The New Covenant

[Vicki Q]

You're forgetting there are three different versions,

<snip>

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.

There's a lot I would find hard to disagree with here; that's pretty much standard Xian fare, all as a development of a story. However we need to examine Peter's reasoning immediately before the food announcement, as I don't think you've appreciated the nature of Torah in his statement:

Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

He was replying to the Pharisaic bloc claim that the Law of Moses needed to be kept, and saying in effect, “No it doesn't!”. And the reason given is that a key role for Torah- a mechanism by which justification/forgiveness can be obtained- is no longer the case.

Torah wasn't just a random set of rules which were a pain to keep. It was a narrative, a means of identifying sin, a means of condemning sin, a nanny for Israel, a means of demarcating Judaism, a badge of privilege, a means by which the restoration could be achieved, a means of getting life...

Jesus himself had said that Torah remains in place until “all is accomplished”, but that he came to fulfil it (bring the Covenant to a successful conclusion). All the above purposes become so last year.

The Council inevitably decided that Torah no longer had relevance post-Jesus, because all that was done. The revised way to follow God involved allegiance to Jesus (who had declared all foods clean, BTW).

Therefore the requirements of Torah were not put upon the Gentiles, and those food rules that get mentioned were, AIUI, merely pragmatic ones for avoiding avoidable Jewish/Gentile problems (e.g. Paul writes about refraining from meat sacrificed to idols as a way of avoiding unnecessary conscience infringement). They certainly have nothing to do with Mosaic Torah, because that phase of the narrative was over.

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

The promise to Abraham was, “by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”. A very strange and peculiar promise to make that almost defies interpretation before the event.

Job done.

[Aractus]

Jeremiah prophesied a 'new covenant' that never came to pass. Jesus prophesied the coming of the 'Son of Man'; as did Daniel before him; and that hasn't come to pass either. Note that the Bible says if something prophesied does not come to pass that it is not from God, and that the false prophet should be killed (Deuteronomy 18). Some people claim that these are "end times prophecies"; however Deut 18 and Jeremiah 28:9 "But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognised as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true.’" both preclude the possibility of prophets making end-times prophecies by the fact that their prophecies have to come to pass for people to recognise them as legitimate prophets. Therefore, until the 'new covenant' that is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 comes to pass, and the coming of the 'Son of Man' as prophesied by Jesus comes to pass, we are told explicitly not to recognise them as prophets of Jehovah; but rather as false prophets.

[Vicki Q]

Jeremiah prophesied a 'new covenant' that never came to pass. Jesus prophesied the coming of the 'Son of Man'; as did Daniel before him; and that hasn't come to pass either. Note that the Bible says if something prophesied does not come to pass that it is not from God, and that the false prophet should be killed (Deuteronomy 18). Some people claim that these are "end times prophecies"; however Deut 18 and Jeremiah 28:9 "But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognised as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true.’" both preclude the possibility of prophets making end-times prophecies by the fact that their prophecies have to come to pass for people to recognise them as legitimate prophets. Therefore, until the 'new covenant' that is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 comes to pass,  and the coming of the 'Son of Man' as prophesied by Jesus comes to pass, we are told explicitly not to recognise them as prophets of Jehovah; but rather as false prophets.

Jesus did indeed talk about the Son of Man. In academic circles, it's seen as a very difficult phrase to pin down. However it seems clear that Jesus was referring to himself via Daniel 7. (Geza Vermes, for example, would see this as a circumlocution Jesus used to avoid saying 'me' in a context where it would seem inappropriate to talk directly about oneself.) Essentially, Jesus was saying that his death and resurrection were the real time events relayed apocalyptically by Daniel.

The Xian claim is that Jeremiah's 'new' covenant is the one established by Jesus. As such, both have come to pass.

I couldn't say about your end-times/false prophet section. (Apart from noting the logic issues raised by using Jeremiah to declare Jeremiah a false prophet.)  There are Xians who get terribly excited about these things. I prefer to read a large tome on Paul, that also deals with my insomnia.

The latest one looks at how juridical and participational categories in Paul should be subsumed in his reading of the New Covenant.

See? You're nodding off already.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus "prophecied" that he, himself, would be coming.......that's the direction you're taking this? Either Jesus was an exceedingly poor communicator, or he had a lose grip on time and tense.

I have to ask, why do you guys even keep the book anymore? Why not just rewrite it to say what it was supposed to have said? Ah, yes.....nvm.......

[Vicki Q]

Jesus "prophecied" that he, himself, would be coming.......that's the direction you're taking this? Either Jesus was an exceedingly poor communicator, or he had a lose grip on time and tense.


I have to ask, why do you guys even keep the book anymore? Why not just rewrite it to say what it was supposed to have said? Ah, yes.....nvm.......

The reply was directed at Aractus, who was discussing the relevant passage, and being intelligent knew what I meant.

I assume you also don't know anything about Jewish apocalyptic form, and have no idea of the context in which it's being used.

So, for the benefit of those who might be struggling, here is a couple of links to read before going on: Mark 15 (parr) referencing this esp v13.

The most relevant part being v62, in which Jesus talks about the 'Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven'.

Now since I suspect a fuller discussion would weary you, I'll simply say that he's using Jewish apocalyptic language to say, “I'm going to be fulfilling Daniel's prophecy, sorting out a whole bucket load of problems, and in doing this thing revealing my divine nature”. In case the penny still hasn't dropped, he's referencing his future death and resurrection.


A big enough claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know enough to know that the OT (for example, Jeremiah) doesn't contain any prophecy at all, and so it's irrelevant with regards to some "jesus" nonsense.  What it does contain, that you superstitious lot insist upon calling prophecy, is socio-political commentary relevant to the time of the works. 

I know........ I know, as far as you're concerned, if I don't buy the fairy stories I must be uninformed.  Carry on with your fanfic-ing. I'll try not to interrupt it again with any dispatches from reality.

[Vicki Q]

I know enough to know that the OT (for example, Jeremiah) doesn't contain any prophecy at all, and so it's irrelevant with regards to some "jesus" nonsense.  What it does contain, that you superstitious lot insist upon calling prophecy, is socio-political commentary relevant to the time of the works. 

I know........ I know, as far as you're concerned, if I don't buy the fairy stories I must be uninformed.  Carry on with your fanfic-ing.  I'll try not to interrupt it again with any dispatches from reality.

Please continue to challenge. I come here for thought provoking objection; robust yet respectful is always very welcome.




What did the prophets think they were doing? Sometimes they were critiquing their rulers, but sometimes they were also showing the way things would go in future. Jeremiah's vision of a rewritten Covenant must fall into that  category, because it clearly refers to a future event, and the Torah was so massive in Jewish thinking that a new Torah was earth-shattering.

Why would a dead Messiah fit that bill? What drove the disciples to conclude that the cornerstone of C1 Israel, the divinely inspired basis for society, religion, nation and race could simply be declared redundant?

They witnessed the resurrection, astonished. And then went back to what Jeremiah and others had said, now understanding what he meant.

[The Grand Nudger]

What did the prophets think they were doing? Sometimes they were critiquing their rulers,

...yes....

but sometimes they were also showing the way things would go in future.

-because they were fortune tellers and that.......is really, really real?

Why do you think the manner in which you insist upon pursuing this conversation deserves respect?  Honestly? It's not even respectful of the source material, let alone the other person engaging in the conversation. I'd talk history, culture, and literary craft as it applies to the OT with you all day long. As soon as you insist the discussion center on your superstitions, I'm just going to point and laugh, because that is -all- that such an insistence warrants or deserves.

Fucking ridiculous.

[Vicki Q]

I know enough to know that the OT (for example, Jeremiah) doesn't contain any prophecy at all, and so it's irrelevant with regards to some "jesus" nonsense.  What it does contain, that you superstitious lot insist upon calling prophecy, is socio-political commentary relevant to the time of the works. 

I know........ I know, as far as you're concerned, if I don't buy the fairy stories I must be uninformed.  Carry on with your fanfic-ing.  I'll try not to interrupt it again with any dispatches from reality.

Thinking about it, my reply was a bit OTT. Sorry & all that.

[Aractus]

Jesus did indeed talk about the Son of Man. In academic circles, it's seen as a very difficult phrase to pin down. However it seems clear that Jesus was referring to himself via Daniel 7. (Geza Vermes, for example, would see this as a circumlocution Jesus used to avoid saying 'me' in a context where it would seem inappropriate to talk directly about oneself.) Essentially, Jesus was saying that his death and resurrection were the real time events relayed apocalyptically by Daniel.

The Xian claim is that Jeremiah's 'new' covenant is the one established by Jesus. As such, both have come to pass.

Whether he is talking about himself or not as the 'son of man' (which is debatable), he made a prophecy that has not come to pass. Therefore under the rules in both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah we should recognise him as a false prophet.

I know enough to know that the OT (for example, Jeremiah) doesn't contain any prophecy at all, and so it's irrelevant with regards to some "jesus" nonsense.

It does contain prophecy, just as it contains miracles. Whether it happened in history the way that the OT says it happened is questionable, but the OT itself contains both prophecy and miracles.

The point of this thread is that the 'new covenant' is prophesied in Jer 31 (/38 LXX), and the one that Christians believe was set up by Jesus - which actually it wasn't - bares no resemblance to the Jeremiah prophecy.

Furthermore, Jesus in fact contradicts the Jeremiah prophecy by saying the Law will never pass away. Christians are well aware of the later problem, which is why they come up with ways to explain as such: "well Jesus didn't really mean the Law would stand forever and ever, his use of the term 'until all is accomplished' simply means after he dies in crucifixion to set up the new covenant". The issue though is that he never says he's going to set up a new covenant, and all of his teachings are directly from the Hebrew scriptures. Besides the command "love one another as I have loved you", he never says anything truly unique - and that saying is only found in John.