A sign

[Athetotheist]

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign..... (Isaiah 7:13-14)

In another thread a while back I brought this up and it wasn't addressed there, so I thought I would give it a thread of its own (apologies if it's been brought up elsewhere):

We also have to remember that this was supposed to be a sign given to the house of Israel. A sign has to be visible. No one of the house of Israel saw Jesus conceived in the womb of Mary, so even if that had happened supernaturally it wouldn't have qualified as a sign.

Another reason to conclude that Isaiah wasn't referring to a divine conception.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #10

Why do you think this refers to any act of teaching, rather than everyone having a personal relationship with God through the forgiveness of sins?

It says that "No more shall every man teach his neighbor and every man his brother" because everyone will have a personal relationship with God. It clearly states that the covenant does away with the need for teaching.

Why think this establishment was immediate rather than a gradual takeover?

For the same reason I don't accept the JW's belief that Jesus invisibly established his heavenly kingdom in 1914.

[The Tanager]

It says that "No more shall every man teach his neighbor and every man his brother" because everyone will have a personal relationship with God. It clearly states that the covenant does away with the need for teaching.

Everything has a context. Why is this about all teaching? Why isn't it more focused on having access to God (no longer continual sacrifices brough by intermediaries on our behalf telling us of God's forgiveness) or behavior modification (rather than being taught by others how to be good the power will come from God providing us with a new heart)? Or some other specific teaching?

Why think this establishment was immediate rather than a gradual takeover?

For the same reason I don't accept the JW's belief that Jesus invisibly established his heavenly kingdom in 1914.

What reason is that?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12

Why is this about all teaching?

It involves teaching because the text says it involves teaching. You may find that inconvenient, but you can't brush it off.

Why think this establishment was immediate rather than a gradual takeover?

For the same reason I don't accept the JW's belief that Jesus invisibly established his heavenly kingdom in 1914.

What reason is that?

There's no indication that it happened.

[The Tanager]

It involves teaching because the text says it involves teaching. You may find that inconvenient, but you can't brush it off.

I'm not trying to brush anything off. I'm interested in challenging my beliefs with your thoughts. I didn't ask why it involved teaching, but why you think it involves every instance of teaching. Why isn't the teaching being talked about focused on a specific subject (such as the sacrificial system, behavior modification, etc.)? I'm suggesting that the context may limit what teaching is going to cease. If you feel the wider context definitely supports your interpretation, I'd love to hear the support for that so that I can check my own thoughts.

There's no indication that it happened.

So, you don't think the new covenant could be a gradual change because there's no indication that it (1) has fully changed? (2) is gradually changing? (3) Something else? If (1), then that's the point; it hasn't fully changed things yet. If (2), then this would just be repeating your conclusion instead of supporting it. If (3), I would appreciate any clarification.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #14

I'm not trying to brush anything off. I'm interested in challenging my beliefs with your thoughts. I didn't ask why it involved teaching, but why you think it involves every instance of teaching. Why isn't the teaching being talked about focused on a specific subject (such as the sacrificial system, behavior modification, etc.)? I'm suggesting that the context may limit what teaching is going to cease. If you feel the wider context definitely supports your interpretation, I'd love to hear the support for that so that I can check my own thoughts.

The teaching referred to is clear enough: "Know the Lord." Isn't that supposedly the teaching in every Christian church all over the world? That's exactly what the new covenant in Jer. 31 is supposed to make obsolete.

So, you don't think the new covenant could be a gradual change because there's no indication that it (1) has fully changed? (2) is gradually changing? (3) Something else?

Okay.

Five days from now, I'm going to put forth the power of my mind and change the Statue of Liberty into pure gold. It's going to happen. I'm going to do it.

But don't be surprised if there's nothing in the news about it. It's going to happen, but it may happen very, very slowly. It may begin on a subatomic level too small to be measured. It may take a thousand years. But it's going to happen. I'm going to make it happen. In five days, I will have started to make it happen.

And under those unfalsifiable conditions, you won't be able to prove that I haven't.

Oh----and when I turn the Statue of Liberty into gold, it'll prove that I'm the Messiah.

[The Tanager]

The teaching referred to is clear enough: "Know the Lord." Isn't that supposedly the teaching in every Christian church all over the world? That's exactly what the new covenant in Jer. 31 is supposed to make obsolete.

Knowing the Lord is about our life, practices, character, behavior, reflecting God’s character, it’s about worshiping and obeying God. The power we have to do these things will not come from people teaching each other (of which Israel and everybody fails), but from God working from the inside out (what Christians believe is done via the indwelling of the Spirit). This doesn’t mean theological training, Bible study, etc. will be done away with.

Five days from now, I'm going to put forth the power of my mind and change the Statue of Liberty into pure gold. It's going to happen. I'm going to do it.

But don't be surprised if there's nothing in the news about it. It's going to happen, but it may happen very, very slowly. It may begin on a subatomic level too small to be measured. It may take a thousand years. But it's going to happen. I'm going to make it happen. In five days, I will have started to make it happen.

And under those unfalsifiable conditions, you won't be able to prove that I haven't.

Oh----and when I turn the Statue of Liberty into gold, it'll prove that I'm the Messiah.

There could still be a time where we see that part of the statue is gold (or its chemistry is starting to change) in measurable ways without the full transformation happening.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #16

There could still be a time where we see that part of the statue is gold (or its chemistry is starting to change) in measurable ways without the full transformation happening.

But you don't get to say that the full transformation won't happen if I believe that it will. That's the way unfalsifiable belief works.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #16

Knowing the Lord is about our life, practices, character, behavior, reflecting God’s character, it’s about worshiping and obeying God. The power we have to do these things will not come from people teaching each other (of which Israel and everybody fails), but from God working from the inside out (what Christians believe is done via the indwelling of the Spirit). This doesn’t mean theological training, Bible study, etc. will be done away with.

You can put the fanciest spin on it you want to; the text says that the law will be written on people's hearts and that----as a result----no longer will anyone teach. It's there. You can't avoid it. You can't get rid of it. You can't change the meaning just because you don't like it.

[The Tanager]

There could still be a time where we see that part of the statue is gold (or its chemistry is starting to change) in measurable ways without the full transformation happening.

But you don't get to say that the full transformation won't happen if I believe that it will. That's the way unfalsifiable belief works.

I'm not saying the full transformation won't happen. I'm saying that one should look at the evidence to see if what you said will eventually happen has begun to happen or if there is any other reason to trust you that it will.

Knowing the Lord is about our life, practices, character, behavior, reflecting God’s character, it’s about worshiping and obeying God. The power we have to do these things will not come from people teaching each other (of which Israel and everybody fails), but from God working from the inside out (what Christians believe is done via the indwelling of the Spirit). This doesn’t mean theological training, Bible study, etc. will be done away with.

You can put the fanciest spin on it you want to; the text says that the law will be written on people's hearts and that----as a result----no longer will anyone teach. It's there. You can't avoid it. You can't get rid of it. You can't change the meaning just because you don't like it.

This is empty rhetoric. I could just as easily say the same thing to you, but that’s not a rational response or helpful to one’s case. When someone talks about teaching they could be talking about all teaching or specific kinds of teaching. To decide, one must look at the context. I am discussing the context to make my case. You are free to do the same or dismiss it. If you have nothing new to add, I thank you for the thoughts you have shared.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #19

I'm not saying the full transformation won't happen. I'm saying that one should look at the evidence to see if what you said will eventually happen has begun to happen or if there is any other reason to trust you that it will.

Is there any evidence that Christian churches are discontinuing the practice of teaching parishoners to "know the Lord", or that they intend to do so any time soon?

This is empty rhetoric. I could just as easily say the same thing to you, but that’s not a rational response or helpful to one’s case. When someone talks about teaching they could be talking about all teaching or specific kinds of teaching. To decide, one must look at the context. I am discussing the context to make my case. You are free to do the same or dismiss it. If you have nothing new to add, I thank you for the thoughts you have shared.

You said you were interested in challenging your beliefs with my thoughts.

You can't invoke context while ignoring the text. The text of Jeremiah 31 identifies a specific kind of teaching----the people telling each other, "Know the Lord." And that's specifically the type of teaching which the text says will no longer be done when the new covenant is established. That specific type of teaching has not come to an end, so the logical conclusion is that the covenant including that feature has not been established. Would you accept the argument that Jesus's death only "started" the process of making atonement for sin? Was it a "gradual" sacrifice, atoning for some sins right away but others not until later?

In what "context" can the author of Hebrews argue that the discontinuation of teaching was to be "gradual"? Where does the text say so? In the same place where it says that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus will be "gradual"?