Understand: I know that the Father has declared the Torah will stand FOREVER.
[...] However, the Torah commands one to heed prophets. However, this does not extend to a "prophet" who would end or replace the Torah (and please spare me the word games about how "J*sus fulfilled the Torah, he didn't replace it").
Jesus, nor any of His disciples sought to change the Torah. Indeed He declares not one jot or tittle...
What do you think is changed?
The priesthood, no doubt. But the order of Melchizedek transcends Aaron (see Gen 14:18) and is foretold by David (Psa 110 I think) wrt Messiah. So is it change?
The Blood Atonement, I suppose... But wait... No, It still requires blood to cover sin... But what blood can possibly be of better worth than Messiah's? This is also foretold in a thousand ways, though none perhaps, as well as Isaiah 53...
The sacrificial system was certainly impacted - But I really don't know the extent of that - Christians will be surprised by the sacrificial system being re-instituted when Messiah comes... But Judah is far away from that old system too - so I don't know if he can tell the differences either. No doubt we will learn of that together.
The Covenant of Grace? Faith being counted as righteousness? All over the Old Covenant. What is it that offends, except perhaps that Yehoshua is of Judah?
You are wrong! Only the Torah was directly written by G-d Himself and dictated letter-for-letter. The Prophecies and Hagiographa were written in the words of the human authors.
I said the scribes and prophets carried the "signature" of God, not that they were God Himself. There is no denying the influence of the Spirit while they were writing. do you think that the books of the great prophets can contain mistakes? If they do, as you know, they are not prophets.
The same can be said of the scribes who wrote the teaching books - Did they know they were writing prophecy into the words? What book in your canon does not contain that prophetic signature? Is there any doubt of the Spirit upon David?
Plus there have always been many religious books that have claimed to be scripture.
I know. I have read more of them than you probably assume.
Do you know why decides what is and what is not Scripture? The duly-constituted religious authority, that is who. I accept the Na"KH because I accept the authority, under the Torah, of the Men of the Great Assembly who compiled and canonized it.
Stop: Def plz= Na"KH... I suppose it is Tanakh less Torah.
Continuing =>
Now, is it your opinion that I should bow to Rome, then? LOL! No. That will not happen. Nor can I (perfectly) accept the authority of my larger Church (Presbyterianism), for the discovery that there is still much of Rome left in her.
And therein lies the problem for Christians, or at least for Protestants. If they function on the premise of sola-scriptura, rejecting the traditions that had obviously led Christianity astray for a millennium and more, reverting to the originating documents, they are accused of having no presiding authority. To some, it seems, it would be better for them to submit to Rome upon that basis.
But we have seen this very same thing played out before. The House of Israel was rejected for the "traditions" they added to the Torah - And the House of Judah faired no better - Their House (Temple) is left desolate, for the very same crimes. Nehemiah read the Torah to the people. Not the traditions. Yet by the time of Christ, tradition far outweighed the Word of God.
Then we don't need a "new" testament or a chr*stian religion.
Then we need no Mosaic law either... The Abramic Covenant was before it - why change? Or lets all just go back to the Covenant of Noah, and forget about the whole business.
I do not see these covenants in any way other than an expanding succession. Did the Covenant of Moses make null the Covenant of Abraham? Did the Davidic Covenant make null the Covenant of Moses? Each has subsumed, or been joined to it's successor, yet they all stand alone as well. The Covenant of Grace does the same thing.
Note that I am painfully aware that my Jewish brethren look upon my Lord, and the Covenant of Grace in the same fashion that I look upon Mormonism, and their prophet... Or maybe even conflate us with Rome, or even compare us to Mohammad... There is nothing I can do about that. But it grieves me deeply.
It is my opinion that Christians have much to learn from Judah, and Judah much to learn from us. Until the Father sees fit to unstop our ears, and take the scales from our eyes, we will just have to wait.
My question is exactly that..Why would G-D command a Blood Sacrafice from an animal for a human beings wrong..now I am not questioning G-D’s commandments just want to understand them, and without the Blood Sacrafice of Jesus Christ blood sacrafice from an animal makes no sense at all....
G-D is not a G-D of confusement and would not use animal sacrafice, if he did not intend for us to truly understand the *Lamb of GOD* who taketh away the Sins of the World..