Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/14/2005 1:30:29 PM EDT
Some Arfcomers have indicated confusion concerning Old Testament Laws, especially why modern Christians don't follow the Law of Moses today. There has been some confusion as to whether or not the Mosaic Law was replaced/dropped/done away/fulfilled/superseded/etc. So I offer this new topic for addressing the issue.

Short summary:

The primary purpose of the Mosaic Law was to prepare Israel for the coming of their Messiah. Israel proved to be "stiffnecked" and idolatrous soon after they were led out of Egypt, and needed a very strict law full of performances to constantly remind the Israelites of their covenants and relationship with the Lord.

Sacrificial performances were instituted, specifically as a type and reminder of the sacrifice the Lord would make in His mortality. Hence the lamb without blemish that was sacrificed without breaking any bones, etc.

Circumcision was instituted, as a very physical reminder of the responsibilities the Lord's chosen people had.

There were the Ten Commandments.

There were also many laws which regulated everyday affairs for Israelites, covering everything from what was "kosher" to eat to financial/property laws and slavery. Many of these laws were established for Israel's temporal well being. While there is always a spiritual aspect to every law God gives, some performances were certainly more spiritual than others in the Mosaic Law. Keep in mind that for centuries, Israel lived under a theocracy (religion and government were one and the same).

By the time of Jesus, Israel was no longer living under a true theocracy. Palestine was subject to Roman rule, which was largely secular. It was literally impossible for the Israelites in Jerusalem to live and administer every law and performance prescribed under the Mosaic Law.

The Messiah came and Jesus taught His Gospel to the Jews (generic term referring to Israelites in the vicinity of Jerusalem). The Gospel was a higher law. A more spiritual law. Instead of animal sacrifices, the Lord required a broken heart and contrite spirit. Not only was murder still sin, but being overcome with anger towards one's neighbor was also sin. Not only was adultery still sin, but lusting was also sin. Etc. Notice that Jesus never abolished the Ten Commandments, but took the spirit of them to a higher level.

It is also important to note that Jesus recognized the secular government's role, admonishing his disciples to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's. A theocracy therefore wasn't necessary to live the Gospel in its fullness.

Following Christ's death and resurrection, the Gospel was then spread first to the Jew and then to the Gentile, following Saul's/Paul's conversion. Very quickly questions arose as to the observance of performances prescribed under the Law of Moses, such as circumcision. It was revealed that many of these temporal observances were no longer necessary as far as the Gospel was concerned. Other observances, though they remained, were applied differently than in the past.

For example:

The priesthood could be conferred upon those who were not of the tribe of Levi, and even to Gentiles.

The obervance of the Sabbath migrated from Saturday to Sunday, in observance of the day of the Lord's resurrection.

Note that none of this abolishes the Ten Commandments, or other commandments given to Moses regarding moral issues, such as homosexuality/incest/etc. Intead there is a change in how the laws are observed. Anger and lust in one's heart are to be controlled, as well as one's physical actions. Due to mercy provided by the Lord's Atonement, it is no longer necessary for ecclesiastical leaders to administer physical justice for every crime (though the secular government retains that jurisdiction) such as death for homosexuality. Instead we will be held accountable on a more spiritual level, answering more directly to the Lord.


I'm sure that there are many questions left unanswered by my brief summary, but I'm short on time and hope this clears up a few questions. I apologize for any brain cramps I suffered while typing my thoughts (any incoherent sentences).
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:40:53 PM EDT
Very interesting read, but

The obervance of the Sabbath migrated from Saturday to Sunday
The Sabbath is Friday sundown to Saturday Sundown. Also the Sabbath moving to Sunday which is hte day of Sol Invivtus, is a tie to paganism. The Conference at Nicea in 325 CE was a melding of the Cult of Sol Invictus and Pauline Christianity.
There are those Christians that us the saturday as a Sabbath more closely following the Jewish Practices.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 10:35:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 10:39:07 AM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Some Arfcomers have indicated confusion concerning Old Testament Laws, especially why modern Christians don't follow the Law of Moses today. There has been some confusion as to whether or not the Mosaic Law was replaced/dropped/done away/fulfilled/superseded/etc. So I offer this new topic for addressing the issue.

Short summary:

The primary purpose of the Mosaic Law was to prepare Israel for the coming of their Messiah. Israel proved to be "stiffnecked" and idolatrous soon after they were led out of Egypt, and needed a very strict law full of performances to constantly remind the Israelites of their covenants and relationship with the Lord.

Sacrificial performances were instituted, specifically as a type and reminder of the sacrifice the Lord would make in His mortality. Hence the lamb without blemish that was sacrificed without breaking any bones, etc.

Circumcision was instituted, as a very physical reminder of the responsibilities the Lord's chosen people had.

There were the Ten Commandments.

There were also many laws which regulated everyday affairs for Israelites, covering everything from what was "kosher" to eat to financial/property laws and slavery. Many of these laws were established for Israel's temporal well being. While there is always a spiritual aspect to every law God gives, some performances were certainly more spiritual than others in the Mosaic Law. Keep in mind that for centuries, Israel lived under a theocracy (religion and government were one and the same).

By the time of Jesus, Israel was no longer living under a true theocracy. Palestine was subject to Roman rule, which was largely secular. It was literally impossible for the Israelites in Jerusalem to live and administer every law and performance prescribed under the Mosaic Law.

The Messiah came and Jesus taught His Gospel to the Jews (generic term referring to Israelites in the vicinity of Jerusalem). The Gospel was a higher law. A more spiritual law. Instead of animal sacrifices, the Lord required a broken heart and contrite spirit. Not only was murder still sin, but being overcome with anger towards one's neighbor was also sin. Not only was adultery still sin, but lusting was also sin. Etc. Notice that Jesus never abolished the Ten Commandments, but took the spirit of them to a higher level.

It is also important to note that Jesus recognized the secular government's role, admonishing his disciples to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's. A theocracy therefore wasn't necessary to live the Gospel in its fullness.

Following Christ's death and resurrection, the Gospel was then spread first to the Jew and then to the Gentile, following Saul's/Paul's conversion. Very quickly questions arose as to the observance of performances prescribed under the Law of Moses, such as circumcision. It was revealed that many of these temporal observances were no longer necessary as far as the Gospel was concerned. Other observances, though they remained, were applied differently than in the past.

For example:

The priesthood could be conferred upon those who were not of the tribe of Levi, and even to Gentiles.

The obervance of the Sabbath migrated from Saturday to Sunday, in observance of the day of the Lord's resurrection.

Note that none of this abolishes the Ten Commandments, or other commandments given to Moses regarding moral issues, such as homosexuality/incest/etc. Intead there is a change in how the laws are observed. Anger and lust in one's heart are to be controlled, as well as one's physical actions. Due to mercy provided by the Lord's Atonement, it is no longer necessary for ecclesiastical leaders to administer physical justice for every crime (though the secular government retains that jurisdiction) such as death for homosexuality. Instead we will be held accountable on a more spiritual level, answering more directly to the Lord.


I'm sure that there are many questions left unanswered by my brief summary, but I'm short on time and hope this clears up a few questions. I apologize for any brain cramps I suffered while typing my thoughts (any incoherent sentences).



___

Generally a poor understanding of Judaism...I'm shocked, Shane.

Re:

The primary purpose of the Mosaic Law was to prepare Israel for the coming of their Messiah. Israel proved to be "stiffnecked" and idolatrous soon after they were led out of Egypt, and needed a very strict law full of performances to constantly remind the Israelites of their covenants and relationship with the Lord.

The purpose of the "Mosaic Laws" , traditionally accepted as the literal word of God as told to Moses, has always been a very difficult notion for those who are not connected to that type of thinking. For many, it is neither exactly history, nor theology, nor legal and ritual guide, but something beyond all three. It is the primary guide to the relationship between God and man, and the whole meaning and purpose of that relationship, a living document that unfolds over the generations and millennia.

The concept of a mashiach did not come into Jewish thought until the time of the Roman occupation. And was interpreted to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead the Jewish people in the face of their tribulations with the Romans. Not a god such as Christian dogma arose, which considered Jesus to be that messiah.

This concept of the messiah would have been alien not only to the time of Moses, but through the generations of Jews today.

Very poor "short summary", and indeed is a view through rose-colored glasses!

Ed

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:15:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 11:16:12 AM EDT by garandman]
The purpose of the law was to bring all men to Christ.


Abraham preceeded the law, and God established a faith / grace relationship with him.

Galatians 3 records


9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

As time passes, and sin increased the law was added, with this caveat:

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.


The law proclaims a curse upon men. As soon as you violate the law, you are at odds with the law. Either a punishment must be meted out, or a reconciliation made.


Comparing faith / grace and law, we read...

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


God made promises to Abraham, and to his SINGULAR seed - Christ. This covenant is NOT nullified by the law covenant, as the law covenant came 430 years after the confirmed grace covenant.


So why the law?

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


And what of the law now?


25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And what of law vs. grace, Jew vs. Gentile?


28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



(See also Romans 4 for a similar discussion.)
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:23:11 AM EDT
The purpose of the law was to bring all men to Christ.

__

Who's law...or better yet, who's interpretation?

garandman, we each have our own traditions...you have yours, and I have mine. Debate wasn't why I posted, rather than clarification from the Jewish tradition.


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:26:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


The concept of a mashiach did not come into Jewish thought until the time of the Roman occupation. And was interpreted to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead the Jewish people in the face of their tribulations with the Romans. Not a god such as Christian dogma arose, which considered Jesus to be that messiah.

This concept of the messiah would have been alien not only to the time of Moses, but through the generations of Jews today.

Very poor "short summary", and indeed is a view through rose-colored glasses!

Ed




Last time I checked, the book of Daniel was written prior to Roman occupation. And the book of Daniel refers to someone far more important than a great political leader... in fact, I think it even uses the term Messiah... why yes, yes it does...

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:27:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 11:28:47 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
The purpose of the law was to bring all men to Christ.

__

Who's law...or better yet, who's interpretation?

garandman, we each have our own traditions...you have yours, and I have mine. Debate wasn't why I posted, rather than clarification from the Jewish tradition.





"You do your thing, I'll do mine."

Its all good dude. Yer wrong, but its all good.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:29:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 11:34:14 AM EDT by scuba_ed]
I'm not wrong according to my beliefs. You're not wrong according to yours.

Why lay blame? That's been done for millenia...we're both better than that! There's enough of that going on around the world without needing to have it in this country.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

B'Shalom,

Ed
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:35:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
I'm not wrong according to my beliefs. Your not wrong according to yours.

Why lay blame? That's been done for millenia...we're both better than that!



Becasue ONLY ONE of us can be right. We CANNOT both be right. 2+2 has only one right answer. And to me, pursuit of the truth is the chief aim of man.




Merry Christmas to you and yours!

B'Shalom,

Ed



Happy Hannukkah to you and yours.

Peace


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:40:44 AM EDT
Becasue ONLY ONE of us can be right. We CANNOT both be right. 2+2 has only one right answer. And to me, pursuit of the truth is the chief aim of man.

__

Right? Wrong? We each take our paths to live the best lives we can. We're both right!

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:46:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Becasue ONLY ONE of us can be right. We CANNOT both be right. 2+2 has only one right answer. And to me, pursuit of the truth is the chief aim of man.

__

Right? Wrong? We each take our paths to live the best lives we can. We're both right!




So 2+2 DOES equal something other than 4?

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:51:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 11:52:54 AM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Becasue ONLY ONE of us can be right. We CANNOT both be right. 2+2 has only one right answer. And to me, pursuit of the truth is the chief aim of man.

__

Right? Wrong? We each take our paths to live the best lives we can. We're both right!




So 2+2 DOES equal something other than 4?




__

Your mathematical abilities are indeed legendary, though I am unable to find literature that addresses religion/ philosophy and belief systems into your mathematical model.

My golly, you certainly seem as one not quite into your holiday spirit with wishing good will to all.


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:57:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

My golly, you certainly seem as one not quite into your holiday spirit with wishing good will to all.





My pursuit of truth knows no holidays, and is not tempered by the calendar.



Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:02:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

My golly, you certainly seem as one not quite into your holiday spirit with wishing good will to all.





My pursuit of truth knows no holidays, and is not tempered by the calendar.






__

I commend one on a persuit of truth...very personal subject as to religion.

Didn't your mother ever caution you, "...now, now, garandman...temper! temper!!"

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:10:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Didn't your mother ever caution you, "...now, now, garandman...temper! temper!!"






My momma went right past the cautioning, and proceeded straight to beating.

It was exactly what was needed.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:26:13 PM EDT
scuba_ed,

I realized as soon as I submitted my original post on this thread that I would probably offend those who believe/practice modern Judaism. It is only fair for me to clarify that the original post is according to my beliefs as a Christian.

I understand that if you are unable to accept Jesus as the Savior/Messiah, you will have a hard time accepting my comments.

The day will come, in this life or the afterlife, in which one of us is going to admit that he is mistaken regarding Jesus Christ.

Just as a side note, here is some very interesting symbolism found in the Mosaic Law and the Exodus of Israel that was a "type" regarding the coming of the Messiah:

The sacrifice of the lamb without blemish. It was forbidden to break the bones. This was a type of how Jesus' legs weren't broken when He was on the Cross. The Romans broke the legs of the other men who were crucified that day, but not those of Jesus.

Another example was the brazen serpent.
Numbers 21:7-9
7 ¶ Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
--------------------------------

This was also a type of the raising up of Jesus on the cross. Those who look to Jesus shall live spiritually just as those who looked upon the brazen serpent were spared physically. Notice how the poisonous snakes were the result of Isreal sinning, and how looking to the brazen serpent (looking to the Lord) was their salvation.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:38:35 PM EDT
The day will come, in this life or the afterlife, in which one of us is going to admit that he is mistaken regarding Jesus Christ.

__

Shane, no reason to be that way...proselytizing to Jews may make you happy...but really, if you know we're Jews...just let us be. That compassion would make your jesus happy.


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:53:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
The day will come, in this life or the afterlife, in which one of us is going to admit that he is mistaken regarding Jesus Christ.

__

Shane, no reason to be that way...proselytizing to Jews may make you happy...but really, if you know we're Jews...just let us be. That compassion would make your jesus happy.





In the Gospels, Jesus confronted all men. Particualrly Jews.

I can understand that you want to leave it alone, but you cannot make Jesus something He wasn't.



Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:26:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
The day will come, in this life or the afterlife, in which one of us is going to admit that he is mistaken regarding Jesus Christ.

__

Shane, no reason to be that way...proselytizing to Jews may make you happy...but really, if you know we're Jews...just let us be. That compassion would make your jesus happy.





Ed,

What I was trying to say was that some day (this life or the next) the issue of who Jesus was/is will be resolved. I honestly am not trying to bash you. Please note that in the quoted comment, I didn't insist on who would be the mistaken one. I certainly have my personal belief on the matter, but I didn't specifically point fingers in my comment.

Perhaps I should have left that comment out. This thread isn't mean to be a Jew-bashing topic, just an explanation of how a Christian (myself) understands the transition from Old Testament laws to New Testament application of the Gospel.

Oh, as an aside, it would be presumptuous to tell me what would make Jesus happy if you don't believe that Jesus is the Lord. No harm and no foul, of course. You see how easy it is to step on someone else's toes without meaning to.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 3:20:44 PM EDT
I am perfectly content with leaving Jews alone. I leave the prostletyzing to Jews to the Messianic community.

I am just trying to reconcile the statement about the concept of a Messiah not even being considered until after Roman occupation, yet it was discussed in scripture long before.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:18:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Didn't your mother ever caution you, "...now, now, garandman...temper! temper!!"






My momma went right past the cautioning, and proceeded straight to beating.

It was exactly what was needed.




From the looks of thing she must have hit you on the head a lot!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:04:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Didn't your mother ever caution you, "...now, now, garandman...temper! temper!!"






My momma went right past the cautioning, and proceeded straight to beating.

It was exactly what was needed.




From the looks of thing she must have hit you on the head a lot!



Its poor form to repeat someones self-deprecating joke right after them.



But then poor form is your proforma.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:30:12 PM EDT
OK folks,

The purpose of this topic was to explain, "why modern Christians don't follow the Law of Moses today...." Inherent in this question is what seperates Christianity from modern-day Judaism. Inherent in this topic is the fact that Christians worship Jesus as their Lord and Redeemer. That fact most certainly and absolutely defines a Christian's understanding of Old Testament laws.

My purpose in creating this topic was to explain the issue to athiests and anyone else who ponders this question, specifically because the issue has come up from time to time in other Religion threads.

Coming into this thread and insisting that Christianity's views are wrong because of a personal rejection of Jesus Christ is, frankly, ridiculous. That would be like telling a Jew that Judaism is wrong because someone believes that it was Ishmael on the altar instead of Isaac. To go on and complain that I can't explain my beliefs, because that would be proselyting, is even more absurd. Why do we have a Religion forum if we aren't allowed to even explain why we believe what we do?


Now, if anyone wants to ask questions or discuss the original topic, please do. The more specific the questions the better. Turning the topic into a Christian-vs-Jew fight is immature, as it was obviously not my intent when I started it.

Thank you.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:34:26 AM EDT

The purpose of the law was to bring all men to Christ.


No the purpose of Christ is to bring the Law of Moses to others. Go look at Celtic Christainity, well sorry make that Celtic Judiasm...Jesus never did anything but be a Jew, it was Paul, that created what you call Christianity. And if you look at the early followersof Jesus, especially James, his brother, you will see not only a dislike for Paul, but a concern for the corruption of Paul.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:00:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:
...Jesus never did anything but be a Jew, it was Paul, that created what you call Christianity. And if you look at the early followersof Jesus, especially James, his brother, you will see not only a dislike for Paul, but a concern for the corruption of Paul.



As I requested before....


Name me ONE doctrinal issue where Christ and Paul disagreed.

Just one.

I'm still waiting for that.....y'all LOVE to cast hate and accusations at Paul, but you can't identify a SINGLE point where Paul and Christ disagree.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:11:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:


No the purpose of Christ is to bring the Law of Moses to others. ul.



Jesus disagreed with you.



Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.



And of the law, Christ said...



Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (supply what it lacked)

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.



The law served Jesus Christ. Christ did not serve the law.

Helping the world understand Christ's teaching on this matter was the Apostle Paul's ENTIRE ministry.

If yer gonna hate Paul, you gotta hate Jesus, cuz their message is the same.


Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:30:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
I am perfectly content with leaving Jews alone. I leave the prostletyzing to Jews to the Messianic community.

I am just trying to reconcile the statement about the concept of a Messiah not even being considered until after Roman occupation, yet it was discussed in scripture long before.



....a point which seems to be valid enough to warrant sidestepping....
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:35:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
I am perfectly content with leaving Jews alone. I leave the prostletyzing to Jews to the Messianic community.

I am just trying to reconcile the statement about the concept of a Messiah not even being considered until after Roman occupation, yet it was discussed in scripture long before.



....a point which seems to be valid enough to warrant sidestepping....





It's okay. I am used to being ignored.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:38:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

I am just trying to reconcile the statement about the concept of a Messiah not even being considered until after Roman occupation, yet it was discussed in scripture long before.



....a point which seems to be valid enough to warrant sidestepping....





It's okay. I am used to being ignored.



People don't answer that for which there is no answer. Well, other than admitting they were wrong in the first place.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:58:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


The concept of a mashiach did not come into Jewish thought until the time of the Roman occupation. And was interpreted to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead the Jewish people in the face of their tribulations with the Romans. Not a god such as Christian dogma arose, which considered Jesus to be that messiah.

This concept of the messiah would have been alien not only to the time of Moses, but through the generations of Jews today.

Very poor "short summary", and indeed is a view through rose-colored glasses!

Ed




Last time I checked, the book of Daniel was written prior to Roman occupation. And the book of Daniel refers to someone far more important than a great political leader... in fact, I think it even uses the term Messiah... why yes, yes it does...




___

Re:

"I think it even uses the term Messiah... why yes, yes it does..."

___

Well, no it doesn't. You base your assumption of it's content based upon christian eyes. This assertion has never been part of traditional Judaism.


The Book of Daniel is included in the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, in the section known as the Ketuvim (Hagiographa, or the "Writings") . Daniel was considered a prophet at Qumran (4Q174 [4QFlorilegium]) and later by Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews 10.11.7 §266) and the author (the "Pseudo-Philo") of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B. ["Book of Biblical antiquities"] 4.6, 8), and was grouped among the prophets in the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek Old Testament, and by Christians, who place the book among the prophets. However, Daniel is not currently included by the Jews in the section of the prophets, the Nebiim.

The Jewish exegete Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, sometimes called simply RaMBaM and later called Maimonides, was so concerned that the "untutored populace would be led astray" if they attempted to calculate the timing of the Messiah that it was decreed that "Cursed be those who predict the end times." This verbiage can be both found in his letter IGERET TEIMAN and in his booklet The Statutes and Wars of the Messiah-King.

Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel lamented that the times for the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel "were over long ago" (Sanhedrin 98b, 97a).

Traditional Christians have embraced the prophecies of Daniel, as they believe they clearly illustrate that Jesus Christ of Nazareth must be the Messiah, and also because in Matthew 24 Jesus himself is quoted as describing Daniel's prophecies as applying to future events immediately preceding Judgement Day, and not to Epiphanes who had lived some 175 years earlier. They consider the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks to be particularly compelling due to what they interpret to be prophetic accuracy. Many Orthodox Jews believe that the prophecy refers to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. Secular scholars however, believe that the prophecy better fits the reign of Antiochus, and that it is an example of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact).


The apocalyptic section is primarily important to Christians for the image of the "Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13). According to the gospels, Jesus used this title as his preferred name for himself. The connection with Daniel's vision (as opposed to the usage in the Book of Ezekiel) is made explicit in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt 27:64; Mk 14:62). Christians see this as a direct claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah.


__

Keep working at it though.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:01:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Didn't your mother ever caution you, "...now, now, garandman...temper! temper!!"






My momma went right past the cautioning, and proceeded straight to beating.

It was exactly what was needed.




__

Indeed...he has issues. I would also suspect he hasn't much of a job if he is unable to work with professionals having differing viewpoints.

From the looks of thing she must have hit you on the head a lot!

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:04:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Didn't your mother ever caution you, "...now, now, garandman...temper! temper!!"






My momma went right past the cautioning, and proceeded straight to beating.

It was exactly what was needed.




From the looks of thing she must have hit you on the head a lot!



Its poor form to repeat someones self-deprecating joke right after them.



But then poor form is your proforma.




___

Why would it be in poor form? Jew-bashing is the theme, and it goes on, and on....


Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:08:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Why would it be in poor form? Jew-bashing is the theme, and it goes on, and on....





Disclaimer: No Jews have been bashed in the making of this thread.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:14:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By TheWind:


No the purpose of Christ is to bring the Law of Moses to others. ul.



Jesus disagreed with you.



Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.



And of the law, Christ said...



Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (supply what it lacked)

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.



The law served Jesus Christ. Christ did not serve the law.

Helping the world understand Christ's teaching on this matter was the Apostle Paul's ENTIRE ministry.

If yer gonna hate Paul, you gotta hate Jesus, cuz their message is the same.





__

You are attempting to convince a Jew by asserting a false view of Jewish tradition by substituting christian spin of new testament doctrine.

That simply is poor logic, poor understanding, poor examples, and poor judgement. This is not a Jewish outreach post.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:24:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Why would it be in poor form? Jew-bashing is the theme, and it goes on, and on....





(garandman): Disclaimer: No Jews have been bashed in the making of this thread.




___

Your intollerence, garandman and telling a Jew he is wrong is bashing. A scholarly disucssion is one thing, yet when it goes to absurd shallowness.

(garandman): Becasue ONLY ONE of us can be right. We CANNOT both be right. 2+2 has only one right answer. And to me, pursuit of the truth is the chief aim of man.



Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

My golly, you certainly seem as one not quite into your holiday spirit with wishing good will to all.





My pursuit of truth knows no holidays, and is not tempered by the calendar.






__

You are a Jew-basher, sir.

Ed
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:34:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

You are attempting to convince a Jew by asserting a false view of Jewish tradition by substituting christian spin of new testament doctrine.

That simply is poor logic, poor understanding, poor examples, and poor judgement. This is not a Jewish outreach post.




I am asserting NOTHING about Jewish tradition, as I know nothing about Jewish tradition.

I am making assertions about what the Bible says.

If the simple statement of my opinion is what you consider "bashing" you need to grow thicker skin, and quit playing the victim.

In essence, youa re saying no one is allowed to disagree with you.

Interstingly (as always) you NEVER actually address the content of what I say. You ONLY EVER just cast aspersions at me.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:35:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 10:56:55 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Your intollerence, garandman and telling a Jew he is wrong is bashing. A scholarly disucssion is one thing, yet when it goes to absurd shallowness.

Ed



So anyone who disagrees with you is by default "Jew bashing?"

The only possible solution to that is to disallow anyone who disagrees with you from spoeaking.

I have no interest in an esoteric, theoretical discussion. Like I said before (and you applauded me) , I am in pursuit of the truth.

There is absolute truth. When we disagree, one of us is WRONG, and my ONLY intent in having the discussion is to find the truth.

If you don't care to use that approach, I'd suggest ignoring my psots.



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:56:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Your intollerence, garandman and telling a Jew he is wrong is bashing.





Telling someone that you think they are incorrect is "bashing"? Do you advocate the removal of red pens and grading scales from schools?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 11:01:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Your intollerence, garandman and telling a Jew he is wrong is bashing.





Telling someone that you think they are incorrect is "bashing"? Do you advocate the removal of red pens and grading scales from schools?



Seems that way.

But at least I'm an equal opportunity basher - evolutionists, other Christians, Jews, Mooslims, Chevy owners, AK afficionados, whole milk drinkers, Libertarians, pot smokers, tatto parlor owners, NY Yankee fans, etc etc.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 11:43:11 AM EDT
Shane, seeing how this discussion has gotten way off track, as most discussions of religion do with differing beliefs, thank you for your posting. God bless

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 11:49:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
Shane, seeing how this discussion has gotten way off track, as most discussions of religion do with differing beliefs, thank you for your posting. God bless




I disagree.

scuba_ed and I are directly on point.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:07:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
Shane, seeing how this discussion has gotten way off track, as most discussions of religion do with differing beliefs, thank you for your posting. God bless




I disagree.

scuba_ed and I are directly on point.




Sir, you and Ed are on the verge of using verbal baseball bats on each others skulls, which has nothing whatsover to do with Shane's original posting.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:13:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 12:27:19 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
Shane, seeing how this discussion has gotten way off track, as most discussions of religion do with differing beliefs, thank you for your posting. God bless




I disagree.

scuba_ed and I are directly on point.




Sir, you and Ed are on the verge of using verbal baseball bats on each others skulls, which has nothing whatsover to do with Shane's original posting.



What baseball bats have I used on him, pray tell?

I'd really like to know.

Specific examples please.

As to the tenor of the discussion, NOTHING productive comes out of esoteric, theoretical, purely academic discussion. We fundamentally disagree, and we MUST step thru the particulars, no matter how touchy it may be.



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:20:17 PM EDT
Scuba_Ed,

This is a tangent from the original topic, but one you and Garandman keep tossing back and forth. Here's one more example (among many possible examples) of why Christians believe that Jesus indicates himself that he is The Messiah.

I'm sure you're familiar with the reference "I Am" and how that reference directly specifies The Lord. It was told to Moses when he stood at the burning bush.

Note something Jesus said:
Gospel of St John, Chapter 8:
"56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
---------------------------
Ed,
Why did the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus? You and I both know the answer why. Jesus had just clearly named himself to be The Messiah, the very Lord who spoke to Moses at the burning bush.

Many of the Jews who were present considered that blasphemy, and wanted to stone Jesus for it.

You may personally reject Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That choice is most certainly your own. However, there is no question as to the fact that Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah. He outright declared himself to be Jehovah.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:35:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


The concept of a mashiach did not come into Jewish thought until the time of the Roman occupation. And was interpreted to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead the Jewish people in the face of their tribulations with the Romans. Not a god such as Christian dogma arose, which considered Jesus to be that messiah.

This concept of the messiah would have been alien not only to the time of Moses, but through the generations of Jews today.

Very poor "short summary", and indeed is a view through rose-colored glasses!

Ed




Last time I checked, the book of Daniel was written prior to Roman occupation. And the book of Daniel refers to someone far more important than a great political leader... in fact, I think it even uses the term Messiah... why yes, yes it does...




___

Re:

"I think it even uses the term Messiah... why yes, yes it does..."

___

Well, no it doesn't. You base your assumption of it's content based upon christian eyes. This assertion has never been part of traditional Judaism.


The Book of Daniel is included in the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, in the section known as the Ketuvim (Hagiographa, or the "Writings") . Daniel was considered a prophet at Qumran (4Q174 [4QFlorilegium]) and later by Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews 10.11.7 §266) and the author (the "Pseudo-Philo") of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B. ["Book of Biblical antiquities"] 4.6, 8), and was grouped among the prophets in the Septuagint, the Jewish Greek Old Testament, and by Christians, who place the book among the prophets. However, Daniel is not currently included by the Jews in the section of the prophets, the Nebiim.

The Jewish exegete Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, sometimes called simply RaMBaM and later called Maimonides, was so concerned that the "untutored populace would be led astray" if they attempted to calculate the timing of the Messiah that it was decreed that "Cursed be those who predict the end times." This verbiage can be both found in his letter IGERET TEIMAN and in his booklet The Statutes and Wars of the Messiah-King.

Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel lamented that the times for the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel "were over long ago" (Sanhedrin 98b, 97a).

Traditional Christians have embraced the prophecies of Daniel, as they believe they clearly illustrate that Jesus Christ of Nazareth must be the Messiah, and also because in Matthew 24 Jesus himself is quoted as describing Daniel's prophecies as applying to future events immediately preceding Judgement Day, and not to Epiphanes who had lived some 175 years earlier. They consider the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks to be particularly compelling due to what they interpret to be prophetic accuracy. Many Orthodox Jews believe that the prophecy refers to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. Secular scholars however, believe that the prophecy better fits the reign of Antiochus, and that it is an example of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact).


The apocalyptic section is primarily important to Christians for the image of the "Son of Man" (Dan. 7:13). According to the gospels, Jesus used this title as his preferred name for himself. The connection with Daniel's vision (as opposed to the usage in the Book of Ezekiel) is made explicit in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt 27:64; Mk 14:62). Christians see this as a direct claim by Jesus that he is the Messiah.


__

Keep working at it though.



This is all good an well scuba_ed, but not salient to my point. You said that the concept of the Messiah wasn't even considered by Jews until Roman occupation. The concept of the Messiah was clearly written about, discussed, and incorporated into Hebrew writings within the Book of Daniel long before Roman occupation. That's my only point. Whether or not you believe that Yeshua was the Messiah referred to within Daniel is food for a different discussion. The only point I was trying to address was the slight inaccuracy within your first assertion. Now if you'd like to debate the other point, I am afraid that this topic has soured, and it might not be the best forum for now.

Your mileage may vary.

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 12:04:49 AM EDT

Why did the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus? You and I both know the answer why. Jesus had just clearly named himself to be The Messiah, the very Lord who spoke to Moses at the burning bush.




I don't know,I would take that as more naming myself to be the 'I am' and therefore G*d, that would be highly offensive to a common Jew. But the concept falls in line with Esscene thought, with us being all part of G*d
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:25:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Ed,
Why did the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus? You and I both know the answer why. Jesus had just clearly named himself to be The Messiah, the very Lord who spoke to Moses at the burning bush.

Many of the Jews who were present considered that blasphemy, and wanted to stone Jesus for it.

You may personally reject Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That choice is most certainly your own. However, there is no question as to the fact that Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah. He outright declared himself to be Jehovah.



Relatedly, Jesus flew in the face of the central Jewish tenet of faith - "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One (Lord.)" (Deut 6:4) The concept of the Trinity seems heretical to the Jew, and looking at it the way they do, I'd tend to agree.

However, Jesus answered this in John 10:30, where He said "I and my Father are one." This reconciles the concept of Trinity with Deuteronomy. The very next verse in John records they took up stones to stone Him.

Jesus was a scandal to the faithful Jew - IF he wasn't aware of Messianic references that permeate the Old Testament.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 6:27:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:

Why did the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus? You and I both know the answer why. Jesus had just clearly named himself to be The Messiah, the very Lord who spoke to Moses at the burning bush.




I don't know,I would take that as more naming myself to be the 'I am' and therefore G*d, that would be highly offensive to a common Jew. But the concept falls in line with Esscene thought, with us being all part of G*d



Agreed.

The "I Am" reference made by Christ of Himself would have been considered blasphemy.

I'd love to show anyone interested the Old Testament references that predicted Christ's self-proclamation.



Link Posted: 12/17/2005 8:57:50 PM EDT

Link Posted: 12/18/2005 2:31:01 AM EDT
Hey ScubaEd, no Jesus can come to teach the law and have his opinion, but the Law is from G*d and there is only one G*d...when he becomes as important as G*d, then he has broken the law, I will give him the benefit of doubt as we do not know anything that he has written down. JUst what some have said he has, and they tempered it with their beliefs.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:26:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:
Hey ScubaEd, no Jesus can come to teach the law and have his opinion, but the Law is from G*d and there is only one G*d...when he becomes as important as G*d, then he has broken the law, I will give him the benefit of doubt as we do not know anything that he has written down. JUst what some have said he has, and they tempered it with their beliefs.



OK..... honest question -

How do you know Moses didn't temper the giving of the Law with his beliefs?

None of us were there on Sonai to receive it personally from God.

Why would Moses be more credible than Christ?

If we can't know what Jesus has said (2,000 years ago) how can we know what Moses said (5,000 years ago)?



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top