Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[angellous_evangellous]

That's a formula for what the Bible calls unbelief. . .

If you're just making up stuff that isn't there, how can it be "unbelief" when I ask you to actually draw your attention to the NT?

You're free to believe in it or not, but you haven't a clue what it means.

 

[smokydot]

If you're just making up stuff that isn't there, how can it be "unbelief" when I ask you to actually draw your attention to the NT?
You're free to believe in it or not, but you haven't a clue what it means.

Each can decide for himself. . .re: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314202-post419.html -- formula for what the Bible calls unbelief

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Each can decide for himself. . .re: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314202-post419.html --

That's true. Types are the center of your universe.

Fortunately that's not the case for almost everyone else.

 

[smokydot]

That's true. Types are the center of your universe

. . .and of the letter to the Hebrews, see: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314202-post419.html -- formula for what the Bible calls unbelief

and see: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314279-post420.html -- Outline of Letter to the Hebrews

Fortunately that's not the case for almost everyone else.

And you know almost everyone else?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

. . .and the letter to the Hebrews, see: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314202-post419.html and http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314279-post420.html.

And you know almost everyone?

It's not that difficult to learn the interpretation pattern of the major denomenations, especially when someone reads as much and as long as I do.

No major denomenation puts as much stock in types as you do - really there are only five (tops) types that commentaries and method books will examine, and that's where pastors get their material from. It's also not an issue in ANY theological journal from ANY denomenation (either scholarly or layperson) - I have access to all of them.

I'm venturing to guess that you've just gone ga-ga over types and you're not really following any kind of book or other guide -- except perhaps a source that only identifies three to five types and you've "plundered" Leviticus (I can't see why) for more.

 

[smokydot]

It's not that difficult to learn the interpretation pattern of the major denomenations, especially when someone reads as much and as long as I do.
No major denomenation puts as much stock in types as you do - really there are only five (tops) types that commentaries and method books will examine, and that's where pastors get their material from.

Oh! . .there are five now! . .that's quite a departure from all your reckless assertions made earlier that "there are no types". . .or "types are artificial and reckless". . .or "that is an antiquated approach". . .or "they're just not there". . .see: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305543-post1252.html,

which you have yet to ackowledge you were dead wrong about. . .so much for your claim to honesty, below, in admitting when you are wrong.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2307822-post1308.html -- your third quote there.

And maybe the believers are getting it from their teachers in Sunday school, who are also capable, and can find resources other than yours.

It's also not an issue in ANY theological journal from ANY denomenation (either scholarly or layperson) - I have access to all of them.
I'm venturing to guess that you've just gone ga-ga over types and you're not really following any kind of book or other guide -- except perhaps a source that only identifies three to five types and you've "plundered" Leviticus (I can't see why) for more.

Types are orthodox Christianity, coming from the letter to the Hebrews, as well as Paul, and giving the full meaning of Jesus Christ in OT physical patterns of him, which is the best guardian against erroneous doctrine concerning him. . .and which "I'm venturing to guess" explains your emphatic resistance to them.

They, being obvious physically, are protected from the latest heretical reinterpretation to come down the pike regarding who Jesus is. . .from the "historical" Jesus apart from the Bible. . .to the denial of his atonement by the shedding of blood for the sin of those who believe in him.

The types give the lie to all the reinterpretations of Christ by latter day novel speculators who do not believe the NT, and are the ones most emphatically trying to overturn them.

If the shoe fits. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh! . .there are five now! . .that's quite a departure from all your reckless assertions made earlier that "there are no types". . .or "types are artificial and reckless". . .or "they're just not there". . .see: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305543-post1252.html,

Read carefully, now. I did not say that I believed that there were five types, but that some commentaries and method books examine between three and five types.

there are only five (tops) types that commentaries and method books will examine, and that's where pastors get their material from.

 

[smokydot]

Read carefully, now. I did not say that I believed that there were five types, but that some commentaries and method books examine between three and five types.

So the shoe does fit. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the shoe does fit. . .

You're delusional.

Or profoundly dishonest.

I can't tell which.

 

[smokydot]

You're delusional.
Or profoundly dishonest.
I can't tell which.

Depends on what one thinks is "delusional" or "profoundly dishonest". . .

I don't place myself above the Scriptures by denying the NT presentation of types in Hebrews, which are shown following:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2309874-post226.html,

nor do I place myself above Jesus himself by labeling as heresy his claim that Scripture is the Word of God written, shown here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299244-post85.html -- at point (3) there.

In the light of the NT, it is quite easy to tell who is truly "delusional" and "profoundly dishonest."

Each can decide for himself where the delusion and profound dishonesty lie here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Each can decide for himself where the delusion and profound dishonesty lie here.

True.

But this isn't the first time that you've attributed words to me that I did not say.... and defended it by giving a completely twisted interpretation of my quote.

Now you're again saying that I said something that I clearly did not say.

That's what we call - in the real world - dishonest slander.

And, by the way, you will find that I am perfectly consistent. This is because I always say what I believe and I never lie... so I don't have to remember them, which is obviously difficult for you to do.

 

[smokydot]

True.
But this isn't the first time that you've attributed words to me that I did not say.... and defended it by giving a completely twisted interpretation of my quote.
Now you're again saying that I said something that I clearly did not say.
That's what we call - in the real world - dishonest slander.
And, by the way, you will find that I am perfectly consistent. This is because I always say what I believe and I never lie... so I don't have to remember them, which is obviously difficult for you to do.

Methinks the lady doth whine too much. . .because the facts of the record presented here speak for themselves. . .http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314653-post430.html

Each can decide for himself. . .

 

[fallingblood]

Methinks the lady doth whine too much. . .because the facts presented here speak for themselves. . .http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2314653-post430.html

Each can decide for himself. . .

Would you please stop derailing these threads? It is very annoying to see just so much waste in these threads, and really, you've added nothing of substance. So can you just stop already?

 

[smokydot]

Would you please stop derailing these threads? It is very annoying to see just so much waste in these threads, and really, you've added nothing of substance.

Each gets to decide that for himself.

So can you just stop already?

 

[Harmonious]

Each gets to decide that for himself.

Yes, it is everyone's choice to decide for themselves the value of a particular post to themselves.

But since fallingblood was the OP, and he feels that your comments are not adding to the conversation he's attempting to have, he is respectfully asking that you stop replying in the fashion that you have been doing.

He asked a question. While you are giving your beliefs, the answer you are giving is not germane to getting the answer he was looking for. So he asked you to stop.

I thought it was a perfectly reasonable request.

 

[smokydot]

Yes, it is everyone's choice to decide for themselves the value of a particular post to themselves.
But since fallingblood was the OP, and he feels that your comments are not adding to the conversation he's attempting to have, he is respectfully asking that you stop replying in the fashion that you have been doing.
He asked a question. While you are giving your beliefs, the answer you are giving is not germane to getting the answer he was looking for. So he asked you to stop.
I thought it was a perfectly reasonable request.

'Twould be a perfectly reasonable request. . .had he made that request to all who likewise engage in such. . .but his not doing that betrays the bias of his request, suggesting that the real problem is he just doesn't like the answers presented to the question of his OP: Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

 

[Harmonious]

'Twould be a perfectly reasonable request. . .had he made that request to all who likewise engage in such. . .but his not doing that reflects the bias of his request, suggesting that the real problem is he just doesn't like the answers presented to the question of his OP: Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

Your answers didn't really help.

THE answer is, no, Jewish law cannot be fulfilled by one person, such that it abrogates the responsibility of all other Jews to accomplish them.

 

[smokydot]

Your answers didn't really help.

THE answer is, no, Jewish law cannot be fulfilled by one person, such that it abrogates the responsibility of all other Jews to accomplish them.

That's one answer. . .

And it has been explained to you more than once that "fulfilling the law" is not why Christians are no longer under the law.

Christians are no longer under the law because it has been set aside with the setting aside of the Levitical priesthood, which was its basis (Heb 7:12).

 

[free spirit]

Your answers didn't really help.

THE answer is, no, Jewish law cannot be fulfilled by one person, such that it abrogates the responsibility of all other Jews to accomplish them.

Your reasoning is not balanced because If one cannot fulfill the law for everyone, nor should Adam sin be imputed to all men.

God is just or is he not?

 

[Harmonious]

Your reasoning is not balanced because If one cannot fulfill the law for everyone, nor should Adam sin be imputed to all men.

Adam's sin ISN'T imputed to all men.

In YOUR belief system, all people are born with Original Sin. According to my belief system, we are born as pure as the soul that just came out of heaven. Only our actions in THIS world count against us. Only if we knowingly continue to sin in the way that our parents started, then and only then will we be punished for our sin as well as theirs.

Adam isn't me. I'm sure God forgave Adam his sin many millennia ago.

God is just or is he not?

God is just and merciful. He tempers complete justice with mercy, and forgives us our sins, especially when we ask for forgiveness and don't repeat the sin.