• 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!

Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
This demonstrates
that the 'early fathers' were compiling what was already considered in society
as authentic texts.

What are your thoughts on these guys? I this the type of group you are a part of?

upload_2021-11-3_20-2-16.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-11-3_20-1-11.png
    upload_2021-11-3_20-1-11.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 0

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
What do you mean by all?

There are commandments only for men.

Commandments only for women.

For priests.

For kings.

For nazarites.

For lepers.

Etc.
The law is fulfilled in the head (Christ, male), and body (of Christ, female). This is why the groom, Christ, comes for his bride. There is nothing in the law that is not fulfilled in Christ.

Matthew 5:18. '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'.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The law is fulfilled in the head (Christ, male), and body (of Christ, female). This is why the groom, Christ, comes for his bride. There is nothing in the law that is not fulfilled in Christ.

Matthew 5:18. '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'.
Oh cool. Where the Torah scroll Jesus wrote?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My conclusion from this dialogue is Jews feel entitled to explain the Torah because they know Hebrew even though they deny it's main theme.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
My conclusion from this dialogue is Jews feel entitled to explain the Torah because they know Hebrew even though they deny it's main theme.

You are free to have your conclusion. Mine is that people have the freedom to conclude whatever they want about anything they want. Jews are not in the world trying to convince the world to accept our texts, our concepts, our culture, or our knowledge of our texts/concepts/culture/knowledge.

Further, I will have to be honest with you. You should just accept that you are an expert in the Quran and Islam. You will also have to accept that you are not an expert in Torath Mosheh just like I will have to accept that I am not a dolphin trainer at Sea World. There is nothing wrong with this being the reality. I don't lose any sleep that I am not an expert in Islam and Christianity. I welcome that as a reality. So, be comfortable with your strengths and your weaknesses like I am. It will make your life much happier.

YET, a person has to know their limits. History has shown that Torah based Jews won't be convinced of something without it coming from a knowledgable, logical, authentic, and reliable source. Knowing how to read something, as it was written, is a basic skill for Torath Mosheh Jews. You don't have to like it my friend, you can live your life while ignoring us and our stiff necked ways. (There are two meanings to that statement and you have just learned the second one throughout this thread.) We obviously didn't present anything to you and force you to accept it - you chose to enter the arena.

Just as a person with no engineering background has no chance of convincing an Electrical Engineer that VL = √3 VPH or VL = √3 EPH can be expressed by the formalla of Lygers = Cats x Dogs - (Lions * Monkey Feet)/π I am not convinced by your claims/arguements about the bible you read from relating to Torah based Jews and that is fine.

And just to be fair. I would never pretend to tell a Muslim, or a Christian, or anyone, that I know their situation better than they do. I am honest with the fact that I know very little when it comes to other people's religions and cultures.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I agree it's a complicated thesis I'm presetning... :)

I think its accurate to say that Jesus desired to fullfill all the law and then act as the solitary gate to the one Jesus calls "TheFather". But that doesn't mean he succeeded. Malachi further states in Chapter 3 "Return to me and follow all the ways of the commandments and I will return to you". According to this Jesus is not the solitary gate. It's possible that he offeres a legitimate path for Christians; but for Jews we are still bound by the original covenenat with many ways included in the path to salvation.

What I'm trying to say is: the path via salvation might be a viable option; but its not the only option. When Jesus says he is the only way; that misrepresents the Covenenat in Tanach. The easy solution is that Jesus was not talking to Jews anymore at John 14:6, he was speaking to his disciples who had already abandoned Jewish principles in favor of Jesus as the solitary avenue to salvation. But it's ot solitary per Deuteronomy 5:33 and Malachi 3:8-9.

If the path to salvation is not only through Jesus (and I think scripture supports this) then the sales pitch from Jesus ( forgive me if this is trite ) is false advertising. He's saying theres only ne way, without disclosing the other legitimate pathes to salvation offered in the Torah. It's lying by omission.

Even if we disagree; do you understand what I'm trying to say? :)

I think I do!

I would like to suggest, however, that the coming of Jesus as the 'suffering servant' is entirely consistent with the 'type' of David. David, king of Israel before Solomon, was anointed by Samuel well before his ascension to the thrones of Judah and Israel. It was only at Jesus' crucifixion that the title, 'King of the Jews' was posted in mockery.

When Jesus ascended to heaven, following his crucifixion and resurrection, he sat down at the right hand of the father. To sit at the right hand of the Father is to sit upon the throne, for this is the seat of God in heaven. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 it says, 'For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet' [see Psalm 110:1]. Now, for Christians, who view Christ's reign spiritually, the reign of Jesus as king started when Jesus sat down upon the throne in heaven. [There was a period of ten days between the ascension of Jesus and the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.] But for Jews, awaiting their Messiah on earth, the coming of Christ from heaven will, to my understanding, be the signal that Israel (the people of Israel) is about to have a kingdom on earth. Jews do not accept the spiritual kingdom, but they will accept the earthly kingdom ruled by Christ the king.

This recognition of Christ is, I believe, what leads to the 'great mourning in Jerusalem' [Zechariah 12:9-14].

There is, therefore, a difference between the Church that follows the Spirit of Christ, and Torah Jews who have not yet had a 'change of heart'. The one missing ingredient in the 'ways' followed by Torah Jews is the person of Christ, whose appearance reveals, IMO, 'the King of the Jews' as Jesus. If, as I believe, it turns out to be Jesus coming in the clouds from heaven, it will then become evident that there is, indeed, only one way!
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It could, and in some ways, actually did. But Christianity of the New Testament
claimed no right to political, judicial or economic power. In fact these powers
were rejected - fine for the world but not for Christians.
So...let me see if I got it straight: Jesus uprooted/denounced the traditional Jewish legal system, made a list of morals, and wished everyone good luck with figuring out a new system?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If, as I believe, it turns out to be Jesus coming in the clouds from heaven, it will then become evident that there is, indeed, only one way!
Ok, so going back to original objection. In order for the new covenant to be binding, the recipient must consent freely, this requires that the condition of all elements of the covenant are accurately described. Do we agree up to this point?

If so, based on what you're saying above, it still sounds as if the salvation is being misrepresented. In order for it to be fairly described, the covenant would include verbage describing the coming from the clouds as a condition for the ideological shift from salvation by works to salvation by grace.

You said the 'way' of the new covenant would not be evidenced until Jesus returns. I think this is an important detail. If it's included, the salvation offered is worth less than if the qualifier is omitted. Without qualification, the offer of salvation is grander. "It's happening now". With the qualification of 2nd advent, the offer is less grand, "it's happening later". it requires a second coming which evidently takes over 2000+ years to occur.

In summary: Don't you think Jesus' offer in John14:6 needed to include mention of the 2nd Coming in order to fairly describe the new covenant? Try thinking about it as a Jewish person at that time. Why would I trade the current covenant for the new one ( the old ways, plural, for a new way ,singular) if it's contingent on a future unscheduled event? Omitting this detail makes the deal more urgent, potentially manipulating their perceived value of the new covenant, compared to the existing covenant. That's my point. Without qualification, the covenant is developed on false pretenses.

Without mentioning the 2nd coming, it's not fair to promise Jesus as the only way unqualified.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Ok, so going back to original objection. In order for the new covenant to be binding, the recipient must consent freely, this requires that the condition of all elements of the covenant are accurately described. Do we agree up to this point?

If so, based on what you're saying above, it still sounds as if the salvation is being misrepresented. In order for it to be fairly described, the covenant would include verbage describing the coming from the clouds as a condition for the ideological shift from salvation by works to salvation by grace.

You said the 'way' of the new covenant would not be evidenced until Jesus returns. I think this is an important detail. If it's included, the salvation offered is worth less than if the qualifier is omitted. Without qualification, the offer of salvation is grander. "It's happening now". With the qualification of 2nd advent, the offer is less grand, "it's happening later". it requires a second coming which evidently takes over 2000+ years to occur.

In summary: Don't you think Jesus' offer in John14:6 needed to include mention of the 2nd Coming in order to fairly describe the new covenant? Try thinking about it as a Jewish person at that time. Why would I trade the current covenant for the new one ( the old ways, plural, for a new way ,singular) if it's contingent on a future unscheduled event? Omitting this detail makes the deal more urgent, potentially manipulating their perceived value of the new covenant, compared to the existing covenant. That's my point. Without qualification, the covenant is developed on false pretenses.

Without mentioning the 2nd coming, it's not fair to promise Jesus as the only way unqualified.
John chapter 14 is based on events that took place just hours before Jesus' arrest. He tells his disciples things that are related to his death and ascension. For example in verse 2 Jesus says, 'I go to prepare a place for you.' Then in verse 3 he says, 'And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself:'

Although the promise of a place with Christ is made to the disciples sat at the Last Supper, this same promise applies to all disciples who have lived during the Church Age, over the last two thousand years. To these disciples, Jesus Christ is 'the way, the truth, and the life'. But the additional statement, 'no man cometh to the Father, but by me' makes it clear that his 'truth' is universal.

That 'Torah' Jews are yet to be grafted back into Christ, despite the national rejection of the 'suffering servant', is made plain by Paul, who says, 'For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.'
[Romans 11:25-27]
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
So...let me see if I got it straight: Jesus uprooted/denounced the traditional Jewish legal system, made a list of morals, and wished everyone good luck with figuring out a new system?

There's a lot of complexity involved in this issue.
Jesus was talking to people who, whether Jew or pagan, already lived
in legal systems.
Jesus' converts had to respect these systems - but they were not to live
under the ordinances or judgements of Judaism where these conflicted.
Many early Jewish Christians still respected the Temple, even going to
pray there despite Jesus telling them to pray in their privacy and that
'God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.' He also said the Temple
and the whole nation would be destroyed.
Jesus said his converts would remain as minorities - they weren't going
to change the world and don't even try. He even wondered if there would
be ANY faith when he returned.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
John chapter 14 is based on events that took place just hours before Jesus' arrest. He tells his disciples things that are related to his death and ascension. For example in verse 2 Jesus says, 'I go to prepare a place for you.' Then in verse 3 he says, 'And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself:'

Although the promise of a place with Christ is made to the disciples sat at the Last Supper, this same promise applies to all disciples who have lived during the Church Age, over the last two thousand years. To these disciples, Jesus Christ is 'the way, the truth, and the life'. But the additional statement, 'no man cometh to the Father, but by me' makes it clear that his 'truth' is universal.

That 'Torah' Jews are yet to be grafted back into Christ, despite the national rejection of the 'suffering servant', is made plain by Paul, who says, 'For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.'
[Romans 11:25-27]
OK, OK, how about this? :)

What about Jubilee? Jubilee is another way to redemption in addition to through Jesus' salvation ( assuming it exists ). The captive soul goes free on Jubilee regardless of their relationship to Jesus. Leviticus 25:47 and Leviticus 25:54.
Multiple ways means that the covenant of grace was offered in false pretenses. Because of Jubilee, souls can get to the-father ( assuming the-father is God ) without Jesus. He is not the *only* way.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Top