[Replying to otseng in post #3180
When Jesus countermands the law of Moses by saying, "But I say to you: do not swear at all", that has to be taken at face value. There's no way to spin it into allegory. Any attempt to interpret it in a moral sense forces the interpreter to interpret the law being countermanded as immoral. And it must be interpreted in the context of Jesus's own assertion that the law of Moses, which he is here countermanding, is still to be kept down to every jot and tittle. The conflict is unavoidable.
No, the principles of proper hermeneutics explains your "unavoidable conflict".
You make this claim, but you still don't explain how it works out.
The most straight forward reading of what you wrote meant only Israel. You said it was referring to the same thing. Also you did not say "(Israel's and the nations')", but simply "(Israel's)".
I didn't have to say Israel and the nations
. I pointed out that Jeremiah was referring to Israel's redemption and Isaiah was referring to the nations' redemption.
If their interpretation of the Isa 53 is they are the suffering servant (which very few Gentiles either know or believe this), then it would have to be the Jews to point this out to the nations and explain they are the ones that would suffer for them and redeem them. Nobody would be able to figure this out without the Jews teaching them.
If the nations saw all the Jews return to Israel and dwell in peace, no one would have to be told.
Nobody has seen the resurrection, but we can observe the effects of the resurrection.
We can't observe no one any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord", because that hasn't happened.
This is a common argument laid out by skeptics. They say the Bible must hold to some high standard in order for it to be true. But, those standards are not applied to anything else. This is the special pleading fallacy.
It is not special pleading, because not every source claims a divine origin.
The Jewish Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same individual.
For Messianic Jews, they are the same.
Not even they can have a Messiah who countermands the law of Moses while simultaneously endorsing every jot and tittle of it and have him be the same individual.
There are many things Jesus did that deviated from the Jewish traditions.
"Do not add to the law" wasn't just a Jewish tradition. It was a commandment
in the law of Moses
. In the text, Jesus breaks that commandment by prohibiting divorces, remarriages and oath-taking which the law allows.
He was revealing it's not the letter of the law that had to be followed, but the spirit and intention of the law.
Then what's said about the law in Matthew 5:18-19 must have been said by that other
Ultimately, the purpose of anointing was to convey authority granted by God. And we clearly see this occurred during the baptism of Jesus.
Unless those accounts aren't inerrant.
Did the voice from heaven say "This is my beloved son", as Matthew says, or "You are my beloved son" as Mark says?
If they recalled what was said was different, it doesn't matter. The intent and meaning that Jesus is God's beloved son is the same.
Just because they're intended to lead the reader to the same conclusion doesn't mean that the conclusion is correct.
Did his blood end the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"? That's supposed to happen when the new covenant is established.
As Christians, we all have direct access to the Father to know him. In the OT, it required going through a priest to have a relationship with God.
Has having direct access ended the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"?
An act of the United Nations hardly qualifies as a miracle.
That they voted to establish a nation of Israel is a miracle.
No greater miracle than the survivlal of any surviving Native American tribe.
No one is any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord"?
No Christian is telling me "know the Lord".
If you preach to a congregation, then you're
to "know the Lord". Every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening all over the US alone, Christian preachers are "shepherding their flocks", teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord". That's empirical evidence
that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 has not been established.
It's a supernatural [and unwitnessed] claim, so we don't know that it happened.
That's why we have the evidence of the TS. It's not just an unsupported claim, but we have empirical evidence that we can actually see.
We have the evidence that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 has not been established in that Jews [and Christians] are still teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord". And the evidence against the new covenant having been established is stronger than the evidence for the Turin cloth. The latter is a piece of fabric which some people choose to believe bears a miraculous image, assuming that there will never be a way to fully explain it. The new covenant is prophesied in the Bible concretely and in detail, and we can see that the details have not been realized.
Certainly repentance is necessary. But is it possible to keep all the laws after repentance?
According to the Torah, yes.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... -the-torah
As for textual evidence, if they use proper hermeneutics, only then could it be a valid interpretation.
It's being narrowed down. Instead of just hermeneutics, now it's "proper" hermeneutics. How exactly do you determine when hermeneutics is proper and when it's improper? Is it proper when it gives you the answer you want and improper when it doesn't?
Though the Christian interpretation of the Torah, it has solved the dilemma. We are flawed and sin all the time. But though we strive to avoid sin, when we do sin, there is forgiveness of all of our sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
Ezekiel preached the availability of forgiveness, and he didn't even have a temple.
First temple was destroyed around 587 BC. The second temple was completed around 515 BC. This is a gap of 72 years.
The second temple was destroyed at 70 AD. The third temple has not been built yet. This is a gap of 1953 years and counting.
So, it'd be better for Jesus to come before the destruction of the second temple.
Time is irrelevant. After the destruction of the first temple, prophets came preaching that the sacrifice of repentance is acceptable without a temple. If it was acceptable without the first temple, how has it not been acceptable without the second?
If they did present empirical evidence and there were textual evidence in the BoM refuting it, which evidence would you accept?
First present the empirical evidence and we can evaluate that on its own merits. Then we can analyze the textual evidence that attests to it.
This is about textual evidence which refutes
it, like the textual evidence against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, along with the empirical evidence of the new covenant not being established.