We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5,
We continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed.
I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.
See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD
While, as per the previous segment, I was engaged with Rabbi Stuart Federow the Jewish person lorasinger commented again and for some odd reason again told me about myself:
Wiki states: “True Free Thinker is a Christian apologetic website run by Ken Ammi that has a strong emphasis on the refutation of various forms of atheism. In addition, Ammi wrote Creation Ministries International’s main article rebutting atheism”.
Ken is an Argentinian-American Jewish Christian who attended private Jewish school and had his Bar Mitzvah in Israel. He has been involved in Christian apologetics as a researcher and lecturer for nearly a decade and has had articles published in an apologetics journal.
You can find the CMI article here.
Lorasinger continued that comment with the following:
You wrote: “am now following Judaism’s new covenant as per the Messiah”
How can there be a new covenant when the first one is eternal? The term “new covenant is be meaningless in terms of an “Eternal covenant” unless what Jeremiah meant by it was the renewing of the old covenant, which would regain its full original force. The old covenant is of eternal duration, never to be rescinded or to be superseded by a new covenant (Leviticus 26:44-45). The covenant between God and Israel is everlasting (e.g., Genesis 17:7, 13, 19; Psalms 105:8, 10; 1 Chronicles 16:13-18).
Good bull[****] baffles brains technique, almost the level of the early church fathers, Ken. A messianic Jew is a Southern Baptist in Jewish garb, a Jew only by virtue of having been born into a Jewish family. This brings a chuckle too – Coalition of Torah Observant Messianic Congregations – That’s like Coalition of Lifelong chastity on the part of the Duggars.
You will note that they are getting emotional and are rabbit trailing into utterly irrelevant topics such as the Duggar family.
Here is my focused reply:
Friend, it does not cease to amaze me how you simply ignore inconvenient facts.
I had an interesting exchange with whatjewsbelieve’s Rabbi Federow. I asked him why his article differed from the Encyclopedia Judaica reference to the Halakah, the Talmud, etc. He stated that “There is a difference simply because there are different halachic rulings from different rabbis” which is that rich diversity of thought that I mentioned various times and which you always ignore. He was also very honest in stating “In the article I wrote, I cited Plenty of rabbis’ Responsas that said what I concluded [sic.].”
In other words, he just picked one single line of opinions and pretended that it was the only one because it suited his purposes. This is why I have warned you time and again against Rabbinic Talmudic polemics; they make generic statement based on partial information.
I am not sure why you are quoting an unnamed “Wiki” but I suppose I will say thanks for the advertising.
Now, let us be quite straight with each other as you decided to plagiarize Jews for Judaism this time which is why, yet again, you have gone wrong. They and you seem to ignore the fact that there are many covenants within the Tanakh such as the Adamic, Noahide, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.
Leviticus 26:44-45 reads “44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am HaShem their G-d. 45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their G-d: I am HaShem.”
Now, Jews for Judaism told you that what they were citing was about how “The old covenant is of eternal duration, never to be rescinded or to be superseded by a new covenant” but obviously, “I will not…break My covenant…I will for their sakes remember the covenant” does not in any ways mean that.
Now, Genesis 17:7, 13, 19 is a better fit for your point as it refers to “an everlasting covenant” twice and makes it clear that this is the Abrahamic covenant, “Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son…I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant” yet, of course, this was before the Mosaic covenant which followed it.
Psalms 105:8, 10 states, “8 He hath remembered His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations…10 And He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an everlasting covenant.”
1 Chronicles 16:13-18 refers to Israel, children of Jacob and His chosen ones and notes “HaShem our G-d…Remember His covenant for ever…The covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac; And He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an everlasting covenant,” etc.
Now, here is what Jews for Judaism did not bother telling you and what you thus, do not know, do not point out, etc. The Tanakh defines its own terms and they do not always mean something simple, neat and tidy such as “everlasting covenant” which, as you will see via factual evidence, ends up meaning something to the likes of “as long as it is relevant or in place.”
You will note that Leviticus 17:3-7 states that when our people killed an ox, lamb or goat they were first to bring it “unto the door of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering unto HaShem before the tabernacle of HaShem…This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.” However, later, in Deuteronomy 12:13-15 & 21 we were allowed to “…offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place…but in the place which HaShem shall choose…there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings…kill and eat flesh within all thy gates…If the place which HaShem thy God shall choose to put His name there be too far from thee.”
The first statement affirmed what you were lead to believe could only mean eternality (meaning, of course, that no Jew today, without the Temple, could possibly keep it) “for ever unto them throughout their generations” yet, it then changes.
Lastly, I am a Messianic Jew and am not only not a Southern Baptist but do not even know any Southern Baptists and so you are in error on this account as well.
For details on the issue of covenants and commandments, please see: Will the Messiah Institute New Commandments?
I recommended this article because it goes into detail regarding whether “the” covenant is eternal, will be fulfilled, modified, etc.
Next, the next segment will consider what is in a name—such as “Jesus.”