I'm a fan of people who've explored various sides of an issue, whether or not they come into agreement with me in the end. You're a Jewish cat with Christian schooling... quite the gem in a world of casual internet debate. Sorry for juxtaposing you and Dawkins, he's obviously not one who enjoys exploring philosophies that compete with his own.I'm not so familiar with Richard Dawkins, but it's nice to have someone to cite re: my "enjoyable 'foe'"ness. Not everybody is such a fan.
A mediator is one who intercedes for another. Lot did this for the evil cities and Moses did this when he went up on the mountain a second time, after Aaron and the others had committed idolatry. God seemed to go along with this as a perfectly acceptable practice.But to return to my previous distinction: is such a sacrifice actually a "mediator," or rather an "offering"? Perhaps here I would benefit from your definition of mediation.
With all of these examples, one could easily ask the question -- if a mediator isn't necessary, then why did one exist? The passages clearly (I think) state mediation occurred, so why did it occur if not necessary?How does Galatians 3:19 indicate that a mediator is necessary?
How does 1 Timothy 2:5 indicate that a mediator is necessary?
How does Hebrews 8:6 indicate that a mediator is necessary?
How does Hebrews 9:15 indicate that a mediator is necessary?
How does Hebrew 12:24 indicate that a mediator is necessary?
I did a search on the word "covenant" and it returned 265 occurrences, 235 of which are in the Old Testament, so it seems an important concept. I know you don't believe the prophets (Isaiah, Daniel, etc) to be inspired scripture but God seems quite angry that Israel had broken covenant with him and sent his prophets to "set them straight."On a related point, where is the biblical indication that a covenant is necessary?
However, since you'll be less than impressed with a scriptural argument, allow me to offer a slightly more philosophical one. My understanding is that a covenant is an agreement between parties. If we are in covenant with God, that means we have an agreement that our relationship hinges on. If that covenant is broken, the relationship suffers. Salvation, in my opinion, is coming into covenant with God, irrespective on any doctrine of Heaven or Hell. So salvation is communion with God and since God is eternal, I believe our union to be eternal as well. He is the source of life and so long as we are communing with that source, we draw our life from him. This is why covenant with God is essential, because apart from that source of life, we have only death. It's akin to being attached to a respirator.
Getting back to the mediation concept -- I believe mankind's covenant with God has been severely broken. We don't love our neighbor as ourselves, nor do we place God and his will above all things. For this reason, we've been separated from the only source of eternal life. So God, being that he greatly wishes for us to be in covenant with him, threw out a massive fishing net to catch anyone willing to be caught. This is an analogy for mediation. I claim that Jesus is the fishing net and only those striving to flee or jump out of the net will fail to be brought into communion with their Maker. What grieves me is that it seems most people would rather not commune with God at all and choose to escape the net. Though this is a common enough message in Christian circles, I believe there are other massive implications with respect to the crucifixion that are just as paramount. I can go into that if you wish.
Again, it makes me wonder why it's such a big topic of discussion in scripture if not a necessity. Why would it be mentioned at all?There is a difference between the idea that "covenant mediation is taught in scripture," and that "covenant mediation is taught [ to be necessary ] in scripture."
I base this on Paul deferring to James' opinion in the book of Acts.On what basis do you note that "Paul also seemed to greatly respect James' opinion"?
So "[t]he only reason don't go all out and define [my]self as a Hindu" is not "because DO hold some objective views," but because my subjective understanding prefers concepts other than those commonly espoused within Hinduism.
You said a lot here, though I'll only quote the last bit. You prefer Judaic concepts over Hindu concepts because you don't believe the Hindu doctrines are objectively correct. Wouldn't this be accurate? If you only disagree with Hindus based on them being subjectively wrong, why say they're wrong at all? Is the caste system objectively wrong? What about the notion of 330 million gods? Wouldn't that just come down to one's opinion? You may argue this way but I find it hard to believe you don't take an objective stand here.
So you will argue that the destruction of the temple was the destruction of the Mosaic system. But do you actually believe this? Do you not rather believe that the Mosaic system was defunct following the passion of Jesus? But the temple stood for two generations thereafter - not that it much matters, because the Torah nowhere requires a temple. And of course, it was not the first time that a temple had been destroyed. Did the Mosaic system fall when Babylon wrought its devastation of the Solomonic temple?
This is a REALLY good question. Thank you. I would indeed say that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, thus his dying words, "It is finished." When Jesus died, there was a 40 year evangelistic gap before Rome finally toppled Jerusalem. While I believe the number 40 to be somewhat significant, being the biblical number for major transitions, the main point here is that an allotment of time was given for the nation to repent. Josephus tells of those awful days and while the Assyrian and Babylonian stints were incredibly severe, they were not nearly so permanent as 1,937 years. So something was different about their "final" rejection of God's prophets. They should've heeded John and they should've heeded Jesus.
If it seems I've unfairly pegged ancient Israel as an unusual case of breaking covenant with God and thus reaping destruction, you should know that I see no difference when looking at my fellow countrymen here in the States. They commit national idolatry on a daily basis while rejecting any notion of a sovereign Creator. Our politicians are corrupt and the institutional church is corrupt. These things fill me with grief and I'm at a loss to explain how mankind has fallen so far. But I'm also an optimist and believe Gandhi spoke truly when he said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." The cure for hypocrisy is to not become a hypocrite yourself. These are words I often bring to mind when mulling over our dire circumstances. It's easy to complain and lay fault at the feet of others, it's quite another thing to "stand in the gap" and pursue righteous thoughts and behavior yourself.
A more substantial challenge is posed by the question of how Abrahamic promises extend to persons who treat a mere human as if he were God. It is laughable that such persons should strain at gnats of ritual celebration while swallowing the camel of idolatry.
Isn't it strange, then, that the very Jewish apostles, men who'd stood in the temple and learned in the synagogues under strict Rabbinical teaching, would posit such a notion that the fullness of deity dwelt in the person of Jesus? Only a resurrection from the dead, or an equally impressive occurrence, could possibly wipe clean their own Jewish notions. And if God raised Jesus from the dead, it would seem he possessed a divine stamp of approval, no?
While I don't hold an understanding of the God's triune nature to be a point of salvation, you've got to at least admit that such a view is possible. If it's not possible, are we Trinitarians subjectively wrong or objectively wrong?
What issue(s) of authority are you addressing?
Which writings in Torah are authoritative and which are not? Also, to whom does one look for spiritual guidance?
Or perhaps Abraham and Moses knew nothing of it - and perhaps Jesus did not explain it to his apostles - because the concept is a falsehood, a later innovation and theological phantasy.
It's always possible that the deity of Jesus is a later innovation but you'd have to put forth an argument for that to be considered. I think New Testament scholar, William Lane Craig, offers up a very strong argument for the resurrection. If his conclusions are accurate and Jesus rose from the dead, we'd have to say, "In some way, Jesus is divine in nature and in another way, he's not the same person as the Father." I don't necessarily agree with the Trinitarian creeds but then again, explaining God's true nature is far beyond my ability to articulate. God is not forced to "show his hand" as it were. He can keep mysteries to himself if he wishes.
