B

[B @Cmin7sus4]

That’s my point. You yourself said it’s not a commandment in Torah. I gave you a drash connecting the whole idea. Rambam’s 12th principle is so important to believe that it’s basically heresy to believe otherwise. He says that anyone who does not believe in the Messiah or does not await his coming denies not only the other prophets but the Torah itself and Moses.

It is essentially a commandment to believe in Messiah otherwise there is a loss in a share of the world to come.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

@abi4560 Are you asking?

[B @Cmin7sus4]

@abi4560 Everything stands on Torah. I’m curious what proof texts you bring from Torah to prove the idea of Messiah. My understanding is that the only time that word is used is of the priests.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

Recall that the new covenant is the Torah placed within and written on the heart. No such verse exists to support the idea of being set free from Moses. In the Greek there are different Greek words that get translated as unclean. I’d be curious to hear how you understand the new covenant.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

@byroncarroll How are you defining the new covenant?

[B @Cmin7sus4]

John 3:16 is the message of the Tanakh. John is not introducing a novel idea foreign to the Tanakh.

God loves the world. How do we know this?

He chose Israel, His firstborn son. God gave the world Israel.

Israel, God's firstborn son, was entrusted with the Torah. They were called to be a light to the nations. They were called to be a holy nation of priests, ushering the Gentiles into a relationship with God.

The nations will be drawn to Israel because of their wisdom, understanding, and their relationship with the Lord. Whoever believed in Israel, that is, their message (Torah) and witness, would be blessed, because they will have been drawn to faith in the Lord unto salvation through Israel.

But Israel failed to shine that light. Their national vocation was not realized as intended by HaShem.

God knew that this failure would occur. This is why He gave us the Messiah.

So, we trust in, rely upon, and cling to the quintessential Israelite. The Son of God. The Messiah. The one sent to redeem Israel and perfectly fulfill the calling of Israel as the perfect representative of Israel. We cast our allegiance with Him.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His  only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

It's a choice. It's an opportunity. It's life. Choose life.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

@GoDucks72 @ditchettdean Help me understand that… Are you saying that the Lord freed Israel to immediately turn around and enslave them?

[B @Cmin7sus4]

The context is: Yeshua was telling Nicodemus that, just like Moses lifted up the serpent, so too will the Messiah be lifted up. Just like with Moses, the people who had faith in God that they would be healed when they looked upon the serpent, so too with Messiah. Those who believe will, in Him, have eternal life.

I'll take it a step further...

John 3:16 is the message of the Tanakh. John is not introducing a novel idea foreign to the Tanakh.

God loves the world. How do we know this?

He chose Israel, His firstborn son. God gave the world Israel.

Israel, God's firstborn son, was entrusted with the Torah. They were called to be a light to the nations. They were called to be a holy nation of priests, ushering the Gentiles into a relationship with God.

The nations will be drawn to Israel because of their wisdom, understanding, and their relationship with the Lord. Whoever believed in Israel, that is, their message (Torah) and witness, would be blessed, because they will have been drawn to faith in the Lord unto salvation through Israel.

But Israel failed to shine that light. Their national vocation was not realized as intended by HaShem.

God knew that this failure would occur. This is why He gave us the Messiah.

So, we trust in, rely upon, and cling to the quintessential Israelite. The Son of God. The Messiah. The one sent to redeem Israel and perfectly fulfill the calling of Israel as the perfect representative of Israel. We cast our allegiance with Him.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His  only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

It's a choice. It's an opportunity. It's life. Choose life.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

Brother, I wasn’t being dishonest about anything. I also do not feel like demonized you at all brother. I apologize for anything you received from me that you felt was demonizing. It was not my intent.

I feel like you’re missing the idea that there was a child born then and that was fulfilled. That’s why Isaiah used past tense language. But also, it is fulfilled in Jesus. There can always be multiple fulfillments of the same prophecy. Therefore it’s possible for both ideas to be correct.

You bring up the new covenant and that we are not under the old. The problem with that is, the new covenant involves no longer teaching people to know the Lord. We still do that. It also says that the Torah is put within us and written on our hearts. The NC has been inaugurated, but it hasn’t been fully realized yet.

I do not believe there is a verse in all of the Apostolic writings that states that Christ “fulfilled the Law (Past tense).” Matthew 5 is speaking of something different.

Here are two Greek Lexicon definitions of the Greek word often translated as fulfilled.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

universally and absolutely, to fulfill, i.e. to
cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment.

That definition fits perfectly with the context immediately after Messiah says that he did not come to abolish the Law.

The next one is from the BDAG:

depending on how one prefers to interpret the context,  πληρόω is understood here either as fulfill=do, carry out, or as bring to full expression=show it forth in its true meaning, or fill up=complete

The question is does fill up = complete in that context and the answer is no. It means fulfill=do, carry out, or as bring to full expression=show it forth in its true meaning

This idea fits well with rabbinic culture of the time.  

Pirkei Avot chapter 4:

Whoever fulfills the Law in poverty, will fulfill it later on in wealth; and whoever abolishes the Law in wealth, will abolish it later in poverty. (m.Avot 4.9)

The passage is saying that if one obeys the law while one is poor, he will be blessed and end up obeying it in wealth, but if he disobeys God’s law in wealth, he will end up disobeying it in poverty. So in this context “fulfills the Law” means obeying God’s law and “abolishes the Law” means disobeying God’s law.

If we take these definitions and put them back into Matthew 5:17, we could paraphrase it like this:

Do not think that I have come to disobey the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to disobey them but to obey them.

Blessings

[B @Cmin7sus4]

What makes you so certain she’s spreading lies? Her original post was correct. It is past tense language. To assume she is being deceptive is unwarranted. Like I said, it’s not helpful for dialogue and it only substantiates her thoughts towards Christians.

Your assessment of Jesus and his words towards the Pharisees is very different than this circumstance. Especially because they were both Jewish and looking through the lens of Torah. I’m assuming you are a Gentile and because of that there are already barriers. You have to see that you are both speaking a different language altogether essentially.

Christians basically present Jesus as a Gentile, and more often than realized, they present Him as a false prophet, which is one of her main points. That’s why she keeps quoting Deuteronomy 13.

Oftentimes Christians have a blind spot for understanding the Jewishness of the Bible because they are looking at it through Gentile eyes, completely divorced from Judaism.

She’s also probably received a lot of persecution from Christians, as many Jews have over the years. There are most assuredly open wounds there. The biggest problem I’ve seen Jews have with Jesus is that Christians present Him as having done away with the Torah, which is both unspeakable and Biblically wrong altogether.

Thanks for listening.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

@MrMrsTrumpet That’s good. I think a lot of it has to do with how we are oftentimes programmed to think. Usually the flow of information is one way - pulpit to pew - and to question anything is showing yourself to be a pariah, especially questioning the status quo.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

I’m sorry but that’s just not correct. The sabbath rest that remains is future. It’s the kingdom. It’s the world to come. The book of Hebrews is speaking of the world to come as a whole for the most part, as it states:

Hebrews 2:5

For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking.

This is why I asked you what works you are resting from and you still have yet to answer. You are seemingly making this about earning salvation. No one is advocating this. Obedience to Torah does not equal trying to earn salvation. It’s just obedience. You may not realize it, but you are essentially advocating for disobedience, which is not anything Jesus or any of the Apostles ever imagined. Saying something that used to be sinful is no longer sinful is counseling rebellion against His commandments. Resting from works of righteousness is the opposite of what the whole of scripture is about. It’s about repentance and obedience to His commandments.

The weekly Shabbat is a taste of the world to come. It is a shadow of things to come. We have not entered our eternal Shabbat yet; the one that remains. Even the weekly Shabbat requires diligence to enter because there is a lot of preparation. It’s like a weekly nest egg. You spend the whole week investing in it and when it arrives it’s pure bliss.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

That’s not really an answer to that question. Hebrews 4 is speaking of a future rest. I keep finding that folks are not quoting verse 11.

Hebrews 4:11
Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

A rest remains, we are exhorted to be diligent to enter that rest.

What does Ruth 3 have to do with a future Shabbat?

[B @Cmin7sus4]

To say her “lack of knowledge Is astounding” isn’t showing kindness and isn’t good for dialogue. It’s insulting and there is a better way to bring correction. She’s actually right about a lot of things. The way Christians explain Jesus isn’t always Biblical and she responds correctly because the Christians don’t realize they’re the ones that are incorrect. They also don’t realize the damage to His name they are causing in the process.

[B @Cmin7sus4]

@wrapologetics @abi4560 Why would you talk to her like that? How is that useful in any way?

[B @Cmin7sus4]

I would say that a virgin birth has never been addressed halachically. That said, this probably explains the two different genealogies in the gospels; one from Mary’s lineage and one from Joseph’s. Both were from Judah. I would think that legally, if the rabbis made a ruling they would see that Joseph would have been Yeshua’s legal father (earthly) and would afford him the same rights as a biological son. This is similar to the daughters of Zelophehad. Legally they were not allowed because it went to the sons. Moshe went to HaShem for a ruling.