“The new testament is wrong. Abram heard the LORD and obeyed him”
Yes, but there can be no obedience without faith, only a shadow of obedience. Obedience without faith is dead, and faith without obedience is not truly faith.
“So, Abram heard the LORD then acted upon the words of the LORD by works!... It isnt until Genesis 15, when G-d repeats His promise to Abram that he states his belief in the promise and it is accounted to Abram as righteousness.”
Yes, but the point Paul was making is that the Lord had already accounted Abram a righteous man, and blessed him, before he did any works of obedience. The only thing which Abram had done at that point was harken to the voice of the Lord, which was an act of faith, not obedience.
Does the Lord bless the wicked?
Proverbs 3:33
“The LORD curses the house of wicked people, but he blesses the home of righteous people.”
If the Lord had not counted Abram as righteous before Genesis 15, there would have been no blessing, and no promise.
“’the Covenant of Moses, faith was to be demonstrated by obedience to the Law.’
But the obdedience is driven by love of G-d and His word.”
Love of God and his Word, comes from faith, so I think we’re just arguing semantics here. Does the faithless man love God?
“To Paul a curse, to David a delight! I’ll take David over Paul any day of the week.”
Paul was not saying the Law was a curse, but that disobedience to the Law carried a curse. When he said “the curse of the Law”, he clearly refers to the associated curses of disobedience, not the Law itself. Paul also extolled the virtues of the Law:
Romans 7:12
“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
“In all of scripture, there is not one recorded event of someone sinning intentionally and offering an animal sacrifice for forgiveness! Not one.”
Not for forgiveness, but for atonement, of course blood sacrifice was required. Christ removes the necessity of atonement through sacrifice, once and for all. Forgiveness is given, not in exchange for a sacrifice (for who can bargain with the Lord?), but freely given by God by his mercy.
“Not really, that is only a process prescribed by G-d only when there is a temple. G-d told the people there would be times when the people would not have a temple or preist or king.”
There were High Priests, even before the temple, for didn’t Aaron serve the same function? Regardless, though, as I said it was a “type” of mediator, which means it was a thing which foreshadowed what was to come. During the Old Covenant, the mediation of Christ could not have been effective, since he had not yet performed the work necessary for his exaltation. Yet, God provided Israel with rituals which symbolically represented the work of the Mediator that was to come. The purpose was not to serve as an actual mediator, but to instruct them, and later, to serve as testament that God’s plan was set from the beginning.
G-d told the people there would be times when the people would not have a temple or preist or king.
Hosea 3:4For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
Therefore the people had always been able to obtain forgiveness DIRECTLY through G-d.”
You didn’t post the final verses of that quote (Hos 3:5-6):
“5 Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days”
The last 2 verses show that while the Israelites are living many days without these things, it is not until the last days that they return to seek the Lord and their king, and recieve his blessings. What Hosea describes is the results of the curse that God placed on Israel for her disobedience, not evidence that the curse was of no effect.
“The people of Nineveh (among many other examples) recieved atonement without sacrifice.”
The people of Ninevah were not a part of the Covenant, so how the Lord dealt with them is not relevant to how the Lord dealt with those under the Covenant.
“Many people have faith in G-d but not follow the law. The Israelites had problems chasing after other gods (and had little or no faith) and during 2nd temple times, problems getting along with each other, showing love, mercy and justice to each other but they still had some faith in G-d, just not a strong active faith. But in all cases in all times, there has been a holy remnant.”
It is true, that the Lord will always provide that there is a holy remnant among his people, but this does not mean that the rest of Israel is faithful, when they are clearly not. Is a wife faithful to her husband if she commits adultery? Clearly not, so when Israel was whoring after other Gods, she was not faithful, despite the fact that the Lord, through his mercy, provided a faithful remnant within her. If they offered worship in the Temple, and at the same time, offered worship to other Gods after the manner of the pagans, then the worship they offered to God was done in disobedience. They were, so to speak, only going through the motions.
“Since, Jesus did not A) Become the King of Judah or Israel, B) Did not bring knowlege of G-d from the least to the greatest and C) rebuild the temple and retore sacrifices (Ezk 43/44) There is no New Covenant yet. This will occur in the Messianic era by the Jewish Messiah. Soon!”
The prophecies you cite do refer to the New Covenant that the Messiah would institute, however, they do not say that all these things will be accomplished instantly. They do not say, the Messiah will come, and as soon as he appears, all these things will happen. There is, however, a more specific timetable for some of the events concerning the Messiah, which you did not refer to.
Daniel 9:24-27
“24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”
Now, this prophecy actually provides a timeline of events, which can be pinpointed in history, and the coming of the Messiah is included in this timeline. We know when the command to rebuild was given, and we know when the city and the sanctuary was destroyed. The Messiah was prophecied to come, and to be “cut off”, in the time between these two events, which is exactly the period in which we see the appearance of Jesus, and his death.
Now, you can argue that this prophecy doesn’t prove Jesus is the Messiah, but how can you argue that this prophecy doesn’t prove the Messiah has already come? If he already has come, and the work that is prophecied to be performed by the Messiah is not all evident, then it only stands to reason that the Messiah would not complete all of his work instantaneously.
90+% of Christians will site Gen15:6 as the moment of Abrahams "salvation". If you do a word search on Abraham and believed, it occurs three times in the NT and in each case they reference Gen 15:6, which is an error. Paul is saying that Abraham believing the promise constituted saving faith and there was no element of works but he is wrong. You have it right, Abraham believed G-d and obeyed him and then he did do a lot of works prior to Gen 15:6. Furthermore, notice what G-d says about Abraham to Issac:
Gen 26:4"I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."
Even before the law was given to Moses, Abraham was credited with keeping the law. So, clearly G-d is indictating that Abraham obtained the promise through his actions of obeying G-d's laws. G-d did not credit him with great faith but great works. Works born out of love and faith.
If the Lord had not counted Abram as righteous before Genesis 15, there would have been no blessing, and no promise.
That is a given, but again, how did G-d see him as righteous? G-d told Issac that "Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws". Not that Abraham had great faith. That would go without saying. No where does G-d comment on his faith.
Paul was not saying the Law was a curse, but that disobedience to the Law carried a curse. When he said “the curse of the Law”, he clearly refers to the associated curses of disobedience, not the Law itself. Paul also extolled the virtues of the Law:
No...Paul is very clear. The law is a curse...we are dead to the law... you are not under law, but under grace....Christ is the end of the law.... To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law....justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law....for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing...Clearly no one is justified before God by the law....etc.
Paul does have some positive things to say about the law but makes it abundantly clear that the Mosaic law is to be replaced by Christs law. Even Paul, who supposedly is a Jew and a Pharisee, took himself out from under the law. Which is contrary to the word of G-d that the law is forever.
Deut 4: 1"Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deut 11:1 Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.
Deut 29:.....but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. Psalm 111:7-8
And in the Messianic era, the law will continue....
And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. Ezekiel 11:19-20
My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. Ezekiel 37:24
The preists will teach the law and keep the law.
23 They are to teach my people the difference between the holy and the common and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean. 24 " 'In any dispute, the priests are to serve as judges and decide it according to my ordinances. They are to keep my laws and my decrees for all my appointed feasts, and they are to keep my Sabbaths holy. Ezek44
And even the Gentiles will have to be circumsized to enter the 3rd temple. Paul missed that one when he condemned circumsision
Ezek 44: This is what the Sovereign LORD says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.
So, clearly the law is forever, even in the messianic era.
Not for forgiveness, but for atonement, of course blood sacrifice was required.Christ removes the necessity of atonement through sacrifice, once and for all.
No.... again, read Lev 5: 11 " 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah [a] of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
Flour...not blood.
Christ removes the necessity of atonement through sacrifice, once and for all.
Not possible. A)Deuteronomy 12:30-31 Jeremiah 19:4-6 Deuteronomy 24:16 Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27 G-d forbids Human sacrifice and Human vicarious atonement And yet we are to then turn around and believe that God changed His mind, and required human sacrifice, and then it was the sacrifice of His own human son that God wanted? After telling the Jews to stay away from pagan practices, and pagan beliefs, God then changes His mind and says, "Okay, now go ahead and believe in a human sacrifice, just as these very pagans believe?" and B) Ezek 44, sacrifices are returning. Sin offerings will resume. Why? If Jesus is an atonement?
Therefore the people had always been able to obtain forgiveness DIRECTLY through G-d.” You didn’t post the final verses of that quote (Hos 3:5-6): “5 Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days” The last 2 verses show that while the Israelites are living many days without these things, it is not until the last days that they return to seek the Lord and their king
Okay, yes as Ezekiel says: They will return to the LORD and:My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. Ezekiel 37:24
The Tanakh (OT) never describes and period when the law doesnt exist and is replaced by a human sacrifice of a man-god to "fulfill" the law. This is a Grecco-Roman invention.
The people of Ninevah were not a part of the Covenant, so how the Lord dealt with them is not relevant to how the Lord dealt with those under the Covenant
Okay, these people were....2 Chronicles 6:24 And if thy people Israel be put to the worse before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee; and shall return and confess thy name, and pray and make supplication before thee in this house; Then hear thou from the heavens, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which thou gavest to them and to their fathers....yet if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them; [27] Then hear thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel,
2 Chron 7:14 14] If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Furthermore, If Jesus blood were to be an acceptable sacrifice (It isnt per scriptures above) then he fails as a sacrifice on the most basic level. Jesus died from suffocation on the cross, not rapid blood loss at the neck (rendering him treif) His blood was not sprinkled on the altar. His fat and innards were not burned on the altar. He met zero of the requirements of a sacrfice. Not one scripture says that death on a cross in acceptable means of death for a sacrifice. You cant make up your own rules. Even Abraham had Issac on the altar ready to slit his throat and burn him. G-d forbade the sacrifice and told him animals only. But Jesus should have been killed on the altar like Issac would have been.
The prophecies you cite do refer to the New Covenant that the Messiah would institute, however, they do not say that all these things will be accomplished instantly.
Not instantly but concurrently in the same time frame. This is the clear meaning of the texts. Jesus would not need a second coming had he done it properly.
Daniel 9 is a thoroughly messed up explanation by the church. I am short on time so will point you here: Daniel
And Here: Daniel 9
And here: Daniels 70 weeks
Shalom