Leaderboard

The words for mercy seat and propitiation are the same. In Exodus, in the septuagint, the word for mercy seat is: G2435 ἱλαστήριον hilastērion hil-as-tay'-ree-on Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation. Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; The word for propitiation is: G2435 ἱλαστήριον hilastērion hil-as-tay'-ree-on Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation.

angels4u Seeing as no one has given you an answer that you are happy with, I will give my interpretation to consider. I was not going to participate in this conversation, but feel it's wrong to keep it in. Look at the whole context. This particular church or branch of believers that fit into this catagory doesn't appear to be lacking like the other churches or believers. Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. They have little strength because they are getting worn out...but in what way?... read on, the answer is in the next verse; Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Those that say they are Jews, is not speaking of the physical Jews, but of the spiritual Jews. Men claiming to be spiritual Jews (Christians) on the outside, but are not on the inside....they lie pretending to be Christians, or consider themselves as Christians but are not according to Christ. These would reject most of the Truth. Obviously there is a division here. One group is really of the devil, and one has kept Christ's Word of patience and is true. The real spiritual Jews have been patient and trodden on by these proud ones, and Christ will put them in their place when he comes. Remember what Christ said? John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. If a Christian hates his brother, or talks down to him, accusingly, then he is "of the world." In the same category as above, the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. There is only one hour of temptation coming to the whole world, and that is the Mark of the Beast. It is going to try everyone that dwells on the whole earth. Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Hold on to what you've got, stay patient a little longer. Don't crumble. If we are not patient, then we give in to temptation. Temptation to treat and speak to our brothers or any one else in a manner not holy. Temptation to hate or fight back with spite, temptation to bait and trip up and temptation to cause a stir just like the pharisees did in getting people on their side. Can we not see this is history repeating itself today? This is all wickedness. We must not do this dear brothers and sisters, lets examine ourselves to see if we are truly in the Spirit of Christ. We should correct with love and not cause divisions. Use the scriptures to defend, that's our weapon. The truth. To hide behind the skirts of others is shameful. It shows we can't answer or defend the word ourselves because we have no truth in us to personally back up. Therefore we are lacking greatly. Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. Christ wants us to overcome before the storm hits. To get ourselves right with him in our walk. Him that has overcome is the group he has just mentioned. When the door of the ark is closed, they will be inside that ark for protection. They will not go out anymore, and their voices will not be heard because they are inside the ark. To be made a pillar in the temple of God is a great honor. They are on top of that foundation which is solid and can't be removed. The rest are outside the ark. No more chance to learn anything new and grow,... still in the dark, and tribulation awaiting them by going through "the hour of temptation." which will come upon the whole world, including them......The Mark of the Beast. One last chance to prove if they are faithful, not to the end but at the end, but the temptation will be too strong for some, as they wont want to lose their lives. Those that make it through from here by refusing the mark will be purified with fire. That fire did not purify them during their walk, but at the end. They did not heed Christ's warnings when given the opportunity,.....repenting is the key and following strict instructions on how to travel down that narrow path. Now that final fire will be their saving grace. One last chance......see how merciful the Lord is still. So that group that will be kept from the hour of trial/temptation is the 144,000. They will not be raptured but sealed to be protected during the tribulation, because they already overcame before that. They will remain on the earth untouched. Preserved somehow. I don't know how, or where they will be, but the scriptures show that they are here (see 5th trumpet) and cannot be touched. I have mentioned this before with all the evidence of the scriptures that they are not physical Jews, but of course what I pointed out was rejected and written off, which is why no one can put together why there are some Christians spared and the majority are not when that time comes,... hence the many many pre-rapture and post rapture debates. It's there to be solved. Yes some will be spared, you can all see it, but we must be prepared for the worst, to go that full distance for Christ in our hearts and Christ will see that in us, because we don't get to choose who will be spared. Only 144,000 who truly follow the Lamb, alive in the last days will be sealed just before the tribulation. Not many, a very small flock. Not everyone can be included, because most are not qualified or have not overcome, which is disappointing. Revelation 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

John 10:10 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. KJV some miss out on life because of their unbelief and some miss out of life abundantly because of their unbelief. Jesus was the healer of all healers but could NOT heal some for their unbelief. Mark 6:5-6 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. KJV Matt 13:58 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. KJV

God must have two different wills. One for Heaven, one for Earth. Someone should have told Jesus this in Matt 6.

The Mosaic law is one unit, in the Mosaic covenant. One can not pick and choose which laws they will observe for if they do, they are violating the Mosaic covenant. Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deut 12:32 Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it In the OT, the laws are not defined into groups of Priest laws, separation laws or moral laws. To achieve such a division is by personal private interpretation.

i would die from the stress

Cool thought for the day. Thank you, Jade.

The move lowered the level of the Euphrates River and cut water supplies to the areas of Khaldiyah and Habbaniyah to the east, which are some of the last held by pro-government forces in Anbar. The lower water level has also made it easier for IS to carry out attacks, Karhout said. https://news.yahoo.com/closes-iraq-dam-gates-sparking-humanitarian-fears-165705023.html

(Macro) evolution is a chief denomination in the religion of atheism which requires blind faith.

Until we started doing things and / or inventing devices that aid our senses to detect things that exist here but are beyond our ability to naturally detect them... who would have thought white light could have properties of colors that span the rainbow? Or of sounds like the low tones elephants make to communicate over vast distances? Even with devices, man will not be able to detect the spirit realm other than the effects / footprints of its existence even in small amounts like intuition etc.

The metaphoric use of light in scriptures referring to God IMHO is used to teach humanity about his spiritual existence everywhere. Similar metaphors are of the Holy Spirit as wind or breath. That we can sense things with some of our senses that we cannot with other senses we possess to depict a realm beyond all of our physical senses is the point being made. IMHO.

Ok so I have a question. Without doubt there are a number of Jewish beliefs that are accepted in christianity as being correct. This comes from OT and jewish understanding of it. So how do we decide that the Jewish belief is wrong if there is not really anything in the NT to justify declaring them as being wrong? Certainly if a NT passage explains their understanding is wrong then by all means that is good but why do we then say the Jews had no idea about the OT which is after all holy scriptures for Jews and that we understand better? I do have some topics in mind in regards to this however I do not want to mention them as I don't want that clouding peoples views and shaping the discussion plus one of them would be controversial to question the belief. So I would rather people focus on interpretation principles and practice etc.

So much for holi(days) now the government wants holimonths.

~ Yes~! And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5

First of all, you need to differtiate between "Jewish beliefs" (Judaism) and Old Testament Truth (the Word of God). They are not identical since the first is "the traditions of men" and the second is "the Word of God", and Christ already told us that they were worlds apart. The OT is as much Scripture as the NT. However, the Lord Jesus Christ has already given us the spiritual meaning of OT teachings. At the same time, all Scripture is profitable to all Christians, so the OT must be read in the light of the NT. What the Jews did was (1) misunderstand the purpose of the Law, (2) refuse to accept Christ as their King and Savior and be saved, (3) refuse to accept the teachings of Christ and (4) created their own rabbinic traditions which nullified the spirit and the letter of the Law. Had they all believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and been saved, there would be no "Judaism" (which is a rejection of Christ).

Could you expand on this a bit more. I agree blood sacrifices are wrong but I do not see how it is a blood sacrifice. Interesting view that I can't say I have heard before.

The question is how "traditional"? How traditional after they lost contact with God since AD 70? Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE. So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews). At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem. And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end. The second question is, how large is the research base in studying the OT? And is such a research put under God's will? After AD 70, it seems Christians are the ones who seriously studied the contents of OT. Search the word "Hebrew" in chritianbook.com you will notice that there thousands of Hebrew translations and tools as a result of Christian effort in studying the Hebrew documents. On the other hand, the elites of the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, even rabbis etc.) died out in siege of AD 70. Jews were scattered since then. Judaism is more of a hearsay since then. Only the Christian research is in large scale under God's supervision. That's why we have tons of Bible translations, (KJV, NIV and etc.) and commentaries. Ok so lets assume what you have said here is right. It still leads to the question then how do we know the current view is right? If records have been lost and/or destroyed then we can not say the current view is correct. Interesting thing is that very prominent christians including J I Packer & Billy Graham have endorsed the view that life begins with the first breath which was before the 1970's which is when the view that one must believe life begins at conception is the only valid christian view. Why did this view suddenly change in the 1970's? What happened that made people suddenly go from you can believe life begins at conception or first breath to you must believe life begins at conception or you are condemned to hell?

You are not answering my question. You are fighting against wikipedia. wikipedia, The Sadducees rejected the Oral Law as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Torah as the sole source of divine authority.[11] The written law, in its depiction of the priesthood, corroborated the power and enforced the hegemony of the Sadducees in Judean society. The Sadducees and Pharisees were opposing view points. I see wiki as a gloss of the history. During Jesus time, we know the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection while the Pharisees did so their differing views extended beyond just the oral law. The Pharisees had set up synagogues outside of Jerusalem and offered classes in Torah to the Jewish people. The Sadducees were more elitist and did not interact with the people so the Pharisees had the favor of the Jewish people. The explanation of the Oral law was based on the idea that the Torah gave the law but did not explain how to actually keep the law. Such as the Torah said to circumcize but did not explain how. According to the belief in the Oral law/Torah, God explained how to keep the law in more detail to Moses, which was received by Moses orally and passed on orally. So, the Oral law is a further explanation of how do keep the written law. In the Mosaic law, Moses set up additional judges. In the law it says that any questions or conflicts were to be taken to the judges and the decision of the judges was to be obeyed. So, you have the Great Sanhedrin, and also more local judges. If a question or conflict went beyond the basics, it was to be taken to the Great Sanhedrin. What that meant was that the Oral law was incorporated into the decisions of the judges, and I think some of it came from already established decisions of the judges. While the Sadducees opposed the idea of the Oral law, the process established by scripture of the systems of courts and their authority, made some of the Oral law binding biblically. So we have two issues. Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. Moses seat would be the seat of the judges, in the Mosaic law. Jesus was confiming the Mosaic law and saying, you have to obey or observe what they say because they are judges according to the Mosaic law. At the same time, Jesus opposed some of the decisions of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted the Jewish people to obey the Mosaic law, and in teaching in the synagogues would expand the law so that people would not accidently break the law. This is called the fence around the law. Some of the fences went so far as to actually break the law, or caused heavy burdens. Jesus was opposing some of the judges decisions as unbiblical. Just to say it, other times Jesus upheld the judges decisions, and taught it himself. (I say that because I have read some of the writings from Judaism and know of the stand of some Pharisees who lived before Jesus, and know at times Jesus quoted or paraphrased some decisions.)

You are not answering my question. You are fighting against wikipedia. wikipedia, The Sadducees rejected the Oral Law as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Torah as the sole source of divine authority.[11] The written law, in its depiction of the priesthood, corroborated the power and enforced the hegemony of the Sadducees in Judean society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees It only makes sense that the high court (composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees) keeps only the Torah, not the oral law. It also only makes sense that the Pharisees keep the oral law orally. You can't keep something ORAL in a great assembly of both Sadducees and Pharisees with the Sadducees rejecting it.

Wikipedia, The Mishnah was redacted between 180 and 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten. Wikipedia, It was also during this time that the high priesthood - the members of which often identified as Sadducees ...(a situation since 3 century BCE). Priesthood is basically in the hands of the Sadducees. High court is composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees together with others. However, since the Sadducees don't recognize the oral law, most likely the oral law isn't there. The oral law thus becomes the Pharisees' requirements for the Jews in general to follow under the help of rabbis who are responsible for general Jew education. Temples (under the control of Sadducees) may have nothing to do with the oral law. Nor is the high court. Oral law thus is most likely enforced by Pharisees with the help of the rabbis in the form of general Jew education (in mainly the Jerusalem area). In a nutshell, Talmud is an attempt to record down the contents of the oral law (authenticated by Pharisees before 70AD). Talmud is not responsible for recording down concepts developed from or outside the Oral law, such as the point of view of after life and the definition of sheol. Well, I hope that answers your question. 'The Mishnah was redacted between 180 and 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten.' The Talmud contains the views of the Pharisees. (The Talmud contains the Mishnah and the Gemarah). Now according to Pharisaical belief, the Oral law was passed down from Moses: 'Pirkei Avot 1 1 Moses received the Oral law from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly.' The Men of the Great Assembly would be the great assembly after Babylonian captivity. The so called Oral law was kept orally by the Great Sanhedrin, which was headed by the Priest. During Jesus time, the Priesthood came into question and was considered corrupted. The High Priest became more of a political position/financial position..... These of course were the Sadducees. The Sanhedrin had both Sadducees and Pharisees. But, problems grew so the Great Sanhedrin was actually led by two men. Of the list of the Nasi (one of the leaders), some were Pharisees. Included in the list are those from the House of Hillel, which was a school of the Pharisees. There were a couple who were from the House of Shammai, another Pharisaical school. Yavneh was primarily Pharisees who set up a court of judges (bet din) to authorize their decisions. The Great Sanhedrin only met for a short time after the move of the heads of Judaism to Yavneh.

Wikipedia, The Mishnah was redacted between 180 and 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten. Wikipedia, It was also during this time that the high priesthood - the members of which often identified as Sadducees ...(a situation since 3 century BCE). Priesthood is basically in the hands of the Sadducees. High court is composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees together with others. However, since the Sadducees don't recognize the oral law, most likely the oral law isn't there. The oral law thus becomes the Pharisees' requirements for the Jews in general to follow under the help of rabbis who are responsible for general Jew education. Temples (under the control of Sadducees) may have nothing to do with the oral law. Nor is the high court. Oral law thus is most likely enforced by Pharisees with the help of the rabbis in the form of general Jew education (in mainly the Jerusalem area). In a nutshell, Talmud is an attempt to record down the contents of the oral law (authenticated by Pharisees before 70AD). Talmud is not responsible for recording down concepts developed from or outside the Oral law, such as the point of view of after life and the definition of sheol. It is more like a set of moral code you need to follow, instead of recording a school of thoughts about a specific sect. This is natural because the oral law isn't something developed by the Pharisees (they possibly added some rules though), it is originated from Moses. it is about oral LAW (even when rabbi commentaries and Pharisees may be recorded there) not concepts of souls or hell or such. At the same time this won't prevent the development of soul (afterlife) and hell concepts (such as that recorded in the book of Enoch) among a specific sect at a specific time, that is, the Pharisees at Jesus time.

This is a contradiction. They don't need to write it down if it's not facing the danger of losing it. They try to record it down most likely because they can no longer keep it if something isn't written down. So they were losing it because no one (the Pharisees) enforced it any more. Talmud is more of a rabbi stuff, for the purpose of teaching. The true oral law was formally held (and thus defined) by the Pharisees. The Jews were already losing the Pharisee stuff, they have to start the recording from what the rabbis have. It is like, you lost the formal materials and have to fabricate them from the training materials. The elites from both the Pharisee and Sadducee camps should have be gone after AD 70 siege. Later revolts may not be led by the most influential Pharisees and Sadducees (or their successors) living in Jerusalem before the siege. That's actually why most documents (including Mishna) were written by rabbis instead of a Pharisee. If the Pharisees were still there after 70AD, they would have perceived the needs of writing the oral laws down themselves. They wrote it down because the court decisions, and so called Oral law were passed down orally and by tradition by the Priesthood. With no more Temple, no serving Priesthood, and no central leaders, they were concerned that the scattering would cause the knoledge to be lost. There would be no group to transmit the knowledge verbally in training the young men who were going to be priests. Historically, it was the Pharisees who met in Yavneh after 70 ce, and 130 ce, so they continued on and wrote the Mishnah. Yavneh was already a school of learning for Judaism, but became the center of education rather then Jerusalem. For an alternate name for Yavneh, look up Jamnia. We do have the line of important Pharisees recorded in the Talmud. There were two main schools of Pharisees. One faded but we have their writings. The other continued on. Gamaliel the elder, who is mentioned in the NT, had a son who was also in leadership and his son had a son, who continued in leadership. We also have Hillel who lived shortly before Jesus, and his son, and grandson, etc.

This is a contradiction. They don't need to write it down if it's not facing the danger of losing it. They try to record it down most likely because they can no longer keep it if something isn't written down. So they were losing it because no one (the Pharisees) enforced it any more. Talmud is more of a rabbi stuff, for the purpose of teaching. The true oral law was formally held (and thus defined) by the Pharisees. The Jews were already losing the Pharisee stuff, they have to start the recording from what the rabbis have. It is like, you lost the formal materials and have to fabricate them from the training materials. The elites from both the Pharisee and Sadducee camps should have be gone after AD 70 siege. Later revolts may not be led by the most influential Pharisees and Sadducees (or their successors) living in Jerusalem before the siege. That's actually why most documents (including Mishna) were written by rabbis instead of a Pharisee. If the Pharisees were still there after 70AD, they would have perceived the needs of writing the oral laws down themselves.

Let's clarify a bit. Exodus 21:22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. In the OT law, there is a penalty for harming a pre-born baby. While the baby is not treated as a life separate from the mother, it is recognized as having value. If a person hurts a wife, there are penalties paid to the husband for the damage done. The law for hurting a pre-born baby is very similar to hurting a wife. So, while the OT law does not regard the pre-born child as separate from the mother, it is also not valueless, or a just bit of tissue or some random cells. If the pre-born baby is injured, the penalty is of equal value as the injury. Not more and not less. While this is not called murder, it is also not ignored as if it is nothing. that is not as clear as one thinks. Words used in the original can also mean comes out as in birth. So it would then read if the child is born with no damage then fine is paid but if there is further damage after birth then eye for eye etc. That if the baby was not born how would you tell if the damage had been done. I'd just like to point out, although I'm changing the subject here is that there is another reason that abortion is wrong (by that I mean abortion for the sake of it). Technically, it is a blood sacrifice.

The question is how "traditional"? How traditional after they lost contact with God since AD 70? Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE. So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews). At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem. And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end. The second question is, how large is the research base in studying the OT? And is such a research put under God's will? After AD 70, it seems Christians are the ones who seriously studied the contents of OT. Search the word "Hebrew" in chritianbook.com you will notice that there thousands of Hebrew translations and tools as a result of Christian effort in studying the Hebrew documents. On the other hand, the elites of the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, even rabbis etc.) died out in siege of AD 70. Jews were scattered since then. Judaism is more of a hearsay since then. Only the Christian research is in large scale under God's supervision. That's why we have tons of Bible translations, (KJV, NIV and etc.) and commentaries. I would tend to disagree with much of what you wrote. Around 130 ce, there was a revolt in Jerusalem, which resulted in the Jewish people being scattered out of Jerusalem. Many of the leading Pharisees gathered in Yavneh. Without the Temple, the Sadducees who were mainly Priests, lost influence. In Yavneh, a council was held to deal with the loss of the Temple and the scattering. To maintain a consolidated Judaism, they determined that the Oral law (Pharisaical belief), should be recorded, and the decisions of the judges which affected the practice of the Jewish community should also be recorded. The other issue is how to observe the Mosaic law (Judaism), while scattered with no Temple. Clearly, many Mosaic law could not be kept and others would not be kept exactly the same way. The Talmud historically records many of the practices during Jesus time, and approaches how to keep the law with the lack of a Temple and scattered. The Talmud is historical in many ways, is a study of the 'OT' and also carries forward many of the teachings and practices taught by the Pharisees. In the negative, it discusses each law in fine detail, explores varying interpretations, but attempts to 'put a fence around the law' so no one would accidently violate the law. There are discussions on how to treat others, etc. While there are differences between modern Judaism and Temple Judaism, simply because modern Judaism does not have the Temple, one of the losses is that modern Judaism has normalized a Judaism missing the Temple and the Priesthood. There is a tremendous amount of study of the OT in Judaism over the centuries. And the books written by the great teachers for the past 2100 years have been kept and still studied. The men who study, are sincerely seeking to understand the Tenack/OT, and viewed as given by God, so is handled with great respect. Knowledge and study are key hallmarks of Judaism. Jewish youth are taught Hebrew so that they have knowledge in the original language. The belief is that God dictated the 5 books of Moses (Torah) to Moses, so each letter was specifically given by God. The effort to preserve the original is important in Judaism. There are many higher levels of education in Judaism.

The question is how "traditional"? How traditional after they lost contact with God since AD 70? Modern rabbinic teaching is based on Talmud which was only formed (in written form) in 200 ~ 500 CE. And modern Messianic concept is based on Maimonides' idea while he's born in 1135 CE. So there is a gap between the Jewish views in Jesus time and today's Jewish views. Even in Jesus time, the Jewish views of those in Jerusalem may be different from those living outside the Jerusalem area (especially between the Grecian Jews and Hebraic Jews). At that time, there were under 300k Jews living in Jerusalem while there could be 2~3 million in the whole Palestine area. Rabbis at that time were deeply influenced by the 6000 Pharisees (they disappeared after 70 AD). They both were mainly living in Jerusalem. And in 70 AD siege around 1 million Jews were killed (I believe this included most adult men living in Jerusalem). The teachings (and concepts) once driven and enforced by the Pharisees might have come to an end. The second question is, how large is the research base in studying the OT? And is such a research put under God's will? After AD 70, it seems Christians are the ones who seriously studied the contents of OT. Search the word "Hebrew" in chritianbook.com you will notice that there thousands of Hebrew translations and tools as a result of Christian effort in studying the Hebrew documents. On the other hand, the elites of the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, even rabbis etc.) died out in siege of AD 70. Jews were scattered since then. Judaism is more of a hearsay since then. Only the Christian research is in large scale under God's supervision. That's why we have tons of Bible translations, (KJV, NIV and etc.) and commentaries.

Let's clarify a bit. Exodus 21:22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. In the OT law, there is a penalty for harming a pre-born baby. While the baby is not treated as a life separate from the mother, it is recognized as having value. If a person hurts a wife, there are penalties paid to the husband for the damage done. The law for hurting a pre-born baby is very similar to hurting a wife. So, while the OT law does not regard the pre-born child as separate from the mother, it is also not valueless, or a just bit of tissue or some random cells. If the pre-born baby is injured, the penalty is of equal value as the injury. Not more and not less. While this is not called murder, it is also not ignored as if it is nothing. that is not as clear as one thinks. Words used in the original can also mean comes out as in birth. So it would then read if the child is born with no damage then fine is paid but if there is further damage after birth then eye for eye etc. That if the baby was not born how would you tell if the damage had been done.

Let's clarify a bit. Exodus 21:22“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. In the OT law, there is a penalty for harming a pre-born baby. While the baby is not treated as a life separate from the mother, it is recognized as having value. If a person hurts a wife, there are penalties paid to the husband for the damage done. The law for hurting a pre-born baby is very similar to hurting a wife. So, while the OT law does not regard the pre-born child as separate from the mother, it is also not valueless, or a just bit of tissue or some random cells. If the pre-born baby is injured, the penalty is of equal value as the injury. Not more and not less. While this is not called murder, it is also not ignored as if it is nothing.

Beautiful post.

and how do we know we are? Can you provide a link or something to support the view that they are born one year old please. Thanks.

In ancient Israel, life always began at conception. A new born was counted as one year old just out of the womb. Traditional Jewish belief TODAY may say something different. But it is important to understand that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament. It is an adjustment to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. So if modern Judaism is claiming that life only begins when one is born, they would factually wrong. Just because they can cite a Scripture doesn't mean that they are using or applying that Scripture properly. Modern Orthodox Judaism does not regard the pre-born baby as separate from the mother. The reasoning is that if a person pushes the mother causing a miscarriage the punishment does not result in a charge of murder. The person who caused the miscarriage or death of the pre-born baby must pay a penalty fee. Orthodox Judaism opposes abortion because it goes against the command to be fruitful and multiply. They do not regard abortion to be murder because the Mosaic law does not consider it murder. Abortion is an accepted option, if the life of the mother is at risk. While ancient Judaism and todays Orthodox Judaism recognized that life begins at conception, the 8th day circumcision is from birth. Obviously not conception.

I haven't really been able to think of a good way of phrasing but I will ask one question all the same! So traditional Jewish belief is that life begins with the first breath. This is referred to in genesis, job, ezekial & psalms. So why do christians use the OT to say no that is wrong. What specifically is it that causes christians to say the jewish view is clearly a misunderstanding?

Perhaps i am wrong Another_Poster, but I think you are thinking of the Law of Liberty. 16) Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day, or of the new-moon, or of the Sabbaths. 17) Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17 From the above passage we see that much of the law was given to bring us to Jesus Christ. If one reads Galatians 3:22-29, we see that the Law was our Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ Jesus. Under Christ many of things that our commanded by the Law are put under the law of liberty or freedom. James 1:25; James 2:12. The two things that aren't most definitely not to change are to love God and our neighbor, Matthew 22:37-40, 13) For, brethren, ye have been called to liberty; only use not this liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 15) But if ye bite and devour one another one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one by another. Galatians 5:13-15 Paul gives us a clue as to what part of the Old Testament speaks to loving, see Romans 13:8-10.

Just to make it clear no this was not my question. Hey poster, I have no idea what you were trying to ask. I was merely speculating. If you are able to put down your thoughts in words I will be happy to review it. My wife is Messianic and knows a lot about both cultures. Our good friends are Jewish and born again so they can provide insight too if need be. So go ahead and lay what is on your heart out here. Cheers

Blessings another_poster There is a really cool bunch of our Brethren here on this thread,they are not apt to turn anything into a debate & are not argumentative ....we do "reason together",listen & discuss and if any of us get a little "off" ,there is usually one to remind each other to get out of the "flesh" & back in Spirit.............I would not want anyone to feel they have to "walk on eggs" when talking with one another,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Worthy is not as most"Christian circles" or "websites,it is a Blessed Ministry...............to God be the Glory,you are amongst friends,united by our Faith With love-in Christ,Kwik

The Gentiles Christians were not expelled. The explanation of the same way to salvation and how one is saved, is expressing an equality in Jesus/Yeshua, of both Jews and Gentiles. Just being Jewish does not earn any form of salvation, but Jews and Gentiles are sinners and the way to salvation is Jesus. Historically, it is known that the Jewish people were expelled from Rome and it appears in scripture as well. Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them. 3 So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. The Jews were expelled from about 49 ce and returned around 54 ce. We see in the book of Romans, the Priscilla and Aquila had returned to Rome. Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. The book of Romans, more then any other book, spends chapters explaining the relationship between Israel and Gentile Christians. He explains the difference between Israel and the Church and emphasizes the equality of Jewish and Gentile believers. Even in Chapter 1, he explains that the gospel is to the Jew first, and also the Gentile. In chapter 2, Paul addresses Jewish identity. In Chapter 3, Paul asks if there is any advantage to being a Jew. In chapter 14, he deals with Jewish dietary laws and in 15 he explains the relationship between the church and Israel. Of course there are 3 chapters entirely dedicated to the Jewish/Gentile issue, in which he warns the Gentile believers not to boast against Israel.

Hi all. I will try and think of a better way to phrase my question and examples that are not likely to cause heated debate. I really don't want to start heated debates but rather civil discussion where people listen. Certain areas that I'm thinking of would lead to heated discussion just for mentioning in most christian circles hence my reluctance to bring it up.

Just to make it clear no this was not my question.

"so let me ask you before i commit to such an endeavor. do you believe Jesus was present in the OT scriptures, and was central to the hebrew faith? or do you think Jesus only came to exist at the time of the miraculous conception?" Excellent question. Yes, I believe Yeshua was present in the OT as the physical manifestation of God, for instance, every time a man figure showed up, like the Angel of the Lord (visiting Abraham, walking with Adam, etc) I believe that was Yeshua. I'm still dubious as to how the Jews perceived him because I believe He did not become the Son until he came down from Heaven through Mary. I really do not know that when they believed in God this meant they believed in the trinity aspect of God. So, did the Jews know about the trinity? Heck, many people today, even believers, struggle with knowing this. I suspect they didn't understand this because they always said, "the lord God is one...." Lots of thoughts I have. Oh, and Fyi, I'm more interested in reading your thoughts and words than debating this with you. I don't need to win debates to feel good about myself. I truly am open here but like I said, it's not. BIG issue to settle.

No rush and I have no desire to research this topic (not in my priority list of topics to research). I feel secure in what I think, so unless someone persuades me otherwise, I'm okay with what I think is accurate. I also have no problem saying these words- "we will have to agree to disagree...." Enjoy your family.

Hello Qnts2: I think we can agree on most of what you said. I don't find anywhere in the Book of Romans that Paul said there was a conflict between the returning Jews and the Christians in a church assembly. I do know that in 49 A.D. Claudius expelled the Jews (and of course not knowing there was a difference, he expelled the Christians also. We see this with Aquila with his wife Priscilla in Acts 18:2.) The return of the Jews to Rome was around 54 A.D. and Paul wrote Romans around 57 A.D. Do you think this "strife" was going on for three years there in Rome between the Christians and the returning Jews? We find the "theme" of Romans in Ro.1:16,17-- The gospel is God's Power for salvation. The letter to the Romans above everything else is an explanation of how God justifies the sinner. The verb in Greek for "justify" is dikanoo. In Romans it is used 14 times and in Galatians 8 times. In the rest of the N.T. it is only used 14 times. So, this is what we are dealing with in Romans. I am not sure what you mean "that Gentiles wouldn't let the Jews have an 'equal' place in the church." You may be correct in the divisions upon the return, but I can't find it in Paul's writing(s). thanks for your input, In Christ, charlesj

salvation was ALWAYS based on the messiah. in the OT days, it was based on the belief in the coming messiah. in the NT days, it is based on the knowledge that the messiah has come. non-messianic jews who do not believe that Jesus is the messiah are as yet unsaved... because belief that Jesus is who He says He is is imperitive for salvation. Greetings LadyC, Hmmmmm. Passages like these seem to contradict what you said-Genesis 15:6: 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I [am] the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. Because what you said doesn't stick with me, you are going to have to persuade me that what you said is the truth. So, If you don't mind at your convenience I would like to read some references in the OT that alludes to what you said- salvation in the ot is based on believing in the coming messiah rather than on believing in God as I cited from Genesis. Thanks, Spock

It is really so simple, but so many miss the idea that the book of Romans is written alternately to Gentile believers and Jewish believers, who are having a conflict. Who is a true Jew? A Jewish person who believes on Yeshua/Jesus. True Jew is another way of saying a saved Jew by faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. Paul is explaining the difference between an unsaved Jew and a saved Jew. In scripture, and unsaved Jew is still called a Jew. And no where in scripture is a Gentile ever called a Jew. So, your reference fails to understand the discussion in Romans. No where are the unsaved Jews addressed directly. This is a letter to the church, dealing with a misunderstanding of believing Gentiles concerning the place of Jews and differences between unsaved Jews and saved Jews. (Romans is answering question after the Jewish people both saved and unsaved were expelled from Rome, and later allowed to return. Upon return, the Gentile believers were not allowing the Jewish believers an equal place in the church)

Hello Shiloh: Paul deals with the Gentiles in Romans 1 and tells them they are sinners. Paul then deals with the Jews in Romans 2 and tells them they are sinners. In Romans 3:9 Paul says both "Jew and Gentile" are under sin and in verse 23 Paul concludes and tells them "ALL HAVE SINNED", that is, both Jew and Gentile are sinners. In Romans 2:28,29: "Four things, Paul says, will allow us to recognize a true Jew in God's sight: 1. He does not emphasize outward and external signs (v.28) 2. His heart has been circumcised (revealed before God) (v.29) 3. The Spirit's knife ("the word of God"; Heb 4:12) has performed the circumcision on the heart (v. 29) 4. God's praise drowns out the "praise" of men (v.29) Continuing the diatribe format which he began in 2:1, Paul now moves to raise and answer the objections which he knew would flow from his Jewish readers in Rome. After all, he has just dismantled the superstructure of the Jewish religion -- in the name of the gospel." Boa, K., & Kruidenier, W. (2000) Romans (Vol. 6, p.85), Nashville, Tn:Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ. It is when we discover that we can't perfectly obey the law and that we need Christ to change our attitudes, that we turn to His indwelling Spirit to enable us to follow Him and fill us with His loving compassion. At this point we change from striving to keep the 10 commandments and even all the dietary and social laws, to keeping the law of love which Jesus says fulfills all the law. We stop trying to be right and start demonstrating His love to others. Jesus fullfilled the law perfectly on our behalf and conferred His rightousness on us when He took upon Himself our sins, so that we stand righteous and justified before God by faith, according to the law. According to practice, we practice the law of merciful love. As far as the Hebraic form of worship, it's feasts are a picture of all that Christ did and will do for us, and a mirror of God's temple in heaven.

Hello Shiloh: There is a lot of information on the web about the people in Israel. As far as being "anti-Semitic" I don't think I have a drop of anti-Semitism in my blood, hope not. When I hear someone say something like this (anti-Semitic) I think of Al Sharpton sticking his head out of the sand when a Republican says something, no matter what, Sharpton will scream RACIST! LOL There is a good article on Huffington Post: regarding what I am talking about "mixed marriages" in Israel. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/Israel-civil-marriage-ban_n_3429764.html God made a covenant with the 'house of Israel" (a remnant of Jews) when Jesus was on earth. We call it the New Covenant, but if you look at the Greek word it is "kainos" it means "fresh." The Greek for new is "neo" and not "kainos." I believe that this fresh covenant is a restoration of the Davidic Covenant. (Ps 89:27ff) Under this fresh covenant with the house of Israel the real Jew is the one "not circumcised in the flesh, but circumcised of the heart." (Rom 2:28,29.) I love those fleshly people in Israel like I do any other nation of people. Like other nations, the fleshly Jew MUST come to Jesus (Yeshua) for their salvation. Yeshua is coming back to destroy "...those who know not God and those that don't OBEY the gospel." 2Thes 1:8 My question to you is "what is the gospel?" And "how do you obey it?" (many priests, sons of Aaron, OBEYED the gospel, Acts 6:7) If you get a chance, read the book "Muscle and a Shovel" by Mikael Shank. The book is very easy to read. Over 15,000 people have come to Christ after reading it and 44 women prison inmates, after reading the book, confessed Christ and were baptized. The book is a very good evangelistic tool. Your servant in Christ, Charlesj .

Hey Kwik, Regarding salvation: I wonder if the original poster was asking, is it possible for a Jew, who trusts in God, BUT DOES NOT ACCEPT Yeshua as the Messiah, for that person to be saved. I suppose one could make a case that salvation according to the OT was more than believing in Yeshua as Messiah since it was not clear who Yeshua was other than prophecies about his coming. I suppose a saved Jew before CHRIST was one who believed in God, apart from CHRIST. We know Yeshua is God the son so how can you believe in God today but not believe in God the son? It seems unlikely today you could believe in God without also believing in his son. But I wonder if he is asking this. Can there be devout Jews today who follow Torah religiously but have been blinded to the truth, can they be saved like it was in OT times?

Blessings another_poster I am not sure what it is you are asking,as Shiloh said ,,,,your OP is quite broad "for now"-lol,,,,I trust you will get more specific & narrow it down for us...... The only thing I would like to say,& I suppose it is just my opinion but other than the belief that lineage or legalism would be any requirements for Salvation I really cannot see that holding to customs or traditions could ever be "wrong".......I know many Messianic Jews that are Saved & know very well that it is through their faith in Jesus that they have received Gods Grace & yet they still celebrate the feasts & hold on to many Hebrew Traditions,I do not see anything wrong & I would think it is very pleasing to God to be Honored so beautifully.......................Praise & Glory to God With love-in Christ,Kwik

another_post: So, what do you have in mind about "Jewish beliefs?" Are you speaking of the Jewish prophets (16 prophets of the O.T.) or are you speaking of the Jews (the street people who say they are Jews)? (We (and they) don't know from which tribe they are from due to God destroying their genealogies in 70 A.D. From what I've read, 2/3's of the people in Jerusalem are descendants from Europe that became Jews and are not from the race of Jews. These Europeans became Jews by circumcision and obeying the law of Moses. In 1970 the state of Israel passed a law that in order for you to be a Jew your mother has be of the Jewish race. Your servant in Christ, charlesj

Is there a "Neither" choice?