The New Covenant

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

yes he did decide to heal the gentile despite not wanting to because he didnt come for the gentiles but just for the jews so in the end he did have mercy on the gentile dog . thatll probabally be what the apologists say is the proof that jesus came to save all humanity because he showed mercy to that gentile dog 

Look that's a completely subjective interpretation. The fact is he didn't turn her away.

what do you mean some of the words were "lost" in translation !? dont you think that if translating means that Gods Word will not be translated perfectly then it shouldnt be translated at all ? a change in 1 word or removal of words can change the entire understanding of the intended message . Isnt adding to or taking away of Gods Word spoken against in the bible?

Hebrew is a very difficult language to read today - and Strong's dictionary is considered a pretty piss-poor one for Hebrew. Although I do note you linked to the Blue Letter dictionary instead (which is much better). But even with a dictionary you really need an OT scholar to tell you what the meaning is for each instance a word is used. You have to remember that many words are spelled the same in Hebrew, but have different meanings and are spoken differently - an English example is minute vs minute. Two completely different words with different meanings, but are spelled the same. In Hebrew there are no vowels, therefore words that would be spelled different with vowels get spelled the same minute reduces to MNT - how many other English words can you make from that? Amenity for example - completely different English word, but spelled the same without vowels. You can also make names such as Monty or Manet.

When I use 'minute' in a sentence, you have to decipher which word it is from the context - and your brain does that pretty well. If I say 'it's a minute detail' then you read it as 'minute', if I say "In 364 days, 17 hours and 20-something minutes you'll have to remember to hold a minutes silence for remembrance day" then you'll read it as 'minute'.

Of course, this goes to prove that GC has no idea what they're talking about: as he's not a Hebrew scholar he has no authority to say what the meaning of the Hebrew usage in each passage is, he needs to go to the experts and quote them. And he might be able to find one or two out there that agree with his opinion that it's a metaphor: however most scholars involved in modern translations of the Bible who have looked at the passages you mentioned did not think that was the case, otherwise they would have translated accordingly.

---

He is right that for some Hebrew words the meaning is not known; and their meaning is generally deciphered from the LXX translation.

That's typical fly crap about arguing over the meaning or use of a word or two in an ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale.  The basic theme is to believe and to obey without exception. 
  
Besides, an English committee wrote it as a joke.  There's no reason to take it seriously.  It makes as much sense as dummies believing in the BS religions that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard created.

[Aractus]

You have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation Wyrd, so go away.

(edit) That is to say this thread isn't a license to come bashing Xians, either post on-topic or make your own thread.

[Drich]

So I was reading my Bible, as I do, and I came across a passage in Jeremiah I'd like to share:


‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord,
    ‘when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,’
        declares the Lord.
‘This is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,’ declares the Lord.
‘I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbour,
    or say to one another, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,’
        declares the Lord.
‘For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.’

                                                              -Jeremiah 31:31-34

As a Christian I'd read this passage before - but never in context. This passage describes, in detail, what the New Covenant is.

It's a covenant between God and Israel/Judah. It is NOT a covenant between God and non-Jews.

It's an unconditional covenant - it doesn't require obedience or belief or any action on behalf of the Jews to receive the knowledge of God and forgiveness from God.

It is made clear this covenant wholly replaces the Mosaic covenant.

So how did Christians get it so wrong? They believe the New Covenant is one made between God and all people through Jesus Christ as the mediator. They believe forgiveness has to be earned in some way (either through repentance, by faith, or by good works depending on the denomination). And they believe in the authority of clergy to teach about God - but God says in this covenant that no one will have to teach about him because he will personally tell all the Jews himself.

However, when Jesus revealed Himself as the promised Davidic King who would restore Israel (Matthew 11—12; Acts 3:19–22), He was rejected by the Jews, exactly as Isaiah had prophesied (Isaiah 52—53). Jesus therefore called His disciples to fulfill Abraham’s commission to bless the nations (Genesis 12:2–3) by preaching the gospel of the Kingdom to all nations until the end of this age (Matthew 28:18–20). Paul thus preached the gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews and was repeatedly rejected (Acts 13—28); in consequence, Paul brought the good news to the Gentiles, who in turn became Abraham’s spiritual seed by faith and heirs of the promises to Abraham and his seed (Galatians 3—4). This is what Paul meant in Romans 11 by the Gentiles being “grafted” into the “olive tree” and nourished by the “root” (the promises to Abraham). The tree thus signifies the collective people of God; the “wild branches” grafted in are Gentile believers; the “natural branches” that are cut off are the Jews in unbelief. Jewish believers remain in the tree but are joined with Gentiles and “made” into a “new body,” the Church (Ephesians 2:11–22).

http://www.gotquestions.org/grafted-Israel.html

So essentially the covenant is with the Jews, 'we' simply get grafted into that covenant.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation Wyrd, so go away.

(edit) That is to say this thread isn't a license to come bashing Xians, either post on-topic or make your own thread.

I was simply responding to your inane comment.  You do have a habit of veering into the wild and when people comment on what you post you get your panties in a twist.

[Aractus]

Because you're uninformed and ignorant, Wyrd. It doesn't matter what the CONTENT of the work is, it's still an interesting work and there's a lot it can tell us about ancient culture and religious belief in the Levant. The fact that you decide to say that scholarship is all "bullshit", just goes to show your clueless knowledge of the subject matter.

Either post intelligibly on-topic or not at all, thank you.

[Minimalist]

You have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation Wyrd, so go away.

(edit) That is to say this thread isn't a license to come bashing Xians, either post on-topic or make your own thread.

All threads are a license to bash xtians.  They are badly in need of thrashing.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Because you're uninformed and ignorant, Wyrd. It doesn't matter what the CONTENT of the work is, it's still an interesting work and there's a lot it can tell us about ancient culture and religious belief in the Levant. The fact that you decide to say that scholarship is all "bullshit", just goes to show your clueless knowledge of the subject matter.

Either post intelligibly on-topic or not at all, thank you.

How can any sane person, such as me,  believe in ethnocentric Middle Eastern religious fairy tales concocted by superstitious twits to fool their fellow ignorant buddies?  There's zero difference between the characters in the Bible and the nitwits in the ISIS movement of today.  Why do you believe in their BS instead of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman BS about their gods?  

The fact is that the English wrote the Bible as a prank to fool the stupid Pope.  The Bible didn't exist before they wrote it.  So any words in it came from them.  

No go a sacrifice a goat and redeem your donkey.

[Vicki Q]

So I was reading my Bible, as I do, ...<snip>... -Jeremiah 31:31-34

As a Christian I'd read this passage before - but never in context. This passage describes, in detail, what the New Covenant is.

It's a covenant between God and Israel/Judah. It is NOT a covenant between God and non-Jews.

It's an unconditional covenant - it doesn't require obedience or belief or any action on behalf of the Jews to receive the knowledge of God and forgiveness from God.

It is made clear this covenant wholly replaces the Mosaic covenant.

So how did Christians get it so wrong? They believe the New Covenant is one made between God and all people through Jesus Christ as the mediator. They believe forgiveness has to be earned in some way (either through repentance, by faith, or by good works depending on the denomination). And they believe in the authority of clergy to teach about God - but God says in this covenant that no one will have to teach about him because he will personally tell all the Jews himself.

Drich pretty much covered the answer, but hopefully it would be helpful if I could look at some specifics. These are questions Paul deals with as follows, if I understand him correctly...

 
Christianity is Judaism. A minority of Judaism in continuity with what has gone before, and redefined in some way (“remnant” is the NT term). What's happened is that the people of God are no longer defined on ethnic grounds, but on following Jesus as Israel's Messiah. It's vaguely similar to the approach taken by a number of contemporary groups e.g. the Qumran community.

This 'opening to all' had always been envisaged as part of the original Abrahamic covenant, and reinforced in a number of OT passages (unlike Drich, I'm too lazy to look them up).

Covenant in Judaism was always taken as a two way process. Obedience to God was a sign that one was within the covenant. There was a clear expectation that someone with God's law in their minds and written on their hearts would show evidence that this was the case.

It's not that forgiveness has to be earned, but that if we are citizens of God's Kingdom, we should behave that way in the present.

The teaching thing is not about individuals teaching knowledge, but, (the preceding verse is an inseparable part of this,) that covenant renewal will involve a transformation of the heart which will include a crucial knowledge of God,

[Aractus]

You're forgetting there are three different versions, and four when you take into account Jeremiah 31:31-34, and five when you take into account the Jerusalem council.

"What's happened is that the people of God are no longer defined on ethnic grounds, but on following Jesus as Israel's Messiah."

No that's not what happened. What happened was that in 50AD, about 20 years after the death of their messiah, the Palestinian Christians held a council in Jerusalem and then voted to change the rules. James the Just decided to write to the Syrian Christians that Paul and Barnabas had been converting, as well as other churches outside of the Levant and to instruct them not to eat of food containing blood, food sacrificed to idols, meat that was strangled, and to abstain from sexual immorality; but that they will not need to keep the rest of the Law or be circumcised.

Paul then sends his own letters within just 2-3 years of this ruling telling the Galatians and the Corinthians (and others) that they can eat of all foods, and not to question it.

So here's what happened, all five versions that we know about:

1. The Pentateuch was written - probably around the 7th century BC. It provided the basis for a religion, and included the Mosaic Law.

2. Then Jeremiah was written, and prophesied the end of the Mosaic Law entirely, and the beginning of the New Covenant which would require nothing of Israelites/Judahites.

3. Jesus came and preached his own message about the true nature of God; and promises that God will keep his promises to those who turn to him in faith.

4. A Council is held 20 years later and determines that the non-Jewish Christians don't have to be circumcised or keep most of the Mosaic Law (in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught).

5. Paul sends letters saying that even more of the Mosaic Law can be ignored; and from c. 64 AD or so the early Christian church in Jerusalem is targeted for persecution by the Romans, and then in 70 AD Jerusalem is completely destroyed by siege, leaving only the gentile churches that Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Luke have been setting up to inherit the governorship over the new religion. From there the beliefs and practises of Christianity shifted further and further from Judaism.

"Covenant in Judaism was always taken as a two way process."

No it wasn't, at least half of the covenants that Jehovah makes in the OT are specifically unconditional. When God promises Abram that his descendants shall inherit all of the land of the Levant to possess forever it is an unconditional covenant. The fact that Jehovah then doesn't keep it is clear evidence that he either doesn't exist; or that he lies when making promises and covenants to his chosen "race" of people.

[Hmmm?]

No that's not what happened. What happened was that in 50AD, about 20 years after the death of their messiah, the Palestinian Christians held a council in Jerusalem and then voted to change the rules. James the Just decided to write to the Syrian Christians that Paul and Barnabas had been converting, as well as other churches outside of the Levant and to instruct them not to eat of food containing blood, food sacrificed to idols, meat that was strangled, and to abstain from sexual immorality; but that they will not need to keep the rest of the Law or be circumcised.

James also mentions in the next verse that the gentiles will learn everything else over time at the synagogue  (Acts 15:21)

I also find it interesting that Peter was so shocked when there came a voice to him and said, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (Acts 10:13)

Apparently Jesus never mentioned to Peter that going into the home of a gentile would be okay.

The meaning of the vision can be found in Acts 10:28 Peter said, God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean...so it appears that the meaning of the vision did not have anything to do with swine's flesh and shell fish. 

I would imagine jews not partaking of those foods would be common knowledge even among the gentiles. Perhaps the reason unclean foods weren't mentioned in the Acts 15:20 dialogue.

(Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16, Deut 31:12)