Posted on 07/01/2003 10:22:12 AM PDT by ksen
What new covenant? It's a renewal, not new.
Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Notice that the LAW is still in this 'new' covenant. It is merely a renewal, the law has been moved from external tablets to within peoples hearts, but the law is still there! The idea is that you don't just READ about them, you LIVE them.
If I was convinced that this seven-headed Godhead had come to earth and revealed itself this way, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with this.
(We might need to throw Luther in there to reel in the Protestants.)
SD
The Torah is written on hearts of flesh instead of on stone tablets.
Moses was human. Jesus was a man/god. You say he came down from heaven, Moses says he will come "from the midst of thee, of thy brethren".
Jesus did come from the midst of them, born to a young Jewish girl namde Mary, raised as a carpenter, went to Temple, etc.
SD
Silly me. I thought he pre-existed.
Its hard for me to remember when from the other side of your mouth you say stuff like this.
I don't believe any of the older ones are "excluded" either.
It's not that difficult. Any agreement God ever made with anyone is still valid. God does not renege or break His Contracts.
However, being a Gentile, I was not a party to any of these contracts until the latest, Jesus-one.
To continue the analogy, pretend there was a bank that gave mortgages only to white people. They got a 10 % rate.
Now a new bank comes along that gives loans to whites and blacks. They have a rate of 5%. Now any white man could stick with the 10% agreement he already has, or jump to the new 5 % one. Either one is still valid.
As a black man (hypothetically), I could not get the old 10 % rate at all. I had no mortgage. Now I can get the 5 % rate.
SD
That's a new one on me. I thought you'd heard of the 10 commandments?
You are not a descendant of Noah?
Sure it is. But the power to bind and loose has been transferred to a new authority, and the Law is no longer a method of salvation, but an instrument of revealing our sinfullness.
SD
Yes. And He then came from the midst of them. It's not a contradictory thing.
SD
You are not a descendant of Noah?
Ooops. Strike that, amend that.
SD
Mark 6
11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
nations from the Greek
1484 ethnos eth'-nos probably from 1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):--Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians
Notice that it is pagans and Gentiles that are to be taught. The Jews already know the doctrines, precepts and commandments which apply to them. The Jews were/are to be a 'light unto the nations'.
Yeshua and the apostles were to teach them to repent of their idolatrous ways and how to properly follow the commandments.
What does that mean, exactly?
SD
I think the congressional terminology is to "revise and extend" your comments. ;o)
Huh? Why do you define "nations" when it is not in the passage you cite?
Are you sure that no Jews had a need to repent and were nto in need of any teaching? Is it your position that Jesus and the Apostles never taught such things to Jews?
It is fairly well understood that the passage entails Jesus sending the Apostles out within Israel. They did not go out into foreign lands until after the Resurrection, when Jesus instructed them to. So why do you think they were going to "the nations" in this passage, when it is not stated?
SD
It certainly does! Makes it awfully difficult to pick the tares out of the wheat!
Why does Isaiah 53 jump from future tense, to prest tense, then to past tense in its first few verses of the KJV? The Tenakh is consistent, the KJV isn't.
Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel, how Israel the nation will suffer for the iniquities of Israel the people. They will be punished and oppressed by others but in the end Israel is redeemed/vindicated.
That's my take on it, anyway, and it would help if we had precise translations instead of what we have, that tries to infer something else. Just like when they replaced the word lion with pierced, in Psalm 22:16. Someone tried to IMPLY something other than what the verse actually said.
Exactly whose Bible translation do you use for "precision"? Just curious.
SD
Trinitarians do not think Yeshua is part of a so called tri-une God? Clear this up please.
Is Yehsua 100% human, or is Yeshua part of the trinity?
Yes, Yeshua is part of the Trinity. Weren't you used to be Catholic?
Is Yehsua 100% human, or is Yeshua part of the trinity?
There is no "or" about it. Yeshua is fully, 100 percent human and fully 100 percent God. He is one person with two natures.
SD
Why was the First Temple destroyed? Three things that occurred in it: idolatry, unseemly provocative sexual behavior, and bloodshed. But the Second Temple, ... why was it destroyed? Baseless hatred. This teaches that baseless hatred is equated with three sins, idolatry, provocative sexual behavior, and bloodshed.
Yet in the period of the Second Temple, the people are described as performing all the mitzvot perfectly, studying Torah diligently, and doing acts of chesed. How is it possible that we could do all these things and yet hate our fellow Jews? We have the answer given to us, baseless hatred. And how was that hatred baseless? Maharsha gives us an example in Gittin 57a, two men, Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, lived in the same town but hate each other. Kamtza is loved by one man in particular and, because of his love for Hamtza, hates Bar Kamtza. When that man makes a feast, he sends to invite his dear friend Kamtza but, through an error, Bar Kamtza receives the invitation instead.
Bar Kamtza, thinking that the man who had hated him before wants to forgive him, dresses in his finest clothes and comes to the feast prepared in turn to forgive the man who hated him. Yet when this man discovers Bar Kamtza at the feast he is furious and demands that he leave immediately, ignoring Bar Kamtza's pleas to stay, even after being assured that Bar Kamtza will pay for whatever he eats or drinks, after being offered first half, and then the entire cost of the feast if his enemy would forgive him just this once and spare him the embarrassment of being thrown out on the street. Now the Rabbis were there at the party and said nothing while this happened, and Bar Kamtza, who had been minded to forgive his enemy, now burned with the desire for revenge, not only on his enemy, but on the Rabbis who stood by and said nothing while he was humiliated.
And he did exactly that, through a simple trick, relying on the punctilious observance of all the mitzvot that the Rabbis insisted on. Bar Kamtza persuaded Caesar to send a sacrifice to the Temple, and secretly made a small blemish on the animal's lip, to symbolize the Rabbi's silence, or the eye, to symbolize that the Rabbis had seen and stood aside, so that the animal, Caesar's gift, was rejected. And thus was initiated Caesar's hatred of the Jews, which led directly to the destruction of the Temple.
Now perhaps Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza, as the name implies, to show us that there is no more destructive hatred than that of kin for kin, but it is certain that he was a Jew and that the two men were related at least through Abraham. Whatever sins, if any, he had performed against the party's host, he wanted to forgive and be forgiven for the sake of peace, which we are commanded to do.
And the Rabbis said nothing.
Yet when Caesar's sacrifice came to the Temple, a tiny blemish, which might easily have been overlooked for the sake of peace, was an excuse to start a feud with the King of that place.
So it's not only the party-giver who hated without cause, after being begged for even a small courtesy for the sake of peace, but the Rabbis who were so exacting in their observance of the minor mitzvot but forgetful of the greater, who set themselves up through pride as the final judges of what's right and wrong, who sowed hatred through their inaction at the first and their actions at the last.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.