Jews Rejected God's Offer

You didn't like the Dan connection?To put it simply, if you believe that Moses wrote the Torah, then anything God said to Abraham was written down after the fact.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

For the most part, if you ignore the InfiltratorOfManyNames addition to the thread, it is still on topic.Right now they are trying prophecy to show me the answer. Unfortunately they don't like following through and tend to cloud the issue with old arguments.I was preparing a post to bring them back to the path.Please don't close it yet.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

That it was written down after the fact I do accept.

---

Excellent!

quote:

---

The point you are missing, though, is that if you believe the words, then God told Abraham something that would happen beyond his lifetime.

---

Which served God's purpose for Abraham. God did not require Abraham to speak the information to anyone else of his time. Abraham heard from God, but did not speak for God in the verses you shared.This is different than Jeremiah, who was speaking a message from God to the people of his time. If the prophecy is beyond the lifetime of the audience or the prophet, it serves no purpose.So back to Message 80. There are no conditions for the Jews written in Jeremiah 31:31...
Why do you consider that this prophecy reflects the offer to the Jews?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Sometimes the obvious eludes us. I don't feel that Moses wrote the Torah either. He is author by tradition. Without an author it would carry no authority.According to Genesis 36:31-40, Genesis would have been written after Israel had kings. This is written in past tense, not future, plus the statement "before any Israelite king reigned" leads me to believe that it was written after more than one king had reigned in Israel.I feel that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were stories passed down by oral tradition. The benefit of the oral tradition is that the stories change to acommodate the the audience of the time. It is hard to teach if your audience doesn't identify with your story. That's why we see the notes in Genensis telling us what the name of the city is "to date" (time of the author).When the kingdoms split, the stories grew within each group. Then when they came back together their stories were meshed together. An example would be the stories are told twice, but differently, such as the quail story.Exodus 16 They ate quail with no problem.
Numbers 11:4-35 They ate quail and God struck them with a plague.Deuteronomy 34 describes the death and burial of Moses. The claim that "Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, would need to be written after the time of the prophets.I feel that oral stories are used to teach morals, traditions, agriculture, etc. The teaching stays the same, but the story can be altered to the understanding of the audience.What I have experienced in Christian teaching, though, is that the words are left the same and the teaching is altered to fit the needs of the teacher.When we put these on paper and expect them never to change, then the story becomes stuck in time and the original teaching lost.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

i disagree here. i think there is truth and meaning to be found in the book even with unknown multiple authors.

---

Lack of authority doesn't mean lack of meaning, but IMO it does lose the authority to condemn us today.Such as that nice little phrase in Genesis that says a woman is ruled by her husband, which some churches like to hold over a woman's head. Without the higher authority behind it, that phrase describes the culture of the time, not for all time.

quote:

---

various stories in genesis that mock babylon

---

In an earlier post you commented on their hate obsession with Babylon. I found that interesting. Now that is something I hadn't noticed before. It is interesting that they have such a dislike for Babylon and no problems with Egypt where they were enslaved for over 400 years.I found this web page, which mentions the book Who Wrote The Bible?. Have you read this book? I haven't yet.

quote:

---

we can often extract the "original" meaning by context, which can be provided both textually, and with the writings of other cultures at the time and in the area.

---

We can come up with a best quess, but even the writings of other cultures have trouble expressing the idioms, slang, and humor of the time.I work with genealogy, and even in America the writing style has changed since the our ancestors infiltrated this land. They spelled words differently.I listened to a Red Skelton radio show that I have on cassette. Some of the humor is lost on me because I don't truly know the culture of the time. I know what happened historically, but the little personal details which also shape society are lost.The Disney cartoon Aladdin, where Robin Williams as the Genie brings in a lot of humor from my past, my daughter doesn't get it. I have to explain. Once there is no one to explain, the meaning will be lost.Something from thousands of years ago, we can guess, but we'll never be sure. That's why, IMO, it is better to read the Bible and understand the reality of it, which is full of lessons and wisdom, than to condemn people with the supposed literal meaning or convoluted explanations.I saw the thread on "Did Moses Write the Bible", I didn't have much to add though.Take care

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This thread is in response to a statement that the Gentiles were given the same option that the Jews rejected.I asked to be shown two things from within the Bible:

quote:

---

Show me where God made a clear offer to the Jewish Community, as a whole, and what that specific offer was!

​

Show me where the Jewish Community, as a whole, clearly rejected a specific offer from God.

---

Here are the responses pertinent to the OP:In Message 6 Phatboy presented Acts 28:23-28 with Paul quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 and the final statement from Paul: "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Plus Romans 11:7-21.My response in Message 18 asked that Phatboy show me what Paul showed the Jews from the Law and the Prophets to present his case. I pointed out that Paul’s quote has a different meaning than Isaiah, and that Paul didn’t have the authority to claim that God disowned the Jews. I also asked: Then show me where God explains to the Jewish people, before the death of Jesus, that if they individually or as a "group" do not accept the Messiah that God will cast them aside.Unfortunately, Phatboy never made his case past the opinions and beliefs of Paul.In Message 57 dpardo provided Acts 9:13-16 as evidence that Paul spoke for God.My response in Message 60 shows that Acts 9:17 explains that Jesus is the speaker, not God. Paul was allowed to bring the name of Jesus before the Gentiles, not speak for God.Discussion did not continue on that point.In Message 68 dpardo brought in Jeremiah 31:31 as God’s plan of salvation.My response in Message 80 said that the prophecy would not have been any use past the lifetime of the audience and was more than likely expected when the Jews came back from exile.Discussion has not continued on that point.So far the participants have not shown me a clear offer made to the Jewish people from God or that the Jewish people clearly rejected that offer.If they consider my understanding of scripture to be incorrect, they haven’t provided Biblical proof, unclouded by dogma and tradition, that I misunderstand the OT.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one.

---

Thanks for reminding me. Hopefully that will come to light in the continued discussion of the prophecies.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

If Jesus is who he said he is (and that he and the father are one), then Jesus' message is God the Father's message.

---

Why would you think that "I and the Father are one" means one entity, as opposed to Jesus being in agreement with God?I don't believe Paul claimed that Jesus was God (The Father).The phrase "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) is only included in the Book of John, which is by an unknown author, probably written after 80CE. This date because of John 9:19-22 Excerpt from "A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson 1987 Petition 12 of the Prayer of 18 Petitions:
For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.During the ministry of Jesus, his followers were allowed in the synagogues. So the parents in verse 22 would not need to fear the Jews during the life of Jesus. This makes the book of John an unreliable source.Now if you trust the Book of John and believe that Jesus is God, so be it, but Acts 9:15 doesn't say that Paul speaks for God. As I said before, speaking of God is different than speaking for God.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

As I said the Book of John is an unreliable source. It carries no weight.Paul was an evangelist. He spread the word of God as he interpreted it for his time. Like I showed before, the notion to loosen up the Mosaic Law wasn't a new idea.I understand what Paul claims, but his words are after the fact.What I need you to show me:

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I find it fascinating that you and Phatboy spend more time trying to make me feel guilty about investigating and questioning what is written instead of providing the verses requested in the OP.I don’t feel that my answers have been frivolous or disrespectful. I provided the information to back up my conclusions.

quote:

---

You probably already know the verses that answer your questions. That you refuse to believe or acknowledge them is another matter.

---

No I don’t and all you have shown me are statements after the fact. I have not read of any verses that speak of an offer to the Jewish community before the death of Jesus.

quote:

---

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. If your goal really is to know the truth, as mine is, then I will post the verses that you request.

---

Whether you believe it or not, learning the truth is my goal.Blind faith in mankind's dogma and tradition is not.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

BTW, what is the significance of your prerequisite that the offer be before the death of Jesus?

---

I am amazed that you don't understand.The Hebrews had a contract with God. At the time the contract was sealed it had no end date.God has stated several times that unless the world ends, the Hebrews would still be his chosen people.Even the "new covenant" mentioned in Jeremiah 31 does not give conditions that the Hebrews need to follow to received the "new covenant."No where does God tell the Hebrews that if they do not believe in the name (which God does not provide) of the messiah (anointed or son of God in Hebrew terms), that he would end the contract, reject them as a people, and choose another group.But if they (as a group or individually) eventually believe in the name of the specific man presented to them as the messiah and believe that he was the messiah (even though he is no longer visible), then they will be added to the "new" contract, welcomed back into the fold and follow all the new rules and rituals.

quote:

---

It is during the time of Jesus, detailed in the New Testament, that the offer is presented. Jesus is clear that he has come to bring a message that was given him by God the Father (Luke 10:21-22):

---

What was the message/offer?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Unfortunately John 3:16 is part of a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. No one else is present.This makes it a rather limited offer.NOTE: In the Book of John this conversation takes place before John the Baptist is arrested. In the synoptics, Jesus didn't start his ministry or choose his disciples until after the arrest. (Mark 1:14)

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Isaiah prophesied that the Gentiles would receive God and lamented that the Jews (not all of them though) had continually rejected him (Isaiah 65:1-2):

---

God is answering Isaiah's pleas/questions. Why do you think it speaks of the Gentiles receiving God?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Luke 11:23
23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

---

Unfortunately within the "Jesus and Beelzebub" stories in Luke 11:14-26 and Matthew 12:22-37 that phrase in each doesn't seem to fit the lesson being promoted.The story in Mark gives the message clearer. By claiming that Jesus was doing miracles because of an evil spirit slandered the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable. I'm not sure how the verse you shared fits into that lesson.In Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 we find a similar idea is used concerning a man who was driving out demons in the name of Jesus. How were the verses you shared warnings dealing with the OP/offer?This message has been edited by purpledawn, 12-02-2004 07:07 AM

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Matthew 16:15-17
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

---

Mark and Luke don't really join in with the "Son of God" part. Then in verse 20 of Matthew we have: The above statement is also given in Mark and Luke.The following phrase is also found in Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:22. According to this the leaders were already set up to reject Jesus. It was already set up that he must be killed. So the Jewish people involved in this scenerio are blameless.Given that the Jewish leaders were set up to fail, then the Jewish people who follow their leaders because they are supposedly chosen by God, were set up to fail.This is not a good scenerio.If we go down this road, then it is Gentiles beware: I find is discomforting that you want to present to me a God who ends a contract without warning and sets up his people to fail. Because if you do, then there is no quarantee that when the Judgment Day comes, the Gentiles are guaranteed anything. The Gentiles could be just another test and the Jews who stuck with the original contract, passed.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.