The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[bluethread]

Thank you for allowing me to edit my prior post #37

Also, if there is "no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood", why then did Jesus preach the forgiveness of sin with no mention of the need for the shedding of blood? In these important instances:

-The Lord's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables, especially the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the Parable of the Phraisee and the Publican.

That is because author of the letter to the diaspora was explaining proper theology using the elements of the Temple. It makes the transition from ritual to idiom. The "shedding of blood" is idiomatic of the sacrifice, and the sacrifice is emblematic of personal sacrifice and the Covenant relationship.

Why did Jesus and the Prophet Hosea say "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". Notice the line is not "I desire mercy as well as sacrifice" Or "in additon to" sacrifice, or "and" sacrifice.

The ritual sacrifice is a means to an end. The purpose, which was from the beginning, was merciful halachah(lifestyle). The sacrifices were instituted for two reasons. First, as part of the covenant ritual of the times. That is the one who breaks the covenant becomes like the sacrifice. Second, as a symbolic reminder of that fact in three forms: the burnt offering, a direct reminder; the sin offering, a specific reminder; and the fellowship offering, a reminder as a community. This ritual "shedding of blood" was necessary to impress upon us the importance of the figurative and literal "shedding of blood" for one another, in our lives as a community. When the ritual became the focus rather than the reminder, it lost it's value. Therefore, Adonai said, (Is. 1:1) “The multitude of YOUR sacrifices— what are they to me?� It was better that we have no ritual sacrifices, if they were just going to be seen as a means of excusing ourselves from the figurative band literal sacrifices in our lives.

(Edited from earlier post to properly align the concepts of ritual, figurative and literal.)

And why did John perform "baptism's of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" without sending his disciples to the Temple? There was no bloodshed at the River.

Now, you are conflating the mikvah(baptism) and the sacrifice. Those are tw different things. There is no commandment that requires a mikvah to be performed at the Temple. That was instituted by the Temple priests as a fence. That is why they went out to enquire of Yochannan as to why he was performing mikvot.

Yes, of course Jesus considered a sacrificial life important. But a cornerstone of his ministry was to (as 1213 often points out) to proclaim and declare the Father's forgiveness. He did this in life, in his ministry on earth, before he seems to have been aware of his impending crucifixion.

Could it be there was a process of Spiritual evolution going on here? That the ancient Hebrews were outgrowing the need to worship God (and show their devotion) by means of blood sacrifice? That the Prophets, including the Baptizer, and Jesus were spearheading this awakening? That the Father never desired, but only tolerated blood sacrifice as transitional, from pagan tinged practice, to more enlightened worship of God?

Independent of Jesus and John, this seems to be what the sage Maimonides had taught.

I noticed that in Tim Hegg's commentary on last weeks Torah portion, though Hegg just metioned it in passing and did not really elaberate as you have done. I think this veiw has some merit, primarily because the covenant sacrifice was not instituted by Avraham, but was common Hittite practice. However, the fact that it works so well as cultural symbolism makes me a bit reluctant to take that view.

Or do you think Jews, who no longer practice blood sacrifice, (nor accept Jesus as a sin offering) are unforgiven and their devotion (without the shedding of blood) is in vain?

Well, there is ongoing disagreement on why the Temple was destroyed. Was it do to cultural evolution or our tendency to seperate itual from practice. This is a very important discussion, because if one accepts the cultural evolution argument, how does one then oppose replacement theology, i.e. the replacement of HaTorah with Christian doctrine. There is way too much of the Apostolic Writings(NT) that can only be justified by referring to HaTorah, for this to work IMO. Also, there is the problem of sacrifices being spoken of in relation to the future kingdom.

Since, there is no Temple at this time, this is all rather academic. However, it does provide the critics an opportunity to find fault on humane grounds. Many draw back when that argument is presented, however, I think that is not wise. I think it is best to stand one's ground and note that humane morality is a rather modern notion. Rabbinic tradition has embraced the concept of limited harm, but that does not mean absolutely no harm. Most of those who make the humane argument have no problem with the killing of animals for the sake of personal comfort, i.e. food and clothing. In fact, the Humane Society advocates the killing of animals for animal control. So, the humane argument seems rather hypocritical.

Again, thank you for allowing me to finish my post.

[bluethread]

Did I miss anything BT?

Yes, you did well. I will only add a justification for the use of these terms for Manta. This is the TD&D forum, so a certain amount of achedemic discipline is called for. For example, people imply RCC doctrine, without explanation, quite often here. On other forums I do use these terms on occasion, primarily to avoid the use of common terms that carry connotations from modern culture. That is not due to cultural snobbery, but because it is often presumed that I hold to RCC/protestant views. By using Hebrew terms, I hope to at least denote that those are not my views, even if the casual reader does not understand the Hebraic viewpoint.

Some examples.

HaTorah(first five or general scriptures), Tanakh(OT) and Apostolic Writings(NT).

I use these terms instead of the "Old Testament" and "New Testament", because this is old/new designation is artificial and based on a misunderstanding of the "new Covenant". I do not believe in the RCC/Protestant view of replacement theology, but see the writings of the Yeshua's Talmudim(Disciples) as simply a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures. By the way, I like to use the name Yeshua, because J-e-s-u-s has no real meaning. Any meaning associated with it is derived from RCC/Protestant doctrine. Also, I do not use the phrases Hebrew Bible or Jewish Bible, because it again tends to artificially divide what I consider to be an unbroken tradition.


Elohim - I use this term in place of God, because "god" is an entirely Nordic term and did not become popular until the Scriptures were translated into the common tongue. It also seems to be derived from one or more of the Nordic deities.

HaMeshiach - I do not use this term much here. On the few occasions where it is necessary to refer to the concept of a savior, I avoid using the Greek term Christ, do to the RCC/Protestant baggage that goes with that term.

Halachah,HaShem, and Mtzvot - Generally, I explain these terms when I use them, unless I believe that it is understood by the person I happen to be talking with. In this case of Elijah John , I presumed that he was familiar with these terms.

Adonai - I use this term in place of Lord, because "Lord" did not become popular until the Scriptures were translated into the common tongue. It also is deeply rooted into Anglo/Saxon culture and has been extensively infused with connotation from the RCC/Protestant traditions.

The problem with creating a separate forum in this regard is the same problem that the early beleivers had. Those in a Jewish form would probably not want theological issue related to Yeshua considered as part of their views, while Christians are resistent to Hebraic culture. In fact that is why the early believers were called "Christians" to begin with. The rabbinic Jews wished to associate the followers of Yeshua with the Greeks, so they liked the the idea of a Greek term to refer to them. At the same time, the Greeks liked the idea of associating them with the rabbinic Jews, so they used a term that referred to the idea of a savior. Thus , they were excluded from both societies. So, creating a forum for those who hold to both the teachings of the Tanakh and those of Yeshua only serves to isolate that kind of theology from the others.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

Your usage of Hebraic terminology, as well as your perspective is refreshing and thought provoking. Your approach transcends cliché, orthodoxy and indoctrination.

And your concluding paragraph here answers questions I had about why use the terminology, while Judaism itself does not recognize Yahshua as even a good Rabbi, the Messiah or for that matter, a Prophet.

Ironic that Muslims,( whose beliefs Evangelicals often denigrate saying they worship a "different god"), accept Jesus (Issa) as Messiah to the Jews, and God's 2nd most important prophet for all. Islam even recognizes Jesus virgin birth and teaches that Jesus will preside over the Apocalypse!

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

Your usage of Hebraic terminology, as well as your perspective is refreshing and thought provoking. Your approach transcends cliché, orthodoxy and indoctrination.

And your concluding paragraph here answers questions I had about why use the terminology, while Judaism itself does not recognize Yahshua as even a good Rabbi, the Messiah or for that matter, a Prophet.

Ironic that Muslims,( whose beliefs Evangelicals often denigrate saying they worship a "different god"), accept Jesus (Issa) as Messiah to the Jews, and God's 2nd most important prophet for all. Islam even recognizes Jesus virgin birth and teaches that Jesus will preside over the Apocalypse!

Thank you, I have always been an "unorthodox" individual, even though my views are often more aligned with orthodox Judaism than they are with mainline Christianity. I think this might be because, like Yeshua, I had no particular rabbi or spiritual leader. This may have occurred, because, unlike Yeshua, I received no guidance from my parents. Yeshua chose Adonai above His parents, I chose Adonai in lieu of my parents. This has required me to wrestle with Adonai, a la Yacov. It is my hope that I have prevailed. That said, if that is the case, it is only a matter of Adonai following Jordan Peterson's observation of the stronger permitting the weaker to win 30% of the time in order to maintain interest.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

Your usage of Hebraic terminology, as well as your perspective is refreshing and thought provoking. Your approach transcends cliché, orthodoxy and indoctrination.

And your concluding paragraph here answers questions I had about why use the terminology, while Judaism itself does not recognize Yahshua as even a good Rabbi, the Messiah or for that matter, a Prophet.

Ironic that Muslims,( whose beliefs Evangelicals often denigrate saying they worship a "different god"), accept Jesus (Issa) as Messiah to the Jews, and God's 2nd most important prophet for all. Islam even recognizes Jesus virgin birth and teaches that Jesus will preside over the Apocalypse!

Thank you, I have always been an "unorthodox" individual, even though my views are often more aligned with orthodox Judaism than they are with mainline Christianity. I think this might be because, like Yeshua, I had no particular rabbi or spiritual leader. This may have occurred, because, unlike Yeshua, I received no guidance from my parents. Yeshua chose Adonai above His parents, I chose Adonai in lieu of my parents. This has required me to wrestle with Adonai, a la Yacov. It is my hope that I have prevailed. That said, if that is the case, it is only a matter of Adonai following Jordan Peterson's observation of the stronger permitting the weaker to win 30% of the time in order to maintain interest.

Aligned with Orthodox Judaism, that is, except for the part about their complete disavolwal and denuciation of Jesus and his followers as "anathema", right? And, I believe, Judaism has even higher disregard for Paul.

Personally, I embrace Jesus as my Prophet and my Rabbi, and am convinced that he believed in, and taught absolute, Shema Monotheism and not Trinitarianism.

[bluethread]

Aligned with Orthodox Judaism, that is, except for the part about their complete disavolwal and denuciation of Jesus and his followers as "anathema", right? And, I believe, Judaism has even higher disregard for Paul.

Personally, I embrace Jesus as my Prophet and my Rabbi, and am convinced that he believed in, and taught absolute, Shema Monotheism and not Trinitarianism.

That is right. I stated that as a comparative. I am not an adherent of Orthodox Judaism. However, I encourage all Jews to practice Orthodox Judaism, because, in spite of their rejection of Yeshua and Paul, their practice is the most likely to bring them to a proper understanding of Yeshua. There are orthodox who do not denounce Yeshua and His followers as "anathema". Ben Shapiro being one. I think it is mostly the RCC teachings and Evangelical Penticostalism that drives most of the resistance to Yeshua, most notably trinitarianism. On that latter issue, I am a bit of a mystic. I do not seen trinitarianism as in line with the Scriptures. Yet, I do see Yeshua as the embodiment of Adonai, limited to the capabilities of a human. I do not accept Modalism, either, because I think that Adonai was still in His place, when Yeshua was on earth. It might be a Flatland situation, if you know what I mean. Regardless, I see it as a mystery.

[Elijah John]

Aligned with Orthodox Judaism, that is, except for the part about their complete disavolwal and denuciation of Jesus and his followers as "anathema", right? And, I believe, Judaism has even higher disregard for Paul.

Personally, I embrace Jesus as my Prophet and my Rabbi, and am convinced that he believed in, and taught absolute, Shema Monotheism and not Trinitarianism.

That is right. I stated that as a comparative. I am not an adherent of Orthodox Judaism. However, I encourage all Jews to practice Orthodox Judaism, because, in spite of their rejection of Yeshua and Paul, their practice is the most likely to bring them to a proper understanding of Yeshua. There are orthodox who do not denounce Yeshua and His followers as "anathema". Ben Shapiro being one. I think it is mostly the RCC teachings and Evangelical Penticostalism that drives most of the resistance to Yeshua, most notably trinitarianism. On that latter issue, I am a bit of a mystic. I do not seen trinitarianism as in line with the Scriptures. Yet, I do see Yeshua as the embodiment of Adonai, limited to the capabilities of a human. I do not accept Modalism, either, because I think that Adonai was still in His place, when Yeshua was on earth. It might be a Flatland situation, if you know what I mean. Regardless, I see it as a mystery.

I'm a big fan of Ben Shapiro, and his quest to defend the right of free speech. And I like that the Orthodox abide by conservative, traditonal values. The Jewish authors I have read, however, do not see Yahshua as a good adherant of the Law. But where he differs with Jewish Orthodoxy, I most often side with Yahshua, that is why I consider him my "Rabbi". Especially with his de-emphasis of divisive purity laws in favor of purity of heart. I say "divisive" because they often caused people to be considered "unclean" (lepers etc) and outcast.

Yahshua as the embodiment of YHVH? I can see that. Insomuch as we are all created with the Divine spark, made in the image of Elohim. Or as Paul might say, we are Temples of the Holy Spirit. But the image of God shone brightest in Jesus, as he was more obedient and conformed to the will of God than any of the rest of us. In this way I see Jesus as the Son of God, but in such a way that all who love God are children of God. The difference between Jesus and us is one of degree, not one of substance or kind. But I differ with orthodoxy in that I do not see Jesus as the 2nd person of any Trinity, nor do I see him as uncreated and eternal.

[bluethread]

I'm a big fan of Ben Shapiro, and his quest to defend the right of free speech. And I like that the Orthodox abide by conservative, traditonal values. The Jewish authors I have read, however, do not see Yahshua as a good adherant of the Law. But where he differs with Jewish Orthodoxy, I most often side with Yahshua, that is why I consider him my "Rabbi". Especially with his de-emphasis of divisive purity laws in favor of purity of heart. I say "divisive" because they often caused people to be considered "unclean" (lepers etc) and outcast.

Well, that stems from a misunderstanding of what "unclean" means. Many think that it means the same thing as reprehensible or at least unhealthy. However, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with being unacceptable for a particular purpose, i.e. entrance into the Temple. That improper understanding may apply to the singular case of lepers, however, one is not precluded from rendering assistance. In fact, the priest is required to inspect the leper. The quarantine makes sense, but the only ramifications related to rendering assistance is short term access to the Temple.

Yahshua as the embodiment of YHVH? I can see that. Insomuch as we are all created with the Divine spark, made in the image of Elohim. Or as Paul might say, we are Temples of the Holy Spirit. But the image of God shone brightest in Jesus, as he was more obedient and conformed to the will of God than any of the rest of us. In this way I see Jesus as the Son of God, but in such a way that all who love God are children of God. The difference between Jesus and us is one of degree, not one of substance or kind. But I differ with orthodoxy in that I do not see Jesus as the 2nd person of any Trinity, nor do I see him as uncreated and eternal.

Well, that sounds like a reasonable view, but I am still not sure that is quite right. Mind you, I am not saying I know how it works. I am just not willing to take a definitive stand on how it works.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 35 by Monta]

There is a group of Christians that believe it is more appropriate to mix English with transliterated Hebrew words and names when it comes to the bible. The argument is that mixing languages is more accurate because this renders the word closer to the source language (Hebrew) although I personally think its just more confusing; especially when the word or name has a widely recognizable English equivalent.

I don't think that there is any biblical evidence Jesus mixed the commonly spoken Aramaic with ancient Hebrew, nor outside of the Divine name, that the bible writers mixed Greek with Hebrew. (I'm not sure if those that tend to mix English with Hebrew accept the 'New Testament' ).
JW

Thank you for this explanation. It clarifies many things.
Agree with you it is confusing. If some want to go this path feel free and share it with likeminded people.
I had not heard these add-on names in any Church I've been to.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

" So, creating a forum for those who hold to both the teachings of the Tanakh and those of Yeshua only serves to isolate that kind of theology from the others."

But the 'others' don't know what you are talking about.

By doing it your way, it brings confusion to people like me who have never been exposed to these terms.

Jesus said, 'this is a New Covenant in my blood which is shed for many'. He did not continue with Old, He was the beginning of the New. The writers of the Epistles did not use any Hebraic names when addressing their followers who would have been Jewish. No objection no confusion.