For argument's sake - Let's assume the Bible's stories

If you completely remove the New Testament from affiliation with the Old Testament (i.e. pretend it doesn't exist), then yes, you could say the prophecies are still hanging out there. In fact, there are some Jews who perform ceremonies that demonstrate they are still waiting for the Messiah to come.

 

From searchgodsword.org:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

The following is a phonetic translation of the original Hebrew:

​

WnetWmdK WnemlcB ed) h&(neyhl)rm)Ywur)h hme hBbW eymhw bWeYh tgdb WDryw . ur)h&emrh&mrh -lkbW​

​

​

I don't have a good Hebrew dictionary (yet), so unfortunately I can't do a literal translation of the verse for you. However, there are some useful tools on the link itself that may give you the context you're looking for.​

 

You are correct -- "son" does not equal "father" in our culture. What is important to keep in mind, however, is that Jesus' form changed from Old Testament to His birth to his resurrection.

While Jesus was walking around as a human being, He was not His full self, so to speak. He was limited. I've heard some Biblical scholars teach that in the Jewish culture, sons were considered not only representatives of their fathers, but in some circumstances they actually shared the identity of their fathers, i.e. in some circumstances they were considered one in the same.

However, before He was borne from Mary and after His resurrection, He was / is the full capacity of Himself. The change is indicated in several passages of the New Testament which cite that He actually walked beside several of the apostles for miles and ate with them, and they didn't even recognize Him. And John's description of Him in Revelation is utterly supernatural.

All that to say that His being called "Son" may not be His identity as much as it was a description of a temporary state, and part of His purpose on earth.

 

The only place for Jews to make animal sacrifices is in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple or rather, King Herrod's Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Jews have not had control of the temple mount since that time. A mosque called the Dome of the Rock now stands in the spot where the Temple was located. The Muslims are not in any particular hurry to give it back. No Temple...no sacrifices, if you're a Jew.

This should be the excuse you say doesn't exist. Read Leviticus and you will find where sacrifices should be made.

 

You are correct. The Jews have the Torah which is the Book of the Laws. This is the first 5 books of the Old Testament, written by Moses. Then they have the prophets which consists of books written by prophets (Joel, Isaiah, Obadiah, etc) and the books of history (Judges, Kings and Chronicles). All of these allude to the Messiah.

Unless of course, the Jew happens to be a Messianic Jew. They believe Jesus is the Christ.

 

thanks, L-dog!

 

That view disregards the human conscience. And it doesn't account for modern seculars who abide the secular law of the land and live ethically.

Many say the idea of right and wrong that inspired laws "comes from God." I say it comes from the conscience, what some would call the "Holy Spirit." It's the part of us that doesn't have to be told to look out for our kin, loved ones, and community... that these things should happen naturally.

Like any other personality or character trait, conscience varies in degrees from one person to the next. Violence and tyranny are carried out by those with an underdeveloped sense of conscience. The warlords and despots of ancient history and the modern Third World are of the same type that populate the prison system here in America. No conscience.

Those with a functioning conscience band together and create the Law of Man, to counteract the Primal Law of Nature (survival of the fittest, might is right, and so on). Since religiosity is a human trait - and what distinguishes us from lower animals - it's common to associate the desire for the common good to God, the Gods, or whatever the culture places in the Divine realm. But it's the conscience that is common to all cultures and all phases of history.

 

Funny. That temple didn't exist in Levicticus. The were and are more than one temple.

 

Hmm this point really resonates. I'll have to think about it for a while and get back to you. I completely buy the societal identity viewpoint you just gave and have never thought about it in a Biblical context.

Thanks HB, you just cooked my noodle