Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He only admitted he was a sinner and that he did deserve his punishment. He would not have been punished unless he was a lawbreaker. They only lived by law.
That makes no sense.
The Torah does allow for divorce. In fact, G-D specifically gives laws dealing with divorce.
Actually it was. And that's why God threatened to kill Moses when he didn't obey the law of circumcision. If the law all Abraham all of a sudden didn't apply to Moses, why the threat? And why did Joshua have to re-institute it after Moses had broken the covenant?
Yes, that would be GENTILES! Any "race" that was not the Jews were considered Gentiles.
It DID exist, because Ezra said that it was instituted as a law.
NO cherry picker, that's NOT what it says! The commandment NEVER changed. It was the same commandment during the time of Moses as it was for Abraham. Moses BROKE the covenant (and was threatened/punished) for it. That's why the Jews weren't circumcising anymore. But they took it up again AFTER Moses to re-establish the covenant. There is nothing in scripture that says that it was only meant for "their children". The command was that EVERY MALE AMONG THEM (including slaves) would be circumcised. And even IF the law had change (which it didn't of course), then you'd be contradicting your own point about how the OT laws never changed.
That's NOT the commandment, and that's not what it says. You added the (offspring) part yourself. Here's what it says:
Yes, actually it is because it says to right there in the black and white of Genesis 17:11. Sorry, but your just wrong!
The answer is YES. That's why they went ahead and got circumcised (so that they could be part of the covenant again). If they were not cut off then they would have been able to participate in Passover.
Right. Because whenever you get caught saying something that is just flat out WRONG, you have to go back and amend what you previously said in order to somehow make it right. Because you're one of those people that just can't ever admit to being wrong! Trust me, I figured that out about you a long time ago!
Are you friggin kidding me? Now you're just grasping at straws. :sarcastic
First of all, it's not my interpretation, it's what it actually says! Secondly, most Jews DO seperate themselves from the people around them. It's called the country of Israel - do you watch the news? Thirdly, I think that Jews haved always cherry picked God's word, and applied it ONLY if/when it seems convenient for them to do so at the time. I think this has been the running theme with the Jewish people ever since the Old Testament days (which is why God established the new covenant to replace the old). Jews have NEVER obeyed the whole law! When's the last time Jews stoned their children for disobeying? When's the last time Israel executed a citizen for practicing homosexuality? They don't even obey OT laws today, they only obey the ones that they find convenient.
OT laws are not just given ONCE. They are often repeated throughout scripture many times (in several different ways). But if the law once given doesn't change (as you seem to believe) then you are invalidating your own point. The commandment given to Abraham applies until forever, or age-long, or until the end of the Old Covenant, or however you want to put it. But one thing is certain, that would include MOSES, and all subsequent generations of Jews at least until after Jesus dies!
That's the point I am making! Ergo, the law of Abraham always applied to Moses' generation. And the law was that EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD be circumcised, not just infants.
The commandment is official because when one breaks it, they have in fact broken the covenant! It came before the laws of Moses and applies to every generation after Abraham. Being a "convert" meant being circumcised, and therefore allowed to participate in Jewish celebrations. If you were not circumcised, you are not a convert and therefore have no place at Passover. With all due respect, I no longer think that you know what you're talking about anymore. I think that you're seriously under-analyzing (a euphemism for cherry picking) what scripture says and arbitrarily deciding what laws to apply to whom. But I highly doubt that most Christians, Muslims OR even Jews would agree with your interpretation on this point, and I don't see how your view can be justified with the plain reading of the text.
Which according to you is Moses! And that's why your argument is self-defeating.
Paul didn't break the covenant. Paul WAS circumcised himself, and he circumcised other Jews. Paul taught that Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised when other Jews were falsely teaching that they did. Paul was right because Gentiles were never given a commandment to be circumcised in the first place. In fact, IF Gentiles were required to become circumcised, that would completely invalidate the point of Jews being circumcised.
You just created a false dichotomy. The true conclusion (the one that can be reconciled with scripture without cherry picking) is this:
The bible doesn't say he was a petty thief, it describes him as a "criminal". It doesn't say what his crimes were, but it absolutely implies that he was deserving of execution (he even says so himself):
Where do you get this nonsense from? That's not what faith means! Faith means believing that Jesus Christ is the promised messiah who died for our sins. Believing and obedience are two different things. Christians are disobedient sometimes (for which we are expected to repent and ask forgiveness). But when we fail that doesn't mean we have lost faith. You're conflating two separate concepts.
No my friend, that's what YOU just did. Faith means "faith", not obedience.
Kind of like Moses huh!
What else would I use to define a word that was translated into the modern English concept of faith? If faith meant obedience, then it would have been translated that way.
You mean in the way that you interpret his teachings (but only sometimes). :sarcastic
And by the same logic, depending on what you are being disobedient about, IT MAY NOT BE! Did you even think that one through?
Because we are human beings, we have a sinful nature, and sometimes we don't do what's best for us. We make mistakes and we learn from them, but that doesn't mean we lose our faith.
That's YOUR explanation derived from a warped, arbitrary, inconsistent, illogical, and hypocritical interpretation of the bible. But that's not the majority interpretation of scholars or adherents to Christianity OR Judaism.
That wasn't my question. I asked would an observant Jew believe that he deserved DEATH even if he obeyed all of the Torah - YES or NO? Again, we don't know what his crime was, only that he felt that he deserved his punishment!
I didn't add the word "petty", YOU DID. Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden were all criminals too. Would you describe any of their acts as petty? We don't know whether the criminal on the cross' acts were "petty" or not. Only that he was sentenced to death, and that he believed it was appropriate for his crimes. THAT'S IT!
What else would I use to define a word that was translated into the modern English concept of faith? If faith meant obedience, then it would have been translated that way.
Well then let's play your game:
Faith:
Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com
Definitions 1, 3, 4, and 5 all fit with what I'm saying. I know you'll say "Nuh uh" but as anyone else who is actually being objective here reading can see, "Faith" does in fact include, in English at least, the idea of having "Faith" in the teachings. But I appreciate you showing your absolute obstinancy to the idea that you actually have to believe in what Jesus taught. So in your belief, you don't have to actually believe in what Jesus taught, right? Got it.
As opposed to your interpretation?
Can you rephrase that into something understandable?
How is a mistake based on "Sinful nature" not an act of rebelliousness and losing the eye on the prize? Be specific. It seems you're simply restating exactly what I stated with a pitiful "nuh uh" in an attempt to put it in your own words.
That does absolutely nothing to disagree with what I said.
Once again Bryce, all you are capable of doing is clawing and brushing aside at what I said and dismisisng and naysaying but ultimately you have failed to actually disprove what I said.
The only other possibility would be ignorance and failing of memory.
So by all means, please explain how "sinful nature" does NOT involve rebelliousness and willfully disobeying. And this time actually provide a substantial reply, thanks.
If you wanted to end the debate, then why do you keep bringing up my name and asking me questions? I already told you not to do that unless you expect me to respond. I can therefore only imagine that you wish me to continue.
No kidding. I think that fact has been made obvious at this point!
Hallelujah, a breakthrough! :clap
How do you figure that would make Paul wrong? Wouldn't that view be completely consistent with what Paul taught about circumcision in Galatians and Philippians?
Convenient, but ultimately predictable! :sleep:
I fail to see how this specific issue (that he adheres to) would make him a false profit, but not Moses (who broke his own covenant).
Again, it's not my position, it's PAUL's position (the same guy who coined the "grafted" concept in the first place). He defined the parameters of what it means to be grafted, not ME. And since he defined it as Gentiles not being under the law of Moses, I don't see how you can continue to argue otherwise. There is no logic to your position here! You brought up "grafting" and your trying to redefine what it means from the guy who coined it!
That sounds like a giant contradiction to me. You say that my argument is self-defeating when you admit that you don't even know what you're talking about now. How strange! In any case, while it is indeed refreshing to hear you finally admit to being wrong about something, as well as to ceasing trying pass your opinion off as fact, please don't go through anymore trouble on my part. Remember, I'm not here to convince you that my belief is correct. It's okay to agree to disagree!
A) I never said Acts 10 was about dietary laws. That was a straw-man argument! The point of vision concerning clean and unclean meat was to let Peter know that he should administer to Cornelius (a Gentile), and other Gentile believers in God.
We'll see!
I'm not interested in the patience of someone who evokes my name in a troll-like manner and accuse me of lying, only to later admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about. If you're having a problem with your patience simply because I've pointed out the failures of your argument, that's not my problem. There is no reason for you to be getting emotional about this, especially after baiting me in such a way. Perhaps you should tone down your emotions a bit.
It is, because that's not my interpretation of what you should be doing. What I think you should be doing is what Christ taught (ie: love thy neighbor, et al). My argument was about what pre-messianic Jews believed that they should be doing. Totally different!
It should, but then that begs the question of why you would even come to this forum at all, and ignite discussions about the merits of Christianity to Gentiles. Unless of course you're a troll! It's a pity that you see me as an "enemy to your God" simply because I am a Gentile Christian. But I'm glad the truth finally comes out, because deep down, this is what all observant Jews truly believe...ISN'T IT? For what it's worth, I don't see you as an enemy of my God, only as someone who is ignorant and knows not what he does (or says).
I go back to a question that's been asked (and avoided) several times already: When's the last time Israel executed a homosexual for being gay? I'm not expecting an answer at this point, but your silence on this question makes my point for me!
And who might that be exactly? You or the other Jews here?
This fact was never in dispute. You are once again attacking the straw man! I said that faith means something different than OBEDIENCE. You said it meant the same thing!
Wrong. I do believe in what he taught.
Yes. Because that would be the Christian interpretation (you know, the people who actually believe in Christ)!
I'll just make is simpler altogether by highlighting the relevant portion of your statement: "failing can in fact be a symptom of lost faith depending on what you are being disobedient about"
Rebelliousness isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not one who is rebellious has lost faith. Rebellion isn't always the result of losing faith; it is most often the result of putting your own selfish desires ahead of God (in spite of one's faith).
Yes it does. You see, your argument is that sin is the result of lost faith. I've just shown you that sin is the result of our own nature. It has nothing to do with faith because everyone is guilty of sin. We are REDEEMED from our sins because of our faith, but faith doesn't erase our sinful nature. That's why we must still die and be reborn. Only then will we no longer have a sinful nature!
I believe I just did here. But let me know if you still don't understand something. You're welcome!
YOU were the one who gave me the last word. Of course I am going to continue if I have to prove that your arguments are fallacious.
I highly doubt you'd ever admit the same thing.
How do you figure that would make Paul wrong? Wouldn't that view be completely consistent with what Paul taught about circumcision in Galatians and Philippians?
If I am wrong about circumcision, then Paul is wrong too! Simple.
Convenient to not want to spend an hour responding to your fallacious insults and assertions as if your interpretations are matter of fact? Indeed.
Where did Moses break his own covenant? Was he supposed to examine every Israelite to see if they were circumcised? If circumcision for converts is absolutely necessary, and converts are to be a graft to the Tree (something I'm not sure you made anything close to a cohesive point about) to the House of Israel, then Paul is wrong. I tried to give him some leeway even!
See Bryce, here's another problem, all you can do is just accuse me of redefining this or that, as if your interpretation is the only one that's right. He defined it as being a part of the House of Israel. This is not just my interpretation. (Although many of your positions are only your interpretation.)
This is actually a very common position among Messianics and gentile antinomians alike. Sorry to say, but your attempt to brush off my point as "Redefining" is actually THE classical view. It is you who is the revisionist. On this issue at least.
HHMI: Gentiles Grafted In
You have no idea what you're even talking about. I admitted that I may not know for sure what the official position on this has been. Your argument is self defeating in that you believe in someone who you believe contradicts the Mosaic Law as a prophet in the Mosaic tradition.
It would be 10000x more refreshing to hear you say it.
Irony overwhelming.
I'm here to show how full of bologne you are when you pass off yours as fact.
Okay, and that's your opinion. I think the "New Covenant" is simply an extension and expansion of the "Old", not doing away with any of the old.
Wow, we agree on something, I guess I must have totally misunderstood you when you brought up Acts 10.
Wrong. Roman converts to Judaism were not unheard of, and it's very possible they were circumcised. The text says he was "Devout" and "God-fearing". We know the Noahide laws were a much later development that have no evidence in the early period, so it was likely either total convert or not.
Sure it does. There was still the biological issue. Converts may not have been fully included as full blooded Israelites as they are today. Back then there was no "Judaism". It was "Righteous stranger".
How could he have been "devout" exactly?
Hope to see you there.
You called ME a liar, get it straight.
I admit that I'm not fully read on the issue, is that a problem?
My patience issue is your personal comments and condescending attitude, which I don't deal with well. I don't mind disagreement and you poking holes in my argument. But your attitude is the issue here.
You have made several personal comments, hypocrite. And this is an emotional issue to me to show how Antinomians are wrong to my Hebrew brothers.
What Christ taught was clarification of the Law. Which obviously contradicts with your interpretation that I'm supposed to completely separate from gentiles.
I don't think you quite understood what I meant. If I'm supposed to separate myself from the peoples as you interpret it to mean, I shouldn't even be combatting gentile Christians in the first place.
There are several reasons for this, such as the Oral Torah, which you can kindly ask the Judaism DIR all about.