Christianity is NOT Derived From Judaism

[The Gospel of Christ]

The Torah is the way (1 Kings 2:1-3), the truth (Psalm 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:46-47), and the way to know the Father (Exodus 33:13), and the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he is the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father (John 14:6-11). In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so only those who are following his example of embodying God's character traits by walking in obedience to the Torah are in Christ. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. The same God who gave the Torah to Moses also sent Jesus as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness in disobedience to it, so there is no disagreement.

Do you believe in the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has the character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody and in the existence of the Son, who has the same character traits? If so, then your goal should be to be more like God through embodying His character traits in obedience to the Torah.

No, no… lol.. You’re doing it again.. you're taking titles that belong to Christ the King, and routing them back through Torah.

Christ didn’t say, “I embody the way.” He said, “I AM the way.”

Christ didn’t say, “Torah is the truth and I represent it.” He said, “I AM the truth.”

Christ didn’t say, “Torah gives life and I demonstrate it.” He said, “I AM the life.”

You're still reading Christ through Moses instead of Moses through Christ. Every time the New Testament gives Christ the highest possible title, you immediately translate it back into “Torah obedience.” That 's exactly the inversion I just pointed out up above.

to your question..

Yes, I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and in His Son. That's precisely why I refuse to reduce the Son to a walking Torah commentary and side note. The Son is greater than the servant, the substance greater than the shadow, and the covenant in Christ greater than the one that Hebrews calls obsolete.

 

[Soyeong]

No, no… lol.. You’re doing it again.. you're taking titles that belong to Christ the King, and routing them back through Torah.

Christ didn’t say, “I embody the way.” He said, “I AM the way.”

Christ didn’t say, “Torah is the truth and I represent it.” He said, “I AM the truth.”

Christ didn’t say, “Torah gives life and I demonstrate it.” He said, “I AM the life.”

You're still reading Christ through Moses instead of Moses through Christ. Every time the New Testament gives Christ the highest possible title, you immediately translate it back into “Torah obedience.” That 's exactly the inversion I just pointed out.

The Torah is God's Word and Jesus is God's Word made flesh, so everything that is true about the Torah is also true about Jesus insofar as he is the embodiment of it. Jesus saying that he the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father is in accordance with following his example of embody God's Word, not in contrast with it. In John 14:6-11, Jesus said that if we don't believe him, then believe his works, so again, he was speaking in accordance with his example, not in contrast with it. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments of the Torah, so Jesus saying that he is the life is not denying this, but is in accordance with following his example of embodying them. It is the same God who gave the Law to Moses who sent Jesus, so you are trying to create a contrast where there is none.

to your question..

Yes, I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and in His Son. That's precisely why I refuse to reduce the Son to a walking Torah commentary and side note. The Son is greater than the servant, the substance greater than the shadow, and the covenant in Christ greater than the one that Hebrews calls obsolete.

Everything in the Torah foreshadows Christ insofar as he the embodiment of it, which does not reduce him in any way.

God's character traits are eternal, so everything that God's covenants teach us about how to know Him through embodying His character traits is eternally and cumulatively valid. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:160). New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be made obsolete by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). It is not the case that the New Covenant is made with a different god with a different set of character traits and a different set of laws for how to embody those traits, but rather it is made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternal and cumulatively valid instructions for how to know Him through embodying His character traits.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

The Torah is God's Word and Jesus is God's Word made flesh, so everything that is true about the Torah is also true about Jesus insofar as he is the embodiment of it. Jesus saying that he the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father is in accordance with following his example of embody God's Word, not in contrast with it. In John 14:6-11, Jesus said that if we don't believe him, then believe his works, so again, he was speaking in accordance with his example, not in contrast with it. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments of the Torah, so Jesus saying that he is the life is not denying this, but is in accordance with following his example of embodying them. It is the same God who gave the Law to Moses who sent Jesus, so you are trying to create a contrast where there is none.


Everything in the Torah foreshadows Christ insofar as he the embodiment of it, which does not reduce him in any way.

God's character traits are eternal, so everything that God's covenants teach us about how to know Him through embodying His character traits is eternally and cumulatively valid. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalm 119:160). New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be made obsolete by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). It is not the case that the New Covenant is made with a different god with a different set of character traits and a different set of laws for how to embody those traits, but rather it is made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same eternal and cumulatively valid instructions for how to know Him through embodying His character traits.

You just proved my point again.

I said every time Scripture gives Christ the highest title, you route it back through Torah.

Your response was literally:

“Everything that is true about the Torah is also true about Jesus.”

That's the inversion.

John doesn't say “the Torah became flesh.” He says “the Word became flesh” and identifies Him as the Son - John 1:1, 14, 18.

And Hebrews never says the Mosaic covenant became “cumulatively obsolete.” That came from your typewriter analogy, not the text.
Hebrews simply says the first covenant is obsolete - Hebrews 8:13.

obsolete
/ˈɒbsəliːt/

adj. — superseded, retired, covenantally decommissioned, stripped of governing authority, and relegated to the archives by the arrival of that which fulfills and surpasses it; no longer the operative order, no longer the controlling covenant.

Or, if you’d like to go hardcore Gothic... placed behind ecclesiastical glass, and forbidden from climbing back onto the throne now occupied by the Son.

Now where were we...

You keep saying "Christ is greater", then immediately define Christ through Moses again.

Moses was the servant.

Christ is the Son over the house - Hebrews 3:5–6

The servant does not define the Son.

 

[Soyeong]

You just proved my point again.

I said every time Scripture gives Christ the highest title, you route it back through Torah.

Your response was literally:

“Everything that is true about the Torah is also true about Jesus.”

That's the inversion.

John doesn't say “the Torah became flesh.” He says “the Word became flesh” and identifies Him as the Son - John 1:1, 14, 18.

And Hebrews never says the Mosaic covenant became “cumulatively obsolete.” That came from your typewriter analogy, not the text.
Hebrews simply says the first covenant is obsolete - Hebrews 8:13.

obsolete
/ˈɒbsəliːt/

adj. — superseded, retired, covenantally decommissioned, stripped of governing authority, and relegated to the archives by the arrival of that which fulfills and surpasses it; no longer the operative order, no longer the controlling covenant.

Or, if you’d like to go hardcore Gothic... placed behind ecclesiastical glass, and forbidden from climbing back onto the throne now occupied by the Son.

Now where were we...

You keep saying "Christ is greater", then immediately define Christ through Moses again.

Moses was the servant.

Christ is the Son over the house - Hebrews 3:5–6

The servant does not define the Son.

God's Word is in complete accordance with God's Word made flesh, so there is no competition for the highest title or a subordinate status. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33 Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to Him without departing from it, so the Torah is the Word of God, which means that your point that it says the Word was made flesh rather than the Torah was made flesh is irrelevant. That is not an inversion. Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he embodied the Torah and is the Torah made flesh.

I didn't say that the text says that the Mosaic Covenant became cumulatively obsolete, but rather I spoke in regard to what it means to make something obsolete. If there were any extent to which a typewriter had a function that a computer didn't have, then the computer would not make it obsolete to that extent. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so there is no justification for interpreting Hebrews 8:13 in a way that contradicts 8:10.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

You’ve simply repeated the exact inversion I just identified again, so there’s nothing further for me to untangle tonight.. John 1:14 does not say “the Torah became flesh.” It says “the Word became flesh.” You keep collapsing those categories because your system requires it.

I have no more time this evening to entertain antichristic theology.

 

[Soyeong]

You’ve simply repeated the exact inversion I just identified again, so there’s nothing further for me to untangle tonight.. John 1:14 does not say “the Torah became flesh.” It says “the Word became flesh.” You keep collapsing those categories because your system requires it.

I have no more time this evening to entertain antichristic theology.

There is no invasion. The Torah is the Word of God, so you don't have any grounds for interpreting the Word became flesh as referring to the Torah and it is plainly evident that he is the embodiment of the Torah by setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to it. It what it means, not something that my system needs to collapse. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, so he he the man of lawfulness, which is in contrast with the antichrist, who is the man of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3, so it is the opposition to following the Torah that is supporting antichristic theology. Have a good evening.

 

[Jack]

NOBODY here obeys Torah but some love to preach it!