Well, you could explain as to how you arrive at such a conclusion. That might help for starters. The mere fact that you, or even Jews in general, claim this, does not make it so. Show me how you have arrived at such a conclusion through the text.No. That is not what I am saying. When Ezekiel discusses laws “they could not live by” he is not referring to any law set forth in Torah or Talmud. He is referring to laws set forth by local kingdoms that were oppressive to the Jews.
I’m not sure how I can be any clearer.
Bound by it? You just admitted that there are many laws in the Torah that you don’t live by. Not to mention, there remains discrepancies amongst Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews over what exactly is necessary. So, to say there is “wiggle room” might be the understatement of the century. You are still relying on each person’s subjective interpretation. There is no governing body. There are no prophets to clarify. In this way, it is much like Protestantism. Judaism has abandoned it’s roots of Tradition, and is now largely autonomous from person to person.But each community is bound by the laws in Torah and 3,000 years + of tradition. There is wiggle room, but to say it is purely subjective is not even close to correct. I don’t find it particulary interesting that the Temple was destroyed (again) around the same time as the birth of Christianity? So what? I can easliy go point to point with you as to why the Jews rejected and continue to reject Jesus as Messiah. Make another thread.
I didn’t say I didn’t see any siginificane in the loss of the Temple? I said I saw no significance in the fact that it coincided with the beginings of christianity.Bound by it? You just admitted that there are many laws in the Torah that you don’t live by. Not to mention, there remains discrepancies amongst Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews over what exactly is necessary. So, to say there is “wiggle room” might be the understatement of the century. You are still relying on each person’s subjective interpretation. There is no governing body. There are no prophets to clarify. In this way, it is much like Protestantism. Judaism has abandoned it’s roots of Tradition, and is now largely autonomous from person to person.
And the fact that you do not see the significance of the loss of the temple makes me question how much you have really read in the OT. Maybe you have been listening to too many Jewish apologetic tapes (Rabbi Tovias). Judaism was a religion, in the Torah, that centered on covenant and sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was central. If it has ceased to play a part in the religion, by what objective standard was this changed? What prophet came to say that it was no longer necessary to atone for sins through animal sacrifice? And if you say that it was the destruction of the temple that led Jews to abandon such a practice, how can this not be significant? Is it merely coincidence that Jesus prophesied such an event occurring within a “genea” (generation= roughly 40 years) of his death? Is it irrelevant that Judaism has not had a temple in nearly 2000 years since? I think you are sorely underestimating the impact this had on Judaism. It changed the very nature of Judaism.
Uhhh…you act as if this is universally accepted scholarship. There is much evidence to suggest that Revelation was written prior to 70AD. Furthermore, while the dating of the Gospels varies from 60-70AD, that would still put them as being written PRIOR to the destruction of the temple. And considering the fact that the verse I was discussing was written in the Gospel of Matthew, your attempt to to brush it off as unimpressive is a bit disingenuous to say the least.I didn’t say I didn’t see any siginificane in the loss of the Temple? I said I saw no significance in the fact that it coincided with the beginings of christianity.
I’m not too impressed with prophecies written down on paper after the event they prophecied already happened.
Why don’t you try quoting the actual verse that you are relying on if you really want to pursue this discussion.Uhhh…you act as if this is universally accepted scholarship. There is much evidence to suggest that Revelation was written prior to 70AD. Furthermore, while the dating of the Gospels varies from 60-70AD, that would still put them as being written PRIOR to the destruction of the temple. And considering the fact that the verse I was discussing was written in the Gospel of Matthew, your attempt to to brush it off as unimpressive is a bit disingenuous to say the least.
Gospel of John you mean. The gospel of Matthew is generally taken to be the earliest or second earliest of the gospels. Sorry to be picky…Why don’t you try quoting the actual verse that you are relying on if you really want to pursue this discussion. And many, probably the majority, of scholars date the gospels between 70 and 100 CE, with the Gospel of Matthew being written possibly as late as 110 CE. Although you can find scholars that put it at an earlier date. In any event, even if this account was written before 70 AD, which I doubt, it would only be an example of Jesus quoting Daniel. Sayin that he beleived the prophecy of Daniel would come true doesn’t make him a prophet. What any of this has to do with abortion in the Torah, I don’t know.
thank you. It seems that Matthew depends on Mark, so first earliest is likely out. earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.htmlGospel of John you mean. The gospel of Matthew is generally taken to be the earliest or second earliest of the gospels. Sorry to be picky…