Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[Caladan]

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.

Are you aware of what Jesus has said at the moment of his death on the cross? and the Christian theological interpretation of it?

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

Jesus certainly did. and I can tell you Jewish men around the world disagree with his social and political take on the reality in Israel during his time on many many things.
So I see a few options here. either the nice Jewish boy from Galilee was right and he is the only Jewish young man who ACTUALLY was God. or many Jewish men think the same when it comes to some of the basics. they will turn the world over for their children, family, and in many cases entire nation.
Hebrew religion has a couple of very basic wisdom phrases about God.
they are 'I am that I am', and 'Know before Whom you stand'. the latter one is written boldly above the holiest section of the synagogue, the part which houses the Torah scroll and which faces Jerusalem.
I don't know what other Jewish men make of it when they experience this. but I think its safe to say, that they share much of my sentiments, because when it comes down to it, men will always be men. they get excited by the most daring attitudes.
So far it hasn't worked out badly. who would have thought that after centuries and centuries of Jewish men crying 'Next year in Jerusalem!' when raising their wine glasses in Jewish festivities in the communities of the diaspora, whether if its ghettos in Europe, or the desert of Yemen thousands of miles away, would actually have the following generations and their families all back in their ancestral land.
What can I say, Who Dares Wins.

 

[smokydot]

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

Yeah, we already know. . .no one is superior to you. . .not even the Word of God written.

When you get your D.Phil from Oxford, write over 20 acclaimed books, one of which sold over a million copies, then we'll talk about your being his "peer."
He also played a role in the NIV.

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

Been there. . .done that. . .and have personal letters from him. And if you brought up my legal name, he would know who you were talking about.

He is devoted to presenting the Word of God written as true, rather than trying to show why it is "untrue." So of course I would expect you not to regard such an eminent theologian, scholar, author, and ordained minister of God with eminent respect, choosing rather to be flippant regarding him.

You do know your flippancy says more about you than it does him, right?

 

[Caladan]

Yeah, we already know. . .no one is superior to you. . .not even the Word of God written.

When you get your D.Phil from Oxford, write over 20 acclaimed books, one of which sold over a million copies, then we'll talk about your being his "peer."
He also played a role in the NIV.
Been there. . .done that. . .and have personal letters from him. And if you brought up my legal name, he would know who you were talking about.

Give him a couple of years and enough juicy scriptural material. and I'm sure RF would benefit hours of top notch scholarship and entertainment.
Some people who believe in God, or consider that if there was a God, he would not be anal retentive but probably pretty cool and easy going, are also sure that he is thirsty for Men and Women to test him and his Written Word to the best of their ability. so at the end of it all, when they will have their cup of joe' with the good lord, he could laugh with them and say: 'well done, you've done your homework', who knows maybe he would even stick around to discuss and debate the scriptures with them. you know... sort of like 'This is how it really happened' healthy curiosity people get about the JFK case, WMD in the desert, or if Hitler had only one testicle.
You should actually understand this better than most people. because in Christian tradition, God became Man, and travelled the synagogues of Israel debating Jewish men. he might had a pair after all.

 

[smokydot]

Are you aware of what Jesus has said at the moment of his death on the cross? and the Christian theological interpretation of it?

Yes.

Jesus certainly did.

Yes, Jesus said the Father gave all judgment of men to him.

and I can tell you Jewish men around the world disagree with his social and political take on the reality in Israel during his time on many many things.

They were there? Angellous_evangellous just explained how religion changes so much over time. . .2000 years is a long time. . .for a lot of change. . .

So I see a few options here. either the nice Jewish boy from Galilee was right and he is the only Jewish young man who ACTUALLY was God. or many Jewish men think the same when it comes to some of the basics. they will turn the world over for their children, family, and in many cases entire nation.

And that relates to Jesus, how? Are Jewish men the only ones? That's a common trait of the Mediterranean cultures.

Hebrew religion has a couple of very basic wisdom phrases about God.
they are 'I am that I am', and 'Know before Whom you stand'. the latter one is written boldly above the holiest section of the synagogue, the part which houses the Torah scroll and which faces Jerusalem.
I don't know what other Jewish men make of it when they experience this. but I think its safe to say, that they share much of my sentiments, because when it comes down to it, men will always be men. they get excited by the most daring attitudes.
So far it hasn't worked out badly. who would have thought that after centuries and centuries of Jewish men crying 'Next year in Jerusalem!' when raising their wine glasses in Jewish festivities in the communities of the diaspora, whether if its ghettos in Europe, or the desert of Yemen thousands of miles away, would actually have the following generations and their families all back in their ancestral land.
What can I say, Who Dares Wins.

 

[smokydot]

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 theolog

So you are referring to every theology that comes down the pike.
I was thinking more of orthodox Reformed theology according to the original Westminster Confession. What of that is not in Scripture?

===

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

What does that mean? Where are you getting the knowledge of God if not from those Scriptures?

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.

Good post. . .

 

[Caladan]

Yes, Jesus said the Father gave all judgment of men to him.

First thing. the NT says that Jesus has said this. the NT was not written by Jesus, but by men who wrote about Jesus, that is room for speculation right there, considering the fact that personality cult was very successful propaganda in the Roman empire. if a political tool works, most thinking men would stick with it.
there are nations around this world who still revolve around personality cults.

They were there? Angellous_evangellous just explained how religion changes so much over time. . .2000 years is a long time. . .for a lot of change.

Well apparently we are all talking over an internet forum at the dawn of the second decade of the twenty first century, so it would be hard for any of us to present any signature by Jesus on our Bibles, saying 'to smokydot, have fun reading my favourite book! see you around, Jesus'. so the best we can do is debate each other to the best of our abilities with our best weapons- our intellect, the studies we all take dead seriously, and our passion to the subject.
.

And that relates to Jesus, how? Are Jewish men the only ones? That's a common trait of the Mediterranean cultures.

Exactly. and most of them probably think: 'This is what God would do', even if they doubt his existence, sticking up for their own would be on the level they would want others to stick up for them, Mediterranean men and women tend to be more passionate, so naturally when they envision an ideal figure, in this case God, they would take inspiration from a passionate God.

 

[BigRed]

First thing. the NT says that Jesus has said this. the NT was not written by Jesus, but by men who wrote about Jesus,

Here is a very interesting fact.
In Eusebius book, History of the Church, there is a letter Eusebius says was written by Jesus.
Eusebius is often used a a source for "Facts" about the early Christian Church.
But don't you wonder why the Scholars, and Church fathers never mention this letter written by Jesus?

BigRed

 

[Caladan]

Here is a very interesting fact.
In Eusebius book, History of the Church, there is a letter Eusebius says was written by Jesus.
Eusebius is often used a a source for "Facts" about the early Christian Church.
But don't you wonder why the Scholars, and Church fathers never mention this letter written by Jesus?

BigRed

Must be some great big cover up. the kind the Discovery channel have an interest to air after a UFO program. incidentally, most scholars believe the letter is not written by Jesus. that didn't stop Christians in the middle ages to treat it as the panties of Madonna though. who knows, maybe it inspired men to wipe out a few Muslim villages.

 

[smokydot]

haha - that's prejudice.

All opinions are not false.

Absolutely true statement. . .with absolutely no relevance or bearing on the issue. . .a drunk man's personal conjecture as compared to a sober man's personal conjecture.

 

[smokydot]

First thing. the NT says that Jesus has said this. the NT was not written by Jesus, but by men who wrote about Jesus, that is room for speculation right there,

First thing. That the Bible is the true and trustworthy Word of God written is a matter of faith, not proof.

I believe it is. . .so it's truth is not a matter of debate for me.

I simply discuss what it says.

considering the fact that personality cult was very successful propaganda in the Roman empire. if a political tool works, most thinking men would stick with it.
there are nations around this world who still revolve around personality cults.
Well apparently we are all talking over an internet forum at the dawn of the second decade of the twenty first century, so it would be hard for any of us to present any signature by Jesus on our Bibles, saying 'to smokydot, have fun reading my favourite book! see you around, Jesus'. so the best we can do is debate each other to the best of our abilities with our best weapons- our intellect, the studies we all take dead seriously, and our passion to the subject.
Exactly. and most of them probably think: 'This is what God would do', even if they doubt his existence, sticking up for their own would be on the level they would want others to stick up for them, Mediterranean men and women tend to be more passionate, so naturally when they envision an ideal figure, in this case God, they would take inspiration from a passionate God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, we already know. . .no one is superior to you. . .not even the Word of God written.

When you get your D.Phil from Oxford, write over 20 acclaimed books, one of which sold over a million copies, then we'll talk about your being his "peer."
He also played a role in the NIV.
Been there. . .done that. . .and have personal letters from him. And if you brought up my legal name, he would know who you were talking about.

He is devoted to presenting the Word of God written as true, rather than trying to show why it is "untrue." So of course I would expect you not to regard such an eminent theologian, scholar, author, and ordained minister of God with eminent respect, choosing rather to be flippant regarding him.

You do know your flippancy says more about you than it does him, right?

Oh no, please don't mistake me for being flippant.

I was commenting on your reliance on one scholar. I'm glad you've exchanged letters with him (etc).

As for the Oxford thing, I've met plenty of folks from there who were wrong about a lot of things.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So you are referring to every theology that comes down the pike.

It's all Christian.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was thinking more of orthodox Reformed theology according to the original Westminster Confession.

I'll just refer you to a few books:

Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development by David F. Wells, Roger R. Nicole

The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology, edited by Donald K. McKim

 

[Harmonious]

My time of penance is over?

Maybe.

Smoky meets the OT Scriptures.

Not well.

 

[Harmonious]

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.

My pleasure.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What does that mean? Where are you getting the knowledge of God if not from those Scriptures?

It means that I'm not applying a particular theological method to produce an interpretation of Scripture.

That's how we get all those theologies.

The GLBT theologians apply "queer theory" to the text, feminist theologians apply feminist theory... and so on. It's really interesting what they can produce when they look at it from a different and fresh perspective.

What I do is examine what the text itself says and means in its original contexts. Often a new theological approach can correct errors in the biblical interpretation that I do, showing for example how a particular interpretation can be harmful for certain modern contexts and the interpretation itself can be corrected and re-shaped while still being faithful to the original meaning. It's quite a beautiful process.

 

[smokydot]

I'll just refer you to a few books:
Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development by David F. Wells, Roger R. Nicole
The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology, edited by Donald K. McKim

Are they dealing with the original Westminster Confession?

 

[smokydot]

So you are referring to every theology that comes down the pike. . .that's fair.

Okay, let me make it easy. . .what theology in the original Westminster Confession is not found in the Scriptures?

Would you please present two examples of such for examination?

 

[smokydot]

1) Do we have any basis in the NT for this rationale you give here? ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2326545-post973.html

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?

2) And regarding your second quote in the above post:

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

 

[smokydot]

So if sin defiles anything, it defiles us. The problem arises when we stand before an undefiled God. But God's presence is still holy.

Filth and vermin in the operating area defiles the area by its own defilement. . .both are defiled.

Do you have any basis in the OT Scriptures for sin not defiling the presence of God? Would you please present them so we can examine them.