Jewish Question - Do you feel God's Covenant is still active?

[sablouwho]

If you won’t listen to a zealous Jew, who is and was more familiar with your own religion than you could ever be, who else will you listen to? Paul made sacrifices in the Temple, and worshiped in the Synagogues, who are you to pretend to know more than he? Neither faith nor reason can give any credit to such a willfully and self-imposed ignorance.

I believe that the above statements reflect a rather unfortunate tendency among Christians who don’t understand how Jews don’t “get” the Jesus thing. And a major lack of empathy.

As someone raised Jewish, who didn’t “get” the Jesus thing until a few years ago, and who is now a Christian (in terms of faith) I find this attitude to be rather unenlightened.

There appears to be an assumption among some Christian believers that if THEY had been raised in a Jewish setting, that they would have STILL somehow “gotten” the Jesus thing. I’m no so sure…

I know firsthand how many barriers there are, growing up Jewish, to be able to believe in Jesus. They are significant and not to be underestimated. Those who lack such understanding yet accuse Jews of willful ignorance, in my view, are really lacking in charity, and least in that area. I find this exceedingly unfortunate.

why not? many Jews do or came to believe.

I won’t speak for Kaninchen since you addressed the question to her, but I will answer in a general fashion and say that it can be a very complex thing. It was for me, despite my eventually coming to believe…

 

[Kaninchen]

If you won’t listen to a zealous Jew, who is and was more familiar with your own religion than you could ever be, who else will you listen to? Paul made sacrifices in the Temple, and worshiped in the Synagogues, who are you to pretend to know more than he? Neither faith nor reason can give any credit to such a willfully and self-imposed ignorance.

All Harry Potter to me.

 

[Dokimas]

All Harry Potter to me.

Maybe Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum can make some sense for you.

www.ariel.org

 

[Kaninchen]

Maybe Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum can make some sense for you.

www.ariel.org

Hardly.

Anymore than an ex-Catholic parading his arguments for winning Christians over to Islam or Mormonism would to you.

 

[Nine_Two]

Romans 11:
1 ¶ I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,
3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”?
4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

When we read that in the context with which 9:8 is written, then it doesn’t mean what you say it means at all.

Or are you saying St. Paul contradicted himself?

 

[Timothy17]

I know firsthand how many barriers there are, growing up Jewish, to be able to believe in Jesus. They are significant and not to be underestimated. Those who lack such understanding yet accuse Jews of willful ignorance, in my view, are really lacking in charity, and least in that area. I find this exceedingly unfortunate.

I can understand and even appreciate (from a religious point of view) the barriers you mention. The Catholic religion also engenders a very cautious approach to looking outside the Church for answers to religious questions or what we should believe. In and of herself, through her saints for example, she finds her corrections, and her answers. She is naturally cautious towards innovations; we are, after all, subject to the Lord. We have a Master. This is his house and his kingdom; therefore, everything done here must be done according to his laws and commandments, under the auspices of his ministers: the Bishops and the Chair of St Peter.
So I can sympathize with a similar Jewish tradition to seek within itself, and to avoid the competition, as it were, out of respect for the Covenant, for example or the law of Moses. That’s basically religious chastity and fidelity, and that is perfectly well and good; however, what I can’t understand is how someone on these very forums, who frequents it so regularly, who is surrounded by the lights of the Church (the Pillar of Cloud by day and Fire by Night) can still impose the ignorance I referenced.

 

[Dokimas]

Hardly.

Anymore than an ex-Catholic parading his arguments for winning Christians over to Islam or Mormonism would to you.

Fair enough, but one day you may be looking for some answers. I highly recommend Dr Fruchtnbaum.​

Also, listen to the life story of Lon Solomon. It’s quite humorous and informative.

 

[Dokimas]

When we read that in the context with which 9:8 is written, then it doesn’t mean what you say it means at all.

Or are you saying St. Paul contradicted himself?

The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when He inspired Paul. I hope to trust the Holy Spirit (I’m sure I fall short). It’s your understanding that I question.

 

[sablouwho]

I can understand and even appreciate (from a religious point of view) the barriers you mention.

Thank you for saying this. I apologize if my language was strong or uncharitable in my PP, I tend to get pretty protective of other Jews, both corporately and individually. Sometimes I have a big mouth!

I can sympathize with a similar Jewish tradition to seek within itself, and to avoid the competition, as it were, out of respect for the Covenant, for example or the law of Moses. That’s basically religious chastity and fidelity, and that is perfectly well and good; however, what I can’t understand is how someone on these very forums, who frequents it so regularly, who is surrounded by the lights of the Church (the Pillar of Cloud by day and Fire by Night) can still impose the ignorance I referenced.

Ah, I see what you are saying here, which is different from what I had originally thought that you meant. I don’t pretend to know the answer to that one and I won’t speculate on it.

 

[Timothy17]

Thank you for saying this. I apologize if my language was strong or uncharitable in my PP, I tend to get pretty protective of other Jews, both corporately and individually. Sometimes I have a big mouth!

I understand: I am half American and half Canadian, and when either of the two take “cheap shots” at the other I too become defensive, sometimes overly. I apologize if I offended you in anything I wrote. It’s not my intention to be uncharitable, I am merely frustrated by the lady’s responses.

Take care and God bless

 

[sablouwho]

I understand: I am half American and half Canadian, and when either of the two take “cheap shots” at the other I too become defensive, sometimes overly. I apologize if I offended you in anything I wrote. It’s not my intention to be uncharitable, I am merely frustrated by the lady’s responses.

Ah, so you definitely have a real life understanding about how being in two camps at one time can be, um, well, challenging!

I believe you and take back what I said about being uncharitable as it might have applied to you specifically–I’m sorry for that!

It’s hard…I myself am frustrated at times with how my own peeps don’t corporate accept their own Messiah. Yet I also understand, quite intimately, many of the reasons why this is exceedingly hard to embrace. Sheesh, I had a road to Damascus-like conversion experience, yet I *still *struggle with this stuff. Even basic things like saying Jesus’ name is still sometimes hard for me to be comfortable with after 4 years of being a Christian.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when He inspired Paul. I hope to trust the Holy Spirit (I’m sure I fall short). It’s your understanding that I question.

And here we get to the core fallacy of Protestantism. The Holy Spirit has moved you to interprete it correctly (although I must question why the Holy Spirit must rely on eisegesis), while that same Holy Spirit has left me high and dry on the interpretation.

The verse I quoted (which is in the same book, and comes before your quote) defines the term “seed” as refering to those who are children of Abraham by the promise of God, and explicitly states that those who are natural blood children who are not.

Since the same word appears later in the same book we must interprete it using the definition Paul has already provided.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Romans 11:
1 ¶ I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,
3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”?
4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

What was the context of God’s dialogue with Elijah? Israel was falling away, and people were beginning to follow other gods. To top it off, those prophets who remained faithful were being rounded up and killed, hence Elijah’s self-exile. Elijah is speaking to God because he believes he is the last one faithful to God, and God informs him that, in fact, there are still those in Israel who believe in the true God.

Now, what is the context that Paul is speaking of? Let’s review Romans 10 and what comes before the passage you cited:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: “I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.” But Isaiah is very bold and says: "I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” But to Israel he says: “All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” [Rom 10:16-21; NKJV; emphasis mine]

When Paul is speaking of the “remnant according to the election of grace,” he is speaking those Jews who remained faithful to God - ie, have followed Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Lord. Again, a distinction must be made between the ethnic Jews and the religious Jews - Paul is not speaking of the religious Jews, but the ethnic Jews who would still be considered part of “Israel” due to the tribal ties. This is why Paul makes the distinction, “I am an Israelite” - does this mean Paul maintained many Jewish beliefs including a denial of Christ’s divinity? Certainly not. Why, then, do we not apply that same standard which Paul gives himself to the context of what he speaks?

If he were speaking of all Jews, then, as Nine_Two said, this would contradict Paul’s later teachings that Gentiles are Jews on the inside and that salvation is only found through the grace of Christ. It would also contradict Christ’s own words, cited earlier in this thread.

The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when He inspired Paul. I hope to trust the Holy Spirit (I’m sure I fall short). It’s your understanding that I question.

I’m sorry, but that completely avoids responding to Nine_Two’s point that what Paul writes elsewhere contradicts your assumption based on an isolated passage.

 

[Xavierlives]

Of course you can, just as a Muslim, say, could ask similar questions of Christians. The problem for a Christian responding would be similar - two different paradigms, two different sets of presumptions.

But you asked whether we felt that we were receiving the benefits.

The answers to your questions ‘is the Covenant still active’ and ‘are we receiving the full benefits’ are Yes and Yes. The implication is, however, that, somehow we need to justify those affirmations. I was pointing out, though, that the answers to those questions lie within our own context not somebody else’s.

For example, ask me whether I believe that Judaism provides from within itself the route to salvation and I’ll just answer ‘Err?’

There is absolutely no need to justify it. We are just having a discussion. Say as much or as little as you want.

 

[Dokimas]

And here we get to the core fallacy of Protestantism. The Holy Spirit has moved you to interprete it correctly (although I must question why the Holy Spirit must rely on eisegesis), while that same Holy Spirit has left me high and dry on the interpretation.

The verse I quoted (which is in the same book, and comes before your quote) defines the term “seed” as refering to those who are children of Abraham by the promise of God, and explicitly states that those who are natural blood children who are not.

Since the same word appears later in the same book we must interprete it using the definition Paul has already provided.

Here’s the core of your misunderstanding: I do NOT think my interpretation is infallible. It’s you that thinks you and your church’s interpretation is infallible.​

I’ve made so many posts today (an obsession I’m thinking) I have little clue about what we were discussing. Sorry.

 

[Mosacked]

I’m afraid what you’ve done is basically ignore everything I said.

The “recipients of the covenant” are not the same for both because one covenant was for Israel, as in the Jews, and the new one is for the New Israel, the Church, or believers of Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law. God clearly distinguishes between the old and new covenant in Jeremiah, clarifying that this was not the covenant made in the time of Moses. In that case, your contract metaphor is irrelevant.

I have already told you, the old covenant made under the law is made complete in Christ (new covenant). The two recipients are the SAME, for the seed of Abraham.

I am also puzzled that you argue the old covenant “was not made invalid and done away with” when St. Paul clearly writes that the old covenant is “becoming obsolete” and “is ready to vanish away.” Furthermore, your reference to Abraham and his descendants ignores my argument as well as my citation of Paul that the true descendants of Abraham are the followers of Christ. As I said, Paul doesn’t use the word for seed (like a plant) but the literal kind of seed, for a human being (ie sperm).

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah etc all fall under the ‘old’ covenant. To say that the old covenant is invalid is to say that these people will not enter heaven (because there no longer is a contract between them and God). And that is ridiculous! When Paul said the old covenant is ‘done away with’, he did not mean that it has been dumped, but that it has been replaced with another. BOTH of these covenants (which is actually one in Christ) are for perpetuity and it all BEGINS WITH THE JEWS, specifically Abraham. I ignored most of your non-scriptural claims.

Your reference to Romans 2:28 is also irrelevant, as that is discussing the issue of righteousness by circumcision and has nothing to do with the covenant or stating that the old covenant is still valid. In fact, the following verse says, “but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God,” and the following chapters discuss the inclusion of Gentile believers among Jewish believers (because we have to admit here that Paul is writing to Christians who are ethnic Jews, not to Christ-denying religious Jews).

Many of what I say is irrelevant to you because you don’t understand what I say.

Of course the covenant between God and the Jews are still active. Till this day, God is still waiting for the return of the Jews. And who are we (a reference Jesus made to as a dog in His parable) to mock at God’s chosen that their covenant is invalid? What audacity!

Do not attempt to condemn yourself in your self-righteousness.

 

[Xavierlives]

I have already told you, the old covenant made under the law is made complete in Christ (new covenant). The two recipients are the SAME, for the seed of Abraham.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah etc all fall under the ‘old’ covenant. To say that the old covenant is invalid is to say that these people will not enter heaven (because there no longer is a contract between them and God). And that is ridiculous! When Paul said the old covenant is ‘done away with’, he did not mean that it has been dumped, but that it has been replaced with another. BOTH of these covenants (which is actually one in Christ) are for perpetuity and it all BEGINS WITH THE JEWS, specifically Abraham. I ignored most of your non-scriptural claims.

Many of what I say is irrelevant to you because you don’t understand what I say.

Of course the covenant between God and the Jews are still active. Till this day, God is still waiting for the return of the Jews. And who are we (a reference Jesus made to as a dog in His parable) to mock at God’s chosen that their covenant is invalid? What audacity!

Do not attempt to condemn yourself in your self-righteousness.

So you feel there are multiple ways to get to heaven? Or is there no heaven?

 

[Nine_Two]

Here’s the core of your misunderstanding: I do NOT think my interpretation is infallible. It’s you that thinks you and your church’s interpretation is infallible.​

I’ve made so many posts today (an obsession I’m thinking) I have little clue about what we were discussing. Sorry.

Then you are saying you do not think you are necessarily guided to your conclussion by the Holy Spirit, but may be wrong?

If you don’t know the argument you’re answering it is only polite to read back to remind yourself. The topic of this back and forth is in the thread title.

 

[Mosacked]

So you feel there are multiple ways to get to heaven? Or is there no heaven?

One can do more teaching the children than spend years trying to make the blind see.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I have already told you, the old covenant made under the law is made complete in Christ (new covenant). The two recipients are the SAME, for the seed of Abraham.

I know you’ve already told me. I responded to that using scripture. You’ve simply repeated your argument.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah etc all fall under the ‘old’ covenant. To say that the old covenant is invalid is to say that these people will not enter heaven (because there no longer is a contract between them and God). And that is ridiculous!

It is ridiculous…if one ignores the orthodox understanding of what happened to those who lived and died before Christ’s resurrection. At His death, Christ descended into the pit (aka Sheol) and broke down the gates of hell, preaching to those within. Those who heard and believed His gospel (which included Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Adam and Eve, etc) ascended to Paradise, while those who rejected Him remained among the dead. Therefore to argue that “to say the old covenant is invalid is to say that these people will not enter heaven” is incorrect - those faithful who died before Christ’s death and resurrection are already in heaven. In fact, this argument is what I have heard many Muslims use to try to invalidate the belief that Christ’s resurrection saves.

When Paul said the old covenant is ‘done away with’, he did not mean that it has been dumped, but that it has been replaced with another. BOTH of these covenants (which is actually one in Christ) are for perpetuity and it all BEGINS WITH THE JEWS, specifically Abraham. I ignored most of your non-scriptural claims.

Non-scriptural claims? Most of my claims were verified by scripture. The only non-scriptural claims being brought forth are by yourself, because the one or two passages you have cited to prove your case have been shown to be wanting when context is examined. The majority of what you have argued has been your own opinion.

In fact, your first sentence contradicts what you are trying to say. You tell us that Paul did not mean the old covenant had been dumped, but that “it has been replaced with another.” Something replaced usually does not exist with that it replaces. If I have a flat tire and I replace it, are you assuming that I kept the flat tire on the car along with the new one? If I have a busted light bulb and I replace it with a new one, are you assuming that I kept the busted light bulb in the socket? I wouldn’t think so.

Again, Paul is clear in what he says. He says, “if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says…[Jeremiah prophesy regarding new covenant inserted]…in that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” There is no possible way to understand this as meaning the old covenant is still valid without inserting eisegesis.

Many of what I say is irrelevant to you because you don’t understand what I say.

Of course the covenant between God and the Jews are still active. Till this day, God is still waiting for the return of the Jews. And who are we (a reference Jesus made to as a dog in His parable) to mock at God’s chosen that their covenant is invalid? What audacity!

Do not attempt to condemn yourself in your self-righteousness.

No one is mocking at God’s chosen that their covenant is invalid, because God’s chosen within the new covenant - the New Israel, the Church, the seed of Abraham that includes ethnic Jews and Gentiles - are not mocked. Not even religious Jews are being mocked. That is a strawman.

We are simply accepting what the entirety of scripture teaches us and recognizing the reality of salvation under Christ. Even Christ said to the disbelieving Jews:

"Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” [John 5:45-47; NKJV]

One can do more teaching the children than spend years trying to make the blind see.

That ignores his question.

Do you believe there is more than one way to get into heaven? When Christ says only He is the Truth, the Life and the Way, and religious Jews today deny Christ’s divinity and that He is the Truth, the Life and the Way, are you therefore saying that there is more than one way to get into heaven?