For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[CMike]

to convert to the Torah would mean to become a follower of Moses.

Did Jesus intend for his 'followers' to put their faith in Moses or in himself?

Moses has no power.


They would be followers of G-d

 

[captainbryce]

The original Christians were simply a sect of Jews.

Finally, something we agree on.

Now what do you suppose "believes in him" means? Did the Greeks have a word for "blindly accept" or was the word "Believe" based on "who obeys and follows the teachings of".

Option 2. I fail to see the relevance of this question however.

And there's absolutely no biblical basis that Jesus came for anyone except the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" in any respect.

I didn't say he came for everyone. I said he died for everyone, there's a difference. And yes, there is a very strong biblical basis for that conclusion.

The only way to possibly reconcile Paul's conversion of the gentiles is that they were to be "grafts" to the Tree.

That's an opinion (again, one that scripture does not support).

But it appears you don't understand the very essence of the "Wild grafts" concepts.

There is a difference between "don't understand" and "don't agree".

Wild grafts is a concept that PAUL introduced (you know, the guy you don't believe in). I find if funny (and convenient) that you'd choose to introduce as part of your argument an ad hoc interpretation of Paul's comments, in an effort to reject everything he teaches. Do you truly not see the hypocrisy of your position?

 

[captainbryce]

There's nothing to lose, the one who loses is the one who thinks that the 'Bible" is for some reason a single cohesive text and that Paul's apostlehood and epistles must necessarily be accepted as binding. Good luck proving that one.

If there is nothing to lose, then how can you declare who a loser might be? Since when was the inability to "prove" a "belief" a qualifying factor in who wins or loses?

And yes, I do in fact reject Paul, whether that involves "Rejecting most of the NT".

Unless he says something which you like apparently, then you make reference to it. Kind of like you do with Jesus (when you think it's convenient for your argument). You provide nothing more than hypocritical, self-defeating arguments in an effort to discredit Christianity. I'd be surprised if I'm the only one that's pointed this out to you so far.

However, there are also those who have interpretations that attempt to reconcile Paul as a completely Jewish disciple with a pro-Law message. Talk to Fallingblood on this forum for example.

But that's not relevant to the discussion that WE are having.

If your concern is that one is not allowed to reject the traditional Roman canon,

Where did you get that this was a concern of mine? :sarcastic

There's also some excellent arguments against the authenticity of Galatians as I've posted links to on other forums, which I'll be glad to relink.

That's not necessary. I understand that YOU are not a Christian, and that you reject whichever parts of the NT that you don't agree with (if not all of it). It isn't my intention to convince you or "prove" to you that my beliefs are correct. It is only my intention to demonstrate that my interpretation of what is written is at least consistent, and doesn't depend on picking and choosing which parts of scripture to accept or completely reject (as yours does). If you want to question the authority of Jesus, or Paul, or the authenticity of what is written, that's a completely different discussion.

It appears your argument now is heading towards that one must accept Biblical Infallibility for some reason, and put aside critical thought and scholarly studies and historicity of the early schism between the Jerusalem and Gentile Anti-judaizers. If you want to reject critical thought and historical objectivity and blindly believe that the Schism was in favor of the anti-Judaizers, that's your belief, but it's hardly anywhere close to objective.

I never made any such claims. This is a straw man argument!

 

[captainbryce]

Basically all you are capable of doing is brushing it off and calling it a red herring and redirecting your argument to your red herrings, without bothering to actually explain why it's a Red Herring.

Go back and read my comment about Gentile Christians, then read your response about James and the Jerusalem Church. It's a red herring for obvious reasons! (look up the term if you don't' know what that means). You are introducing an argument that is irrelevant to the point I made about most Christians today (who are NOT Jewish) not being under the Old Covenant. Bringing up whether or not the original Christians (being Jewish) were still under the Old Covenant is irrelevant because that has nothing to do with non-Jewish Christians today. That argument is a misleading distraction from the real issue, which is why it deserves to be "brushed off", so that we can get back to the point I was originally making (that remains unanswered by the way)!

I think we can easily see why you think it can be simply brushed off and called a red herring.

Apparently not. See above please!

May my Hebrew brothers reading this here take due note that the issue of Acts 21 is something that numerous, if not most, if not nearly all Christians have an extremely difficult (impossible?) time reconciling.

I don't think so. I think YOU have a hard time reconciling it because you can't understand it. But I don't think Christians struggle with this at all.

How convenient to simply toss it out as a Red Herring, especially without much explanation except redirecting to a circular Pauline argument which may or may not be close to correct context. And may me Hebrew brothers worldwide also notice this concept as well in their debates with Christians.

May your Hebrew brothers be a little quicker in connecting the dots that you are. May they refer to the ABOVE point I just made, showing why that argument is a red-herring. :yes:

I don't really see why there has to be a separation between why he arrived and why he died.

Obviously not! But you also evidently don't believe his own reasons for why he came, therefore there is no point trying to convince you otherwise. Again, it is never my intent to "prove" my beliefs to someone else, or convince you that my religion is one that you should follow.

The reason you don't understand is because you've already decided to disbelieve much of the explanation. I think you DO understand, I think you just disagree with it and therefore reject it. And that's fine by the way. You like to take much of Jesus' quotes out of context (picking and choosing) certain statements that you think justifies your argument. That alone makes your arguments very weak. You accuse me of doing that, but the difference is, I can actually reconcile all of Jesus' statements, while you make no attempt to. Combine that with the fact that you are using the words of someone who you don't even accept as a messiah anyway, in order to tell Christians why they are interpreting his message "wrong" makes your argument look even more ridiculous and hypocritical. The Jew who rejects Jesus (along with about half of what he says, and most of what the apostles say) has the audacity to tell his Christian followers why they are following him "wrongly" based on his interpretation of SOME of the things Jesus says. Despite everyone's willingness to engage you on this issue (and I have to admit, it's been quite entertaining at times), even YOU have to admit that your position is somewhat ridiculous!

 

[captainbryce]

whats happens when we reach the 'thousandth and first' generation ?

He can't answer that because the answer would invalidate the point he is trying to make. The thousandth and first generation is obviously NOT "forever".

 

[dantech]

whats happens when we reach the 'thousandth and first' generation ?

He can't answer that because the answer would invalidate the point he is trying to make. The thousandth and first generation is obviously NOT "forever".

OR, it means that this specific verse, if taken literally, is only valid until the thousandth generation.

However all the other verses that say "Forever" are valid until forever, right?
You do agree, don't you? Or do you pick and choose which verses you believe in?

 

[captainbryce]

OR, it means that this specific verse, if taken literally, is only valid until the thousandth generation.

However all the other verses that say "Forever" are valid until forever, right?
You do agree, don't you? Or do you pick and choose which verses you believe in?

I believe in EVERY verse spoken by Jesus. The question isn't what did Jesus say, it's what do his words mean in the context that they are spoken. Jesus wouldn't contradict himself anymore than God from the OT would contradict himself. Therefore, if you read from the presupposition that there are no contradictions, all of his statements must be reconciled with each other. It's not a matter of picking and choosing, it's a matter of interpreting the scripture in such a way that his statements are not contradictory.

Matthew 10:5-6
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:22
22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

As another poster has pointed out, it seems clear that Jesus did not come for the Gentiles, but only for the Jews. He instructs his disciples to go out and administer (heal, drive out demons, etc) only to the Jews, not the Gentiles. And when a Gentile woman comes up to him, he initially refuses to help her until he realizes that she is a faithful follower of him. At that moment, he changes his mind. He himself goes against what he instructed his disciples to do. Does that mean the bible contradicts itself, or that Jesus just changed his mind? You can be the judge of that yourself...but clearly, something happened between the beginning of Jesus' ministries (in terms of his philosophy of only administering to the Jews) and near the end of his life, when he stressed that it was God's will that all who believe in him will be saved.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

It has been suggested that since Jesus initially said that he only came for the Jews, that Gentiles cannot be Christians (unless they convert to Judaism). The problem with that logic is, the reason he said he came had to do with healing people and driving out demons, not dying for their salvation (a completely separate mission). Jesus says countless times that he died to save all mankind.

John 1:9-13
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 6:35-40
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

The only arguments left for the naysayers in the face of what Jesus actually says are technicalities. The insistence that the scriptures must be faulty or unauthentic, or that divisions in the early church invalidate the canonical scriptures, or that some of the words of Christ should be taken at face value while others are rejected, or some Apostles are legit while some aren't. There are all kinds of excuses that one can come up with to disregard the message of Jesus Christ.

 

[Shermana]

The concept of 'EVEN until the thousandth generation" is obviously an idiom to mean "FOREVER".

And we're still on around generation 200-300 or so.

And Jesus says Heaven and Earth will collapse before the Law is void. (Another way of saying FOREVER).

Sorry if that pokes a hole in your argument in trying to say that God was a liar.

It's quite clear what these antinomians think about God's word, not to mention Jesus's.

 

[Shermana]

Unless he says something which you like apparently, then you make reference to it. Kind of like you do with Jesus (when you think it's convenient for your argument). You provide nothing more than hypocritical, self-defeating arguments in an effort to discredit Christianity. I'd be surprised if I'm the only one that's pointed this out to you so far.

A perfect example of the total inability of the Antinomian to argue coherently.

I refer to Paul for a reason. It's to address your own beliefs, and also because there are some things that Paul is useful for referencing. It's clear you don't even understand this basic concept.

Also I have yet to see anything with Jesus that I throw away and pick and choose from. I have PLENTY to see that you do.

With that said, the rest of your replies are nice little attempts to dance around what I said and are nothing more than "Nuh uh"s. All you are capable of is calling my arguments self-defeating without actually addressing them, you write off the ones that punch a hole right through your arguments as "irrelevant", and claim victory. Have you heard of the comparison of playing chess with a pigeon?

There is a difference between "don't understand" and "don't agree".

Wild grafts is a concept that PAUL introduced (you know, the guy you don't believe in). I find if funny (and convenient) that you'd choose to introduce as part of your argument an ad hoc interpretation of Paul's comments, in an effort to reject everything he teaches. Do you truly not see the hypocrisy of your position?

And as we can see here, more dancing and dodging and utter evasiveness on the Pauline issue itself of the Graft.

What's convenient is your pathetic attempt to avoid the issue and act as if addressing what Paul says somehow isn't allowed for someone who doesn't accept him. This would be like a Muslim complaining about a non-Muslim asking someone what they think of something Muhammad said. It's clear as day that this question is most unsettling to you.

So rather than telling me that I pick and choose to use Paul as I see fit, how about you actually address the question about Paul in his own words? Surely the concept of using your own beliefs in what your own prophet said shouldn't evade you right? Surely you can understand a simple concept like addressing what Paul said according to your own beliefs right?

It seems anything that goes against your beliefs causes you to go into a tirade of personal comments in a mad dash to actually avoid the issue, or calling it "irrelevant". I suppose that may put a bandage on your ego but it makes you look like you can't actually answer.

Let's try it again. What does it mean to be a "Graft"?

I understand that YOU are not a Christian,

It's okay, I call you not a Christian all the same. Except you are not, Biblically speaking, anything close to the Petrine Church in Antioch.

I personally hope as many Jews as possible see this so that they can see what the arguments of the Lawless end up resorting to.

Now since you're obviously not interested in actually debating me and you're borderline preaching, would you like to settle this by asking God to arbitrate show us directly which one of us is preaching lies and blasphemy? Elijah style? Surely this would be a way to set me straight and save my soul if I'm wrong, right? Wouldn't it be the Christian thing to do?

 

[Shermana]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Also, I'd like to say my usual spiel on this verse.

The word "Pisteuon" does not necessarily mean "Anyone who believes in the sense of "believing in ghosts" or "believing his sacrifice atones", it more likely means "Anyone who accepts what he teaches and obeys and puts into practice".

Hence, the reason why all antinomian Christians are going to get a very nasty surprise when they are called out as "Doers of Lawlessness". As sure as God lives they preach utter blasphemy.

 

[Pegg]

OR, it means that this specific verse, if taken literally, is only valid until the thousandth generation.

However all the other verses that say "Forever" are valid until forever, right?
You do agree, don't you? Or do you pick and choose which verses you believe in?

I believe that the bible answers this question by the 'terms' of the Law covenant If the Israelites kept the covenant they would be a people for the name of Jehovah, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, with His blessing (Ex 19:5,*6; De 28:1-14);
but if they violated the covenant, they would be cursed as described at Deut 28:15-68.

the end result being:
63*“And it must occur that just as Jehovah exulted over YOU to do YOU good and to multiply YOU, so Jehovah will exult over YOU to destroy YOU and to annihilate YOU; and YOU will simply be torn away from off the soil to which you are going to take possession of it.

this is clearly stating that if Isreal fail to comply with the law covenant by keeping it, they will not remain apart of the promises and this in itself nullifies the 'indefiniteness' of the covenant.

 

[Pegg]

The concept of 'EVEN until the thousandth generation" is obviously an idiom to mean "FOREVER".

And we're still on around generation 200-300 or so.

And Jesus says Heaven and Earth will collapse before the Law is void. (Another way of saying FOREVER).

Sorry if that pokes a hole in your argument in trying to say that God was a liar.

It's quite clear what these antinomians think about God's word, not to mention Jesus's.

for all intents and purposes, the covenant 'for a kingdom' is everlasting. But that 'kingdom' is not the nation of Isreal!

The kingdom belongs to the Messiah...and to that faithful one, the covenant is most certainly everlasting. Those from mankind who make up the members of that kingdom are also everlasting.... but they are not from one particular nation such as Israel....they are individuals whom God chooses and some of them are people from the nations.

To them, the kingdom covenant is indefinitely lasting.

 

[captainbryce]

Also, I'd like to say my usual spiel on this verse.

The word "Pisteuon" does not necessarily mean "Anyone who believes in the sense of "believing in ghosts" or "believing his sacrifice atones", it more likely means "Anyone who accepts what he teaches and obeys and puts into practice".

Shermana, I know you don't understand the concept of red-herrings (even though you keep introducing them), but you should really take the time to READ what your opponents write, and apply a logical counterargument that actually addresses the issues they bring up. Injecting irrelevant, non-arguments into your response doesn't help your cause. I'm not making you look silly here, YOU ARE. You think you know what you're talking about but you don't. And you think that everyone else here is too dumb to realize that you are skating around your inability to answer a single question (that completely invalidates your point). We get it, you don't like to be wrong! But until you can come to terms with being in error, the Jew who has the audacity to teach Christians how to be more "Christian" really has NO CASE! Your point about James and the Jerusalem church has been soundly defeated- as the red herring it was. Your failure to provide a valid answer for why Gentile Christians should follow Mosaic laws has been duly noted. Your failure to understand the reason Jesus said he came only for the Jews (and why that has nothing to do with salvation) has also been duly noted, as has your failure to acknowledge Jesus' words in Matthew 28:18-20. You don't seem to realize that these failures completely defeat your entire argument, but anyone who reads them will see that.

You presume to tell everyone here your opinion of what it means to "believe" in Jesus, and granted believing in Jesus does mean more than just believing, but exercising such faith. But you keep introducing this second red-herring (as if it is actually relevant to the discussion here) in a way that accuses me (or other Christians) of not exercising such faith. The irony is, YOU are the one who doesn't exercise faith in Christ, while I do. So this line of reasoning is beyond hypocrisy!

All you are capable of is calling my arguments self-defeating without actually addressing them

I've addressed your first arguments (actually destroyed them), you failed to provide an answer. You haven't addressed ANY of the scriptures I provided (which invalidate every point you've made). In an attempt to "not be wrong", you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper with invalid arguments that reflect your nonsensical position on this issue. You "address" Paul (when convenient for your argument), but you reject him as any kind of authority. You "quote" Jesus (sometimes - again when convenient), yet you completely ignore the central theme of his entire message. There is no substance to your argument whatsoever! It's completely empty because you don't even believe the things you are saying, let alone understand them. How do you expect anyone here to take you seriously at this point?

Tell you what, if and when you want to explain to us why Jesus said that ANYONE who believes in him will be saved (without narrowing this down to the Jewish people whom he came for), or why he told his disciples to go out and make disciples of all nations (despite the fact that he said he only came for the Jews), or why Abrahamic/Mosaic laws should apply to Gentiles (despite no biblical references to this), then I'll continue with you. I can answer all of these questions, you cannot. Therefore until you can, your case is dismissed!

 

[Shermana]

I've addressed your first arguments (actually destroyed them)

This is about all you're capable of doing in each and every post. Claiming to have destroyed my arguments when you have in fact not, when you have in fact done nothing but demonstrate how fallacious your position is. Again, I bring up the pigeon-playing-chess comparison.

So as I say to every rascal who refuses to debate and address my points and thinks they have won the argument, do you accept my challenge that we ask God to arbitrate and physically demonstrate to us which of us is spreading lies and blasphemies?

 

[Shermana]

this is clearly stating that if Isreal fail to comply with the law covenant by keeping it, they will not remain apart of the promises and this in itself nullifies the 'indefiniteness' of the covenant.

Then the covenant should have been eternally void right after Rehoboam. Explain that one.

 

[captainbryce]

This is about all you're capable of doing in each and every post.

Whatever you say Shermana...As I predicted ZERO answers provided by you. But keep telling yourself that you are right, and eventually you'll start to believe it I suppose.

I'm pretty sure the history of this thread will indicate to just about everyone else who actually made their point here and who didn't. That being said, I really don't see any point in continuing a this point. This conversation can no longer serve any purpose. Goodbye, and good luck digging out of that hole of an argument you dug! :clap

 

[Shermana]

Whatever you say Shermana...As I predicted ZERO answers provided by you. But keep telling yourself that you are right, and eventually you'll start to believe it I suppose.

I'm pretty sure the history of this thread will indicate to just about everyone else who actually made their point here and who didn't. That being said, I really don't see any point in continuing a this point. This conversation can no longer serve any purpose. Goodbye, and good luck digging out of that hole of an argument you dug! :clap

Zero answers? No, you just brushed off all my answers or called them irrelevant. At this point you are flat out lying. Wait, that point was reached long ago.

This conversation serves a great purpose, it exposes just how pathetic the antinomian counter responses are. It helps me greatly for showing my Hebrew brothers how gentile heresy cannot stand up on its own.

Take my offer of asking God to settle this for us Elijah style or I'll take that as you being too afraid to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[dantech]

You've strayed so far away from the actual argument. You're both just talking about who is beating who in the argument. How about you start over and ask one question at a time and see what he answers. By writing long posts, people are bound to forget a thing or two.

Ask one question. Answer with an answer followed by one question

 

[Shermana]

Well, I tried with the point about James and the Jerusalem Church for example, but as you can see, that simply got brushed aside as "irrelevant", and each time it was asked why it was irrelevant, it simply went back to a circular attempt to harp in on his earlier interpretation as if it was matter of fact, without addressing the rebuttals to that interpretation.

 

[dantech]

Well, I tried with the point about James and the Jerusalem Church for example, but as you can see, that simply got brushed aside as "irrelevant", and each time it was asked why it was irrelevant, it simply went back to a circular attempt to harp in on his earlier interpretation as if it was matter of fact, without addressing the rebuttals to that interpretation.

Yeah I saw that. Well he said he's gone so I guess let's just move on.