Continuation of a discussion at https://forums.joeuser.com/345884/page/13.
Yay we agree on the Abrahamic and Noah's covenant.
Any proof that the words 'everlasting' or 'perpetual' found in Leviticus and Exodus (ie Mosaic covenant) didn't really mean 'everlasting' or 'open to be changed later?'
Doesn't 'new' mean something similar to 'another?' I mean when I write a 'new' reply it doesn't mean the 'old' reply is no longer valid does it?
Where do you get the idea of 'New' covenant anyways?
Riiiiiiiight, and that's why Jesus said, ""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)
And yet you still can't show me how the sin sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus based on the requirements of Lev 4. I know Christian/Catholic Theology teaches this but yet they cannot answer this question. Very peculiar don't you think?
If you are interested in the theological relevance and conclusion that this leads me to I'll be happy to PM you.
If you want feel free to post your conclusions here. It is after all "Judaism before and after Jesus". And while I cannot call "Messianic Judaism" a form of Judaism (I don't have the authority as you know) I certainly think I can learn from all sects of all Abrahamic religions.
Or you can PM me. I am absolutely interested.
(And If G-d wants to change the everlasting covenant, He better send Moses back to clarify things for me.)
All in all I would encourage you to read it. What have you got to lose except time?
You overestimate my command of Hebrew.
The main problem is that if I read a text that is very very new (i.e. written in or translated into Hebrew today) but is supposed to be part of the Bible, I might learn the wrong things about what is Biblical Hebrew and what is Modern Hebrew. I find it difficult enough to read the Torah, let alone the other two books of the Tanakh (which I find more difficult).
I am also still busy with "Die Syro-Aramaeische Lesart des Koran" ("The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran") and am busy learning enough Arabic to understand the examples in the book (which are given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic).
And then all of this is just a hobby.
I do accept the Brit Hadasha as being true but horrendously misunderstood by Christian theologists. We have Marcion, Justin Martyr, and a few others to thank for this. I would be interested in your perspective of the book of Luke (who wrote to Theophilus who was a former Cohen Gadol) and also the book of John (the comparison of the prophets of Elijah (John) and Elisha (Yeshua)). These two books to me are written from a Jewish Perspective (IMO).
I'll see if I can squeeze it in. But it seems like I would have to know a lot about Jewish theology to give a useful perspective. And I don't know much about Jewish theology.
I accept as true a lot of religious writings, including Zoroastrian scripture. But I accept as relevant for me and as law only that which Rabbinical Judaism accepts and possibly less.
Depending on your reading of the text, I might agree with you about its truth. But I still wouldn't think that it is relevant for me.
No I totally understand. I don't feel like I have to 'prove' Messianic Judaism to anyone. I do however, like to have a hearty discussion from time to time.
Well, I figured I'd PM mainly because I am in process of doing a write up. I may post it here or maybe post it on my own thread, time will tell. I don't have any kind of ETA for a write up as I have another objective to first finish.
Lev. 4 demanded specific things 1---that sin offering be an animal and 2---that that animal be burnt inside the Temple. So Jesus can't be the sin offering in this specific Lev. 4 context because 1---He is not an animal and 2---God forbids persons be burnt inside the Temple. AD POSTS:So do we agree that Jesus isn't the sin offering (i.e. sin sacrifice)?If so then this is just one aspect that would yet need to be fulfilled to suggest that all ceremonial laws are 'fulfilled', right?
AD POSTS:So do we agree that Jesus isn't the sin offering (i.e. sin sacrifice)?If so then this is just one aspect that would yet need to be fulfilled to suggest that all ceremonial laws are 'fulfilled', right?
As to the first question, I think it’s clear that given God’s specific requirements of Lev. 4, that only certain animals could be offered, and that Christ couldn’t have been the literal, physical sin offering in that context.
However, having said that….the sin offerings…sacrifices of Lev. 4 were part of salvation history and as such were a type; a sign; a prelude, a shadow of what was to come….namely, Christ’s Sacrifice. That’s because the burnt sin offerings of animals were imperfect sacrifices and didn’t redeem the Israelites from sin…..they would remain though until the prophesied Emmanuel, God with us, came and “made all things new”. God Incarnate, Christ, the Messias did come. At this point we come to understand that God’s salvation plan includes the whole world not just that of the Jews…and salvation history bears this out.
Where the High Priests sin offerings in Lev. 4 were meant for only the Israelite people, Christ's, the Eternal High Priest, Sacrifice of Himself on the Cross was the ultimate, perfect sin offering…for the whole world.
There are many OT prophecies of the Messias and all have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. The oblation of the true Lamb, Christ, was the consummation of all of the sacrifices established by God's command. Heb. 9:1-14. Christ's sacrifice fulfilled all the sacrificial foreshadowings of the Old Covenant. Holocausts, sin sacrifices, and peace offerings were all signs (types) of worship demanded by the prophets of Israel Am. 5:24; Os 6:6; and Mi 6:8. These sacrifices dramatized the duty of the need for God, of atonement for sin, and of the yearning for communion with God in peace. Christ's sacrifice at Calvary alone expressed all this in a way worthy of God's acceptance. Heb. 10:1-7.Christ's sacrifice fulfilled all the moral, ceremonial and juridical precepts of the OT worship. AD POSTS: And yet you still can't show me how the sin sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus based on the requirements of Lev 4. I know Christian/Catholic Theology teaches this but yet they cannot answer this question. Very peculiar don't you think?
AD POSTS: And yet you still can't show me how the sin sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus based on the requirements of Lev 4. I know Christian/Catholic Theology teaches this but yet they cannot answer this question. Very peculiar don't you think?
Yes, the sin sacrifices were fulfilled by Christ, but where does the inventive qualifier "based on the requirements of Lev. 4" come from when as we've already determined God's specific requirements as per Lev. 4 required certain animals be sacrificed, and thus rules persons out?
Christ's Sacrifice fulfilled the ceremonial precepts of the OT worship because the Mosaic law was ordered to the sacrificial worship by the blood of certain animals and Christ offered the one true Sacrifice by offering His own Blood dying for all mankind. Col. 2:17 tells us these things of the Old Law were only a shadow of what was to come, that is, the New Law promulgated by Christ, the Eternal High Priest. A shadow indicates that a body is present. The Mosaic Law, the shadow, had the function of marking the way until the coming of Christ; but now that He has come and promulgated the New Law, it wouldn't make sense to give greater importance to the shadow than to the Body which casts it.
hmmmm....don't know why the quotations came up like that, but hopefully you can understand it.
lula posts #46
AD POSTS: Yay we agree on the Abrahamic and Noah's covenant. Any proof that the words 'everlasting' or 'perpetual' found in Leviticus and Exodus (ie Mosaic covenant) didn't really mean 'everlasting' or 'open to be changed later?'Doesn't 'new' mean something similar to 'another?' I mean when I write a 'new' reply it doesn't mean the 'old' reply is no longer valid does it?Where do you get the idea of 'New' covenant anyways?
First, are you just going to ignore Leviticus 6:18 where the Lord God Himself put the limitation of the length of the Old Mosaic Covenant by using these words, "in your generations"?
"The males only of the race of Aaron shall eat it. It shall be an ordinance everlasting in your generations concerning the sacrifice of the Lord:..."
The Old Mosaic Covenant wasn't meant to be "everlasting" as unto the end of the world.....
From the Douay Rheims...Exodus 31:16-18, "Let the children of Israel keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath in their generations. It is everlasting covenant Between me and the children of Israel, and a perpetual sign. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh he ceased from work. And the Lord, when he had ended these words in mount Sinai, gave to Moses two stone tables of testimony, written with the finger of God."
I've also seen it as "Therefore the people of Isreal shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. The KJV uses the word "perpetual".
The phrase "perpetual covenant" is "berith olam". The Hebrew word "olam" does not necessarily mean a duration of into the endless future or until the end of the world but often means for a long time. Even if it's translated "ever" or "everlasting", the total time of duration is conditioned by the object in view and its literary context as I have already pointed out.
Lula why do you keep bringing salvation back up? I nor Torah have ever made the claim that keeping Torah will yield in Salvation. That only comes by faith. Please, show me where in the Torah it says, do these sacrifices, statutes, ordinances etc and you'll receive Salvation. You won't because it isn't in there.
If it was the prelude then or shadow then he fulfilled it and I am asking how since the requirements are very clear in Lev 4 and Deut 12.
Quit rationalizing it, you either can answer my question or you cannot. So far you have have not been able to show me the requirements (made by G-D) being fulfilled.
Hmmmm, don't know where you are pulling this 'convenient' definition from Lula. This from the STRONGS:
Or lolam {o-lawm'}; from alam; properly, concealed, i.e. The vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always -- alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare netsach, ad.
The relevance to 'long time' is another way to explain: eternity, eternal, everlasting, always, etc.... it's a really long time.
Since you proved only your bias reasoning to 'long time' definition of Olam, I am not ignoring Lev 6:18? Seems like you are the one trying to change the definition, not me.
LULA POSTS:
AD POSTS: Where do you get the idea of 'New' covenant anyways?
I first learned about “the New and Everlasting Covenant” from the Church…during the consecration the priest repeats the words of Christ at every Mass and later, being interested in apologetics, from reading the Holy Bible.
We know the word "Covenant" , “Brit”, signifies a contract agreement which in Scripture could include political alliances but most often its use is mainly theological to express the alliance between God and His people in the course of salvation history.
The prophetic idea of a New Covenant emerges in Osee 2:18-24 and these verses relate to the espousal of Christ with His Church which shall never be dissolved.
During Lent a few years ago, Fr.John Myler wrote an article about the New Covenant in salvation history.
The first time we learned of the promise of Redemption was to Adam and Eve after their fall ….then the covenant God made with Noe and his family……then the promises God gave to Abraham and his seed…the freedom won and lost by the Israelites who were led out slavery….the long history of salvation would culminate in the hour of the Christ….
Of the new and everlasting covenant Jesus during His agony proclaims, “What should I say? Father, save me from this hour?’ But it was for this purpose that I came to this hour.” The hour had come…..after the many centuries….The hour had come….after the long epochs of the covenants of old.
The New Covenant is not the same as the covenant of the fathers but one written on hearts, and therefore spiritual ……The Lord Himself had said it through the prophet Jeremias 31:31-40; 32:38-42. “The days are coming …..when I will make a new covenant.” ….Written not on stone tablets but I will place the law within them and write it upon their hearts.
The New Covenant would be eternal and it would be established in the Person and at the “hour” of Jesus Christ. The New covenant would be a living relationship between God and the Mystical Body of Christ; yet it would live only because of His death. The New and Everlasting Covenant would be sealed in the Blood of Christ. In the hour of death, a life giving relationship between God and mankind would find its never-ending Source.
After so many centuries of salvation history from the waters of the Flood to the water that poured forth from His wounded side…from the mountain of Abraham’s sacrifice to the hill of Calvary…from the temple of Jerusalem to the temple of His Flesh….at long last…”the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified”….
The first Old Covenant was made through Moses and ratified by animal sacrifices. The New Covenant is ratified by Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross. In Hebrews, St.Paul reflects on all God’s ancient covenants ….with Noe 11:7…Abraham 6:13-20…with Moses 3:1-6….with David and the Prophets 11:32-33 and Levi 7:4-17 but especially on the New Covenant of the Messias chapter 8.
St.Paul says the Old Covenant was a shadow of the new 10:1, imperfect 9:7, and obsolete 8:13. The New Covenant is superior 7:22, enacted on the basis of superior promises 8:6, faultless 8:7….a new and living way 10:20.
Christ is the hope of the promise made to Abraham 6:19. He is the Eternal High Priest superior to Levi because He is a priest by divine oath 7:20-21 according to the order of Mechisdedech 7:17, who was superior to both Abraham and Levi 7:1-10. As mediator, high priest and victim, Christ enters the Heavenly sanctuary only once to sacrifice Himself for the destruction of sin 8:1-5; 9:11; 26-28. So, the Blood of Christ inaugurates the new Septuagint term for Covenant 9:18-22. Although in Heb. 9:16-17, the Septuagint term for covenant is used juridically in the sense of the last will and testament. In 9:15. v. 20 has its usual meaning of covenant, in v. 15 of the one sealed by the Blood of Christ and in v. 20 of the other sealed by the blood of the Sinaitic sacrifice.
The NT uses the Septuagint term “sla0nkn” 33 times for “brit”. (which I cannot write on my computer but it looks like an s with the bottom loop closed then a small “l” followed by an “a” then an 0 with a line through it , then an “n” with an accent over it ..then “k” and “n”. So….sla0nkn (lol, I can see Leauki rolling his eyes now!)
I didn't bring up salvation.....I wrote salvation history. Lev. 4 is part of God's revelation of salvation history as every part of the Holy Bible is part of salvation history....which begins with Genesis and ends with the Book of the Apocalypse..
Now what part of salvation history was Lev. 4.....The sacrifices of Lev. 4 were a type of what/Who was to come.
Why are you going on this tangent? I know that the Old Covenant sacrifices, rites, ceremonies in and of themselves weren't salvific...in fact, that's what I've been saying all along.....everything in the OT points to the promised Redeemer....Christ including the Isrealites themselves, God chose them to produce the Redeemer..and they fulfilled their mission.
The Isrealites and later Jews all had to have faith in God and in the promised Savior.
In post #14, I indicated that I understood that with sacrifice that was pleasing to God faith was involved....
LULA POSTS #14
There is Lev. 6:18 and Exodus 31:16-18....where it most clearly appears that God Himself is limiting the duration of the covenant. The covenant is perpetual "in their generations".
If you think otherwise, answer this passage directed at Isreal......"And I will bring upon you everlasting reproach and perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten" Jeremias 23:40; cf 25:9.
Lula, the word there for 'law' is Torah. So how can the L-rd himself put something on their hearts if he did away/abolish it?
Lula, pay attention to the pronouns here.
Lev 6:18- "All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy. (KJV)"
This isn't a conditional 'as long as your generation exists' but rather that this statute forever will remain in your generations (ie your lineage).
Ex 31:16-18- "16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. (KJV)"
The Israeli people still exist even today. Even 'if' it was linked to their generations (which the Sabbath is not) they are still alive today therefore this covenant is still in existence.
I fail to see your point with Jer 23:40. How does this contribute to our discussion of forever?