Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

Neither did the generation of the Babylonian Exile. But Zechariah 14 is clear that there will be sacrifices at the end times, presumably in the 3rd Temple age.

I am trying to find out what it is specifically you keep and reject concerning what went away with the new covenant. Israel has not practiced ritual animal sacrifice in 2000 years I believe so that must be out at least for those people. Do we still have Levite's to officiate the ceremonial laws? Can you still not eat pork? It appears these laws are in fact not being practiced to any meaningful extent by any one and are completely impractical for the Christians scattered over the world. It appears that the law should have been abolished and we act as if it has. I don't understand how it can be claimed that all those laws are still in effect by an intelligent debater (yes I mean you are competant). Also the covenant of grace makes the law of no use. Grace means to receive what we did not merit. I know you do not agree but how can the law be defended today even if grace is rejected?

The Bible has no such dividing line, and if you ask a Christian who divides the Law into "Moral" and "Ceremonial", you won't get an easy answer as to which laws "still apply". With that said, certain laws require a Sanhedrin to bring the accused before, without that politically autonomous Sanhedrin in place, the Jewish conventional wisdom is that Providence will take care of it instead.

That is correct and is why the most logical line is that it is all out. That is my position and seems to be what is believed by virtually every believer. I always wondered what a Jewish person thought on the subject. Do you practice all 600 or so of those laws?

Saul was punished severely for making his own sacrifice without a priest, why would it be any different for anything else that calls for such protocol?

Saul existed before the new covenant did and was under its strict requirements. Almost every thing in the old covenant pointed to Christ. He is now the high priest and has established a new covenant where all those shadows and types have become literal concepts.

That's a nice personal opinion, but doesn't have any scriptural rationale.

Oh yes it does, (almost the entire new testament bears witness to it) however I thought I would ease into this. In fact you either have to reject the words of Christ in new testament or the law. Both can't be kept intact.

You mean the Laws that God Himself laid down "For all generations"? So what exactly do you think it means that God operates in the heart of every Christian? Do you mean every TRUE Christian? Which ones are those?

I am trying to avoid an argument over the new covenant and instead was looking for how you account for the absence of the old laws practice for thousands of years to any meaningful extent. You and I are both competent enough and plenty commited enough to argue our respective positions effectively and no resolution is possible. I will answer you though. True Christians are all that have been born again by faith in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Can you not agree that a moral connection to God by the Holy Spirit is superior to connection through laws on paper?

 

[sojourner]

Really, that's a funny thing for the Jewish messiah to do, don't you think? Throw out every reason why he was coming, in the first place?

The 'requirements changed', you mean, he didn't meet them?

OK. Best of luck with that.

I didn't say he threw out every reason he was coming. The Jews were looking for a political savior -- someone to deliver them from their political enemies. Jesus was not that sort of savior. The salvation that came through him was one of reconciliation, not domination.

 

[Shermana]

] I am trying to find out what it is specifically you keep and reject concerning what went away with the new covenant.

Nothing really. Without a Temple, you simply can't do the sacrifices, without a Sanhedrin you can't stone people for various crimes or chop hands off or exile or whatnot. Doesn't mean it's done for good.

Israel has not practiced ritual animal sacrifice in 2000 years I believe so that must be out at least for those people.

Until the third temple, which Zechariah 14 clearly implies will be the case. Again, I bring up the Babylonian exiles who didn't perform sacrifices for 70 years. Jesus even said to "Make up with your brother before offering your gift on the altar", gee what a waste of breath if this was null and void 3 days later.

Do we still have Levite's to officiate the ceremonial laws?

Yes, I believe a prophet will identify them when the 3rd temple age is nigh.

Can you still not eat pork?

Jews have abstained from Pork and other non-clean animals for the last 2000 years save for the recent "Reform" schism. And Jesus did not "Make all foods clean" as many translations erroneously state, if he did deny the dietary laws in his "parable" (as he called it), they would have stoned him for THAT, but they were unable to actually pin any law-breaking on him, they pinned him merely for being the "King of Israel".

It appears these laws are in fact not being practiced to any meaningful extent by any one and are completely impractical for the Christians scattered over the world

.

How about avoiding pufferfish? I see EVERY law as being meaningful and practical.

It appears that the law should have been abolished and we act as if it has

.

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments of the Law will be called the Least in the Kingdom. Strangely they still keep the Laws they like, such as Tithing. And nowhere in the NT does "sexual immorality" imply that one can't marry their sister, unless you assume that such refers to Leviticus 18 which means THAT part of the Law is still in place, which is beyond just the decalogue.

I don't understand how it can be claimed that all those laws are still in effect by an intelligent debater (yes I mean you are competant).

That's not my problem if you don't understand how it can be claimed, I go by what I believe, not what orthodox Christians want to believe. I think my reason and rationale works just fine. If you want to eat pufferfish and sleep with women while they're menstruating, that doesn't make it ok in Heaven's eyes.

Also the covenant of grace makes the law of no use.

That is a WHOLE Theological debate for another thread. What exactly constitutes the "Covenant of Grace" has been disputed even by orthodox Christian groups for centuries.

Grace means to receive what we did not merit. I know you do not agree but how can the law be defended today even if grace is rejected?

I don't think I understand the question here. What do you mean "even if grace is rejected"? What part of the Law don't you want to follow?

That is correct and is why the most logical line is that it is all out.

It's not correct and most logical just because you say so.

That is my position and seems to be what is believed by virtually every believer.

Except for 7th day adventists and (some) Messianic Jews, I don't see why appeal to majority equates to truth. It was also believed by virtually every believer until recently that the Pope was Christ's vicar and basically the instrument of Heaven's will, same for the Patriarch of the Orthodox.

I always wondered what a Jewish person thought on the subject. Do you practice all 600 or so of those laws?

All the ones that are applicable, including fringes though I'm not sure if they have to be made with snail dye or not. I have nonetheless broken a few from time to time and thus is the need to repent.

Saul existed before the new covenant did and was under its strict requirements.

That's not really relevant, since we haven't established what the New Covenant exactly means.

Almost every thing in the old covenant pointed to Christ. He is now the high priest and has established a new covenant where all those shadows and types have become literal concepts.

And what do you think that means exactly by "become literal concepts", give an example.

Oh yes it does, (almost the entire new testament bears witness to it) however I thought I would ease into this. In fact you either have to reject the words of Christ in new testament or the law

.

That's not true at all, if you reject the Law, you reject the Word of Christ. What I think you're doing is the common confusion of equating the Law to the Pharisaical Talmudic interpretation of the Law that Jesus fought against.

Both can't be kept intact.

Sure they can.

I am trying to avoid an argument over the new covenant and instead was looking for how you account for the absence of the old laws practice for thousands of years to any meaningful extent.

I think I explained it just fine, no Temple and no Sanhedrin = inability, not negation. Zechariah 14 is clear that they will come back.

You and I are both competent enough and plenty commited enough to argue our respective positions effectively and no resolution is possible. I will answer you though. True Christians are all that have been born again by faith in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

And how do you determine which ones have the Spirit? Who are you to say that Mormons and JWs and 7th day adventists don't have it exactly?

Can you not agree that a moral connection to God by the Holy Spirit is superior to connection through laws on paper?

There is no connection by the Holy Spirit if you're not following the Commandmets. 1 John is quite clear on this.

 

[1robin]

Nothing really. Without a Temple, you simply can't do the sacrifices, without a Sanhedrin you can't stone people for various crimes or chop hands off or exile or whatnot. Doesn't mean it's done for good.

I still do not understand this. Are you saying that the law was suspended until a Temple is built? It seems there are many real reasons that these laws can't be practiced or are impractical to practice. If that is the case and if I am correct in saying that 99.9% of the believing population does not practice them then what is the outcome? Either they are still required and virtually every believer is screwed or they are not and everything makes sense again. I know which one I find more logical.

Until the third temple, which Zechariah 14 clearly implies will be the case. Again, I bring up the Babylonian exiles who didn't perform sacrifices for 70 years. Jesus even said to "Make up with your brother before offering your gift on the altar", gee what a waste of breath if this was null and void 3 days later.

What about all the people including Jews between 70AD and now? Are we all in trouble because Israel has not built the Temple? What about the poor guy in a hut in the Congo who comes to believe? Is he now supposed to obey all those laws with no Levites or Temples in a thousand miles.

Yes, I believe a prophet will identify them when the 3rd temple age is nigh.

But what about now?

Jews have abstained from Pork and other non-clean animals for the last 2000 years save for the recent "Reform" schism. And Jesus did not "Make all foods clean" as many translations erroneously state, if he did deny the dietary laws in his "parable" (as he called it), they would have stoned him for THAT, but they were unable to actually pin any law-breaking on him, they pinned him merely for being the "King of Israel". How about avoiding puffer fish? I see EVERY law as being meaningful and practical.

Jesus existed on Earth during the period of the law. All covenants are instituted by blood. His blood began the new covenant. I agree that the laws were practical. Many were only practical for their time. For instance I have heard that pork could not cooked properly back then and so the rule against it was practical but not now. I have never researched that specifically. If the law is practical at it's core then why would it have a spiritual implication and be needed to get to heaven. If it is needed then how do you and I who do not practice it get there?

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments of the Law will be called the Least in the Kingdom. Strangely they still keep the Laws they like, such a Tithing.

For right now I will avoid arguments concerning whether the Bible has done away with the law or not. I am more interested with how that can be true given reality from a Jewish perspective.

That's not my problem if you don't understand how it can be claimed, I go by what I believe, not what orthodox Christians want to believe. I think my reason and rationale works just fine. If you want to eat pufferfish and sleep with women while they're menstruating, that doesn't make it ok in Heaven's eyes.

Well let me ask again then. Do you perfectly obey all the approx. 600 laws in the OT? If not then which ones didn't you obey and why is that ok?

That is a WHOLE Theological debate for another thread. What exactly constitutes the "Covenant of Grace" has been disputed even by orthodox Christian groups for centuries.

I agree that it is a heavy debate but I am more interested in what each position means not primarily with what position is correct at this time.

I don't think I understand the question here. What do you mean "even if grace is rejected"? What part of the Law don't you want to follow?

You have two choices. The nature of the terms are mutually exclusive. If you choose law then you must perfectly obey it. If you choose grace then law does not apply. I am speaking only concerning salvation. I am in no way saying obedience is not vitally important in other ways. There is no such position as merit plus grace equals salvation.

It's not correct and most logical just because you say so.

I was pointing out that the problems you honestly posted are a logical argument in favor of the law being out as far as salvation is concerned, not that it proves it.

Except for 7th day adventists and (some) Messianic Jews, I don't see why appeal to majority equates to truth. It was also believed by virtually every believer until recently that the Pope was Christ's vicar and basically the instrument of Heaven's will, same for the Patriarch of the Orthodox.

That wasn't my point. My point is that virtually no one practices the OT law and to suggest that we are all therefore screwed strains credulity. For example Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Isaac Newton and many other legendary men of God have never practiced OT law. Your position must be that they are all going to hell I assume and I find that a bizarre position.

All the ones that are applicable, including fringes though I'm not sure if they have to be made with snail dye or not. I have nonetheless broken a few from time to time and thus is the need to repent.

I find that so remarkable it is hard to believe. Where are you from?

That's not really relevant, since we haven't established what the New Covenant exactly means.

It does not matter what the new covenant is because Saul was not under it.

And what do you think that means exactly by "become literal concepts", give an example.

I sure hope a semantic tangent isn't on the way. The blood of animals could not forgive sin only push it forward symbolically. They were a type and shadow of the blood of Christ. The literal concept or doctrine. He dealt with all the sin pushed forward by the blood of animals when he was crucified the same way he does when we accept him as savior. The symbolic became the literal. That happens countless times with OT concepts or events.

That's not true at all, if you reject the Law, you reject the Word of Christ. What I think you're doing is the common confusion of equating the Law to the Pharisaical Talmudic interpretation of the Law that Jesus fought against.

This concerns what I am currently trying to avoid. To be fair once I get what I am trying to then we may debate the actual doctrine itself, if you wish. Deal?

Sure they can.

Not as currently understood by billions of Christians and virtually every NT scholar. I suppose a person can torture them into anything they wish if the integrity of their intention is neglected. The Baha'i are virtual masters at the effort.

I think I explained it just fine, no Temple and no Sanhedrin = inability, not negation. Zechariah 14 is clear that they will come back.

I thought what I understood couldn't be true but you suggest it was. So all laws are suspended with the absence of a Temple is that accurate?

And how do you determine which ones have the Spirit? Who are you to say that Mormons and JWs and 7th day adventists don't have it exactly?

I have no need to do so. Jesus made it very clear what a Christian is. I was talking about the hypothetical case of a true Christian verses a superficial one biblically. I have no desire or need to decide who is who. God knows and that is all that is needed. Are you arguing against the doctrine of new birth now?

There is no connection by the Holy Spirit if you're not following the Commandmets. 1 John is quite clear on this.

Once again I did not want to haggle scripture but John is pointing out how a true Christian differs in habit from a superficial one not how to become one. Do you acknowledge the NT as the word of God? I think that is needed before we get any deeper.

 

[Shermana]

I still do not understand this. Are you saying that the law was suspended until a Temple is built?

No, just the laws that specifically retain to it, and the ones that require a Sanhedrin to bring an accused sinner before.

It seems there are many real reasons that these laws can't be practiced or are impractical to practice.

Like?

If that is the case and if I am correct in saying that 99.9% of the believing population does not practice them then what is the outcome?

Punishment for each sin. You ever wonder why a lot of Christians have all kinds of accidents and health problems and wind up in jail and other undesirable consequences? Well it extends to the Afterlife too. But if they're not going to take the mantle of "Israelite", then there's is perhaps a more lenient sentence.

Either they are still required and virtually every believer is screwed or they are not and everything makes sense again. I know which one I find more logical.

Screwed it is.

What about all the people including Jews between 70AD and now?

What about them?

Are we all in trouble because Israel has not built the Temple?

Nope. You have Christ's sacrifice as the Guilt Offering for your sin repentance, but "If you continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for your sins".

What about the poor guy in a hut in the Congo who comes to believe? Is he now supposed to obey all those laws with no Levites or Temples in a thousand miles. [/size]

If he claims to be a "Christian" and a graft to Israel, he is obligated to obey the Law as much as is possible. Otherwise, if doesn't presume to be a member of God's people, I imagine he's under a different measure.

But what about now?

Now you repent and pray in Yeshu's name for forgiveness and do penance. In the (heavily Christian interpolated but still Jewish) "Apocalypse of Sedrach", it's clear that there is a minimum period of repentance for your years of living of sin if you wish to avoid "Chastisement'.

Jesus existed on Earth during the period of the law. All covenants are instituted by blood. His blood began the new covenant. I agree that the laws were practical. Many were only practical for their time.

I don't think any of them are impractical, just "inconvenient" perhaps.

F

or instance I have heard that pork could not cooked properly back then and so the rule against it was practical but not now.

So it was impractical between 70-1900 A.D. you say? How about pufferfish? How about scorpions? How about rattlesnake blood? Why single out Pork?

I have never researched that specifically. If the law is practical at it's core then why would it have a spiritual implication and be needed to get to heaven. If it is needed then how do you and I who do not practice it get there?

For right now I will avoid arguments concerning whether the Bible has done away with the law or not. I am more interested with how that can be true given reality from a Jewish perspective.
Well let me ask again then. Do you perfectly obey all the approx. 600 laws in the OT? If not then which ones didn't you obey and why is that ok?

I have gone many days without fringes, I have violated many Sabbaths and I'm not sure whether electricity counts as starting a fire, I've eaten much pork and shrimp in the past when I was still a Reform Jew, I've been hostile to my parents, I've hated my own brother, I've been overly angry, I've had murderous hatred even towards fellow Jews, I have gone days without studying the Law, I've lusted after more women than I can possibly remember, I've committed certain personal sins I don't care to discuss here, I've ingested Lard without checking to see if the Mexican place used it, I've eaten non-Kosher meat until very recently (debatable), and more, but this is not my personal confession post.

I agree that it is a heavy debate but I am more interested in what each position means not primarily with what position is correct at this time.
You have two choices. The nature of the terms are mutually exclusive. If you choose law then you must perfectly obey it. If you choose grace then law does not apply.

So if you choose grace you can now freely murder and rape and steal and defraud? Surprisingly, MANY Christians I've asked say "yes". Anyways, perfect obedience can and does involve repentance. If you want to step into what Christ says will get you called "the least" in the Kingdom, you can't say you weren't warned. I won't take my chances with that. The idea of "Grace" I believe was originally about forgiveness that came from repentance.

I am speaking only concerning salvation. I am in no way saying obedience is not vitally important in other ways. There is no such position as merit plus grace equals salvation.

Apparently Paul taught that merit was important as to whether you "inherit the Kingdom", seeing as fornicators and angry people and drunkards won't.

I was pointing out that the problems you honestly posted are a logical argument in favor of the law being out as far as salvation is concerned, not that it proves it.

I fail to see how they are in favor of being it out. I think anything I say you would call in favor of it being out.

That wasn't my point. My point is that virtually no one practices the OT law and to suggest that we are all therefore screwed strains credulity.

Consider it strained.

For example Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Isaac Newton and many other legendary men of God have never practiced OT law.

Mother Theresa if you know anything about her, is probably burning in hell for the way she treated her "patients" and made off with her tens of millions. I don't believe Hell is forever, just temporary, and then you get reborn according to your record of sins. The Bible hints at this but that's for another thread. Especially with the so-called "Apocrypha" where its' crystal clear in Wisdom of Solomon.

Your position must be that they are all going to hell I assume and I find that a bizarre position.

Sure enough, I find the idea that they are going to heaven regardless what they do bizarre. Whether you find it bizarre or not has nothing to do with anything.

I find that so remarkable it is hard to believe. Where are you from?

California. I don't see how I'm too far removed from the average Jew who tries to hold all the commandments. It's not really a burden. It can be inconvenient at times though.

It does not matter what the new covenant is because Saul was not under it.

I don't see why it would change anything.

I sure hope a semantic tangent isn't on the way. The blood of animals could not forgive sin only push it forward symbolically. They were a type and shadow of the blood of Christ. The literal concept or doctrine. He dealt with all the sin pushed forward by the blood of animals when he was crucified the same way he does when we accept him as savior. The symbolic became the literal. That happens countless times with OT concepts or events.

Countless times? I don't even see how your example makes the "Symbolic become literal" since Animal sacrifices were quite literal. Why don't you point some of these "countless" examples for further examination.

[

SIZE=2] This concerns what I am currently trying to avoid. To be fair once I get what I am trying to then we may debate the actual doctrine itself, if you wish. Deal? [/size]

Fair.

Not as currently understood by billions of Christians and virtually every NT scholar. I suppose a person can torture them into anything they wish if the integrity of their intention is neglected. The Baha'i are virtual masters at the effort.

You see, if you're going to just call my interpretations "tortured" I don't think you're too interested in objectively examining this. I consider your own interpretations tortured, shall I just write them off as such?

I thought what I understood couldn't be true but you suggest it was. So all laws are suspended with the absence of a Temple is that accurate?

No, and I definitely did not say ALL the Law. I said the ones pertaining to the Temple and the Sanhedrin accusations to be executed.

I have no need to do so. Jesus made it very clear what a Christian is.

Oh he did? Right, that explains all the many rival churches. If anything, the book of Acts defines a Christian as a Petrine Nazarene Jew. Can I quote you? That would be a great thread topic.

I was talking about the hypothetical case of a true Christian verses a superficial one biblically.

Ah, superficial Christians need not apply. There goes your 99.9%, right? Or just the ones that don't believe like you?

I have no desire or need to decide who is who.

Except when it comes to your main points of course.

Are you arguing against the doctrine of new birth now?

I will argue against the idea that most who claim to be reborn aren't really.

..... Do you acknowledge the NT as the word of God? I think that is needed before we get any deeper. [/size][/quote][/quote]

No, I do not acknowledge the Roman canon as the word of God, I acknowledge many books that certain Church Fathers accepted that the Romans rejected. But that doesn't change anything when I discuss Christian doctrine by their own canons.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I didn't say he threw out every reason he was coming. The Jews were looking for a political savior -- someone to deliver them from their political enemies. Jesus was not that sort of savior. The salvation that came through him was one of reconciliation, not domination.

Given that these prophecies were around long before Rome conquered them, your assessment would not be accurate. The Jews were looking for both, but only at the time.

In any case, nothing about him was to change his own requirements, or throw out Mosaich law. I am merely pointing out your Christianized version of the moschiach is inaccurate.

 

[sojourner]

Given that these prophecies were around long before Rome conquered them, your assessment would not be accurate. The Jews were looking for both, but only at the time.

In any case, nothing about him was to change his own requirements, or throw out Mosaich law. I am merely pointing out your Christianized version of the moschiach is inaccurate.

No, the Romans weren't around, but, as you're aware, Israel's entire history has been rife with getting beat up on by the superpower dujour from the east or west. Since Israel is a political state couched in theology, to score a political victory would be the same as scoring a spiritual victory. all Jesus did was take the politics out. it doesn't matter about a political victory -- because those who are persecuted, meek, peacemakers, hungry, and reviled are blessed.

 

[1robin]

No, just the laws that specifically retain to it, and the ones that require a Sanhedrin to bring an accused sinner before.

This seems very arbitrary. We do not have a Temple and so we just decide we do not have to do any laws associated with it. Is that scripturally verified? What about the African living in the Bush with no priest, Levite, or access to even what the law requires within a thousand miles?

Like?

You just said we have no Temple. I do not know of a Levite anywhere. If I killed a ram they would lock me up.

Punishment for each sin. You ever wonder why a lot of Christians have all kinds of accidents and health problems and wind up in jail and other undesirable consequences? Well it extends to the Afterlife too. But if they're not going to take the mantle of "Israelite", then there’s perhaps a more lenient sentence.

Well that is truly a bizarre claim. If the world's troubles effecting people is the measure of righteousness then the Holocaust and the current state of Israel being surrounded by people lobbing rockets at them every day would be an indictment. That is one of the most irrational statements I have ever heard. Make no mistake, I love the Jewish people above any other racial group on Earth but even the Bible records their repeated betrayal of God and God's judgments against them. There are no God initiated punishments against Christians as a whole in the Bible. Only Satan persecuted Christians.

Screwed it is.

What has happened to you. I have disagreed with you but you were always rational, but now your are making extremely illogical statements. There is not one human on Earth that follows every law in the OT, you included. Your claims condemn every one. I am glad your claims are not true.

What about them?

Never mind you have already condemned everyone, this is redundant.

Nope. You have Christ's sacrifice as the Guilt Offering for your sin repentance, but "If you continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for your sins".

Ok you have called down the thunder, a scriptural debate it is. Let’s see what the experts say on this verse. First let it be said that that the Bible also says the neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit once gained when born again would never leave nor forsake us. Unless you think both are going to hell when we sin after being born again your verse must have a different meaning than what you think. The overall narrative must be considered when interpreting verses. Context is everything. Your verse is Paul speaking. Paul was Israel's greatest expert on the law. He studied under Gamiliel. It seems his main role was preventing Jews from slipping back into Judaism under pressure from family and tradition. Here is a professional theologian's interpretation of that verse:
(2) it accords with the scope of the Epistle, which is, to keep those whom the apostle addressed from returning again to the Jewish religion, under the trials to which they were subjected.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
For if we sin willfully - If we deliberately, for fear of persecution or from any other motive, renounce the profession of the Gospel and the Author of that Gospel, after having received the knowledge of the truth so as to be convinced that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and that he had sprinkled our hearts from an evil conscience; for such there remained no sacrifice for sins; for as the Jewish sacrifices are abolished, as appears by the declaration of God himself in the fortieth Psalm, and Jesus being now the only sacrifice which God will accept, those who reject him have none other; therefore their case must be utterly without remedy. This is the meaning of the apostle, and the case is that of a deliberate apostate - one who has utterly rejected Jesus Christ and his atonement, and renounced the whole Gospel system. It has nothing to do with backsliders in our common use of that term.
It appears here as in other places what is being said is that once a first century Jew has learned that Jesus is the only way out of your sin debt and yet he is rejected and that person returns to Judaism then he has adopted a system that does not have a provision far sin. He has rejected the actual sacrifice and again adopted the symbolic sacrifice which never could actually remove guilt. I can go on indefinitely but time prohibits that and that is why I did not want to debate the Bible specifically. You will simply reject any scholar or all scholars no matter how credentialed and we will be at a standstill.

If he claims to be a "Christian" and a graft to Israel, he is obligated to obey the Law as much as is possible. Otherwise, if doesn't presume to be a member of God's people, I imagine he's under a different measure.

In other words you have no idea. The system of salvation given by Christ in the NT saves this man in full from the minute he was born again. Yours leaves a question mark with no possible answer in most cases.

Now you repent and pray in Yeshu's name for forgiveness and do penance. In the (heavily Christian interpolated but still Jewish) "Apocalypse of Sedrach", it's clear that there is a minimum period of repentance for your years of living of sin if you wish to avoid "Chastisement'

I do not recognize the authority of any text outside the bible. This claim also seems arbitrary and founded on nothing. Also if this is the "current way" to heaven there is no role of the law in your statement.
The Apocalypse of Sedrach, also known as the Word of Sedrach, is an ancient apocryphal text. The name of the titular figure, Sedrach may simply be the Greek form of Shadrach, the name of one of the three individuals put into the fiery furnace in the Book of Daniel. It may however simply be a corruption of Esdras, the Greek form of Ezra, particularly since the text has much similarity with other apocryphal texts attributed to Ezra, such as the Apocalypse of Ezra.
Like much other apocalyptic literature, the text narrates how Sedrach was given a vision of heaven, first describing someone being sent by God take him there. In the Apocalypse of Sedrach, it is Jesus himself who comes to take Sedrach, but while the text seems superficially Christian, it appears to be a corruption of an earlier Jewish text, with Jesus simply having been substituted in place of the name of an archangel.
Apocalypse of Sedrach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was wondering if this was a reliable text, why I had never heard of it. I now know it isn't and that is why. I have never even heard this one used by Gnostics or heretics not to mention believers.

 

[1robin]

I don't think any of them are impractical, just "inconvenient" perhaps.

I will post one of hundreds: Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts. It is not possible to know every ingredient in what we eat. For example just recently it was revealed that a "slime" used by most fast food restaurants contained stuff left over from about every animal imaginable (some unclean). I was eating it and didn't know it. Another is this one. That a man should fulfill whatever he has uttered. There are many times that if followed it would result in harm and evil. In fact that happened in the Bible.

FSo it was impractical between 70-1900 A.D. you say? How about puffer fish? How about scorpions? How about rattlesnake blood? Why single out Pork?

Because Pork is well known of. While there are I’m sure very logical reasons to avoid these things it certainly seems absurd that it is morally or spiritually wrong to eat a rattle snake. Like you said they are great ideas especially way back then but have no spiritual implications in many cases.

I have never researched that specifically. If the law is practical at it's core then why would it have a spiritual implication and be needed to get to heaven. If it is needed then how do you and I who do not practice it get there?

It is a good rule not to eat a puffer fish especially at a time when they could not be prepared safely. It makes absolutely no sense that I would any more deserve or any less merit heaven if I ate one.

I have gone many days without fringes, I have violated many Sabbaths and I'm not sure whether electricity counts as starting a fire, I've eaten much pork and shrimp in the past when I was still a Reform Jew, I've been hostile to my parents, I've hated my own brother, I've been overly angry, I've had murderous hatred even towards fellow Jews, I have gone days without studying the Law, I've lusted after more women than I can possibly remember, I've committed certain personal sins I don't care to discuss here, I've ingested Lard without checking to see if the Mexican place used it, I've eaten non-Kosher meat until very recently (debatable), and more, but this is not my personal confession post.

I appreciate the candidness. So if the law is the way to heaven you are as screwed as possible. So what now?

So if you choose grace you can now freely murder and rape and steal and defraud? Surprisingly, MANY Christians I've asked say "yes". Anyways, perfect obedience can and does involve repentance. If you want to step into what Christ says will get you called "the least" in the Kingdom, you can't say you weren't warned. I won't take my chances with that. The idea of "Grace" I believe was originally about forgiveness that came from repentance.

When did I say any of this? It is not possible to repent and believe in Christ as the NT teaches and not be born again. When that happens the Holy Spirit come to live within your heart and you no longer are ever the same person again. For instance I literally could not bear to even hear cursing immediately following my experience where I had cursed like crazy before. Habits I had been unsuccessfully tried to break for years disappeared. I am not saying a Christian is perfect yet any sin now comes at a terrible toll on our conscience. In other words I have no desire to do anything you suggested but even if I did I can't out sin God's grace. I never merited heaven, the Bible says no one ever has except Jesus. My sin does not negate his perfect standing with God in any ultimate sense. Are you familiar with substitutionary atonement? I legally have Christ's righteousness, the only righteousness that merits heaven. Mine is no longer the issue. That does not however apply to temporal judgments only ultimate destination. God may actually kill me if I do something terrible enough but that does not apply to the final judgment. If you do not understand atonement that makes no sense so I will not elaborate further.

Apparently Paul taught that merit was important as to whether you "inherit the Kingdom", seeing as fornicators and angry people and drunkards won’t

Those are not descriptions of actions they are legal designations. If they were Paul could not have said they were not those. He couldn't have known for sure. We are legally declared perfect by the merits of Christ and are no longer legally declared sinners like these references indicate even though we sin. It is a legal classification not a literal description. If it was everyone is going to hell because the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short and that anyone who claims to not sin is a liar. That is every one. This Biblical debates are going to render the effort to hash them out fully impractical very quickly.

I fail to see how they are in favor of being it out. I think anything I say you would call in favor of it being out.

Well how about this then?
New Living Translation (©2007)
The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God

Consider it strained.

I already have.

Mother Theresa if you know anything about her, is probably burning in hell for the way she treated her "patients" and made off with her tens of millions. I don't believe Hell is forever, just temporary, and then you get reborn according to your record of sins. The Bible hints at this but that's for another thread. Especially with the so-called "Apocrypha" where its' crystal clear in Wisdom of Solomon.

I have just read a biography of her and there was no hint at anything you claim. Where are the other examples I mentioned?

Sure enough, I find the idea that they are going to heaven regardless what they do bizarre. Whether you find it bizarre or not has nothing to do with anything.

The apostles stated that point blank that is all that is necessary. No one merits heaven, the issue is absurd. God requires perfection and we can't gain that through obeying laws.

California. I don't see how I'm too far removed from the average Jew who tries to hold all the commandments. It's not really a burden. It can be inconvenient at times though.

You have previously honestly admitted you have failed to obey the law many times. Apparently it is a burden. I did appreciate the honesty and consider myself as failing just as badly.

Countless times? I don't even see how your example makes the "Symbolic become literal" since Animal sacrifices were quite literal. Why don't you point some of these "countless" examples for further examination.

It makes no sense that a bulls blood can make up for my failure. It does make perfect sense that that was a symbolic indication of what Jesus blood could actually do. His blood was spilled because he took my punishment. Only he could do that because only he was perfect. No animal no matter how flawless in appearance was perfect. It was a place holder until the real thing happened. By the way if a bull can forgive your sin then why couldn't you murder anyone you want and get away with it?

 

[1robin]

You see, if you're going to just call my interpretations "tortured" I don't think you're too interested in objectively examining this. I consider your own interpretations tortured, shall I just write them off as such?

There is nothing tortured in saying that this statement:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.
Does not mention or allow for the law.
There is nothing tortured in saying that this statement:
New International Version (©1984)
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Makes the law far less than what you claim.
I could do this all day and not torture any verse.

No, and I definitely did not say ALL the Law. I said the ones pertaining to the Temple and the Sanhedrin accusations to be executed.

What verses allow for this arbitrary claim?

Oh he did? Right, that explains all the many rival churches. If anything, the book of Acts defines a Christian as a Petrine Nazarene Jew. Can I quote you? That would be a great thread topic.

The most exhaustive teaching on salvation occurs in John concerning Nicodemus. The word law does not even appear and is not even hinted at. You can quote me for a thread title if you wish.

Ah, superficial Christians need not apply. There goes your 99.9%, right? Or just the ones that don't believe like you?

Only the ones that have done what Jesus specifically told Nicodemus to do. And notice that Nicodemus was an observer of the law and Christ said he was completely lost and did not even belong to the kingdom. I have no idea how 99.9% is associated with this.

Except when it comes to your main points of course.

Not even close. I am discussing the hypothetical case of a true Christian. That does not necessitate that I determine that for any particular individual. I know what an actual Christian is, I do not who are and who are not. In fact the Bible says our names are written in the Lamb's book of life and we enter the kingdom of God when we are born again and that no one that is not is in either. That is my standard and what I have personally experienced and know to be experienced by other Christians.

I will argue against the idea that most who claim to be reborn aren't really.

I didn't say most and never gave a percentage or never meant to at least. I have no idea what the percentage is. Only God does.

No, I do not acknowledge the Roman canon as the word of God, I acknowledge many books that certain Church Fathers accepted that the Romans rejected. But that doesn't change anything when I discuss Christian doctrine by their own canons.

Well then this is probably hopeless. If the NT is dismissed then your case may remain mostly intact. If it is accepted it can't possibly do so. Why do I always wind up posting a multi volume work with you? You are not a poster you are an author.

 

[Warren Clark]

I can't believe anything that is as ludicrous as a talking donkey.
Sounds like Shrek...

 

[1robin]

I can't believe anything that is as ludicrous as a talking donkey.
Sounds like Shrek...

Why is a talking Donkey any more ludacris than a talking primate?

 

[Warren Clark]

Why is a talking Donkey any more ludacris than a talking primate?

well the donkey is said to have spoken an entire coherent message.
i havent heard of any animal being able to do that.
ive heard of animals being able to repeat words theyve been taught but never coherent sentences.

 

[1robin]

well the donkey is said to have spoken an entire coherent message.
i havent heard of any animal being able to do that.
ive heard of animals being able to repeat words theyve been taught but never coherent sentences.

I would be much more suprised that if a God that created the universe did exist that donkeys talking would be over his head. You are making a classic mistake. You are using natural means to declare that supernatural occurances are impossible. You are also probably making another classic blunder by deciding what supernatural events could or could not have transpired based on ease of producing. If God created the universe I do not think a talking donkey is much of a challenge. If he knew enough to balance perfectly the weak nuclear force, expansion rate, and gravitational forces for life I do not think donkey linguistics is out of his reach. It is a shame when science strips the wonder from life.

 

[sojourner]

I don't buy the talking donkey bit either, as a literal occurrence.

 

[Warren Clark]

the only time Ive ever heard of an animal talking are in fables. Not saying they can't teach anything. But the minute a goat starts talking to me, please place me in the ward.
There is plenty of wonder with out me losing my sanity.
Trust me, I find the universe beautiful just fine without talking donkeys.
[youtube]DbtgNTmNuIw[/youtube]

 

[1robin]

the only time I’ve ever heard of an animal talking are in fables. Not saying they can't teach anything. But the minute a goat starts talking to me, please place me in the ward.

I am on a server and so can't view videos. Sorry. What world would not be better without at least one talking donkey? My point was that you are looking at the issue incorrectly. If God exists a talking donkey is not only possible but a simple reality. A talking donkey is far more intuitive than infinite time or nothing exploding and producing everything. You can't reject God because you found an example of something that does not make sense if he does not exist. It is a cart and horse issue (or talking donkey and cart). You are saying you deny a cause exists because it's effect is absurd if the cause does not exist. If the cause exists the effect is rather mundane. God must be decided on by other means than your relative familiarity with talking donkeys. Miracles by definition are outside normality and natural law. That is why even if a talking donkey existed that vast records of them are not available. If the relative intuitiveness of effects is the determination of causes then if I told you 2 thousand years ago that a laser can initiate fusion and produce free power you would have responded that is as ridiculous as a talking donkey and so optical and nuclear physics must not exist. The chain of premise and conclusion is all scrambled in your claim. If optical and nuclear physics exists that accomplishment is perfectly logical. I should have majored in theological philosophy instead of math. It is far more intuitive and dynamic to me.

There is plenty of wonder without me losing my sanity.
Trust me, I find the universe beautiful just fine without talking donkeys.

Actually more than wonder is lost when you falsely reason God out of the universe. It becomes a place with no purpose, no meaning, and no reason. We become a biological anomaly with no more value than a fly. Everything is utterly futile as everything ends up in a heat death. Moral foundations for the equality of man, the sanctity of life, and the value of human existence are out. Even right and wrong have no actual meaning beyond opinion or preference. Science can't even begin to address all the most important questions of life. Origin, destination, meaning, worth, purpose, and reason.

 

[Shermana]

This seems very arbitrary. We do not have a Temple and so we just decide we do not have to do any laws associated with it.

I don't see the difference between that and the era of the Bablyonian exile.

Is that scripturally verified?

Explain what the Babylonian exiles did.

What about the African living in the Bush with no priest, Levite, or access to even what the law requires within a thousand miles?

In Zecariah 14 it says nations who don't go up to celebrate Succoth will suffer drought and plague.

You just said we have no Temple. I do not know of a Levite anywhere. If I killed a ram they would lock me up.

If you killed a ram and offered it as sacrifice, you'd probably get punished like Saul did. And you can slaughter all the Rams you want if you're Muslim or having a feast.

Well that is truly a bizarre claim.

Again, It doesn't matter if you find it bizarre.

If the world's troubles effecting people is the measure of righteousness then the Holocaust and the current state of Israel being surrounded by people lobbing rockets at them every day would be an indictment.

I"ll be happy to discuss that on another thread.

That is one of the most irrational statements I have ever heard. Make no mistake, I love the Jewish people above any other racial group on Earth but even the Bible records their repeated betrayal of God and God's judgments against them. There are no God initiated punishments against Christians as a whole in the Bible.

There are no stories about Christians as a whole apart from brief explanations of the Jerusalem Church.

Only Satan persecuted Christians.

You mean via the Romans?

What has happened to you. I have disagreed with you but you were always rational, but now your are making extremely illogical statements

Illogical to you?

.

There is not one human on Earth that follows every law in the OT, you included.

Tell that to the Jews, minus the ones that require a temple, priesthood, and Sanhedrin. I hope I don't have to keep repeating.

Your claims condemn every one. I am glad your claims are not true.

Ah, you have the ability to prove my claims aren't true, fascinating. Are you a prophet or something?

Never mind you have already condemned everyone, this is redundant.

Sorry if you don't like my perspective, Christians seem to suffer just as badly as Jews did in the OT worldwide.

Ok you have called down the thunder, a scriptural debate it is. Let’s see what the experts say on this verse.

By "expert" you mean those who are in the orthodox church and already believe as you do?

First let it be said that that the Bible also says the neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit once gained when born again would never leave nor forsake us.

Who is us?

Unless you think both are going to hell when we sin after being born again your verse must have a different meaning than what you think.

The verse doesn't imply that they won't suffer for their sins in purgatory. Even Jesus warned his own disciples to be careful.

.

The overall narrative must be considered when interpreting versesC

Indeed. That's why I include everything Jesus says, which most Christians noticeably don't.

Context is everything. Your verse is Paul speaking. Paul was Israel's greatest expert on the law.

Paul was the greatest expert? Sheesh, it's hard arguing against assertions you make up when you can decide what's true or not.

He studied under Gamiliel. It seems his main role was preventing Jews from slipping back into Judaism under pressure from family and tradition. Here is a professional theologian's interpretation of that verse:

I really couldn't care less about a professional Orthodox Theologian defending the orthodox position. Why is his word valid but not a 7th day adventists?

I was wondering if this was a reliable text, why I had never heard of it. I now know it isn't and that is why. I have never even heard this one used by Gnostics or heretics not to mention believers.

Whether it's reliable or not is subjective, if you use orthodox commentaries, obviously anything outside their view is going to be "not reliable".

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, the Romans weren't around, but, as you're aware, Israel's entire history has been rife with getting beat up on by the superpower dujour from the east or west. Since Israel is a political state couched in theology, to score a political victory would be the same as scoring a spiritual victory. all Jesus did was take the politics out. it doesn't matter about a political victory -- because those who are persecuted, meek, peacemakers, hungry, and reviled are blessed.

It still makes your emphasis on political power moot. Their history is full of highs and lows and political action is not stressed to any degree in the prophecies. They were not looking for what you say they were; they were waiting for what the prophecies said, a Hebrew king [and here, yes, a political king at the head of the nation] of the Davidic line who would bring the Jews home, rebuild the temple and usher in an age where the Commandments were followed naturally as part of every man's heart. Jesus simply failed at ALL these major efforts.

That's all there is to it, really.

 

[Shermana]

I will post one of hundreds:

One of HUNDREDS? I think more like the only one you can think of.

Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts. It is not possible to know every ingredient in what we eat.

If you don't eat at restaraunts and you eat Organic non-processed food, sure it is.

For example just recently it was revealed that a "slime" used by most fast food restaurants contained stuff left over from about every animal imaginable (some unclean). I was eating it and didn't know it. Another is this one.

So you confuse "not able to know" with "Not taking the time to check it out". I've known that Pink Slime and Mechanically processed chicken contain blood for a long time. You really have no basis.

That a man should fulfill whatever he has uttered. There are many times that if followed it would result in harm and evil

It says he should fulfill what he vows to God, and I'm pretty sure that if someone vowed to God he was going to kill and rape everyone in sight, God would not want that. Why don't you ask the Judaism DIR what they think of that.

. In fact that happened in the Bible.

We don't know if he really had to or not.

Because Pork is well known of. While there are I’m sure very logical reasons to avoid these things it certainly seems absurd that it is morally or spiritually wrong to eat a rattle snake.

I said rattlesnake blood. You know, the poisonous part.

Like you said they are great ideas especially way back then but have no spiritual implications in many cases.

That's because the spiritual application is also a physical application in almost every event.

It is a good rule not to eat a puffer fish especially at a time when they could not be prepared safely. It makes absolutely no sense that I would any more deserve or any less merit heaven if I ate one.

Makes no sense to you, makes sense to me. IF you defile your body with unclean things, you are defiled in Heaven.

I appreciate the candidness. So if the law is the way to heaven you are as screwed as possible. So what now?

You repent, adopt the Law, and accept that you'll be punished for every sin in temporary purgatory.

When did I say any of this? It is not possible to repent and believe in Christ as the NT teaches and not be born again.

Huh? It's not possible to repent? Or do I not understand?

When that happens the Holy Spirit come to live within your heart and you no longer are ever the same person again. For instance I literally could not bear to even hear cursing immediately following my experience where I had cursed like crazy before.

So does the Holy Spirit also come to Mormons and JWs? Why does it lead people to different directions? Why is your experience better or more real than their claims? How do you know it wasn't just Heaven prepping you to become a better soul?

Habits I had been unsuccessfully tried to break for years disappeared. I am not saying a Christian is perfect yet any sin now comes at a terrible toll on our conscience. In other words I have no desire to do anything you suggested but even if I did I can't out sin God's grace.

You can't sin? I doubt that.

I never merited heaven, the Bible says no one ever has except Jesus. My sin does not negate his perfect standing with God in any ultimate sense. Are you familiar with substitutionary atonement? I legally have Christ's righteousness, the only righteousness that merits heaven.

You have Christ's righteousness? I don't think that's what "imputed" means, I think it means that his righteousness is the basis of the sacrifice working.

Mine is no longer the issue. That does not however apply to temporal judgments only ultimate destination. God may actually kill me if I do something terrible enough but that does not apply to the final judgment. If you do not understand atonement that makes no sense so I will not elaborate further.

Sigh, more confusing "Do not agree with interpretation" with "Do not understand". Such a strange phenomenon.

Those are not descriptions of actions they are legal designations. If they were Paul could not have said they were not those. He couldn't have known for sure. We are legally declared perfect by the merits of Christ and are no longer legally declared sinners like these references indicate even though we sin.

I don't think you're interpreting it correctly that you are "legally declared perfect". John and James and Peter urge the believer to maintain good behavior lest they burn.

It is a legal classification not a literal description. If it was everyone is going to hell because the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short and that anyone who claims to not sin is a liar. That is every one. This Biblical debates are going to render the effort to hash them out fully impractical very quickly.
Well how about this then?

Fully impractical? You mean in a way that you don't accept. Again, Jesus warned his own disciples to abstain from things that would place them in the fire. You suffer for each of your sins in temporary purgatory.

http://nlt.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htm

New Living Translation (©2007)
The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.

My interpretation is a bit different than yours.

I have just read a biography of her and there was no hint at anything you claim. Where are the other examples I mentioned?

That's for another thread.

The apostles stated that point blank that is all that is necessary.

They did not state that at all, 1 John says quite differently, so does Peter, so does James. So does Paul even.

No one merits heaven, the issue is absurd. God requires perfection and we can't gain that through obeying laws.

Well I'll go with what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-20, you can go with your cherry picked selections of Paul and ignore Jesus all you want.

You have previously honestly admitted you have failed to obey the law many times. Apparently it is a burden. I did appreciate the honesty and consider myself as failing just as badly.

I guess we have different definitions of burden.

It makes no sense that a bulls blood can make up for my failure.

Then rip out the OT from your Bible.

It does make perfect sense that that was a symbolic indication of what Jesus blood could actually do

So it didn't work until the NT?

.

His blood was spilled because he took my punishment. Only he could do that because only he was perfect. No animal no matter how flawless in appearance was perfect. It was a place holder until the real thing happened. By the way if a bull can forgive your sin then why couldn't you murder anyone you want and get away with it? [

Not all sins are forgivable by sacrifice, see the Judaism DIR and try asking them that.

Another problem is that you seem to be a Sola Scripturist, without consulting Jewish midrash on the issue, so you're right, we'll be at a standstill. As well, I get the feeling the only scholars you'll accept are those of the Orthodox conservative standing.

And with that said, Hebrews 10:26 is quite clear that "If you continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins". So if you sin after you accept Jesus, it's gonna be a hot time in hell (Purgatory).