Torah in Christianity

[exchemist]

I gather this, but they are then disagreeing with the Tanakh itself. How is this reconciled? How do they deal with David saying it is perfect, and the Torah saying not to add to it?

And we have to believe David already? David, the adulterer who arranged for the death of Uriah the Hittite, just so he could shag his wife and disguise the identity of her illegitimate child? Not really. Surely the message of Christ in the gospels is that mere observance of Mosaic Law is not enough. There is masses of stuff in the Old Testament that Christians have never applied.

 

[Rival]

And we have to believe David already? David, the adulterer who arranged for the death of Uriah the Hittite, just so he could shag his wife and disguise the identity of her illegitimate child? Not really. Surely the message of Christ in the gospels is that mere observance of Mosaic Law is not enough. There is masses of stuff in the Old Testament that Christians have never applied.

Well, the last I checked Christianity uses psalms over and over again to prove the messiaship of Jesus, so I guess the Church would have to throw those out, too?

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

I'm pleased that you've raised this issue.

Paul is often criticised as the apostle who leads people astray, and teaches something that is not consistent with either Jesus or the Law. I am convinced that this is wrong. One only has to read Paul's epistles to know that he never had a bad word to say about God's commandments.

1 Timothy 1:5-8. 'Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;'

The law is good, and is intended to keep people from transgressing from the path of righteousness.

Jesus did everything commanded by the law, and he did it with a pure heart. He is, therefore, the righteousness of God.

It's the teaching of scripture that all men are sinners, and no man is pure of heart. Consequently, we need to be washed by the blood of Christ if we are to become righteous in the eyes of God. This is why we all need the Holy Spirit baptism offered by Christ. [IMO]

By faithfully following a person (Jesus Christ) who has fulfilled all righteousness, we enter a new covenant. The same moral commandments apply, but the law is fulfilled through God's grace, rather than by man's works.

 

[Rival]

I'm pleased that you've raised this issue.

Paul is often criticised as the apostle who leads people astray, and teaches something that is not consistent with either Jesus or the Law. I am convinced that this is wrong. One only has to read Paul's epistles to know that he never had a bad word to say about God's commandments.

1 Timothy 1:5-8. 'Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;'

The law is good, and is intended to keep people from transgressing from the path of righteousness.

Jesus did everything commanded by the law, and he did it with a pure heart. He is, therefore, the righteousness of God.

It's the teaching of scripture that all men are sinners, and no man is pure of heart. Consequently, we need to be washed by the blood of Christ if we are to become righteous in the eyes of God. This is why we all need the Holy Spirit baptism offered by Christ.

By faithfully following a person (Jesus Christ) who has fulfilled all righteousness, we enter a new covenant. The same moral commandments apply, but the law is fulfilled through God's grace, rather than by man's works.

But the law isn't just something that was hanging around waiting for someone to perfectly adhere to it, then it would become obsolete.

This seems to be what you're saying.

 

[exchemist]

Well, the last I checked Christianity uses psalms over and over again to prove the messiaship of Jesus, so I guess the Church would have to throw those out, too?

Hang on. I never said Christianity places no value on the OT. That would be absurd, since it is quite clearly foundational for Christianity. But there is a world of difference between considering something to be of value and considering it to be perfect.

Especially when the only place a text is said to be "perfect" is buried in the self-same text.

 

[Rival]

Hang on. I never said Christianity places no value on the OT. That would be absurd, since it is quite clearly foundational for Christianity. But there is a world of difference between considering something to be of value and considering it to be perfect.

Especially when the only place a text is said to be "perfect" is buried in the self-same text.

IOW picking and choosing. A Christian is required to believe in the whole Tanakh as far as I'm aware, and if the Tanakh says the Torah is perfect then I'd say that's pretty straightforward. Anything else would be cherrypicking.

 

[exchemist]

IOW picking and choosing. A Christian is required to believe in the whole Tanakh as far as I'm aware, and if the Tanakh says the Torah is perfect then I'd say that's pretty straightforward. Anything else would be cherrypicking.

I'd be interested if you can produce anything supporting that claim.

 

[Rival]

I'd be interested if you can produce anything supporting that claim.

If Christians don't believe in the whole Tanakh, what then supports their belief in a messiah at all? Or their use of prophecies? How would one discern what to take vs what to leave? It's senseless imo.

 

[Redemptionsong]

But the law isn't just something that was hanging around waiting for someone to perfectly adhere to it, then it would become obsolete.

This seems to be what you're saying.

I'm saying that a covenant based on the righteousness of God is better than a covenant based on the righteousness of man!

 

[Rival]

I'm saying that a covenant based on the righteousness of God is better than a covenant based on the righteousness of man!

But the covenant isn't for God, it's for people, and people mess up - that's why the Law has provisions for how to deal with messing up.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure why Jesus doesn't classify for fulfilling the priesthood.

. . . a subjective tribal claim by Christianity for the fulfillment of prophecy.

What if, and I say what if, God's ways are higher than our ways and God's thoughts are actually higher than ours?

A problem with 'What if. . . ? assertions.

This would be an important point that that God is above the diverse and conflicting human cultural and tribal views of the different ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All claims that 'God's ways' are reflected in their understanding of their own scriptures only and no others.

What if Jesus was actually imparting a spiritual truth and the REAL measure of adultery in the eyes of a Holy God? He really didn't detract from the Law - it was still there because of the hardness of the heart of people. He didn't detract or add to it, it still remained as it was written.

He simply was dictating the actual thought that was higher than yours or mine. The actual written law was still in effect.

Again . . . What if . . . ? is not an adequate argument for a religious claim, because it is simply an argument that can be made from any religious perspective.

I believe Jesus it make references to changing the Law, for example divorce, which is followed too variably in the Christian world.[/QUOTE]

 

[Redemptionsong]

But the covenant isn't for God, it's for people, and people mess up - that's why the Law has provisions for how to deal with messing up.

God knew all along that people would not be able to fulfil the law, but he gave them a chance to prove themselves incapable before stepping in to save!

To my understanding, whilst the law is good, the covenant made with Moses and Israel was never intended as an everlasting covenant. The everlasting covenant was made with Abraham's seed, which involved faith, not works.

Isaiah 61:8 'l will make an everlasting covenant with them'. Such a covenant was future to lsaiah.

 

[Rival]

God knew all along that people would not be able to fulfil the law, but he gave them a chance to prove themselves incapable before stepping in to save!

To my understanding, whilst the law is good, the covenant made with Moses and Israel was never intended as an everlasting covenant. The everlasting covenant was made with Abraham's seed, which involved faith, not works.

Isaiah 61:8 'l will make an everlasting covenant with them'. Such a covenant was future to lsaiah.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14,

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Deut 4:30

Keep his statutes and his commandments, which I am commanding you today for your own well-being and that of your descendants after you, so that you may long remain in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for all time.

 

[rosends]

God knew all along that people would not be able to fulfil the law, but he gave them a chance to prove themselves incapable before stepping in to save!

To my understanding, whilst the law is good, the covenant made with Moses and Israel was never intended as an everlasting covenant. The everlasting covenant was made with Abraham's seed, which involved faith, not works.

Isaiah 61:8 'l will make an everlasting covenant with them'. Such a covenant was future to lsaiah.

I'm not sure one can conclude that any earlier covenant was not intended to be everlasting. In the five books of Moses, 3 separate covenants (2 during Moses' lifetime) are called "everlasting covenant" using the same words as the one you quote from Isaiah. The phrase is used again in Samuel 2. Earlier in Isaiah, there is a criticism of people for breaking a covenant which is described in the same way. So since the people broke the eternal covenant, it must be reestablished as an eternal covenant (therefore, in the future Messianic time, it will be, a la Is. 61). Unless you say that the intention was that the people would violate the law, it is hard to say that the law wasn't intrended to be eternal, considering that that's what it was called.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Deuteronomy 30:11-14,

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Deut 4:30

Keep his statutes and his commandments, which I am commanding you today for your own well-being and that of your descendants after you, so that you may long remain in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for all time.

Exactly the point l'm making!

God's commandments are good, but the covenant of law is based on man's works, whilst God wants us to follow faithfully in Spirit as Abraham demonstrated.

And here lies the difficulty. The everlasting covenant, based on faith in Christ, was not available to lsrael at the time of Moses. The law therefore acted as schoolteacher until the time that Christ came [Gal.3:24].

 

[Rival]

Exactly the point l'm making!

God's commandments are good, but the covenant of law is based on man's works, whilst God wants us to follow faithfully in Spirit as Abraham demonstrated.

And here lies the difficulty. The everlasting covenant, based on faith in Christ, was not available to lsrael at the time of Moses. The law therefore acted as schoolteacher until the time that Christ came [Gal.3:24].

What part of 'eternal covenant' are you not getting?

And James would disagree with you, but I'm not going there. You have an obvious Protestant bias.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm not sure one can conclude that any earlier covenant was not intended to be everlasting. In the five books of Moses, 3 separate covenants (2 during Moses' lifetime) are called "everlasting covenant" using the same words as the one you quote from Isaiah. The phrase is used again in Samuel 2. Earlier in Isaiah, there is a criticism of people for breaking a covenant which is described in the same way. So since the people broke the eternal covenant, it must be reestablished as an eternal covenant (therefore, in the future Messianic time, it will be, a la Is. 61). Unless you say that the intention was that the people would violate the law, it is hard to say that the law wasn't intrended to be eternal, considering that that's what it was called.

Can you provide the exact references?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The Torah explicitly states many of its commandments are 'a statue for all time' - and not adding or taking away indicates the whole is forever. There's no expiry date after which new commandments can be given. The Messiah is not prophesied as bringing a new law.

But he full filled the old law, so it's not needed anymore. There is a new law.

 

[Rival]

But he full filled the old law, so it's not needed anymore. There is a new law.

This makes no sense though. The Torah is not some game to be won. It's an eternal theocratic law that claims to be forever. It's for all Israelites at all times, wherever they live. It's not some competition to see who can be the most righteous, it's the social system by which God expects his people to live, as with any other law.

 

[pearl]

The law remains the same

Does that include the oral Law?