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.

[The Tanager]

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?

I didn’t say there was. Our disagreement here obviously comes down to whether this is what the passage is teaching will cease.

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.

I’m not ignoring the text. The whole passage is contrasting the Mosaic law with the new covenant. I think the text, then, is saying the old covenant will not be taught as the way to know the Lord, but there will be a new way, God writing it on our hearts, which comes through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The context is not theological training and that type of teaching, but a specific teaching.

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?

No, I do think Jesus’ death has fully atoned for sin. God has made it so that He can come live with us and has started renewing individuals and the rest of the world, which is the part that has not fully come yet.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #21

Our disagreement here obviously comes down to whether this is what the passage is teaching will cease.

Read the passage. It's exactly what the passage says will cease.

The whole passage is contrasting the Mosaic law with the new covenant. I think the text, then, is saying the old covenant will not be taught as the way to know the Lord, but there will be a new way, God writing it on our hearts

Right----the old covenant was taught by people telling each other, "Know the Lord." If Jesus had established the new covenant, there wouldn't be any teaching in churches because the law would be written on Christians' hearts.

I do think Jesus’ death has fully atoned for sin.

How can you assume that? If the new covenant has been established with one of its definitive conditions conspicuously absent, how can you know that Jesus's death atoned for all sin?

As a technical point: the words "I believe" are not an argument.

[The Tanager]

Read the passage. It's exactly what the passage says will cease.

I’ve read the passage and discussed specifics in the passage to support my interpretation. Just saying something like “the passage says exactly what I say it says” is just dressing up “I believe,” which we both agree is not a rational argument.

Right----the old covenant was taught by people telling each other, "Know the Lord." If Jesus had established the new covenant, there wouldn't be any teaching in churches because the law would be written on Christians' hearts.

It’s a summary way to refer to what the old covenant was intended to do, help people to know the Lord. The passage speaks of a new covenant, of God working on us from the inside out to know the Lord. That’s the context of this passage, not that any form of teaching about God will cease.

How can you assume that? If the new covenant has been established with one of its definitive conditions conspicuously absent, how can you know that Jesus's death atoned for all sin?

If your understanding of one of its definitive conditions is absent, then sure, but I see no good reason so far to accept your understanding.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #23

I’ve read the passage and discussed specifics in the passage to support my interpretation. Just saying something like “the passage says exactly what I say it says” is just dressing up “I believe,” which we both agree is not a rational argument.

I'm not saying that the passage says what I say it says; I'm saying that it means what it says.

It’s a summary way to refer to what the old covenant was intended to do, help people to know the Lord. The passage speaks of a new covenant, of God working on us from the inside out to know the Lord. That’s the context of this passage, not that any form of teaching about God will cease.

The text of Jeremiah 31:4 says, explicitly and precisely, that every man teaching his neighbor and his brother saying, "Know the Lord" is a form of teaching about God which will cease.

If your understanding of one of its definitive conditions is absent, then sure, but I see no good reason so far to accept your understanding.

Why? Because you're putting the fulfillment of the prophecy on an installment plan to keep from having to admit that it hasn't been fulfilled?

"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." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

If a prophecy isn't fulfilled when a prophet says it is, the presumptuous prophet doesn't get to say, "Well, it's happening----just slowly." If he did, there would be no way to identify a false prophet and Deut. 18:22 would be meaningless because any presumptuous prophet could make the same excuse for any false prophecy and get away with it. Prophecies have to be concise, unambiguous and taken at face value.

[The Tanager]

I’ve read the passage and discussed specifics in the passage to support my interpretation. Just saying something like “the passage says exactly what I say it says” is just dressing up “I believe,” which we both agree is not a rational argument.

I'm not saying that the passage says what I say it says; I'm saying that it means what it says.

That’s the same thing. Show that it means what you say it says. Doing that requires commenting on the context. It's not that you haven't done that some, but you've also responded to my comments with this dressed-up "I believe."

The text of Jeremiah 31:[3]4 says, explicitly and precisely, that every man teaching his neighbor and his brother saying, "Know the Lord" is a form of teaching about God which will cease.

Yes, the teaching that one will know the Lord by following the old covenant perfectly (taught to neighbor and brother through the commandments, sacrifices, etc.) ceases with the new covenant for the contextual reasons I’ve already shared.

If your understanding of one of its definitive conditions is absent, then sure, but I see no good reason so far to accept your understanding.

Why? Because you're putting the fulfillment of the prophecy on an installment plan to keep from having to admit that it hasn't been fulfilled?

I think the prophecy was fulfilled completely. Knowing the Lord, actually living the life we ought, is no longer limited to trying in our own strength to follow the old covenant rules taught to each other, but that God in us empowers us to follow Torah. Yes, we don’t perfectly know/follow the Lord, but the verse doesn’t say sin will cease with the new covenant; it says that forgiveness is eternal.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #25

Show that it means what you say it says.

I don't have to "show" anything. Anyone can read it and see what it says.

Doing that requires commenting on the context.

"No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD."

That's a statement. If the writing is consistent, the context will support the statement. You can't use context to negate a statement.

but you've also responded to my comments with this dressed-up "I believe."

I've responded to your comments with what the text says.

Yes, the teaching that one will know the Lord by following the old covenant perfectly (taught to neighbor and brother through the commandments, sacrifices, etc.) ceases with the new covenant for the contextual reasons I’ve already shared.

But the practice of teaching neighbor and brother saying, "Know the Lord" hasn't ended. Otherwise there wouldn't be any sermonizing, even in a Christian context. And Christian commentary doesn't count as context for the Jewish Bible.

[The Tanager]

I don't have to "show" anything. Anyone can read it and see what it says.

Everyone interprets what it says. I’m doing that. You are doing that. To challenge another’s understanding you must show why you think it means what you say it does; just saying something like my understanding is correct because that’s what the text directly says is dressing up “I believe”.

"No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD."

That's a statement. If the writing is consistent, the context will support the statement. You can't use context to negate a statement.

I didn’t negate the statement. I interpreted what the text is referring to differently than you, with both of us using the actual words of the text.

I've responded to your comments with what the text says.

No, you’ve responded to my comments with what you think the text means by what it says. Just like I have. I have brought in more of the context to support my interpretation, where you have often resorted to dressing up your “I believe” as that’s just what the text says.

But the practice of teaching neighbor and brother saying, "Know the Lord" hasn't ended. Otherwise there wouldn't be any sermonizing, even in a Christian context. And Christian commentary doesn't count as context for the Jewish Bible.

I didn’t appeal to Christian commentary, I addressed the context of the surrounding verses. The teaching isn’t referring to sermonizing, but teaching one to follow the old covenant understanding instead of God within us.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #27

Everyone interprets what it says. I’m doing that. You are doing that. To challenge another’s understanding you must show why you think it means what you say it does; just saying something like my understanding is correct because that’s what the text directly says is dressing up “I believe”.

Okay.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

In how many legitimate ways do you think that can be interpreted?

I didn’t appeal to Christian commentary, I addressed the context of the surrounding verses. The teaching isn’t referring to sermonizing, but teaching one to follow the old covenant understanding instead of God within us.

Does everyone understand "God within us" through Jesus? If so, why are there approximately 33,000 Christian denominations, many of which conflict in doctrine and regard each other as heretical? Does that seem like everyone "knowing the Lord" by having "the law written on their hearts" to you?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #28]

Okay.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

In how many legitimate ways do you think that can be interpreted?

Depends on what you mean by legitimate. There are certainly different interpretations that people will offer that can’t be settled by saying “but the text plainly says X”.

Does everyone understand "God within us" through Jesus? If so, why are there approximately 33,000 Christian denominations, many of which conflict in doctrine and regard each other as heretical? Does that seem like everyone "knowing the Lord" by having "the law written on their hearts" to you?

Some of those denominations regard each other as heretical, but most do not. Most denominational differences are not seen as salvific differences by the large majority of Christians. These differences do not negate that the new covenant is based on forgiveness through the Messiah, not through following the laws in one’s own power.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #29

Depends on what you mean by legitimate. There are certainly different interpretations that people will offer that can’t be settled by saying “but the text plainly says X”.

Then you can't use the Bible to argue for any point.

Some of those denominations regard each other as heretical, but most do not. Most denominational differences are not seen as salvific differences by the large majority of Christians. These differences do not negate that the new covenant is based on forgiveness through the Messiah, not through following the laws in one’s own power.

"Most" and "large majority" don't cut it. The text says that under the new covenant all would know. So unless you're going to argue that it depends on how you interpret "all"......

And back to my original point, the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb could not qualify as a sign to the house of David, since no one witnessed it.