Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[smokydot]

Oh no, please don't mistake me for being flippant.
I was commenting on your reliance on one scholar.

I open my mind like I open my mouth. . .to close it on something solid.

I have found Packer to be the truest to the Bible, however he is not the only scholar I read. . .I read many. . .and I know true scholarship when I see it. . .and I know feigned scholarship when I see it. . .made evident by falling so short of true scholarship. . .Packer is the unsurpassed standard today.

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.

At least, in your opinion. I suspect on the very same matters they think the very same thing about you.

 

[Ben Masada]

Has any law been legislated which could not be fulfilled? Your question smells Replacement Theology. Yes, Jewish law can be fulfilled, and we take pleasure at fulfilling it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Has any law been legislated which could not be fulfilled? Your question smells Replacement Theology. Yes, Jewish law can be fulfilled, and we take pleasure at fulfilling it.

That's exactly what it is.

I believe a more technical term is "Supersessionist" theology.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are they dealing with the original Westminster Confession?

Yes they address it, but that's not the purpose of the entire book.

One deals with the progression of Reformed theology, and one deals with Reformed theology in general.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

I don't care to. I'm not very interested in the Westminster confession right now. That's why I referred you to some books.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

Thanks for asking, but no. I am basing that post mostly on my reading of Romans and 1 Corinthians. If you want to challenge it biblically, fine, but I'm not going to waste my time going through my notes for specific bible verses for each post that I write.

 

[Ben Masada]

That's exactly what it is.

I believe a more technical term is "Supersessionist" theology.

I can't agree with you more.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

One cannot prove a negative.

 

[smokydot]

Has any law been legislated which could not be fulfilled? Your question smells Replacement Theology. Yes, Jewish law can be fulfilled, and we take pleasure at fulfilling it.

Jesus has both:

fulfilled its requirements by his perfect obedience ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310320-post238.html, and

fulfilled its patterns, shadows, prefigures of things that were to come ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2320006-post527.html.

This is the divine revelation of the NT and the authority for what is to be believed by Christians.

And actually, it is fulfillment theology, which sets aside the former covenant, priesthood, sacrifices, ceremonial laws and feasts, because the purpose for which they were given has been fulfilled.

 

[smokydot]

That's exactly what it is.
I believe a more technical term is "Supersessionist" theology.

A more Biblical term is Fulfillment Theology, which sets aside the former covenant, priesthood, sacrifices, ceremonial laws and feasts, because the purpose for which they were given no longer exists.

 

[smokydot]

One cannot prove a negative.

Wrong. . .I can show there are not multiple Gods from the Scriptures. . .and all it takes is the concordance on one's desk.

 

[smokydot]

I don't care to. I'm not very interested in the Westminster confession right now. That's why I referred you to some books.[/quote]So, contrary to your claim that theology is not found "in" the Scriptures, the theology of the original Westminster Confession is found "in" the Scriptures, until you show otherwise.

Just want it to be clear that:

1) you have not demonstrated your assertion that the theology of the original Westminster Confession is not found "in" the Scriptures and, therefore,

2) it does not rise above the status of "assertion," to the status of "proof and fact."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, contrary to your claim that theology is not found "in" the Scriptures, the theology of the original Westminster Confession is found in the Scriptures, until you show otherwise.

Just want to be clear that you have not demonstrated your assertion and, therefore, it does not rise above the status of "assertion' to the status of "proof and fact."

haha, no it's not. You claim it baselessly, I counter and offer some books for you which would prove you wrong. I don't care to pour through these books again because I have no irons in that fire.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A more Biblical term is Fulfillment Theology, which sets aside the former covenant, priesthood, sacrifices, ceremonial laws and feasts, because the purpose for which they were given no longer exists.

Whatever.

[it's called Replacement or Supersessionist by the rest of the world - mainly because it's not 'from Scripture']

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wrong. . .I can show there are not multiple Gods from the Scriptures. . .and all it takes is the concordance on one's desk.

I know that you have trouble with this basic logical fallacy. What would result is an argument from silence or an argument from a lack of evidence.

Your example is not one of negative evidence, but an interpretation of what you think that the Scripture means. Sure, the Scripture may say there are no other gods, but that doesn't mean that there are not.

 

[smokydot]

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

That's not what Biblical scholars do. . .that's what feigned Biblical scholars do, of the latter day novel speculation group. . .that's not scholarship.

True scholarship lets the Scriptures speak for themselves, imposing no system, "theological method" (whatever that is), theory or otherwise on them.

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.

I would change that to "dissident and false" 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.

It would be as long as it remains faithful to the original meaning. But I'll bet the original meaning is seen more in the context of the passage than in just interpretation of isolated words or sentences.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's not what Biblical scholars do. . .that's what feigned Biblical scholars do, of the latter day novel speculation group. . .that's not scholarship.

Ok man. :biglaugh:

 

[smokydot]

I know that you have trouble with this basic logical fallacy. What would result is an argument from silence or an argument from a lack of evidence.
Your example is not one of negative evidence, but an interpretation of what you think that the Scripture means. Sure, the Scripture may say there are no other gods, but that doesn't mean that there are not.

Well, that answers the question of whether you believe the Word of God written, or not.

So God is lying in his Word written when he says he is the only God, there is no other.

I'm curious about the NT verse that says, "Jesus wept." What do you think that means?

I think it means Jesus wept. . .what do you think?

 

[smokydot]

Ok man. :biglaugh:

That's just more of (3) @ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, that answers the question of whether you believe the Word of God written, or not.

So God is lying in his Word written when he says he is the only God, there is no other.

I'm curious about the NT verse that says, "Jesus wept." What do you think that means?

I think it means Jesus wept. . .what do you think?

haha, no it doesn't. I was simply providing an example for you that there's no such thing as negative evidence. It's a very simple rule of proof in logical argumentation.

For the rest of you questions, they don't apply to my point at all (just as the first) -- as you've said, it's a matter of faith. We can't prove God exists, and atheists can prove that God doesn't. We can't prove it because we can't meet the standard of proof required, and more importantly for my point, atheists can't because they can't provide negative evidence.