Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[angellous_evangellous]

Your quarrel is with Jesus. . .if you knew the NT, you would know that Jesus called Scripture the word of God. . .if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for believing Biblical scholars, such as J. I. Packer. . .who, by definition, are not "intellectually bankrupt," nor are they fiduces bankrupt, as yourself.

Oh I see, you think that Jesus is saying what you believe. Gotcha.

I keep forgetting that you are under the delusion that your beliefs are from the NT without interpretation. So I still am shocked.

 

[smokydot]

Now that's baseless slander (not that you care about lying).
You will not find one thing in any of my posts that suggests that I do not accept the authority of the bible or what it reveals. Unless, of course, you add to or subtract from my words or (as you usually do) flat out make up stuff that I did not say

Back to your favorite dance. . .arguing about the argument. . .but kickin' up all that dirt and smoke won't cloud the record.

So let's just take a look at the record here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2325953-post947.html

where you maintain that Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ, which excludes law-keeping as the basis for right standing with God,
was an "intellectual rationale for leaving Judaism and forming (himself, unauthorized by Jesus) a way to keep the law."

According to the authority of the Bible, that is gospel-eradicating heresy, and you are so uninformed that you attribute it to the very one who revealed
that law-keeping as the basis for right standing with God eradicates the gospel!

If you accepted the authority of the Bible, you would not be maintaining that which eradicates the whole purpose of the Bible--the gospe
Two bucks says you don't even understand that. . .but you see yourself as a "Biblical scholar" nonetheless.
You don't believe in the authority of the Bible. . .you believe in your "scholarship" as the authority over the Bible.

Man, don't be accusing anyone else of "intellectual bankruptcy," or not being "able to read," or "slander," etc. etc. etc. You've got more of that on your own plate
than you can say grace over.

And truth is not slander. . .in light of only part of the record presented here in the above link, your charge of slander is bogus. . .as are all such charges by you.

For example, have a look at (6) c, d, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html.

If you want to embarass yourself by looking for examples, you will need to do it on another thread as it would be off topic here.

No problem. . .there is more than enough of it on this thread. . .

 

[smokydot]

Oh I see, you think that Jesus is saying what you believe. Gotcha.
I keep forgetting that you are under the delusion that your beliefs are from the NT without interpretation. So I still am shocked.

Gee. . .I wonder what Jesus meant when he said Scripture was the word of God? . .maybe he meant that it wasn't the word of God. . .it's all so nebulous and hard to understand. . .can someone tell me what he meant? . .hmmm. . .worry, worry, worry. . .trouble, trouble, trouble. . .only a "Biblical scholar" such as yourself could make something so simple into something so convoluted. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Gee. . .I wonder what Jesus meant when he said Scripture was the word of God? . .maybe he meant that it wasn't the word of God. . .it's all so nebulous and hard to understand. . .can someone tell me what he meant? . .hmmm. . .worry, worry, worry. . .trouble, trouble, trouble. . .

Well, he couldn't have said those words and had a fully developed Reformed theology behind it. So it can't possibly mean what you think it means.

The difficulty in understanding it rests in the obstinate refusal to think.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Back to your favorite dance. . .arguing about the argument. . .but kickin' up all that dirt and smoke won't cloud the record.

So let's just take a look at the record here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2325953-post947.html

where you maintain that Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ, which excludes law-keeping as the basis for right standing with God,
was an "intellectual rationale for leaving Judaism and (himself, unauthorized by Jesus) forming a way to keep the law."

According to the authority of the Bible, that is gospel-eradicating heresy, and you are so uninformed that you attribute it to the very one who revealed
that law-keeping as the basis for right standing with God eradicates the gospel!

If you accepted the authority of the Bible, you would not maintain that which eradicates the whole purpose of the Bible--the gospel!
Two bucks says you don't even understand that. . .but you see yourself as a "Biblical scholar" nonetheless.

Man, don't be accusing anyone else of "intellectual bankruptcy," or not being "able to read," or "slander," etc. etc. etc. You've got more of that on your own plate
than you can say grace over.

And truth is not slander. . .in light of only the part of the record presented here in the above link, your charge of slander is bogus. . .as are all such charges by you.

For example, have a look at (6) c, d, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318652-post514.html.
No problem. . .there is more than enough of it on this thread. . .

You're embarrassing yourself again. Stop.

 

[smokydot]

Well, he couldn't have said those words and had a fully developed Reformed theology behind it. So it can't possibly mean what you think it means.
The difficulty in understanding it rests in the obstinate refusal to think.

Uh huh. . .poor ole' Jesus. . .had no clue about the word and truth of God. . .he needed the Reformation to fill him in. . .never mind that the theology
was taken from the 2000-year-old Scriptures where it has resided since the beginning. . .and guess who put it there at the beginning. . .why, it was ole Jesus and the apostles themselves.

Man, you've got the cart before the horse. . .orthodox theology wasn't put into the Scriptures. . .it was taken out of the Scriptures, where it has always been. . .
theology isn't behind the Scriptures, the Scriptures are behind the theology.

How did you get things so backwards? . .oh yeah, I forgot. . .it's that "Biblical scholarship," so called.
Your yarn just gets more and more raveled the more you try to unravel it. . .heresy has a way of doing that.

"Can't possibly" you say?. . .and there you have it! . ."the Word of God written can't possibly mean what it says."

Q.E.D!

We have to "think" new meaning into the plain words. . .Ole Slewfoot is still up to his favorite trick. . ."Hath God really said?" (Gen 3:1)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Uh huh. . .poor ole' Jesus. . .had no clue about the word and truth of God. . .he needed the Reformation to fill him in. . .

"Can't possibly" you say?. . .and there you have it! . ."the Word of God written can't possibly mean what it says."

Q.E.D.

We have to "think" new meaning into the plain words. . .Ole Slewfoot is still up to his favorite trick. . ."Hath God really said?" (Gen 3:1)

You said that, not me.

And no, the "Word of God written" can mean what it says, but not what people force it to say hundreds or thousands of years later. Calvin is not Jesus. The Westminster Confession is not the Bible.

 

[smokydot]

You said that, not me.
And no, the "Word of God written" can mean what it says, but not what people force it to say hundreds or thousands of years later.

Calvin is not Jesus. The Westminster Confession is not the Bible.

Absoultely true statements. . .with absolutely no relevance or bearing on the issue of Jesus saying that Scripture is the word of God. . .

Gee. . .I wonder what Jesus meant when he said Scripture was the word of God. . .it's 2000 years later. . .do you think he meant it wasn't the word of God. . .
it's just all so nebulous and obscure. . .I need a "Biblical scholar" to tell me what it has to mean. . .because "it can't possibly" mean what it says.

 

[free spirit]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous
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.

You question Paul's faithfull character without reading Philippians 3:5-6, in which we read, "Circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless."
If this is true, and I know that it is, it makes your statement false and slanderous. You should repent for making such a statement and say so in this forum.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You question Paul's faithfull character without reading Philippians 3:5-6, in which we read, "Circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless."
If this is true, and I know that it is, it makes your statement false and slanderous. You should repent for making such a statement and say so in this forum.

No, I don't.

 

[smokydot]

Well, it offers a direct response to your question.
You're not the first intellectually bankrupt evangelical

How interesting. . .

evangel means gospel. . .it's not surprising that you would think evangelicals who believe the gospel are "intellectually bankrupt". . .since you don't believe it yourself,

as is shown here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2330963-post1087.html,

where your "Biblical scholarship" has "found" that Paul formed a gospel-eradicating theology to make keeping the law less painful for himself.

You don't even have a clue that basing one's right standing before God on keeping the law eradicates the gospel.

That's basic orthodox Christianity. . .and your ignorance has no business involving itself in orthodox Christian theology.

who has attacked my faith:no:
I just created a thread for all of you.

 

[free spirit]

No, I don't.

Have I missed what you are saying in you following statement than?

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous
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.

Where did you get the idea that Paul was a failure regarding the law?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have I missed what you are saying in you following statement than?


Where did you get the idea that Paul was a failure regarding the law?

From Romans 7:

ESV

16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

===

Now remember, he can be blameless with respect to his peers, far beyond their keeping of the law..... and still feel like a failure or be frustrated with every little sin.

 

[free spirit]

From Romans 7:

ESV

16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

===

Now remember, he can be blameless with respect to his peers, far beyond their keeping of the law..... and still feel like a failure or be frustrated with every little sin.

If we take things out of context we can be forgiven for thinking the way you do.
You must understand that Paul was speaking to those that were under the law, as he once was; in other words to fleshly religious people, that were not yet freed by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8 (the Italics are my own)
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the AUTHORITY of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the SLAVERY of sin and of death.
3 For what the FLESH could not do weak as it was, through the LAW, God did: sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, he DEFEATED sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
5 For those who are according to the flesh (law) set their minds on the things of the flesh (law), but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh (law) is dead, but the mind set on the Spirit is ALIVE and AT peace.
7 Because the mind set on the flesh (law) is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;
8 and those who are in the flesh (law) cannot please God.
9 However you are not in the flesh (law) but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you, But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.
10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your body through his Spirit who indwells you.
12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh,
13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."

So you see we do not have to obey the flesh any longer as chapter 7 says, but now if we do is a matter of choise.
If what you say of Paul is true that would make him the biggest hypocrite that aver lived.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How interesting. . .

evangel means gospel. . .it's not surprising that you would think evangelicals who believe the gospel are "intellectually bankrupt". . .since you don't believe it yourself,

You'll never get tired of baseless slander, will you?

It would be depressing if we haven't come to expect it from you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But NOW there is no condemnation... NOW that we have Christ.

Before then, we were slaves to the law.

It's not a difficult or unorthodox position.

 

[free spirit]

But NOW there is no condemnation... NOW that we have Christ.

Before then, we were slaves to the law.

It's not a difficult or unorthodox position.

Not of the law, but we were slaves to the desires of our flesh, that is why we could not obey the law, but Christ has freed us from that slavery, having overcome sin in the flesh. so now with the support of the spirit of our Lord, our mind or soul is in charge of what we do.

 

[smokydot]

You'll never get tired of baseless slander, will you?

All true slander is baseless, or it wouldn't be slander.

Which is why this is not slander. . .it is true.

It would be depressing if we haven't come to expect it from you.

You said, link below, Paul formed a way to keep the law with less pain, finding "solace" in the "Jesus movement."

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2330963-post1087.html

This Paul, the great expositor of free grace, was looking for a way to keep the law. . .yeah, right.

You didn't even know that law keeping eradicates the gospel. . .if you believed the gospel, you would know that.

 

[Pegg]

Well, you done good until you got to this, where you say right standing with God is the result of one's own goodness.

That is contrary to the gospel, Pegg, where right standing with God comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, and where law-keeping as the basis for right standing with God has been abolished.

im not sure in my quote where i said 'a result of one own goodness' but i'll go along with it for a moment and agree that our inner motives, goodness, righteousness is what makes us acceptable to God

Abraham, Able, Joseph, Moses...they all had qualities of goodness & righteousness that stemmed from within and for that they were approved by God.
A set of laws is unable to make a person good or righteous nor are they necessary to make a person good or righteous because none of the above men needed the mosaic laws to be deemed righteous by God.

Thats why Paul taught that law was unnecessary.

 

[Pegg]

You've misunderstood me, Pegg.

I said that Paul was obsessed with following the law before he became a Christian... that's precisely why he taught that Christ sets us free.

well then you would be correct