Old Covenant/New Covenant

[Clint - Christian Theist]

This thread is a continuation of a discussion TheEmpiricalTruth and I started through email.

I’ll need you to define “fulfilled” because there are at least two directions that word can take us

I'll go with all three.

1) He followed the Law perfectly.

In which case, I don’t think he did because he made revisions to the law (eye for an eye, divorce, etc.)

The eye for an eye was a correction for people misapplying the law. They used it for interpersonal situations when it was intended for judicial matters. On divorce, see this.

2) He performed an action that nullifies the Covenant.

In which case, I’ll need you to demonstrate what provision under the Covenant such a scenario would be the case.

Sure. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (ESV) says "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him."

Jesus is that prophet.

3) And, of course, there is a combination of the two, as my Baptist upbringing has taught me. Wherein, because he was perfect, his self-sacrifice is a blanket sacrifice for sin.

There are many cases in which forgiveness is obtained through repentance alone, demonstrating that such a sacrifice is unnecessary to begin with.

Passages? Also, I don't think it's quite that simple. There was a sacrificial system in place during whatever the Old Testament reports.

In Judaism, blood does not have magical properties to expiate sin. That is pagan thinking.

Seems the idea is more to cover one from God's wrath, if you look at the original passover.

The reason animals had to be perfect for sacrifice is because you had to give the best of what you had to pay for your sin. It was a fine.

Actually, it had more to do wholeness, because of how Jews conceived of purity. You can learn this by looking into some social science research of them, as I have.

[TheEmpiricalTruth]

The eye for an eye was a correction for people misapplying the law. They used it for interpersonal situations when it was intended for judicial matters. On divorce, see this."

That is an interesting apologetic, but I'm afraid it falls short for me. If it works for you, fine. But:

Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

In context demonstrates exactly the kind of scenarios in which it is to be in effect and you will notice that they are all interpersonal situations.

That and the article on divorce fail to recognize this commandment.

Deu 12:32 (13:1 KJV) All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (JPS)

Which appears right before God's warning of what a false prophet looks like. To me, Jesus meets the criteria because he, or someone writing his story, adds himself to the list of beings to be worshiped.

The law was not to be changed.

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. "

You think this is speaking about Jesus and Muslims are pretty sure it is Muhammad. I'm not sure about Muhammad's claim, but Jesus falls short in the next few verses.


Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. "


Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.


Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


Unless there are 2000 yo Jews among us, I think this is self explanatory.

Passages? Also, I don't think it's quite that simple. There was a sacrificial system in place during whatever the Old Testament reports.

Here are a few that demonstrate forgiveness without sacrifice:

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.' And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Jon 3:9 Who knoweth whether God will not turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?'
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, which He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.

And in case you would like to say that sacrifices were made but not recorded, here are a few verses that demonstrate that they were not necessary put together on this page.

http://www.messianicjewishtruth.com/atone.html

Seems the idea is more to cover one from God's wrath, if you look at the original passover.

Cover from God's wrath? Sure, I guess. I have never really thought of God as an all-killing fog that penetrates every door except for ones with blood on them. I would think of him as being a little more elegant in his purpose and tactics.

Actually, it had more to do wholeness, because of how Jews conceived of purity. You can learn this by looking into some social science research of them, as I have.

Cleanliness and purity are also hallmarks of Zoroastrianism, but that's an old argument that I don't think needs to be repeated here.

[Clint - Christian Theist]

The eye for an eye was a correction for people misapplying the law. They used it for interpersonal situations when it was intended for judicial matters. On divorce, see this."

Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

In context demonstrates exactly the kind of scenarios in which it is to be in effect and you will notice that they are all interpersonal situations.

Um no, verse 22 says “he shall pay as the judges determine” and then the passage in question, “then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Makes it pretty clear…

That and the article on divorce fail to recognize this commandment.

Deu 12:32 (13:1 KJV) All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (JPS)

How does it fail?

Which appears right before God's warning of what a false prophet looks like. To me, Jesus meets the criteria because he, or someone writing his story, adds himself to the list of beings to be worshiped.

It condemns people worshipping other gods. If Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh, then the point is moot.

You think this is speaking about Jesus and Muslims are pretty sure it is Muhammad. I'm not sure about Muhammad's claim, but Jesus falls short in the next few verses.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Unless there are 2000 yo Jews among us, I think this is self explanatory.

I take those, like a great amount of Christians have historically, but not recently, to refer to Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD, not his second coming. The judgment was visible, but he wasn’t. The Son of Man coming imagery is used pretty extensively in Matthew 24 and its parallels. Those chapters make it pretty apparent he’s can’t be referring to his second coming. Debating that should be a separate thread, however, considering it gets us into end-times theology.

Passages? Also, I don't think it's quite that simple. There was a sacrificial system in place during whatever the Old Testament reports.

Here are a few that demonstrate forgiveness without sacrifice:

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.' And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Jon 3:9 Who knoweth whether God will not turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?'
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, which He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.

And in case you would like to say that sacrifices were made but not recorded, here are a few verses that demonstrate that they were not necessary put together on this page.

http://www.messianicjewishtruth.com/atone.html

Quoting historical narratives there, and the Jews are selective with their history. When we have clear commands, we are told a sacrifice is required. Furthermore, David lived under the old covenant, so he had to have had regular practice of offering sacrifices. How do you know that wasn’t a part of why God put away his sin?

Next, because the history is selective, you’re just making an argument from silence that there was no sacrifice. We have to default to the covenant here.

Isaiah 1:11-18:
"11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the L-rd; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the L-rd; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. "

I think I’ll start off with Jeremiah 7:22 to segue into explaining these passages.

“For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Of course, Jeremiah and his audience knew that God spoke to their fathers concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. This is a negation idiom. This is what going on in a lot of the prophets, and one should be aware that these are quite possible considering the prophets’ use of poetry and other literary genres in their works. They emphasized points that were being neglected by their audience’s lives.

Similarly, we see that mercy and truth can bring atonement, as in Proverbs 16:6:
"6 By mercy and truth iniquity is atoned; and by the fear of the L-rd men depart from evil."

Literary genre, literary genre. Proverbs is a work of wisdom literature. It doesn’t offer absolutes, but proverbial statements for wise living. It isn’t teaching doctrine like Leviticus or Romans.

Further, we can read in Micah 6: 7-8 that sin can be forgiven through justice, mercy and piety, as it states:
"7 Will the L-rd be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?'
8 It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the L-rd doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G-d."

This is like Jeremiah 7 which I have explained above.

Interestingly, the quotes from Micah and Isaiah demonstrate that sacrifice is not even the best method to reach G-d. This idea is highlighted in Hoshea 6:6, which says:
"6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of G-d rather than burnt-offerings.

Jeremiah 7 again.

Proverbs 21:3 echoes Hoshea, saying:
"3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than sacrifice."
The prophet Hoshea even specifically directs the Jewish people to use prayer instead of sacrifice as a means for atonement, stating in Hoshea 14:2-3:
"2 Return, O Israel, unto the L-rd thy G-d; for thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity.
3 Take with you words, and return unto the L-rd; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips."

Repeat of above. The author of the article you linked to and you already give me the impression that you both suffer from a common problem I see from skeptics. They read the Bible like a fundamentalist.

Seems the idea is more to cover one from God's wrath, if you look at the original passover.

Cover from God's wrath? Sure, I guess. I have never really thought of God as an all-killing fog that penetrates every door except for ones with blood on them. I would think of him as being a little more elegant in his purpose and tactics.

Um, Scripture tells us God accomplished it by sending an angel.

[Sponsored content]