quote:How'd they figure that? What, if we really really obey the laws then God will give us our nation and temple back?
The Jews have lost two temples. The first in 586 bce and the second in 70 ce.
From "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism" by Rabbi Benjamin Blech 1999 (First five commandments, tablet 1, deal with human obligations to God and the second five, tablet 2, deal with relationships of people to people.)
The first temple was destroyed because Jews worshiped idols. They had forsaken the God of their ancestors. Simply put, they broke the first tablet. The second time around, Jews were "religious" and deeply pious in their allegiance to God, but profoundly insensitive to ethical behavior between themselves. The second temple was destroyed, the rabbis realized, because of needless hatred between Jew and fellow Jew. The values of the second tablet were the ones disregarded.
In reading "A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson", we find a lot of conflict between Greeks and Jews. The author feels that the Jewish Leadership would not have minded assimilating the Greeks, but didn't like the Greeks hellenizing Judaism.
The Messianic vision places upon Jews a responsibility and a mission to perfect the world and to serve as a light unto the nations.
A lot of political and religious issues the Jewish leadership had to deal with. Tough times.
quote:But Jesus wasn't talking about not needing national laws. He was talking about the religious aspect. It doesn't really matter if what you're doing might technically count as work and you happen to be doing it on Saturday, just love God and each other.
Exactly! Hillel the Elder was concerned about the people.
Hillel's rulings were often based on concern for the welfare of the individual. For example with regard to the remarriage of an aguna, whose husband is not known with certainty to be alive or dead, the view of Hillel (and most of his colleagues) was that she can remarry even on the basis of indirect evidence of the husband's death. Bet Shammai required that witnesses come forth with direct testimony before she was permitted to remarry. Another example of his leniency as compared with Shammai involves converts; Hillel favored the admission of proselytes into Judaism even when they made unreasonable demands, such as one did by demanding that the whole Torah be taught to him quickly "while standing on one foot." Hillel accepted this person as eligible for conversion, whereas Shammai dismissed him as not serious about Judaism.
Jesus followed that school of thinking. What Jesus did do was take these teachings to the Jewish people. He didn't just teach those who came to worship.
During the Roman takeover, the Romans left the Jews their religion but took the state.
Gentiles didn't have to take on the full mantle of Judaism unless they wanted to. Jewish Christians were still bound by any Jewish laws they were already following and Non-Jewish Christians were bound by the religious rules given them through the Christian Sect.
The national aspect of the OT laws were made unnecessary before Jesus started his mission and the religious aspect of the OT laws were still applicable to Jewish Christians as much as they were before they became Christians. IOW, if a Jewish Christian wasn't practicing strict Judaism before they became a Christian, they probably didn't after they became a Christian.
As I said in Message 5: The Mosaic Laws were the basis for the Jewish legal system when they were an independent nation. Jesus did not do away with the Jewish legal system. The Jewish followers of Jesus still followed the Mosaic Laws as allowed by the Romans.
Laws and rules can get complicated. Interpretations vary.
Halakhah A major problem here is the motivation behind the approaches of the two rival schools. The theory associated with L. Ginzberg (On Jewish Law and Lore (1955), 102–18) and L. Finkelstein (op. cit.) finds the differences in the different social strata to which the schools belonged. The school of Shammai, it is argued, was legislating for the upper classes, the wealthy landowners and aristocrats, while the school of Hillel was legislating for the poorer urban workers and artisans. Thus according to the school of Hillel the legal definition of a "meal" is one dish, whereas according to the school of Shammai it is at least two dishes (Beẓah 2:1). In most societies the woman has a much more significant role among the upper classes than among the lower. Hence the school of Hillel rules that a valid marriage can be effected by the delivery to the woman of the smallest coin – a perutah – whereas the school of Shammai demands the much larger minimum amount of a dinar (Kid. 1:1). The school of Shammai only permits the divorce of a wife if she is unfaithful whereas the school of Hillel permits it on other grounds (Git. 9:10). While there is undoubtedly some truth in the theory of social motivation it is too sweeping to be entirely adequate. Other motives, such as different exegetical methods, were also at work (see Alon, Meḥkarim, 2 (1958), 181–222).
I don't feel the coming of Jesus rendered the law of the OT null and void. A changing world altered what was needed as is the case with most laws and rules. Even Christianity adjusts for a changing world. Reformation
Evidence that becoming Christian didn't stop Jewish Christians from following the Jewish law as they did before becoming Christian.
Three views of the Jewish-Christian schism. At the same time, they expanded an old prayer to include an imprecation against the minim, Jews with incorrect beliefs. In this period, this could only have meant the early Jewish Christians, who observed the laws of Judaism but accepted the messiahship of Jesus. Although the rabbis continued to regard the early Christians as Jews, they reformulated this prayer in order to expel them from the synagogue, as testified to by the Gospel of John and the church fathers.
Acts 2:46, 3:1, 21:20-26
The Jewish Christians were just as bound by Jewish laws as they were before they became Christians. IOW, becoming a Christian didn't demand that they stop following Jewish laws.
Jerome also tells us that the Jewish Nazarenes, or followers of Jesus of Nazareth -- Yeshu-Notzri -- were cursed in the synagogues "by the Pharisees," and that they mixed faith in Christ with the keeping of the Law (p. 55). In other words, they were true Christians! For Jesus Himself said He did not come to destroy or to do away with the Law
If they were lax on the Jewish laws before becoming Christian, they were probably lax afterwards.
In Acts 21:20-26, Paul had to show that he was not telling Jews to turn away from Moses or Jewish customs. If Paul wasn't following Jewish laws or customs and only followed them to appease these men, then he was just as much a hypocrite as he accused Peter of being in Galatians 2:11-21.
quote:No. Evidence that: "Jewish Christians were still bound by any Jewish laws they were already following" (Message 51).
Paul was arrested.
First Century Context The Jewish people accepted their freedom in both their governing system, and in maintaining their own traditions, yet the Roman government required that everything be ultimately subject to Roman authority. For example, Jewish citizens were under the authority of the Jewish court system (the Sanhedrin), yet all rulings for the death penalty were sent to the Roman government.
quote:God's ultimate goal is to build an eternity called Heaven. Law is designed to guard this eternity such that only those who are qualified will be allowed to enter. Or else, everyone will be there to screw things to make it hell-like.
Because His Law is designed for guarding Heaven, it is applicable not only to humans but any beings He ever created including angels and perhaps aliens, we don't know how many creations exist out there yet.
Thus His Law will be change for only the sake of humans. His Law will not change anyway.
When we look at what is actually written in our translations of the OT, I don't see the goal you claim for God.
quote:After being driven out of Eden, humans are incapable of abiding His Law. We are outside of God's realm and Satan is supposed to be the king and god here on earth. Which means as time goes by no humans will be able to get pass the final judgment of His Law to get to the eternitly called Heaven.
Again the OT writings do not support what you are saying. The laws were made for humans to follow. These instructions became the basis for the Jewish laws. Talmudic Law
if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.
It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?"
quote:Under this situation, how can humans can still be saved (i.e., being brought to Heaven)? Here comes the covenants. A covenant is basically made up of two parts, namely, the Law part and the Faith part. The Law part is designed for humans who are incapable of abiding His Law in full. So the Law part is not completely equivalent to God's Law but partially a reflection of God's Law.
The laws given in the OT had nothing to do with being saved as in going to Heaven. They serve the same purpose as our legal system, which also has nothing to do with getting to Heaven.
A covenant is an agreement between two parties. Exodus 24
The Mosaic Covenant is a conditional covenant, but none of the conditions dealt with getting to Heaven. Deuteronomy 30
quote:The fundamental difference between a "law" and a "teaching" is that when you failed the law you are dead. But when you failed a teaching, you can still be saved as long as you are willing to repent. Another difference is since you are no longer under a "law", you thus don't need to be judged by Law on the judgment day. And you don't need to have an accuser such as Moses to the Jews or Satan to the gentiles. However, you are still subject to the judgment of Jesus Christ Himself.
a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
quote:This is because you failed to grasp what is said. They are however is very much clear to me. The same concept is very much consistent throughout the whole Bible.
I grasped what you said fine. I disagree that the Bible supports your argument.
This is a debate forum and just saying that the "concept is very much consistent throughout the whole Bible" doesn't mean that it is. You need to show that the concept is consistent throughout the whole Bible and how that concept ties in with the topic; otherwise the thread won't move forward.
Did the coming of Jesus render the Laws of the Old Testament null and void?
quote:Message 67 With your this conclusion, you are virtually saying that all Jews are not saved without exception! It doesn't make any sense!
I guess I should have said Modern Christian salvation. Salvation has many meanings. In the OT at the time the law was supposedly given, IMO, it was about meaning #3 for the Jews.
3 a: preservation from destruction or failure b: deliverance from danger or difficulty. Strong's 3444)
I already noted in Message 11 that there is a difference between justification and expected behavior. (Romans 4)
My contention is that Jesus did not render the Law of the OT null and void.