pull down to refresh
Are you Jewish? Your belief system certainly is.
By 30AD, God stopped accepting Jewish sacrifices. And since then, Jews have been forced to roam the earth as a diaspora and live as resident aliens in foreign nations.
This is not Christian interpretation, as it comes direct from the Talmudic testimony. It states that for 40 years before the destruction of the Temple (the destruction of the Temple happened in 70AD, so 40 years before exactly corresponds the crucifixion of Christ):
“The lot for the Lord did not come up in the right hand;
the crimson thread did not turn white;
the western lamp did not burn;
and the doors of the Hekhal opened by themselves.”
(Yoma 39b)
The animal sacrifices were no longer accepted, the thread of the scapegoat would no longer turn white, the outermost lamp would not light the temple, and its doors would not close. This then culminated with the actual physical destruction of the temple in 70AD. (its also quite telling that "the doors of the Hekhal" would not close, a clear symbol that the covenant of Christ, expanding God to all people was no longer controlled by ethnic Jews nor its priests).
It would seem that a sincere student of Judaism would recognize this situation, but its not permanent: You can accept Christ and be welcomed back by God. Otherwise you can "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible you want to read and remain a self-imposed orphan.
The Hebrew Bible makes it clear innumerable times whether explicitly or implicitly that the covenant between God and Israel has relevance for the gentiles and is actually meant to provide the "nations of the world" access to God. "ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה" was literally the first message communicated to Abraham. I can bring you similar examples from practically every book of the Pentateuch, prophets and writings if you so desire.
So the concept of an additional covenant revealed hundreds of years after the last prophets were active to deliver such a message is very questionable. Never mind that this covenant was composed in Greek a second or third language at the time for Jews many years after Jesus' life and death. Also, Jesus presented himself as a messiah for the Jews first and foremost. The concept of salvation for gentiles was a later development of Paul and the status of Jesus as the son of God was an even later development. My point is that an indeterminate monotheism without a flesh and blood mediator would be more relevant for the modern Christian. Such a mediator has no basis in the covenants described in the Hebrew Bible and also is more compatible with science and logic.
I'm just trying to understand why Christians insist on Jesus as a mediator when he's clearly not necessary...