ECT The Succession of the two recent Jewish holidays as understood by R. Prager

Interplanner

New member
The new year and the day of atonement lead into each other in an interesting way to Dennis Prager: the first is when Ecclesiastes is read, in which most of life does not makes sense. But the judgement of God makes sense of life, after all. That holiday is followed by yom kippur and atonement must be made for and/or by violators; some of these punishments are capital. The two practically say the same thing, and are a deep sense of happiness about life that most people don't get to enjoy, he said last week on his 'happiness hour.'

Of course, he only sees this outside of Christ; it refers to acts which humans must do in this world to keep life stable and fair. He would not accept that there is a way these are true through Christ--through a substitute's punishment.

That may sound familiar to some of you who have followed what Judaism usually says about its scripture.
 

Interplanner

New member


Judaism sees a complete picture of its future that always involves Israel but is not complete in Christ as found in Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel event. That is the difference. That is why there is a Christian belief in succession after Judaism but in conflict with it.

This is Gospel 101.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Judaism sees a complete picture of its future that always involves Israel but is not complete in Christ as found in Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel event. That is the difference. That is why there is a Christian belief in succession after Judaism but in conflict with it.

This is Gospel 101.

Is it okay to:

1. Let people promised land, inherit land
2. Let people promised a city, inherit a city
3. Let people promised heaven, inherit heaven

What's the Holfordian problem with this?
 

Interplanner

New member
How interesting that when it comes down to the Christian meaning of Christ as found in rom 3 or Heb 8 vs Judaism, you are on the side of Judaism. I mean, you do realize Prager is a rabbi, right? Conservative, current Jewish rabbi, as well as talk host.

Apparently you do not realize what the term 'extirpate / disinherit' means in Acts 3. Those Jews who did not come along into the mission of Christ to the nations now stood to lose all, including the land. You will find the same warning delivered with real apostolic firepower in the letter to Hebrews. There is no stronger term than the one Peter used in Acts 3. The new Moses had come, prophesied by Moses, and Israel was supposed to listen and act according to the new covenant's terms; they were to be a 'multitude of preachers' to the nations of the glory of the grace of God in Christ.

This is why there is no other land promise outstanding, nor is there any division of inheritances etc, which would make 'disinherit' void. What was Abraham to inherit? Rom 4: the world to come. The NHNE. So will all believers.

For all his social value, Rabbi Prager will never agree to Romans 4 on the radio outside of Christ taking over him.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
How interesting that when it comes down to the Christian meaning of Christ as found in rom 3 or Heb 8 vs Judaism, you are on the side of Judaism. I mean, you do realize Prager is a rabbi, right? Conservative, current Jewish rabbi, as well as talk host.

Apparently you do not realize what the term 'extirpate / disinherit' means in Acts 3. Those Jews who did not come along into the mission of Christ to the nations now stood to lose all, including the land. You will find the same warning delivered with real apostolic firepower in the letter to Hebrews. There is no stronger term than the one Peter used in Acts 3. The new Moses had come, prophesied by Moses, and Israel was supposed to listen and act according to the new covenant's terms; they were to be a 'multitude of preachers' to the nations of the glory of the grace of God in Christ.

This is why there is no other land promise outstanding, nor is there any division of inheritances etc, which would make 'disinherit' void. What was Abraham to inherit? Rom 4: the world to come. The NHNE. So will all believers.

For all his social value, Rabbi Prager will never agree to Romans 4 on the radio outside of Christ taking over him.

Huh?
 

Interplanner

New member


The 'problem' is shadow vs reality. You simply don't know what Hebrews is about at all. And it is not just Hebrews, either. The same thing is taught in Col 2 because a neo-Judaism was invading and discrediting believers. The same shadow vs reality doctrine.

That's what 2P2P is. It is its OWN authority on the OT, instead of what the NT says.

I showed here that the non-Christian (though very reverent) Rabbi Prager sees the same non-Christian meaning of those two feasts that you see--but you think you are "Christian"!
 

SaulToPaul

New member
The 'problem' is shadow vs reality. You simply don't know what Hebrews is about at all. And it is not just Hebrews, either. The same thing is taught in Col 2 because a neo-Judaism was invading and discrediting believers. The same shadow vs reality doctrine.

That's what 2P2P is. It is its OWN authority on the OT, instead of what the NT says.

I showed here that the non-Christian (though very reverent) Rabbi Prager sees the same non-Christian meaning of those two feasts that you see--but you think you are "Christian"!

Huh?
 

Interplanner

New member
Why don't you just start with the first line and ask about that. "huh" just shows you don't know how to think.

Hebrews is showing that the new covenant is already here for all mankind because the priest was Melchizedekian not Aaronic. You think we are all waiting around for another Aaronic priest.

Your familiarity is juvenile. You try to work directly with the OT without the authoritative declarations of the NT.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Why don't you just start with the first line and ask about that. "huh" just shows you don't know how to think.

Hebrews is showing that the new covenant is already here for all mankind because the priest was Melchizedekian not Aaronic. You think we are all waiting around for another Aaronic priest.

Your familiarity is juvenile. You try to work directly with the OT without the authoritative declarations of the NT.

Did Hebrews say the old has passed away?
 

Interplanner

New member
Ready to vanish = vanished?

:idunno:



As you may know (because you know everything about the Bible), Mt 23 says 'your house is desolate' while the event itself was still 40 years away. Keep that in mind when you read 'obsolete...fading away' in Hebrews.

If the allegiance of a Christian was not to Christ over Judaism, there would have been no conflict, right? Well guess what? THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF CONFLICT.
 

Interplanner

New member
Ready to vanish = vanished?

:idunno:



As you may know (because you know everything about the Bible), Mt 23 says 'your house is desolate' while the event itself was still 40 years away. Keep that in mind when you read 'obsolete...fading away' in Hebrews.

If the allegiance of a Christian was not to Christ over Judaism, there would have been no conflict, right? Well guess what? THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF CONFLICT.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
As you may know (because you know everything about the Bible), Mt 23 says 'your house is desolate' while the event itself was still 40 years away. Keep that in mind when you read 'obsolete...fading away' in Hebrews.

If the allegiance of a Christian was not to Christ over Judaism, there would have been no conflict, right? Well guess what? THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF CONFLICT.

Ready to vanish = vanished?

:idunno:
 
Top