Did God Pull a Fast One on the Jews?

[Robbinson]

By your logic God the Eternal could also bring Himself to not exist since He is all powerful. The place of human beings and the place of God and their relationship between them is defined by your religious beliefs and were you Jewish you could never join the two entities as one. No Jew believes that Jacob struggled with God but with an angel. Even the most fervent admirers of the Late Lubbovitch Rabbi do not believe that he was God. Judaism has also been careful to paint their human leaders as humans with all their faults. Not only is Moses not God but he is painted disobeying God and being punished by God. Even his place of burial is deliberately left unknown in the Torah. Another example is the life of King David. Again, during the entire existence of Judaism, from Egypt, Persia, Greece the basic story of Yehoshua Bar Yosef was repeated time after time with different names (perhaps this could be argued in its favour). Judaism which experienced these cultures rejected these beliefs and there is no logical reason for the Jews to accept it even it referred to a fellow Jew. No Jew would interpret the Tanach as supporting the possibility for such an occurrence. Messiah yes, Messiah as god incarnate, no.

ChosenPeople:

Your response has so many absolutes as to attack your own credibility. As to no Jew would believe - there are actually hundreds of thousands messianic jews who indeed believe this (that God could and did become a man). To state the obvious, Jesus and all 12 apostles were Jews! I am a Jew who came to believe in Christ.

As to Jewish non-believers in Christ - even there you can’t sincerely state that no “jews” could/would/do believe that Jacob wrestled with God (as oppossed to an Angel) or that Abraham spoke with an angel, rather than the Lord (when the text itself explicitly says he spoke with the Lord.

You do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah - that is your right (we have free will). And you do not interpret the scriptures in a manner which supports the possibility of the Messiah having divine qualities or being God - but there are many respected jewish scholars and rabbis who will acknowlege this possible interpretation, even if they do not agree with it.

As the Hebrew scriptures point to an appointed time for the Messiah to come (per the book of Daniel), which came and went - and further says the Messiah would be rejected by his own people and then become a light to the gentile nations? Who else do you think these verses are talking about and if the Jews are to be blind (have eyes but not see) (per scripture), is this not the fullfillment of that prophecy.

Have you ever read the book of wisdom of solomon? (jewish writing, ulimtatley omitted from the cannon but included in the Septuigent and written hundreds of years before christ) - it includes a striking description of what Jews would do to the “righteous” man - who would claim to be the son of God - sound familiar? It tracks very similarly Isaiah 53 - have you read that and sincerely asked yourself what it means? (do you really think its referring to the nation of Israel (current modern rabbinic interpretation) rather than the messiah?

This is not as “black and white” as you suggest. I’ve studied the Jewish scriptures - I believe Jesus (Yeshua) is the Messiah. What if I (and Chrisitans are correct), have you thought about what that might mean - have you even considered that possibility.

Its Christmas eve and I’m leaving now to go celebrate the birth of our (yours and mine) Messiah who has indeed brought the God of the Jews to the world as prophesised in our Hebrew scriptures.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

As to no Jew would believe - there are actually hundreds of thousands messianic jews who indeed believe this (that God could and did become a man).

I suspect Chosen One will be tempted to dismiss this as a recent phenomenon but what I learned from Rome and Jerusalem was that the variety of Jewish beliefs goes back at least to 1C AD. The idea that Jews were unified in an orthodox interpretation of the Torah and prophecies is a myth. As the saying goes, four Jews, five opinions.

To state the obvious, Jesus and all 12 apostles were Jews! I am a Jew who came to believe in Christ.

I cannot remember the source but historians have estimated that there were actually very many conversions to Christianity among the early Jews. This estimate is based on counts of Jews before the first revolt and after the second. There are two coinciding events, the wars and the rise of Christianity, but while many Jews lost their lives in the wars, the decline in the number of Jews was too dramatic to be accounted for by that alone. The conclusions that these historians draw is that a significant portion of Jews did, in fact, convert to Christianity.

As to Jewish non-believers in Christ - even there you can’t sincerely state that no “jews” could/would/do believe that Jacob wrestled with God (as oppossed to an Angel) or that Abraham spoke with an angel, rather than the Lord (when the text itself explicitly says he spoke with the Lord.

There are some interesting forshadowings in the OT that suggest Jesus. In addition to Jacob’s wrestling match, there is another occassion in which some notable Israelites (I don’t recall who) knelt and worshiped an angel. Now that would be most unkosher unless the angel was no ordinary angel. There is also the case where God and two angels ate with Abraham and he did not at first recognize them. If God cannot take human form, that would not be possible.

As the Hebrew scriptures point to an appointed time for the Messiah to come (per the book of Daniel), which came and went - and further says the Messiah would be rejected by his own people and then become a light to the gentile nations? Who else do you think these verses are talking about and if the Jews are to be blind (have eyes but not see) (per scripture), is this not the fullfillment of that prophecy.

Yes, this really is the biggest question for Jews to answer. The analogy is Jews are waiting at the station but the train has already left. I think that most Jews, deep down, suspect this because, like the Temple, it has been pushed out of the theology. Instead, Jews have taken up the task of “healing the world”, which is a noble pursuit, but not the traditional one.

This is about as close as Jews get to being “priests to the world”.

Now I personally suspect that Jews still have a role to play in God’s plan. There is an interesting parallel between the national Messiah expectations of the Jews and the second coming of Christ. It would be very interesting if these ideas were to converge and that the Jewish rejection of Jesus were for some true purpose. But that is purely speculation on my part.

Have you ever read the book of wisdom of solomon? (jewish writing, ulimtatley omitted from the cannon but included in the Septuigent and written hundreds of years before christ) - it includes a striking description of what Jews would do to the “righteous” man - who would claim to be the son of God - sound familiar? It tracks very similarly Isaiah 53 - have you read that and sincerely asked yourself what it means? (do you really think its referring to the nation of Israel (current modern rabbinic interpretation) rather than the messiah?

What’s also interesting about this book is that it includes so many things that were typical Jesus but which modern Jews deny were ever part of Judaism. For example, Solomon was well known for casting out demons, something that the NT ascribes to Jesus but which Jews claim is a pagan concept.

 

[Kaninchen]

I suspect Chosen One will be tempted to dismiss this as a recent phenomenon but what I learned from Rome and Jerusalem was that the variety of Jewish beliefs goes back at least to 1C AD. The idea that Jews were unified in an orthodox interpretation of the Torah and prophecies is a myth. As the saying goes, four Jews, five opinions.

And the statistics on that would be . . . what? There may be (probably highly medicated) Jews who believe themselves to be Napoleon - does that mean that there are a variety of Jewish views about whether we are Napoleon or not?

I cannot remember the source but historians have estimated that there were actually very many conversions to Christianity among the early Jews. This estimate is based on counts of Jews before the first revolt and after the second. There are two coinciding events, the wars and the rise of Christianity, but while many Jews lost their lives in the wars, the decline in the number of Jews was too dramatic to be accounted for by that alone. The conclusions that these historians draw is that a significant portion of Jews did, in fact, convert to Christianity.

That will be much more interesting when you remember just who these ‘historians’ might be.

Yes, this really is the biggest question for Jews to answer.

No, it’s the biggest question that you think we ought to answer on the basis of your scriptures which, to me, are merely a pious fiction - a confection consisting of an attempt to identify Jesus to ‘Messiah’ analogous to biting bits off jigsaw pieces in an attempt to make them fit.

 

[mark_a]

In some ways Christianity would make more sense to me if it had completely divorced itself from the TOrah and relied on the Gospels and other christian texts.

There were some in the early Church that tried that.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And the statistics on that would be . . . what? There may be (probably highly medicated) Jews who believe themselves to be Napoleon - does that mean that there are a variety of Jewish views about whether we are Napoleon or not?

Ah, so any Jew who strays from the orthodoxy de jour is simply crazy? Read the book and inform yourself.

That will be much more interesting when you remember just who these ‘historians’ might be.

I wish it were that easy but I rather doubt that finding the source would change any opinions. If you are truly curious, search for estimates of Jewish population before and after the wars.

No, it’s the biggest question that you think we ought to answer on the basis of your scriptures which, to me, are merely a pious fiction - a confection consisting of an attempt to identify Jesus to ‘Messiah’ analogous to biting bits off jigsaw pieces in an attempt to make them fit.

No, this is based on Torah. And not based on Christian interpretation of Torah but on Jewish interpretation of Torah. The facts of history in this regard are simply not controversial and the collective amnesia of modern Jews does not erase history.

Either rebuild the Temple and resume animal sacrifices or quit pretending that modern Judaism is faithful to the Torah.

 

[Valke2]

Show me where in the Torah we are commanded to rebuild the Temple

 

[Kaninchen]

Ah, so any Jew who strays from the orthodoxy de jour is simply crazy? Read the book and inform yourself.

Ah, so you can’t show that it wasn’t just a few crazies?

I wish it were that easy

I expect you do.

No, this is based on Torah. . . . . The facts of history in this regard are simply not controversial and the collective amnesia of modern Jews does not erase history.

Look, it’s Christmas, your holy day and I don’t want to be offensive but this is just what you believe and hope to be true - they’re ‘facts’ for you and that’s important but coming out with lines that these ‘facts’ are ‘simply not controversial’ - gizza break. The fact that something is ‘based on’ something else doesn’t make it important - even, taking a silly parallel, ‘spoof’ films are based on originals but it doesn’t make them anything other than ‘spoofs’.

Either rebuild the Temple and resume animal sacrifices or quit pretending that modern Judaism is faithful to the Torah.

Even if ‘modern Judaism’ were ‘wrong’, it wouldn’t make Christianity ‘right’ and you can’t sell me Christianity by the approach you’ve been taking - for a start, you’d have to convince me that the New Testament wasn’t a kind of 1st Century ‘Lord Of The Rings’, roughly based on the life of an admired individual and attempting to fit him into a part in Jewish scriptures, concocted to sell a different religion to a new market.

 

[Valke2]

What I find so interesting about this thread is that after reading Klinghoffer’s book, I came away with the understanding that it was clearly stating the Jews were absolutely right in rejecting Jesus from a Jewish perspective and that contrary to what the Christian scriptures say, it seems likely that Paul was not an educated jew and certainly not a jewish scholar.
(in fact I had a long thread on this subject some time ago where I was much more exhaustive on these issues as they are raised in Klinghoffer’s book).

I am very surprised to see someone using that book to prove christianity and/or disprove judaism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Show me where in the Torah we are commanded to rebuild the Temple

You can start with Deut 12:27. And for at least a couple centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple, it was assumed by Jews faithful to the Torah, that the Temple would be rebuilt as soon as practical, as the Second Temple was rebuilt. Today, though, Jews who favor rebuildinig the temple and resuming animal sacrifices are regarded as kooks.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ah, so you can’t show that it wasn’t just a few crazies?

Josephus wrote about the variety of Jewish beliefs in 1C AD. The book I mentioned several times, Rome and Jerusalem provides a very accessible description based on several sources.

Look, it’s Christmas, your holy day and I don’t want to be offensive but this is just what you believe and hope to be true - they’re ‘facts’ for you and that’s important but coming out with lines that these ‘facts’ are ‘simply not controversial’ - gizza break.

Are you going to deny the existence and significance of the First/Second Jewish Temple? Do you understand what the war with Rome was about? Do you know why Jews in 2C AD were forbidden by Roman law to live in Jerusalem?

Even if ‘modern Judaism’ were ‘wrong’, it wouldn’t make Christianity ‘right’ and you can’t sell me Christianity by the approach you’ve been taking - for a start, you’d have to convince me that the New Testament wasn’t a kind of 1st Century ‘Lord Of The Rings’, roughly based on the life of an admired individual and attempting to fit him into a part in Jewish scriptures, concocted to sell a different religion to a new market.

No, you are correct here, it wouldn’t. But my point was that both Judaism and Christianity (which started from Judaism) reiniterpreted the Torah differently than the Jews prior to Jesus. Christians, because of what Jesus taught, and Jews, because of the destruction of the Second Temple and the Roman crackdown follownig the second war.

But here is the clincher: No Jewish source that I am aware of has ever claimed that the dietary laws (for example) apply to gentiles. The fundamental debate regardinig the Torah was whether gentiles must first convert to Judaism before becoming Christian. Peter and Paul argued not and the Jerusalem Church agreed. Jewish Christians continued to be faithful Jews until they were tossed out by non-Christian Jews.

From there it went downhill, Christians wanted nothing to do with Judaism when they were at war with Rome.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What I find so interesting about this thread is that after reading Klinghoffer’s book, I came away with the understanding that it was clearly stating the Jews were absolutely right in rejecting Jesus from a Jewish perspective and that contrary to what the Christian scriptures say, it seems likely that Paul was not an educated jew and certainly not a jewish scholar.
(in fact I had a long thread on this subject some time ago where I was much more exhaustive on these issues as they are raised in Klinghoffer’s book). I am very surprised to see someone using that book to prove christianity and/or disprove judaism.

I am personally convinced by Klinghoffer’s book that it the Jewish rejection of Jesus was completely reasonable. I think Christians have a burden to answer this challenge. I suspect that much of the Christmas story was manufactured to fit Jesus into the prophecies.

However, it seems clear that Jews refuse to acknowledge that there were a variety of messiah expectations and that the “suffering servant” was one such and that Jesus fit this model. Christians are not being unreasonable when they make this match.

The question then becomes: why were the prophecies so ambiguous that Jews in 1C AD would divide on this question?

 

[Kaninchen]

No, you are correct here, it wouldn’t. But my point was that both Judaism and Christianity (which started from Judaism) reiniterpreted the Torah differently than the Jews prior to Jesus. Christians, because of what Jesus taught, and Jews, because of the destruction of the Second Temple and the Roman crackdown follownig the second war.

Indeed, given the circumstances and results of the ‘revolts’, things could not remain the same.

But here is the clincher: No Jewish source that I am aware of has ever claimed that the dietary laws (for example) apply to gentiles. The fundamental debate regardinig the Torah was whether gentiles must first convert to Judaism before becoming Christian. Peter and Paul argued not and the Jerusalem Church agreed. Jewish Christians continued to be faithful Jews until they were tossed out by non-Christian Jews.

This is all purely literary discourse as far as I’m concerned - like telling me why a character in a Shakespeare play said or did something. It may be vaguely interesting but of no moment whatsoever - to you it’s important because you think the ‘work’ to be factual, to me it’s unimportant because it’s just a concoction.

 

[Valke2]

You can start with Deut 12:27. And for at least a couple centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple, it was assumed by Jews faithful to the Torah, that the Temple would be rebuilt as soon as practical, as the Second Temple was rebuilt. Today, though, Jews who favor rebuildinig the temple and resuming animal sacrifices are regarded as kooks.

I didn’t ask what second century Jews thought about rebuilding the Temple. You made the accusation that 1) Jews can’t be Torah obeserfvant if they aren’t trying to rebuild the Temple; and 2) that we are obligated under the Torah (expressly) to rebuild the Temple.

Deu 12:27 says nothing about rebuilding the Temple. There are of course many passages that direct us to build the Temple. I don’t see anything in the Torah that tells us to continue rebuilding it once it is done.

Without a Temple we don’t do sacrifices. We still are (or can be) Torah observant. Just as I do not have to become an orchard owner simply becaue the Torah requires one to leave the corners of thier fields to the poor.

 

[Robbinson]

I didn’t ask what second century Jews thought about rebuilding the Temple. You made the accusation that 1) Jews can’t be Torah obeserfvant if they aren’t trying to rebuild the Temple; and 2) that we are obligated under the Torah (expressly) to rebuild the Temple.

Deu 12:27 says nothing about rebuilding the Temple. There are of course many passages that direct us to build the Temple. I don’t see anything in the Torah that tells us to continue rebuilding it once it is done.

Without a Temple we don’t do sacrifices. We still are (or can be) Torah observant. Just as I do not have to become an orchard owner simply becaue the Torah requires one to leave the corners of thier fields to the poor.

Valke2

Don’t you find it remarkable (if not at least interesting) that the substantial portion of the Mosaic Law can’t be satisifed and hasn’t been able to be satisfied for over 2000 years?

More striking, and related to the foregoing, are you aware of Yoma 39 (babylonian talmud) where the rabbis bemoaned and couldn’t understand why for the 40 years preceeding the destruction of the second temple, the normal signs for forgiveness of sins indicated that the sins of the Jewish people were not being forgiven by God? Isn’t it interesting (if not remarkable) that 40 years before the destruction of the temple was the crucification of Christ? So we have the Messiah being sacrificed for our sins, but rejected by the Jewish people, followed by 40 years of sacrifices by Jews without atonement of sins by God, followed by the destruction of the second temple abolishing any possible future sacrifices (in the absence of the temple) for the last 2,000 years - with no further prophets among the Jews?

Even for a non-believer, this must be at least pause for thought - don’t you think so. Please - take a look at yoma 39 - I promise this is an accurate description of what it says (I just don’t have a link here).

When you combine this fact (not theory - fact as supported in the Talmud) with the Hebrew scriptures which fortold that that God will cause the Jewish people to have eyes but not see and ears but not hear and reject the messiah - and then have the messiah become a light to the gentile nations - its very powerful. But, thank God, we are also told in Zechariah that in the end times, the Jewish people will have the holy spirit pour out on them and they will mourn for the one whom they have pierced (who could that be?) like a first born son and call on the name of the Lord. This is echoed by Paul in the NT in Romans 11 when he says that in the end times, all Israel will be saved - clearly harkening back to Zechariah.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Valke2]

Valke2

Don’t you find it remarkable (if not at least interesting) that the substantial portion of the Mosaic Law can’t be satisifed and hasn’t been able to be satisfied for over 2000 years?

For 2,000 years we have fullfilled this aspect of Torah by studying the laws. I have always said that Judaism is not a stagnent religion and that it is not contained in the scriptures. Rather, the scriptures are the springboard for Judaism. The starting point. From there the religion continues to evolve

I’ll address the rest of your post sometime after dinner. You raise complicated issues (that I addressed in other threads and will llok for)…

 

[Robbinson]

For 2,000 years we have fullfilled this aspect of Torah by studying the laws. I have always said that Judaism is not a stagnent religion and that it is not contained in the scriptures. Rather, the scriptures are the springboard for Judaism. The starting point. From there the religion continues to evolve

I’ll address the rest of your post sometime after dinner. You raise complicated issues (that I addressed in other threads and will llok for)…

Thank you Valke2 - apoligies if you have covered this before. I would be very interested in your thoughts to the rest of the post (e.g. yoma 39) if you have a chance to reply.

Re: Judaism - I agree - its clearly not a stagnent religion - however, atonement through blood is a common and significant theme of Leviticus. The rabbinic concept of atonement through prayer and good works (while admirable) is not really scriptural. I’m not suggesting we aren’t urged to pray and do good works in the Hebrew scriptures, but atonement and salvation in scripture has always come through a combination of faith (in God and the coming of the Messiah - I’d say after Christ, in the Messiah who came); sacrifice (atonement through blood); repentance of sin and good works. This was true before the Mosaic Law (abled offerred sacrifice of his flock); was made explicit in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus most prominently) and continues exactly the same after Christ (sacrifice being satisfied in Christ) but still requiring faith, repentance for sins and good works.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I didn’t ask what second century Jews thought about rebuilding the Temple. You made the accusation that 1) Jews can’t be Torah obeserfvant if they aren’t trying to rebuild the Temple; and 2) that we are obligated under the Torah (expressly) to rebuild the Temple.

Jews up until around that time understood (i.e. interpreted the Torah as requiring) that 1) Deu 12:27 et alia required animal sacrifice, 2) that this was not supposed to be done anywhere else but in the Jerusalem Temple, and 3) that it had to be rebuilt ASAP. I put forward these facts in response to the Chosen One’s claim that Christianity “rejected” the Torah because it reinterpreted it. But, as you can see, Rabinnical Judaism also reinterpreted the Torah (i.e. “rejected” it) in reponse to the inability to rebuild the temple.

Deu 12:27 says nothing about rebuilding the Temple. There are of course many passages that direct us to build the Temple. I don’t see anything in the Torah that tells us to continue rebuilding it once it is done.

I said start there. It requires animal sacrifices. When was the last time you were faithful to the Torah and performed the required animal sacrifices (or contributed the required temple tax for Jewish priests to do so for you)?

Without a Temple we don’t do sacrifices. We still are (or can be) Torah observant. Just as I do not have to become an orchard owner simply becaue the Torah requires one to leave the corners of thier fields to the poor.
You are violating Deu 12:27 by not rebuildinig the Temple. If Jews were faithful to Torah they would rebuild the temple in order to fulfill the legal obligations of their covenant.

And, just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that Jews should rebuild the temple and resume sacrifices, I’m simply pointing out that Rabinical Judaism was no less an innovation of Torah observance than Christianity. And Reform Judaism is almost indistinguishable from Christianty other than holidays and rituals.

Indeed, since the changes that Christianity made were for gentiles, not Jews, one could reasonably argue that Christianity is more observant of the Torah than modern Judaism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have always said that Judaism is not a stagnent religion and that it is not contained in the scriptures. Rather, the scriptures are the springboard for Judaism. The starting point.

Indeed, it was a “springboard” for Christianity.

 

[Valke2]

Sincere repentant prayer is the primary method for obtaining atonement when animal sacrifices cannot be offered concurrently. Animal sacrifices are only prescribed for unwitting or unintentional sin, with one exception for someone who swore falsely to acquit himself of the accusation of having committed theft (Leviticus 5:24-26). Intentional sin can only be atoned for through repentance, unaccompanied by a blood sacrifice- Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19.

“If My people, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways; then will I hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14)."

Besides, if you read Macabees, you see that there was a period of at least 3 years when no sacrifices could be offered, and this is prior to Jesus dying. So did God leave the Jews with their sins and no way to attone during this period?? No. We attoned through the traditional methods of repentence and prayer. And how do I know this?

“And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to Me, and I will hearken to you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me, when you shall search for Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13)

There’s no theological dilema for Jews springing from the fact that we can no longer offer sacrifices. It is merely a shift in emphasis as to how we repent. Biblically, prayer satisfies the requirements of attonement. It is at the core of attonement. Had something happened that made it impossible to repent through prayer, but allowed animal sacrifices, we Jews would be in much worse shape.
1.

 

[Robbinson]

Sincere repentant prayer is the primary method for obtaining atonement when animal sacrifices cannot be offered concurrently. Animal sacrifices are only prescribed for unwitting or unintentional sin, with one exception for someone who swore falsely to acquit himself of the accusation of having committed theft (Leviticus 5:24-26). Intentional sin can only be atoned for through repentance, unaccompanied by a blood sacrifice- Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19.

“If My people, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways; then will I hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14)."

Besides, if you read Macabees, you see that there was a period of at least 3 years when no sacrifices could be offered, and this is prior to Jesus dying. So did God leave the Jews with their sins and no way to attone during this period?? No. We attoned through the traditional methods of repentence and prayer. And how do I know this?

“And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to Me, and I will hearken to you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me, when you shall search for Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13)

There’s no theological dilema for Jews springing from the fact that we can no longer offer sacrifices. It is merely a shift in emphasis as to how we repent. Biblically, prayer satisfies the requirements of attonement. It is at the core of attonement. Had something happened that made it impossible to repent through prayer, but allowed animal sacrifices, we Jews would be in much worse shape.
1.

Thanks Valke2 - I understand the “argument” - but given the predominance of God’s references to the necessity of blood and sacrifice for the atonement of sins, don’t you think its a stretch to point to brief periods of time when sacrifice was not possible as a plausible explanation for a cosmic shift in salvation methodology in judaism (e.g., a 2,000 year change in God’s salvation plan?)?

Again - given that context and the proximity of that shift to the appearance, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the passage in yoma 39 I pointed to (showing the lack of forgivness of sins from sacrifice tracing back literally to the time of Christ’s death) - doesn’t that make an impression on you (on some level)?

Please don’t misinterpret me - I believe that God has a covenant with the jewish people (as a people) as playing a key role in bringing the world to know him and in his salvation plan - but I also believe that has shown through the scriptures that he speaks to us through action (and in action). Something is “amiss” in the scriptural covenant relationship between God and the Jewish people as described in scripture - He provided detailed instructions in Leviticus to the means of atonement - that has changed dramatically. Why? Or has it not changed (which is what I believe, but has been satisfied through the Messiah).

God promised a new covenant (expressly different from the law of moses) in jer 31:31-34. Isn’t it interesting to you that this also ties in with the coming of the messiah (the new covenant has in fact freed us from the levitical requirements and the law is written in our hearts - as Jesus said)?

Anyway - I’ll be interested in your reaction to yoma 39 - its timing and proximity to Christ.

Blessings,

Brian