Soul Invictus

With the law being found in the OT, isn't most of the NT doctrine against the teachings of the Jewish people in general (not supporting adherence to the law)? What causes for its non acceptance except for it not being compiled by then (which is the most obvious reason)

What's the issue with these two testaments? What's the main problems that the NT presents for OT followers? I do hope that this thread develops into a great discussion.

Magus55

No, the NT isn't against the Jews, in fact, it its directed at the Jews before anyone else. The OT states the law, and thats what people had to try and follow back then. In our sinful state, its impossible to follow all the laws. Only one person was perfect enough to follow every law, and that was God ( incarnate in Jesus). So God fullfilled all the laws, and became the sacrifice so belief in Him gave salvation, instead of the law. The law now only serves to show us where we are failing, and what we are doing wrong.


Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh
be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Soul Invictus

Magus55,

Long time no correspond with! I've been a tad bit busy, so I haven't been as active as I'd like.

Do conventional (not messianic as yourself) jews give any real credence to the NT scriptures? Does their faith/religion require adherence to it. I ask because I know a Jew and I don't recall her mentioning much on the NT.

Also, did Jesus make similar statements as Paul did in those Romans quotations you made? Does Judaism follow the same precepts that you just quoted?

Peter Kirby

This web page presents an imaginative take on the second century reformer Marcion's view on the incompatibility between the New Testament (Supreme God) and the Old Testament (Creator God), in a booklet he entitled "Contradictions."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...ntithesis.html

Note that the work was not preserved--what we have are comments in the church fathers about it, from which we get the gist if not the verses.

best,
Peter Kirby

Kilgore Trout

Uh... How about the whole NT is against the OT.

Here are some of the highlights

1. Jesus is not at all qualified as the messiah.

2. Jesus was not a valid sin sacrifice. (incorrect species, sacrifice not carried out properly, sin sacrifices are only for unitentional sins.

3. OT says the law is to be followed forever. NT says Jesus did away with the law.

4. OT says circumcision is to be practiced forever, Paul thinks circumcision is no longer needed.

5. Christians claim Jesus, by perfectly obeying the Jewish law he fulfilled the law so the law would no longer be needed. For one thing this makes no sense and another thing, he didn't obey the full law. He did work on the sabbath and he said people could eat anything they want which is contrary to all the dietary laws.

6. Because Jesus is repealing the law he qualifies as a false prophet under Deut. 13 because he is speaking against the laws that god commanded. If you read how Jesus talks about the law, he acts like it was made up by men, but of course the Jews belive the law was made by god.

7. Since the whole NT is about the false prophet Jesus, the whole NT is against the OT.

Soul Invictus

Kilgore,

This was actually the type of fundamental conceptual differences that I was wondering if anyone was able to speak about. Magus55, since you're a practicing Jew, maybe you'd be qualified to give a rebut to these issues.

Secular Pinoy

Magus is a fundamentalist Christian who fancies calling himself a Messianic Jew, for no other reason than his so-called Jewish heritage.

Volker.Doormann

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Soul Invictus
I think the main difference is, that the Jews have lost their individual ability to perceive the spiritual order of nature, living a secular social ritual life on idols of the Talmud (OT), while the cognition and knowledge of the spiritual order of nature rejecting all secular social power stuff, is the only reasonable meaning of the NT (hidden after parables). There is no knowledge since ever in Judaism except by some experts of the Jewish Mysticism (Cabbala). But I think, this my personal view is very smart. The same lost of the individual ability to perceive spiritual order has taken place since Paul and Christianity, and it is obvious, that it is the results of fantasy fiction of Christianity, which Jews (and others) reject as unacceptable.

Volker

winstonjen

OT: Worship me or else.

NT: Hmm...the above method wasn't working. I think I'll use a nice cushy afterlife as bait, and eternal torture. After all, that torture rack in the basement is a little rusty. Better get some practice done. Oh, and the oven needs testing too.

Volker.Doormann

If there is really a thinker, who believes in an afterlife or do not believe in an afterlife, he either exist or not. Who is the thinker, who exists? No one ever has shown that a thinker exists. Just ancient nucleons ever existed. If a thinker claims to argue on any existence, he first must show that he exists and what the nature of this existence is, otherwise there is no reason to believe in a life prior to death, not mention a life after death. The thinker exists not; there are only dynamical bio machines powered by water and other bio machines. Ethic is fantasy. Justice is fantasy.

If one is claiming to exist next to the bio machine plus its ancient atoms, then this existence must be have an immaterial nature, what means an existence without atoms.

Because an immaterial existence, like ethic or justice cannot be shown as to exist in nature, no one can show an immaterial existence next to the bio machine prior or after death.

It is senseless to argue on the immaterial on proofs. Who can show a seven? Who can show justice? Who can show love? Rejecting immaterial ex_istence only because it ex_hibits no proof, is stupid.

If there is an existence next to the physical existence, then this existence is also part of nature with its order of causality and its order of preservation. No existence can create out of nothing, and/or can wiped out to nothing; there is no reason to assume, that an immaterial existence comes out of nothing and can be lost. The law of causality relates action to a precise location and energy, as a part of order in nature. To believe, that there is no causality from immaterial actions in the field of ethic and justice is rejecting the principle of causality of the immaterial. The teaching of this believe, which has enforced injustice and souls slavery has changed with the sayings of the NT; each individual can learn from that to take the responsibility for his actions which cause irreversible effects. Them, who taught there is no causality in immaterial actions, because with the physical death the effects are wiped out, give a fundament to them, who doesn’t care about an individual responsibility from causality. The teaching to respect the causaltiy in the individual actions is expressed for example in the Gospel of Thomas, which is rejected by the Christians from the NT: Jesus, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.” The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.”. In this the cycle of the reincarnation of every individual soul is taught, as it is recognized by 'Jesus' and never acknowledged by Christianity.

Volker