...and you, just so happen to know of His 'true qualities' independant of the false qualities found in the covenants of scripture? That's a big red flag..
I did not claim to know he true qualities independent of the false qualities even that there are false qualities found in the covenants of Scripture, but that there is a reality of what is true about the nature of who God is that was true before God made any covenants with man, that has been revealed through His covenants, and that is true independently of which covenant someone is under, if any, so you are stretching for a red flag.
But that does not mean those traits are the traits you've identified.
The fact that God's character traits are eternal and that everything that the Mosaic Covenant teaches us about how to embody His character traits is eternally and cumulatively valid is true regardless of whether or not I've identified them.
Can you provide an example of one of these covenantal traits. if so can you provide BCV (Book, chapter, verse) that says God must remain in the box the traits you have identified puts Him in?
For example God self identifies as a Jealous God many different time in the OT. God is also described as Vengeful.
Now, according to what you just said in the above statement, God can only exhibit these traits. Yet If you keep reading one will come across passages where God shows Himself to be the opposite of these self identifying traits.
What I am pointing out is that God is bigger than any of the traits He has claimed or has been assigned to Him. While God Himself does not change, His 'mood' which produce those 'traits' does change.
For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws. God's does not change (Malachi 3:6), so everything that God's righteous laws teach us about Him is eternally valid. The fact that God commanded to do charity and against committing murder teaches us something different about who He is than if God had commanded commit murder and against doing charity. I've said nothing about putting God in a box or about God only being able to be jealous or vengeful. God acts in accordance with all of His traits and not based on mood.
Straw man argument. No one suggested any of this.
You did say:
"This is also why God created a new covenant/contract with us. So, New rules + New contract = New Reward. New reward = eternal life.
So inorder to qualify for this new reward means 0 dependance on the old system, but again the old system remains in place if for no other reason that to push those who would follow it to Christ (Because there is no temple, one can not follow the old covenant.)"
A new set of rules would mean that that there is not continuation, so things like the command to do charity or to refrain from committing murder might not be part of the New Covenant and that the new set of laws would teach how to embody a different sets of character traits than those of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Not true. Jesus Clearly in Mat 5 extends the law to include person thought/feelings. Prior to this the law was based on works alone. Things people where either required to do, or things people where required to refrain from. In Mat 5 Jesus extended the law to now include thoughts and feeling making the law a completely different animal. As Hatred is now akin to Murder, Where a lustful thought is a kin to adultery etc etc. In what court of law could you say that hatred and murder where equal in the eyes of the law unless you threw out our current system of morality and replaced it with something else?
In Matthew 4, Jesus preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he proceeded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written or by teaching a different set of laws, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. We are commanded not to hate our brother in Leviticus 19:17, so that was nothing brand new. If we correctly understand the 7th and 10th Commandments against committing adultery and coveting in our hearts, then we won't lust after a married woman with lust in our hearts.
"This is also why God created a new covenant/contract with us. So, New rules + New contract = New Reward. New reward = eternal life."
See also the title of this thread.
I never said we should not follow the torah. In fact I said the oppsite. I said if you fail to follow every part of the torah then you are in violation of breaking all of the law.
James 2:10
Even if you fail to obey only one rule in God's Law, it means that you are guilty. It is the same as if you fail to obey all God's Law.
I have said multiple times that these laws include the laws pertaining to temple sacrifice and worship. Meaning because no one has kept the temple laws rites or rituals in the law 2000 years, that means No one has been able to keep the whole law which is a requirement according to James 2:10
Someone is not breaking the Torah if they have a legitimate reason for not following a particular law, so James 2:10 is only speaking in regard to illegitimate reasons. For example, if someone is not the king, then they are not breaking the law if they do not write a copy of the Torah. Jesus did not become a lawbreaker because he did not obey the laws in regard to giving birth or having a period. If someone breaks any law and becomes a lawbreaker, then that just means that they need to repent and to return to obedience, which is what James was encouraging them to do, but if someone has a legitimate reason for not following certain laws, such as with there being no Temple, then they have no need to repent.
Actually I specifically made no such claim. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.
Which I did not say. So.. that makes this whole speech moot.
I don't see how you can deny that you made that claim:
"There was no promise of eternal life as the afterlife was unknown, or not even mentioned in the Torah/When the law was given. Eg when the OC (Old covenant/contract) was established. Eternal life was never part of the deal. Even In Jesus' time the idea of the after life was highly debated. In fact this was the primary difference between the pharisees and the sadducees. The pharisees believed in the afterlife while the sadducees did not. Now because the Sadducees represented the temple leadership, the official position of the temple during the time of Christ was that there was no afterlife.
Technically meaning, following the old contract only buys you Good Health, Wealth, God's protection, Long life and a piece of the promise Land. If that's all that interests you, and you want no claim (In so far as the old contract stipulates) on eternal life, then by all means follow the OC.. But, there in lies the problem.. You can't follow the OC as 1/3 of the laws given pertain to temple/tabernacle worship. Meaning without a sanctified temple or wilderness tabernacle, the laws can not be completely followed. Which puts you in violation of the whole law. (You are in breech of the old contract.) Because you do not get partial credit for following 2/3s of the law."
Whatever you want to call the claim you are making in the above paragraphs, I wrote those paragraphs to counter it, so they are not moot. You also ignored my paragraph about there being legitimate or illegitimate reasons for not following certain laws.
Can you provide an example?
Some of God's laws were only given to the king, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, those who are married, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land, and those who are strangers living in the land while others were given to everyone.
Actually no. The law provides an alternative structure in which the those laws can be observed. That being the tabernacle.
Once the Temple became the permanent location in Jerusalem, then the Tabernacle could no longer be used. There is a reason why Jews did not continue to offer sacrifices after the destruction of the 2nd Temple.
Yet it was/is still used as a check list. example: can one 'connect with God if they decide to not follow 1/3 of the laws given by moses?
No, it was not and has never been used as a checklist. While there are ways that people can't currently connect with God, that does not mean that we should not connect with Him in the ways that we can.
Which is exactly what people are doing when they do not follow all of God's laws. Including the laws that pertain to offerings, sacrifices and the like.
No, there is a difference between someone not following certain laws because they can't currently be obeyed and someone refusing to obey laws that they can currently obey.
