Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hcap
Boxcar and most Christians will never get the extent of antisemitism built into this theological principle by the Church......
And how this supremacist policy has darkened the relationship between both parties. This is not a Jewish doing it was the Christian Church that wrongly interpreted their own New Testament and the Old Testament as well.
|
Actually, the bad relationship was instigated by the Jews, as I have already established from scripture. First century Jews who rejected the New Covenant persecuted and murdered Christians.
Quote:
|
Boxcar us a perfect example of theological blundering. Actor has asked him repeatedly what "righteous" means.? If he really knew, he would take some responsibility for all the countless Jews murdered and tortured over the last 2 millennnia and not look for imbecilic excuses. The Jews did not kill Christ anymore than Goldilocks ate the 3 bears porridge
|
Why would I take any responsibility? Are you that ignorant of "your own" Law? No man is to bear the sins of his fathers!
And if the Jews did not murder their Messiah, who did!? Even YOUR own OT prophets predicted that the nation of Israel would reject Him, despise him and "cut him off" from his people. And this is a Jewish idiom which means to slay him! You don't have a leg to stand on!
And Actor has been asking me to define "sin" and "conscience", which I have. And what is so hard to understand about the term "righteous". It means to be absolutely free from sin and guilt. To be morally perfect.
Now...as far as "theological blundering" goes, you don't have to look any farther than to the person of people or organization who wrote what you posted. So, here it is again for all to see:
[i]"From a Jewish perspective, however, the Torah was given to the Jewish people as an eternal covenant (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-15) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1), and hence Judaism rejects supersessionism as contrary to the Hebrew Bible at best (see also Antinomianism) and antisemitic at worst. For Judaism and other critics, supersessionism is a theology of replacement, which substitutes the Christian church, consisting of Christians, for the Jewish and B'nei Noah people. Modern Jews are offended by the traditional Christian belief in supersessionism,[28] and some historians see supersessionism as one source of anti-Semitism in Western culture.[29]"[/quote]
The Law (the "Torah") was NOT given to the Jewish people as an eternal convent! So, the opening statement -- the beginning premise -- is patently false! Let's examine the passages your "experts" in the Law used to try to justify the perpetuity of the Law.
Ex 12:16-17
16
'And on the first day you shall have a holy assembly, and another holy assembly on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them, except what must be eaten by every person, that alone may be prepared by you. 17'You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe THIS DAY throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance..
NASB
Firstly, there is a specific day in view here -- not the Mosaic Covenant, which was the Law of Moses. The Feast of the Unleavened Bread,which was a sabbath day is the only thing in view in this passage. Regarding this Feast, I have shown in my little study on the typology in the Exodus account that that particular day typified Christ. Christ is the antitype to that feast, and as such He fulfills that day. Therefore, the "day" is observed to this day by all God's
covenant people (believing Jews and Gentiles alike) and is observed permanently
in Him!
And the irony does not escape me that we're supposed to interpret the perpetuity of this day literally, but not the rest of the Exodus account itself, right? I mean...if God didn't literally bring the Jews (the hosts) out of Egypt, then tell me why I should interpret literally the "permanent ordinance" part of this passage? Or for that matter that there was even a feast day literally instituted? Care to justify yourself, Mr. 'cap?
Let's go to the next "proof text" your Jewish expert used:
Ex 31:16-17
16
'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.' 17 "
It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever;
for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."
NASB
Now, this text is taken right out of the Law proper itself. But it's not speaking to the Law code itself in broad sense; it's speaking, again, of a certain day, and that that day was to be observed and celebrated forever -- as a "perpetual covenant".
So, the sabbath itself is a covenant.. It was a covenant within the larger framework of the entire Mosaic Covenant, which consisted of 613 laws -- the sabbath observance, being only one requirement of that law! In fact, this sabbath covenant acted as a sign -- an outward expression to the entire Mosaic Covenant -- just like the covenant of circumcision acted as an external sign to the Abrahamic Covenant. All God's redemptive covenants were assigned specific external signs. The signs under the New Covenant are believers' baptism and the observance of the Lord's Supper. But understand this: These external, ritualistic, ceremonial signs in no way constituted or represented the core substance to the covenants to which they were merely signs.
The second important thing we want to note about this passage is that this sabbath covenant is a
CREATION ORDINANCE. God himself set the pattern for sabbath observance in his creation activity. Note that little three letter word "for" that begins the second clause to v. 17. Understand this: The "for" indicates PURPOSE, and INTENDED goal. And this divine purpose or intended goal was established back in the creation! This presents a very sticky problem for allegorists, evolutionists, etc. like yourself because if God didn't create the heavens and the earth in six literal days and "rested" on the literal seventh day, then on what basis does any Jew or any sabbatarian of any Christian sect or denomination have for observing the literal seventh day of the week? If the "six days" really represented six, very long ages of indeterminate length (which many professing Christians also believe), then to preserve the integrity of the analogical pattern, it seems to me that observant Jews (and sabbatarians of other stripes) should be observing their sabbath in the same precise way God did -- in AGES!
But Moses (whom you don't even believe existed) didn't quite see it that way, did he? His hermeneutic differed a wee bit from yours, didn't it? Neither would the Israelites to whom he gave the Law understood this be anything but six literal days and to rest on the literal seventh day. (To borrow Show Me's logic again, I'll stick with the hermeneutic of the guy who was closest to the situation.)
That the sabbath was itself a creation ordinance is borne out by Christ. Note his words carefully:
Mark 2:27-28
27
And He was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath . 28 "Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath ."
NASB
Note carefully that Jesus did not say that the sabbath was made for the Jews. Or that the sabbath was made for the Law of Moses! No! The sabbath was made for MAN -- "man' in the generic sense. So, Jesus is actually shedding quite a bit of light on what Moses taught over a thousand years earlier! And Jesus even went on to say that He -- "the Son of Man" is Lord of the Sabbath." He gets to define the sabbath and he gets to do this because the sabbath was all about Him! The external ritualistic, ceremonial observation of a day foreshadowed a infinitely more significant spiritual reality -- Christ himself, in which all believers (again, Jews and Gentiles alike) take their
perpetual spiritual rest.
Matt 11:28-30
28
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29
"Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. 30 "For My yoke is easy, and My load is light."
NASB
Therefore, the "sabbath" is still observed to this day by all true believers. It is indeed a perpetual covenant for God's covenant people; for Jesus Christ himself is their sabbath covenant! True believers take their "sabbath rest" in Christ DAILY.
Isa 42:6
6
"I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness,
I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you,
And I will appoint you as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations,
NASB
The writer to the Hebrews also warns the Jewish Christians to be sure to enter the "rest" that remains, and the writer even alludes back to the creation account to impress upon them the importance of emulating God's rest! Keep in mind that every day to a Christian is a sabbath rest in Christ! And also keep in mind that God rested permanently -- forever -- from his creation work, just as believes rest forever in Christ!
Heb 4:9-11
9
There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest , lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience.
NASB
Let's move on to the next "proof text" offered by your "expert" in the Law:
Deut 4:2
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
NASB
Talk about
MEGABYTES OF IRONY!!! Perhaps you would be good enough to do us all a favor: Find out who wrote this article, then contact those people and quote back to them their own "proof text" and ask them how is it that they have
taken away from the Law Lev 17:11, and all the other numerous passages in that Law that deal with blood atonement. By all means, please get back to me on this.
What this expert or experts have failed to prove is that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal! It is not eternal! The Mosaic Covenant was strictly a temporary covenant arrangement in God's redemptive administration. It was even predicted that Israel would be an utter failure under that covenant! In fact, YOUR own prophets also predicted that a New Covenant would be forthcoming to Israel.
Jer 31:31-34
31
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 NOT LIKE the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. 33
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
NASB
And I'm here to tell you that this "new covenant" is very much UNLIKE the Mosaic Covenant. I have come up with about 68 ways in which the two covenant differ -- the main one being is that this New Covenant is unconditional in nature. The are no conditions in the above passage! God promises to act unilaterally. Therefore, this differs significantly from the Mosaic Covenant, since this was a covenant of works and was replete with conditions throughout. So, it appears that this "replacement theology" finds its roots in the OT!
And the prophecy, of course, was fulfilled by Jesus:
Luke 22:19-20
19
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
NASB
All redemptive covenants were ratified in blood. But this New Covenant is the only one ratified by the precious blood of the spotless Lamb of God himself!
And before I take my leave, I would be terribly remiss if I didn't tell you how duplicitous I find you to be! The writer of that article obviously took his "proof texts" very literally. He had to in order to try to make his case for the perpetuity of the Mosaic Covenant. Yet, you have no problem accepting his literal interpretation of those passages, even though you have criticized me, ridiculed me and mocked me very often for my "literal" interpretations. How hypocritical and double-minded you are! When it suits your agenda, you just glibly accept some "expert's" opinion of the Law through his literal interpretations -- and then expect me to not notice your blatantly dishonest tactics? And you dare call me an "insulting fool"!?
Boxcar
