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.

Conjecture is conjecture. . . is conjecture 2,000 years after the fact. . .is conjecture. . .whether pulled out of thin air. . .or long reflection. . .or scholarhship in languages. It's still conjecture, with no basis in the NT actual reports of those who were there, or knew those who were. . .and is patently absurd on the face of it.

 

[smokydot]

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 changes are in theology, they are not in the Scriptures themselves.

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

Don't know what "doing" means, but orthodox Christian theology is based in the objective written record of the Scriptures. . .it is not based in the subjective assessment
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.

How about it means what it plainly says. . .​

So that does involve theology - but it's a discovering of theology rather than an application of it to today.

After 2,000 years, the "discovering" of theology has long been completed in orthodox Christianity.

The fun part is biblical scholars tell theologians what the text meant, and we can frustrate them to no end by changing our minds.

Many Biblical theological scholars are also scholars of Hebrew and Greek, and I suspect are not "frustrated" to no end, because they can also determine what the text means.

Just keeping it all straight here. . .and making sure we are all on the same page. . .

 

[Caladan]

This is a common Christian belief, that Jesus fulfilled Jewish law. But is that even possible? As in, can anyone fulfill Jewish law?

To me, it simply doesn't sound right.

Lets try it again. to illustrate my first post in this thread.
I can tell you what most modern Jewish men think. they read Jewish literary works, whether the Hebrew Bible, Talmud, or even the New Testament if they are up for the challenge of discovering how Jewish the text is, and how easily they can dissect it.
and they think to themselves: 'OK, so this is what other Jewish men think, some of it is not bad actually... but here's what I am going to do.'

 

[Caladan]

BTW, Jesus did not fulfil Jewish law. the Christian dogma around his crucifixion is contrary to every Jewish tradition and instinct. if all it takes to fulfil the law is dying for your beliefs. I can tell you that millions and millions of Jewish men and women have done it throughout history.
further more, Jesus simply did the mistake of saying what every Jewish man thinks: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Conjecture is conjecture. . . is conjecture 2,000 years after the fact. . .is conjecture. . .whether pulled out of thin air. . .or long reflection. . .or scholarhship in languages. It's still conjecture, with no basis in the NT actual reports of those who were there, or knew those who were. . .and is patently absurd on the face of it.

No, uninformed conjecture is not the same thing as informed conjecture.

A drunk who has never read Scripture, for example, would not provide the quality of conjecture that an informed reader of Scripture (and the rest of the ancient world).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The changes are in theology, they are not in the Scriptures themselves.

Oh, I agree.

The changes in the Scriptures themselves over time were often indicators of changes in Christian theology -- and certainly the differences in translations.

I will add also that the Scriptures aren't Christian theology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

After 2,000 years, the "discovering" of theology has long been completed in orthodox Christianity.

Whatever you think that Christian orthodoxy is, it's not something that has remained somehow unchanged for 2,000 years.

Even the Eastern Orthodox church, whose claim to doctrinal antiquity is
most valid, has seen and embraced change for at least the past 1,000 years.

The work of orthodoxy is not over in our time, and it faces new challenges that force development and continual refinement.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Many Biblical theological scholars are also scholars of Hebrew and Greek, and I suspect are not "frustrated" to no end, because they can also determine what the text means.

Just keeping it all straight here. . .and making sure we are all on the same page. . .

If one can't read Hebrew and Greek, one is not a "biblical theological scholar."

The reason why theologians have to rely on biblical scholars is because they can't also become experts in archaeology, rhetoric, epistolary criticism, philosophy, classics, and so on. The theologian has his mind in the clouds concerning the character of God and God's role in the world -- big questions -- but when they want to know what the bible says they turn to us.

I heard a prominent biblical theologian say one time that he no longer uses the bible as a basis for his theology because biblical scholars keep refining what the text means. You see, when the meaning is established, it acts as a fence of sorts -- it can't be interpreted (theologically, for example) in a way that conflicts with its meaning.

[.... and no, we're not on the same page. We're not even on the same planet]

 

[smokydot]

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

What is interesting is the way to troll through the NT, crawling over the Word of God like vermin looking for a spot to enter and defile.
I'm sorry if this offends you, but your accusations of fabrication and dishonesty by the NT writers likewise offend me, particularly because they are lies, proven so following.

1) First, Paul's "Anti-Law" theology was not "fabricated." What is fabricated are your ridiculous personal opinions regarding Paul's theology, which have absolutely no basis in the NT.

2) Read again what he said: "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed." (Ro 1:17, 3:21-22; Php 3:9)
His "Anti-Law" theology came from the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was not based on Hab 2:4, it was simply confirmed by Hab 2:4.

It is revealed in the gospel: Read Jn 3:15, 16, 36, 6:28-29, 40, 47, 11:25-26.

3) It is revealed in Abraham: Gal 3:6-9, 14, 17-18, 23-29.

4) It is revealed in the letter to the Hebrews: Heb 11:7.

5) You don't know the NT, you don't understand the NT, so for the sake of Truth, stop pretending that you do.

 

[smokydot]

BTW, Jesus did not fulfil Jewish law. the Christian dogma around his crucifixion is contrary to every Jewish tradition and instinct. if all it takes to fulfil the law is dying for your beliefs. I can tell you that millions and millions of Jewish men and women have done it throughout history.

That is not the NT meaning of "Jesus fulfilled the Law."

See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310320-post238.html and http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320006-post527.html.

further more, Jesus simply did the mistake of saying what every Jewish man thinks: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Does every Jewish man think he is the judge of all mankind and deserving of the same honor as God? (Jn 5:22-23)

 

[smokydot]

No, uninformed conjecture is not the same thing as informed conjecture.

A drunk who has never read Scripture, for example, would not provide the quality of conjecture that an informed reader of Scripture (and the rest of the ancient world).

A distinction without a material difference. . .

You're just talking about differing degrees of falsehood regarding the testimony of the NT.

It's all still false and irrelevant.

 

[smokydot]

Oh, I agree.

The changes in the Scriptures themselves over time were often indicators of changes in Christian theology -- and certainly the differences in translations.

I will add also that the Scriptures aren't Christian theology.

Would you please present for examination some Christian theology that is not in the Scriptures?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Would you please present for examination some Christian theology that is not in the Scriptures?

Theology of the Apostolic fathers
Patristic theology
Nichene theology
Post-Nichean theology
Augustinian theology
Various Roman Catholic theologies
Lutheran theology
Reformed theology
American Protestant theologies
"Biblical" theologies

More modern:

GLBT theology
Feminist theology
Post-colonial theology
Liberation theology
Social Justice theology
Open theology
Christian atheism theology

===

All of these have some relationship with Scripture, but the focus is on God rather than the Scriptures themselves.

The theology that I study is the "theology of Mark" or whatever writer I happen to be studying. I'm concerned with what is actually in the text, and leave it to others to further interpret it for various theological agendas. I do read a good deal of theology, however, mostly because I have friends who are active in almost every one of these fields.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A distinction without a material difference. . .

You're just talking about differing degrees of falsehood regarding the testimony of the NT.

It's all still false and irrelevant.

haha - that's prejudice.

All opinions are not false.

 

[smokydot]

Whatever you think that Christian orthodoxy is, it's not something that has remained somehow unchanged for 2,000 years.
Even the Eastern Orthodox church, whose claim to doctrinal antiquity is
most valid, has seen and embraced change for at least the past 1,000 years.
The work of orthodoxy is not over in our time, and it faces

new challenges that force development and continual refinement.

What does that mean? Divine Truth doesn't change.

Would you please give an example of change in Reformed Christian theology since the time of the Reformation.

Good post. . .

 

[smokydot]

If one can't read Hebrew and Greek, one is not a "biblical theological scholar."
The reason why theologians have to rely on biblical scholars is because they can't also become experts in archaeology, rhetoric, epistolary criticism, philosophy, classics, and so on. The theologian has his mind in the clouds concerning the character of God and God's role in the world -- big questions -- but when they want to know what the bible says they turn to us.
I heard a prominent biblical theologian say one time that he no longer uses the bible as a basis for his theology because biblical scholars keep refining what the text means. You see, when the meaning is established, it acts as a fence of sorts -- it can't be interpreted (theologically, for example) in a way that conflicts with its meaning.

[.... and no, we're not on the same page. We're not even on the same planet]

Bottom line. . .I have the Biblical theological scholar by which I will measure all such scholars. . .and their scholarship. . .his name is J. I. Packer.

See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2327076-post980.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What does that mean? Divine Truth doesn't change.

Would you please give an example of change in Reformed Christian theology since the time of the Reformation.

Good post. . .

The Reformers themselves did not agree on important points of theology and their very unstable unification disintegrated already in the 16th century, and the Reformers split up according to their old divisions into Radicals (Zwingli = Baptists), Calvinists (Calvin = Puritans), and Lutherans. Each of these groups emphasized their pet theologies, and when they came to America they split up even more.

A "reformed" church today will choose their favorite Reformer (usually Calvin) and emphasize his theology rather than all three because they differ so much... or pretend that its theology comes from Scripture. It's just self-aggrandizement and a self-centered lie that makes people feel good about their particular church. It has served to bring disunity to the Christian fellowship rather than unity --- and that should indicate how evil it is.

Churches like to pretend that their theology has historical priority, but in fact the history of their theology is so fractured that no meaningful historical thread can be established..... except possibly for the historical churches - the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic church, and maybe the Oriental Church.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bottom line. . .I have the Biblical theological scholar by which I will measure all such scholars. . .and their scholarship. . .his name is J. I. Packer.

See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2327076-post980.html

Worshipping at the feet of the infallible Packer, I see.

I'll tell him hello for you if I meet him... maybe get an autograph.

 

[free spirit]

What does that mean? Divine Truth doesn't change.


Good post. . .

Yes I agree Divine Truth does not change.

WHAT IS TRUTH?


All believers, regardless of denominational creed, search for the assurance of understanding about what is truth, because it seems that truth in this world is continually changing, as in what was true yesterday is no longer true today. However you can be assured that God’s universal truth is still the same as it has always been, unaltered and unalterable. As darkness cannot put out the light, even so lies and speculations cannot alter the truth. But unfortunately lies and speculations have the capacity to lure us to focus on other unimportant things. Those things may not be necessarily bad, nevertheless they are sufficient to cause us to miss the true purpose of our calling, which is to walk towards God’s universal, unchangeable truth.
You may well ask, what is God’s universal, unchangeable truth? Bear with me for a moment, and God willing I will try to point it out to you. In the gospel of John 18:33-38 we read of an exchange between Pilate the Roman governor and Jesus. It unfolds in the following manner: “Pilate therefore entered again into the praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priest delivered You up to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world, if My Kingdom were of this world, then My servant would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Pilate therefore said to Him, ‘So you are a King?’ Jesus answered: ‘You say correctly that I am a King. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, ‘I find no guilt in Him.’”
If we superficially read the above exchange between Pilate and Jesus we will also be left asking, “What is truth?” But if we look more closely, some interesting facts will emerge, such as “He has come into the world to bear witness to the truth.” And then Jesus makes an extraordinary statement about the human race, “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” What does it mean? And how did Jesus, by coming into the world bear witness to the truth? Or how can anyone be of the truth? The answer of course, through God’s wisdom, is staring at us in the face. We can all see it, but it can’t be perceived, unless it is spiritually revealed to us.
By the wisdom of God, the answer to “What is truth?” came out from Pilate’s own mouth, in the form of his judgement of Jesus: “I find no guilt in Him.” In other words, “He is holy, He is without sin.” We can see that by being holy even unto death, He has fulfilled His primary mission, which speaks thus: “He has come into the world to bear witness to the truth.” That is to say, Jesus has shown us in words and deeds how to be holy, or how to be of the truth (which is not by mere chance the heart of the gospel).
So we come to the most simple and worldwide-understood principle, because on the day that we are also to face judgement, that is all the truth that matters, for God will judge the world only according to our holiness or lack of it. Think about it. Is it possible to believe in God and yet practice sin? Is believing some denominational doctrine or an historical fact enough to be saved? Doesn’t even Satan believe?
But by the grace of God, we of the human race have been given a golden opportunity: “to be of the truth,” which enables us to hear His still and holy voice. All we have to have is the sincere desire to be holy, (remember Cornelius Acts 10:1-4) and if we are a true believer that should not be too difficult for us. After that the Holy Spirit will lead each individual into repentance, for He knows the right way for each one of us as we obey the prompting of the Holy Spirit, our inner attitude toward our fellow men and ourselves will change for the better, until we are at peace with God, at peace with ourselves and with the world.
On the day of judgement the Righteous Judge also will utter from His mouth, “I find no guilt in him.” On that day we will be changed from “who is of the truth” into “who is part of the truth.”
Because “Truth” in God’s eyes is not only that which is contrary to falsehood, but it is also a state of existence, the day will come when only “Truth” will exist in eternity. Then we can confidently say that“Truth” is a state of unchanging holiness, the essence of God to which we, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ have become partakers.
In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I Am the ‘Way’, the ‘Truth’, and the ‘Life’; no one comes to the Father, but through Me”. Yes!
He is the “Way” because we must follow the footsteps of His earthly life = Repentance
He is the “Truth” because He is the embodiment of unchanging holiness = God
He is also the “Life” because He is the eternal Word = Eternal life
What more is there to say? For I am fully convinced that if one doesn’t know anything about anything, but practises the beliefs that are in Jesus and/or lives his life by the principles of the gospel of holiness, he is acceptable to God.
Glory to God

 

[smokydot]

The Reformers themselves did not agree on important points of theology and their very unstable unification disintegrated already in the 16th century, and the Reformers split up according to their old divisions into Radicals (Zwingli = Baptists), Calvinists (Calvin = Puritans), and Lutherans. Each of these groups emphasized their pet theologies, and when they came to America they split up even more.

A "reformed" church today will choose their favorite Reformer (usually Calvin) and emphasize his theology rather than all three because they differ so much...

Now had you stopped here, you would have been dealing pretty much in fact. . .but then you go on to preaching your personal doctrine based in your personal opinion, of which everybody has one.

or pretend that its theology comes from Scripture. It's just self-aggrandizement and a self-centered lie that makes people feel good about their particular church. It has served to bring disunity to the Christian fellowship rather than unity --- and that should indicate how evil it is.

A little righteous, are we?

Churches like to pretend that their theology has historical priority, but in fact the history of their theology is so fractured that no meaningful historical thread can be established..... except possibly for the historical churches - the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic church, and maybe the Oriental Church.

Well, I'm referring to the original Westminster Confession as the standard for orthodox Reformed Theology.

What of its theology has changed among adherents to the original Confession?

Basically good post. . .