old Covenant foretold of a coming Messiah. You claim he hasn't come, based on your own notions of what was required. Yet it is past time for him to have come.

'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.

 

[Brian2]

'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.

Christians accept the old as being for the old covenant and for those in that covenant. If you want to mix the old and the new you end up with new wine in old wine skins.

Matt 9:16 No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. For the patch will pull away from the garment, and a worse tear will result. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will spill, and the wineskins will be ruined. Instead, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”…

It is not a matter of just fixing up the old covenant so it works better and keeping the 613 Mitzvot. Those in the New Covenant end up knowing the Lord and what He wants.
And of course with the New Covenant comes forgiveness. Moses brought the Law with his covenant and Jesus brought the truth with His covenant.

Jer 31:31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

 

[Brian2]

Do you think maybe this is because the whole of Judaism is based on this? That the giving of the Torah on Sinai was, like, the main event? I mean, what better is there to do that what God wants you to do and gives you an instruction book for it? There wouldn't be a Judaism without the Torah.

I wonder why Christians can't seem to get past Jesus.

How can you get past the Messiah and what He did and said?
The Lord promises the nations to His Son (Ps 2) and the Jews say, "Son? What Son?"

 

[rosends]

How can you get past the Messiah and what He did and said?
The Lord promises the nations to His Son (Ps 2) and the Jews say, "Son? What Son?"

Actually, God promises this to David (compare to 2 Sam. 7.14, and Ps. 89.27), calling David his son. He also calls the nation his son. We don't say "what son" -- we look and say "God identifies his son -- why do you insist it applies to Jesus when he wasn't identified as a son?"

 

[MyM]

As I stated, much is narrative. Probably not written by Moses.

Then there is recordings of the conversations between G-d and Moses.
They would be of extreme importance. Do you accept these as being true?
Then there are what we consider actual words of G-d, spoken by Him:

Genesis 1:3 "And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

Do you accept these quotes in Torah as being true? IDK, I'm sincerely asking.

Being that I am now a Muslim, since I believe that the Quran is indeed the unaltered word of Allah, he has said and told us what has happened and how he created the earth in days and the stories of Adam, Noah, Ibraheem, etc. etc. etc. of the prophets and messengers of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them all).

so, in saying that, when I look at the Bible now, I can see where words of Allah CAN BE used. One can point out the places where contradictions lie and when the books of Greek and Hebrew have been found, it is extremely difficult to really say this is exactly from Allah. But in saying that, things that coincide with the Quran like God is ONE GOD (not the trinity) to believe in the prophets etc. these things have never changed from the beginning of Adam to Mohammad pbuh So yes, I believe there are instances in the Bible where we might say these words are from Allah but to say that Allah wrote it, you cannot. I hope I am helping you to understand my point

 

[Sedim Haba]

Christians accept the old as being for the old covenant and for those in that covenant. If you want to mix the old and the new you end up with new wine in old wine skins.

There was no Xians when Yeshua made the new-old wine skin parable.
So attaching that meaning is false. Plus, you did not address Matthew 5:17-18 at all I see.

There were only Jews who's worship was centered on the Temple and those who
were not so much. (some see this as pharisee Vs sadducce but it's more complex)
Yeshua foretold of the destruction of the Temple, and knew a new way must come.
And it has, modern Judaism is very different from Temple era Judaism.

See? a parable can be interpreted differently.

And there certainly is forgiveness in Judaism.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, God promises this to David (compare to 2 Sam. 7.14, and Ps. 89.27), calling David his son. He also calls the nation his son. We don't say "what son" -- we look and say "God identifies his son -- why do you insist it applies to Jesus when he wasn't identified as a son?"

Jesus is identified as God's Son in the New Testament very clearly.

 

[Brian2]

There was no Xians when Yeshua made the new-old wine skin parable.
So attaching that meaning is false. Plus, you did not address Matthew 5:17-18 at all I see.

There were only Jews who's worship was centered on the Temple and those who
were not so much. (some see this as pharisee Vs sadducce but it's more complex)
Yeshua foretold of the destruction of the Temple, and knew a new way must come.
And it has, modern Judaism is very different from Temple era Judaism.

See? a parable can be interpreted differently.

And there certainly is forgiveness in Judaism.

What do you say that Matt 5:17-18 means?

 

[rosends]

Jesus is identified as God's Son in the New Testament very clearly.

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.

 

[Sedim Haba]

What do you say that Matt 5:17-18 means?

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?

 

[Harel13]

However, in Judaism there's this thing called Kavanah (Intent).

I take it you hold that commandments need intent?

 

[Sedim Haba]

I take it you hold that commandments need intent?

A quick reply, it's almost 3am here...

All depends on what one thinks is the purpose of such commandments?
What are they for? G-d needs them done? clearly not. They're given to us
to teach us, change us, elevate us. For our benefit only. If we treat them
as chores to be done as ASAP, strike it off a to-do list ... what is done?
To one-up others, to prove we're 'holier than you'... point is totally missed.

Better to recite a prayer with thought than mindless repetition.
Better to fulfill a mitzvah with joy than to see it as an obligation/burden.
Better to see that all G-d has told us do is for our benefit than anything else.

 

[Harel13]

A quick reply, it's almost 3am here...

All depends on what one thinks is the purpose of such commandments?
What are they for? G-d needs them done? clearly not. They're given to us
to teach us, change us, elevate us. For our benefit only. If we treat them
as chores to be done as ASAP, strike it off a to-do list ... what is done?
To one-up others, to prove we're 'holier than you'... point is totally missed.

Better to recite a prayer with thought than mindless repetition.
Better to fulfill a mitzvah with joy than to see it as an obligation/burden.
Better to see that all G-d has told us do is for our benefit than anything else.

All you have written is very nice, but is ultimately not relevant to the question of whether commandments need intent or not.
On the most basic level, commandments are, in fact, obligations. That is why they are commandments, or laws. These are things you have to do. The base level is that they are kept because so we were commanded. But then comes my first question: To actually keep them, does one need intent or not? In other words, if there was no intent, or wrongful intent, has the law been properly kept or not?