Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

Smoky,
I thought about addressing your questions one by one, but I think that in this case you can pretty much guess the answer to all of them.... with the important qualification that if I didn't say it, I didn't say it. Do in that case, the answer is a resounding "no."
If I'm not quoting Scripture, I know that I'm not quoting it.
Finally, with respect to the "conjectures," they aren't something pulled out of thin air but are the product of long reflection on the Scriptures and scholarship. I know that you probably don't respect that because you yourself don't see it when you just causually look at the Scriptures or your Sunday School notes.... or perhaps your understanding of inspiration won't allow you to even entertain ideas like this. But it's not an empty conjecture, and just pointing that out or accusing me of that is no better than if it was.

Well, let's clear up something for me. . .do you believe the whole NT taken in the plain meaning of its words and in the context of the whole Bible?

A simple yes or no would really work for me. . .it's not a problem either way. . .

 

[smokydot]

Hey somky....
Imagine me.... teaching seminary students....
muwhahahaha

Now that's a scary thought!

 

[BigRed]

That's pretty much what I indicated.

The following are taken from highly symbolic prophecy, and are not the basis for orthodox understanding of the second coming of Jesus, which comes from the didactics.
Oh, no. . .he was forsaken by God for a while. . .it was part of the wrath of God on sin (Jn 3:36) which he took in our place.

The point is, that according to Daniel's prophecy, the Son of Man, would receive the Kingdom at the fall of the 4th beast, Rome.
Rome fell hundreds of years ago and Jesus never received the Kingdom.

BigRed

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now that's a scary thought!

I sharpen my teeth and nails before each lecture.

 

[Harmonious]

As a biblical scholar I can tell you that for Paul, it was a burden. He may have had a teacher that over-emphasized certain aspects of the law - like for example, sex and the roles of women. Paul wanted to follow this closely, fanatically, and probably struggled with lust or homosexuality. Paul found solice in the Jesus movement, and worked out two things (1) that Gentiles and Jews alike had a law and could not fulfill it and (2) that Christianity should be a perfect unity of Jews and Gentiles following the law of love (e.g., the law of the Gentiles).

The whole idea that the law is a burden that is unfulfillable comes from Paul's own obsessions with his failures. It's his intellectual rationale for leaving Judiasm and forming a way to keep the law without punishing himself.

He has a personality like Martin Luther - he just beats himself up like crazy when he makes mistakes.

With all this being said... if Christians are not Jews, we have no place talking with Jews about their relationship to the law. It was a burden for Paul, he found solace in Christ, but that does not mean that it's not a blessing for Jews and Gentiles alike today.

Well said. :clap

 

[Harmonious]

Leviticus and the Holy of Holies teach other than what you state. . .but you're correct in a certain sense. . .you will die before you get a chance to defile his presence

You don't understand that, like I explained before.

if you enter it in sin. . .

Unless you are the Cohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Then it is NOT a sin.

so in that sense, his presence is never defiled. . .he doesn't allow it. . .the point is: sin in the presence of God results in death,

just as it did for the High Priest if he entered the Holy of Holies uncleansed by sacrifice from sin,

You know... This is such a bastardization of the understanding of what actually happened, I don't know where to begin to fix it.

No - the Cohen Gadol made mistakes. He was human (in every generation we had on) like everyone else.

It was when the Cohen Gadol BLATANTLY IGNORED Jewish law and philosophy that he was killed while in the Holy of Holies.

It had nothing to do with offering "sacrifices for sin."

But this isn't a reality you are truly interested in.

and that included any infraction while performing that particular ceremony itself!

Again... Smoky doesn't meet reality.

:no:

 

[Harmonious]

As a biblical scholar I can tell you that for Paul, it was a burden.

I was thinking about this.

Paul found it difficult. Why do people think that ALL OTHER JEWS had the same problem?

 

[smokydot]

The point is, that according to Daniel's prophecy, the Son of Man, would receive the Kingdom at the fall of the 4th beast, Rome.
Rome fell hundreds of years ago and Jesus never received the Kingdom.

BigRed

It's prophecy. . .that assumes you have correctly identified the kingdoms, the beasts and the times. . .how many of the prophecies fulfilled in the NT were understood to mean what Jesus and the apostles say they do?

Orthodox Christian doctrine is not based in prophecy.

 

[smokydot]

It most certainly is, and I am in a divinity school teaching divinity students. My Ph.D. is "Doctor of Philosophy in the Interpretation of the Bible and Early Christian Literature." I have had to master a good deal of biblical scholarship and I am considered a biblical scholar. This subject is within the broader aspect of the humanities - I have degrees in the arts (humanities) rather than sciences.

Do you teach Christian theology in the divinity school?

If not, what do you teach?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you teach Christian theology in the divinity school?

Sort of. I can teach NT theology and Pauline theology. But I don't do theology - I explain the theology that is "in" the Scriptures.

 

[BigRed]

Sort of. I can teach NT theology and Pauline theology. But I don't do theology - I explain the theology that is "in" the Scriptures.

You might find this interesting..........

IMO Paul was dishonest when he fabricated his Anti-Law theology.
Romans 1:17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, " BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Galatians 3:11
Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, " THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
Paul used the above slogan “”THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."“
as the cornerstone of his theology that man is saved by faith and not by works.
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
　
Paul got this slogan from Habakkuk 2:4


Habakkuk 2:4 NAS
"Behold, as for the proud one,His soul is not right within him;But the righteous will live by his faith.
I checked several Bible versions and each one says “”HIS”” Faith, and not Faith as Paul quotes it. That’s a clue that Paul has misused this Scripture.
In the NIV study Bible it has a margin note of “’Faithfulness”
The Harper Collins Study Bible has a margin note of “”Faithfulness”’
Although the words are similar, Faith is not the same as Faithfulness.
Does the righteous man live by his faithfulness to the Law?
The Jewish Publication Society has ..” The righteous man is rewarded with life for his Fidelity.
It is interesting to note that in the King James Bible, “Faith” is only used twice in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Strongs # 530 is the word used for faith at Habakkuk 2:4 On only one occasion, Hab 2:4, in the KJV is it translated as Faith. The word is used 49 times and the most popular translation is “Faithfulness”
The Brown- Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon has the meaning of #530 as “firmness, steadfastness, fidelity”
IMO, Paul was dishonest in his use of ““”THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."“
　


BigRed

 

[smokydot]

You don't understand that, like I explained before.
Unless you are the Cohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Then it is NOT a sin.
You know... This is such a bastardization of the understanding of what actually happened, I don't know where to begin to fix it.
No - the Cohen Gadol made mistakes. He was human (in every generation we had on) like everyone else.
It was when the Cohen Gadol BLATANTLY IGNORED Jewish law and philosophy that he was killed while in the Holy of Holies.
It had nothing to do with offering "sacrifices for sin."
But this isn't a reality you are truly interested in.
Again... Smoky doesn't meet reality.

:no:

My time of penance is over?

Smoky meets the OT Scriptures.

 

[smokydot]

As a biblical scholar I can tell you that for Paul, it was a burden. He may have had a teacher that over-emphasized certain aspects of the law - like for example, sex and the roles of women. Paul wanted to follow this closely, fanatically, and probably struggled with lust or homosexuality. Paul found solice in the Jesus movement, and worked out two things (1) that Gentiles and Jews alike had a law and could not fulfill it and (2) that Christianity should be a perfect unity of Jews and Gentiles following the law of love (e.g., the law of the Gentiles).
The whole idea that the law is a burden that is unfulfillable comes from Paul's own obsessions with his failures.

Do we have any basis in the NT for this rationale.

There are several places that touch on the law, sin and Paul, but they aren't about anything like this rationale.

Would you please provide some basis for this from the NT Scriptures so we can examine them?

It's his intellectual rationale for leaving Judiasm and forming a way to keep the law without punishing himself.
He has a personality like Martin Luther - he just beats himself up like crazy when he makes mistakes.
With all this being said... if Christians are not Jews, we have no place talking with Jews about their relationship to the law. It was a burden for Paul, he found solace in Christ, but that does not mean that it's not a blessing for Jews and Gentiles alike today.

Do we have any basis for this in the NT Scriptures. Would you please provide it so that we may examine it?

 

[smokydot]

The point is, that according to Daniel's prophecy, the Son of Man, would receive the Kingdom at the fall of the 4th beast, Rome.
Rome fell hundreds of years ago and Jesus never received the Kingdom.
BigRed

The point is prophecy can mean several things. . .we can't be certain of the meaning we choose. . .that's why it is not doctrine. . .and "refutation" is useless until we are certain what it means.

See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2326337-post968.html
--

 

[smokydot]

Sort of. I can teach NT theology and Pauline theology. But I don't do theology - I explain the theology that is "in" the Scriptures.

I'm not sure what you mean by theology that is "in" the Scriptures, since all Christian theology is "in" the Scriptures.

Would you please explain what you mean by that

 

[Pegg]

Not in a nice, neat little package.
But the idea is referenced all around.
From the site I cited, a list of what the commandments are and where they can be referenced:

thanks for that, i can see that these are very much the same laws that Paul taught christians to live by....although Paul taught broader principles which would cover a wide range of scenarios.


very helpful, thankful.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not sure what you mean by theology that is "in" the Scriptures, since all Christian theology is "in" the Scriptures.

Well, there is 2,000 years of Christian thought and writing that produces various theologies. I study the first 400 years, and in these 400 years there are significant changes and development in theology. Some of this was based in philosophical advances and some were just changes in how Christians read the Bible.

The "doing" of theology is the working out of how God is working in the world today.

The "doing" of biblical interpretation is trying to find out what the text meant to its original readers. So that does involve theology - but it's a discovering of theology rather than an application of it to today. The fun part is biblical scholars tell theologians what the text meant, and we can frustrate them to no end by changing our minds.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, let's clear up something for me. . .do you believe the whole NT taken in the plain meaning of its words and in the context of the whole Bible?

A simple yes or no would really work for me. . .it's not a problem either way. . .

Yes or no.

 

[smokydot]

Yes or no.

What part of "or" do you not understand?

I asked for a yes or no answer to my question: do you believe the whole NT taken at the plain meaning of its words, in the context of the whole Bible?

Seems we're back here again ---> (1), (3), (4) @ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html

 

[smokydot]

It most certainly is, and I am in a divinity school teaching divinity students. My Ph.D. is "Doctor of Philosophy in the Interpretation of the Bible

That's interpretation of the language, not interpretation of its theological meaning.
Biblical scholarship is the discipline of interpreting the theological meaning of the Scriptures.

An example would be J. I. (James Innell) Packer, D.Phil from Oxford University, (recently retired) professor of theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia,
senior editor of Christianity Today, and whose many published works, in articles from magazines to theological journals, include at least 20 acclaimed books.

I recommend you start with his book, highly acclaimed by theological seminaries, Concise Theology, A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs;
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois; 1993.

And then I recommend you move to Knowing God (over one million copies sold), InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 60515; 1973.

His is the scholarship that will be the basis for my posts on the Bible. . .and also by which I will measure yours.

and Early Christian Literature." I have had to master a good deal of biblical scholarship and I am considered a biblical scholar. This subject is within the broader aspect of the humanities - I have degrees in the arts (humanities) rather than sciences.

Biblical scholarship; i.e., scholarship in the theological meaning of the Scriptures, is not within the broader aspect of the humanitie. . .that is where
interpretataion of original languages is found.

Without the appropriate background in Christian theology, you are not qualified to "do" orthodox Christian theology of Scripture, and that is why you do not "do" so.

And personal conjecture, 2,000 years after the fact, is no substitute for adequate scholarship in the orthodox Christian theological content of the Bible.