Me too, MrSarcastic thats why I asked about it. No wonder some people seem so shocked when you tell them you don't eat animals, it must seem so godless to not devour his other lovely creations...

a_theist:

Thanks for the quote and the website...

Although it contradicts everything I have heard from regular Jews, surprisingly enough .

Could you please tell me where in the OT it says that the Law can be changed, or where in the OT it says that 'salvation' is dependant on the Law, or where it says in the OT that the Messiah will 'fufill' the Law?

I have never found these sections. I do not see how Christ could have changed the Law and still be Jewish.

I also disagree that Christ followed the teachings of the Law: he did disobey his mother (your mother and brothers are outside) and he did stop the stoning of the adulteress. He changed Laws, he did not keep them or 'fufill' them.

I found the quote of Matthew 5:17-18 funny. He did abolish most of the Laws.

I understand that time and place plays a factor on the ability to 'follow' all the Laws, but special compensations are permitted by Rabbis for that. I also know that there are large groups which do all in their power to follow every Law.

It still doesn't seem to fit. Not to me at least.

"The Lord said to me 'What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their breathren; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account."(Deut18:17-19)

Who is a prophet like Moses, for "No one has ever shown the mighty power of performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel?"(Deut34:12) This is not your average prophet, but one who gives commands that come from God Himself. Like Moses, He is a covenent-giver.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I have never found these sections. I do not see how Christ could have changed the Law and still be Jewish. I also disagree that Christ followed the teachings of the Law: he did disobey his mother (your mother and brothers are outside) and he did stop the stoning of the adulteress. He changed Laws, he did not keep them or 'fufill' them.

Did He or didn't He? Hmmm... in John 2 He changed the water into wine at his mother's bidding, even though he seemed unwilling to. He definitely broke many Pharisaical laws and interpretaitons of the Law. Most of His 'law-breaking' was in the working of merciful miracles. He touched (unclean)lepers, to heal them. The woman with the blood problem touched the hem of His garment(which would cause ceremonial uncleanness) and was healed in the process. Jesus proves that the things that should defile men do not defile Him. He didn't stop the stoning of the adulteress: they asked Him if she should be stoned and He did not forbid it. Since Roman law had superceded the law of ancient Israel at this point(Jews did not have the legal right to execute people) this could have been just a trick to get Jesus into trouble with the Roman government. It was a test to see if He would oppose Moses, or oppose the Romans. He did neither: just pricked the conscience of the individuals as to their own sin.

Also it is "fulfill the Law and the Prophets"- not 'laws.' The fulfillment is more about prophetic fulfillment then keeping every Law. We know that the great sin of Saul was not killing(the Amalekites) which would be seen as disobedience to the law: "Thou shalt not kill." But obedience to God rather than obedience to the Law is what counts.(if one truly knows the mind of God on an issue) As Jesus points out, "Haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate(work on) the day and yet are innocent?"(Matthew 12:5) If mere priests can "desecrate" the Law for the sake of God, how much more could the Messiah?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I found the quote of Matthew 5:17-18 funny. He did abolish most of the Laws. I understand that time and place plays a factor on the ability to 'follow' all the Laws, but special compensations are permitted by Rabbis for that. I also know that there are large groups which do all in their power to follow every Law.

Very interesting. So if Jesus, as a 1st century rabbi, makes compensations(such as allowing his disciples to pick grain(in a manner that is legal according to Deuteronomy23:25), he is disobeying the Law. (arguably. It is at least disobedience to the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law) If modern day rabbis do the same, they aren't? No. These compensations are not in the Torah, but are a latter interpretation/view to explain away the fact that it is impossible to obey the Law today. Because the Temple was destroyed. The destruction of the Temple was tied up with the death of Messiah. (Daniel 9:26, John 2:18-19, Luke19:41-44) The current rabbinic view is that God decided to end the Temple sacrificial system and so brought about the destruction for that reason. But the Law is full to the brim of commands for sacrifice: burnt offerings, grain offerings, fellowship offerings, sin offerings, offerings to be made on all of the 7 feasts, etc.

"Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall burn all the fat on the altar as he burned the fat of the fellowship offering. In this way the priest shall make atonement for the man's sin, and he will be forgiven."
(Leviticus 4:26) What Jew follows this today? How then is his sin atoned? Many Jews believe obedience to the Law overcomes the weakness of the lack of Temple sacrifices today. But a huge and important part of the Law was the sacrificial system. God knew that nobody could keep all the Law: so the sacrifice is given as a means or type of atonement for the Law-breaker. Since atonement was commanded for everyone, that meant everyone would sin. "I desire mercy rather than sacrifice."-God wants mercy and righteousness, of course! But who can claim that his own righteousness is good enough when God demanded sacrifice for excess sins(that even the best of the best still commited)? These sacrifices were for both the "good" and "bad" Jews- even the priests had to make atonement for themselves by sacrifice. Claiming righteousness comes from obeying the Law was seen as faulty by one who called himself "as to righteousness according to the Law, faultless." (Paul) who was an expert on the Law previously to his stupendous conversion to Jesus. And Paul had followed the Law better than any Jew alive today has been able to, due to circumstances- and found it unable to create righteousness in the inmost parts. ("'not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit' Says the Lord Almighty"(Zech4:6b)"

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It still doesn't seem to fit. Not to me at least.

I am not done yet, but since your questions seem to me to demand a heavy Bible study and especially "Torah" study, I am going to leave this as is for now. There are a few more points I will deal with in a latter post.



[This message has been edited by a_theistnotatheist (edited March 08, 2001).]

a_theist:

Thanks for your reply. Please let me stew on it for a while.

I do not want you to get involved in a bible study just for me. If you want to, great, but please, I am sure you have a life and you don't want to waste it on me.

I am going to work on a response later... please bear with me.

jess