For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[BlandOatmeal]

Shalom Dantech

You posted some interesting things. I will try to comment on some of them here:

...it has been pointed out God knows how many times in this thread, numerous verses from the Torah that say that it is binding on us forever, and is everlasting. So a Christian who eats pork, while claiming to believe in the NT is not making much sense.

You seem to be hopping around a bit here. You self-describe as a Jew; so I assume that when you say "binding on us", you are saying "binding on us [modern, Pharisaical] Jews". Then you go on talking about a "Christian" who eats pork, while "claiming to believe in the NT".

I hope you can appreciate, that I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming that Christians are actually Jews? or that believing in the NT obliges one to behave as Jews? I think you will find considerable disagreement on these points from Jews, Christians and NT believers alike. It seems that whatever stance one takes on these matters, one is likely to get attacked.

In light of this, I will not take a stance concerning pork. I can tell you why I personally don't eat really treif foods: It is because I wish to eat and have fellowship with Jews and non-Jews alike, while causing as little offence as possible to anyone. You must surely know that in upstate Oregon, where I live, hardly any Jews keep kosher; but some do. In Jerusalem or Brooklyn, of course, matters would be different. I am not halachically Jewish, as you can see; I'm just a poor boy, trying to get along.

Concerning the details of Torah being "binding", I agree that they are. There are obviously some laws for Jews and others for non-Jews, some for Levites and others for non-Levites, etc. It isn't a "one size fits all" matter. Jews may not exact interest from a fellow Jew, for instance, but are free to exact interest from the gentiles. Only Levites are allowed to handle the holy things, etc. None of this has been annulled; this is an eternal covenant. That is what I understand.

Just what "binding" means, is another matter. What happens, for instance, if a Jew fails to wash between blessing the wine and blessing the bread? Does he become a non-Jew? And if a Jew eats pork, what then? Does he become a Gentile for the rest of his life? Is he to be stoned to death? I don't think so. In fact, the Jews say that if one is a Jew, he continues to be a Jew, even if he eats treif; and if one is not a Jew, he is free to eat treif. That is what the Jews say, not I.

My arguments are more pointed towards all the Christians who don't follow the laws of the Torah. To me, the NT could only be acceptable, if you accept on you the laws of the Torah as well.

These are matters of halacha -- of "Messianic Jewish" halacha, to be precise. You seem to be expecting followers of Jesus to consider themselves Jewish. Very well; let them have their own minhag, and let them posken for themselves. You know that they have done this, and this was their ruling on a weighty matter:

Acts 15
[22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
[24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
[25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
[26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That ruling, curiously, concerned whether or not new believers ought to be circumcised. Jews today often neglect circumcision, while hundreds of millions of Gentiles undergo the operation (as did I). One Jew, in particular, was very negligent in these matters, namely, Moshe Rabenu: he did not have his own children circumcised (but his Midian wife did it); and a whole generation followed Moses through the wilderness with foreskins intact. What was the profit of requiring this of the Greeks? The Egyptians, Aramaeans and Arabs all circumcised their children, to no profit. Why should such an unprofitable thing be foisted on these others? They would certainly be rejected by the Jews anyway, just as the Jews rejected the Arabs and Egyptians.

Should the Gentiles follow the Jews, in their practices? Consider this:

2 Chron 36
[20] And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:
[21] To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

Eretz Israel lay fallow for 70 years, to rest after 420 years of Sabbatical Year violations -- violations by the Jews during a time when the House of David ruled in Jerusalem. And after that? Under the Persians, Greeks and Romans, did the land enjoy its Sabbaths? Now that the Jews are returned to the land, does it lay fallow every seventh year? Of course not! And the rabbis of Israel bless this activity, using phoney land purchases to excuse the Jews from obeying the Law! Do you, therefore, presume to foist this Jewish morality on the goiim?

I am not a posken. Peter was, along with the church in Jerusalem; and they judged as they did. So be it.

Just answer me this: Hardly any Jews observe Torah, to meet your satisfaction -- not even in Israel, where it's harder NOT to be frum in many places than it is to BE frum. Let me quote Paul, who is so maligned by some here:

Gal 2
[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I think that cuts to the core of what you're saying here. Even among the Jews, there are those who look down their noses at their fellow Jews, treating them as thought they were unclean. What profit is there, for a Gentile to behave this way? Will Jesus be more pleased with them, than he was with the Pharisees?

 

[Shermana]

Let me once again add, as I've gone over in greater detail in multiple threads, with quotes and sources (which can be reposted here once again if need be) that the Council of Jerusalem episode is disputed as a later invention by quite a few scholars, and completely clashes with the account in Galatians 2, so much to the point that even arch-conservative scholar FF Bruce tries to reconcile them by saying they are two separate events, and his view is not exactly heavily supported. There is really no good reason to accept that account as truly historical, at least even relatively in comparison to the other events described in the NT.

And I suppose it's worth mention that there are those like FR Mcguire who have very convincing arguments that Galatians, the so-called "Most Pauline epistle" is actually a total fabrication/pseudepigrapha, even though this is the minority position. The mainstream arguments for its authenticity are actually quite circular.

http://www.biblicalresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Book-of-Galatians.pdf (To see the "Internal evidence" and how weak it is, including how it clashes with Acts).

http://www.radikalkritik.de/DID PAUL WRITE GALATIANS.pdf

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/McGuireClash.pdf

Kudos to Blandoatmeal here for posting Galatians 2 and Acts 15 in the same post, for they do indeed clash. To be fair though, I will show a link from an opposing traditionalist who thinks they are compatible somehow.

http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-acts-explains-galatians.html

Even with that said, even IF Acts 15 was completely historical, the fact remains that the Jerusalem Church was quite explicit in expecting Jews to obey the Law of Moses, thus preventing the "Two Gospel Dilemma". So thus, Jewish Christians, under this idea, are still expected to obey the full law of Moses, as Paul was accosted under the suspicion of bringing Jewish Christians away from Moses in Acts 21. (And the odd placement of 21:25 interupting the flow is at least IMO a definite interpolation).
And then there's the issue that Galatians is in itself basically just a reaction against the Church of Jerusalem's teachings (under James, who I should add that the Gospel of Thomas says was the most important person in the world).

http://www.harrington-sites.com/house3.html

Galatians is an argument against the dogma of the Jerusalem Church; the same dogma being preached today by various Jewish Messianic movements that are claiming Jesus is the Messiah. For where Paul preached that faith alone pleased God, the Jerusalem Church insisted that the works of the laws should govern one's faith in God. It was because of this difference that in Galatians 2:9, an agreement was made that Paul was to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, and those of the Jerusalem Church would preach theirs to the Jews. Yet it is self-evident in Galatians 2:12 that James did not observe the agreement. And that Paul's anger in his letter to the Galatians is in direct response to the meddling of James and the Judaizers, who were trying to undermine Paul's gospel by imposing "the works of the law" upon those whom Paul had been given charge over, the Gentiles!

21:25 was also viewed to be an interpolated verse in late 19th/early 20th century scholarship, especially by the Tubingen school. These claims were seemingly never really rebutted but merely swept under the table during the time of the "Revival" movements.

It seems to be the case that Acts was written as a means of reconciling the anti-Judaizing proto-orthodox Gentile Christians of the early-mid 2nd century with the original Nazarene Torah-obedient Jerusalem Church who may have demanded that gentiles who wanted to lay claim to being of the "House of Israel" whom Jesus said he ONLY was sent for, would have to live up to the same standards.

Otherwise, you're stuck with the concept of Jewish Christians being in a higher position, having a higher standard, higher calling, and higher place than the Gentile Christians.

Also, we see in Revelation some hints that Paul may have been considered a false teacher, admonishing those who teach that it's acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and saying that the Saints are those who "obey the commandments of God". I believe most scholars regard Revelation as a very Jewish work, and that "The commandments of God" did not just mean the 4 laws of the Jerusalem Council.

Also, notice how many things are missing from the Jerusalem Council. Some people think it was meant to be just an introduction to the rest of the Law, to get the gentiles started on conversion with baby steps.

 

[dantech]

Shalom Dantech

You posted some interesting things. I will try to comment on some of them here:


You seem to be hopping around a bit here. You self-describe as a Jew; so I assume that when you say "binding on us", you are saying "binding on us [modern, Pharisaical] Jews". Then you go on talking about a "Christian" who eats pork, while "claiming to believe in the NT".

I hope you can appreciate, that I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming that Christians are actually Jews? or that believing in the NT obliges one to behave as Jews? I think you will find considerable disagreement on these points from Jews, Christians and NT believers alike. It seems that whatever stance one takes on these matters, one is likely to get attacked.

In light of this, I will not take a stance concerning pork. I can tell you why I personally don't eat really treif foods: It is because I wish to eat and have fellowship with Jews and non-Jews alike, while causing as little offence as possible to anyone. You must surely know that in upstate Oregon, where I live, hardly any Jews keep kosher; but some do. In Jerusalem or Brooklyn, of course, matters would be different. I am not halachically Jewish, as you can see; I'm just a poor boy, trying to get along.

Concerning the details of Torah being "binding", I agree that they are. There are obviously some laws for Jews and others for non-Jews, some for Levites and others for non-Levites, etc. It isn't a "one size fits all" matter. Jews may not exact interest from a fellow Jew, for instance, but are free to exact interest from the gentiles. Only Levites are allowed to handle the holy things, etc. None of this has been annulled; this is an eternal covenant. That is what I understand.

Just what "binding" means, is another matter. What happens, for instance, if a Jew fails to wash between blessing the wine and blessing the bread? Does he become a non-Jew? And if a Jew eats pork, what then? Does he become a Gentile for the rest of his life? Is he to be stoned to death? I don't think so. In fact, the Jews say that if one is a Jew, he continues to be a Jew, even if he eats treif; and if one is not a Jew, he is free to eat treif. That is what the Jews say, not I.
These are matters of halacha -- of "Messianic Jewish" halacha, to be precise. You seem to be expecting followers of Jesus to consider themselves Jewish. Very well; let them have their own minhag, and let them posken for themselves. You know that they have done this, and this was their ruling on a weighty matter:

Acts 15
[22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
[24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
[25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
[26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That ruling, curiously, concerned whether or not new believers ought to be circumcised. Jews today often neglect circumcision, while hundreds of millions of Gentiles undergo the operation (as did I). One Jew, in particular, was very negligent in these matters, namely, Moshe Rabenu: he did not have his own children circumcised (but his Midian wife did it); and a whole generation followed Moses through the wilderness with foreskins intact. What was the profit of requiring this of the Greeks? The Egyptians, Aramaeans and Arabs all circumcised their children, to no profit. Why should such an unprofitable thing be foisted on these others? They would certainly be rejected by the Jews anyway, just as the Jews rejected the Arabs and Egyptians.

Should the Gentiles follow the Jews, in their practices? Consider this:

2 Chron 36
[20] And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:
[21] To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

Eretz Israel lay fallow for 70 years, to rest after 420 years of Sabbatical Year violations -- violations by the Jews during a time when the House of David ruled in Jerusalem. And after that? Under the Persians, Greeks and Romans, did the land enjoy its Sabbaths? Now that the Jews are returned to the land, does it lay fallow every seventh year? Of course not! And the rabbis of Israel bless this activity, using phoney land purchases to excuse the Jews from obeying the Law! Do you, therefore, presume to foist this Jewish morality on the goiim?

I am not a posken. Peter was, along with the church in Jerusalem; and they judged as they did. So be it.

Just answer me this: Hardly any Jews observe Torah, to meet your satisfaction -- not even in Israel, where it's harder NOT to be frum in many places than it is to BE frum. Let me quote Paul, who is so maligned by some here:

Gal 2
[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I think that cuts to the core of what you're saying here. Even among the Jews, there are those who look down their noses at their fellow Jews, treating them as thought they were unclean. What profit is there, for a Gentile to behave this way? Will Jesus be more pleased with them, than he was with the Pharisees?

You make good points, but I think you misunderstood mine. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm not arguing on whether or not the law is binding to Christians. It's definitely not. I'm arguing their reasoning on why it's not. The people on this thread have been saying it's obsolete because Jesus fulfilled it. I disagree, I say it's not binding simply because they aren't Jews. Most feel the covenant of Moses' law was binding to them too, but only until the NT came along. That's what I've been arguing about

 

[BlandOatmeal]

You make good points, but I think you misunderstood mine. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm not arguing on whether or not the law is binding to Christians. It's definitely not. I'm arguing their reasoning on why it's not. The people on this thread have been saying it's obsolete because Jesus fulfilled it. I disagree, I say it's not binding simply because they aren't Jews. Most feel the covenant of Moses' law was binding to them too, but only until the NT came along. That's what I've been arguing about

I agree with your main premise here, dantech: The law of Moses did not become "obsolete because Jesus fulfilled it". Jesus "fulfilled the law", simply by observing it. He obviously did not annul it, because the whole church in Jerusalem were Shomer Torah:

Acts 21
[17] And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
[18] And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19] And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
[22] What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
[23] Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
[24] Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

I have tried repeatedly to get Shermana to discuss these matters with me, but he has steadfastly refused. In my opinion, he is only confusing matters here; and he certainly is confused himself concerning the things I said. I was very disappointed when I first saw him behaving this way; but I have come to accept it. He wants to cut and paste the NT to suit his doctrines, which appear to be neither Jewish, Christian nor Bible-believing. I am used to this sort of thing from Christians and others, and am not surprised to see that you, an Orthodox Jew, understand my beliefs better than this other one.

Thank you for your post.

Shalom shalom.

 

[Shermana]

I have tried repeatedly to get Shermana to discuss these matters with me, but he has steadfastly refused. In my opinion, he is only confusing matters here; and he certainly is confused himself concerning the things I said. I was very disappointed when I first saw him behaving this way; but I have come to accept it. He wants to cut and paste the NT to suit his doctrines, which appear to be neither Jewish, Christian nor Bible-believing. I am used to this sort of thing from Christians and others, and am not surprised to see that you, an Orthodox Jew, understand my beliefs better than this other one.

1. Remind me which post you wanted to discuss such issues with me. Or spell out the specific questions and arguments you have. I last remember getting frustrated because you believed that being Messianic Jewish involved not having to obey the Law. I believe I asked you if you think all Christians are "Messianic Jewish" whether they are antinomian or not.

2. Do you think going by scholarly arguments, manuscript evidence, and the idea that the NT was in fact interpolated and edited by Anti-Judaizers means I want to "Cut and paste" as I see fit? Do you think the early groups like the Ebionites who rejected Paul were cutting and pasting? Do you think Paul's epistles must be accepted as canonical in order to not "Cut and paste"? Do you believe the NT is a holy and inspired document, perfectly and divinely endowed with the answers, and unless one accepts it in totality, at least the version of the post 5th century orthodox (Not including the Church fathers like Ireneaus and Clement who also used books like the Shepherd of Hermas and Acts of Peter), that there is something wrong? Do you believe the NT is divinely inspired or not? If so, which version do you believe is to be the full version, and do you believe that if one believes certain verses are interpolated based on manuscript evidence, that they are "cutting and pasting"? Do you think that one must blindly accept every epistle of Paul as written by him even if they accept Paul was an authentic apostle, and completely discard the reasoning of scholarly authorties? Do you believe one must accept the "group-think" mentality and not try to piece it together on their own, assuming they have good reasons for their positions?

3. Did you read my post about the authenticity arguments about the authenticity of the Council of Jerusalem and Galatians?

 

[captainbryce]

I have tried repeatedly to get Shermana to discuss these matters with me, but he has steadfastly refused. In my opinion, he is only confusing matters here; and he certainly is confused himself concerning the things I said. I was very disappointed when I first saw him behaving this way; but I have come to accept it. He wants to cut and paste the NT to suit his doctrines, which appear to be neither Jewish, Christian nor Bible-believing.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the same thing I noticed when dealing with him as well. :yes:

Despite the fact that I think his arguments are often either hypocritical, contradictory, or otherwise inconsistent (suggesting to me that he's not even really sure what HE believes), I still think his heart is ultimately in the right place when it comes to seeking the truth. At least he is willing to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to some of the other "robots" on here who will argue their indoctrinated beliefs without any consideration of logic. You got to at least give Shermana some credit for trying!

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the same thing I noticed when dealing with him as well. :yes:

Despite the fact that I think his arguments are often either hypocritical, contradictory, or otherwise inconsistent (suggesting to me that he's not even really sure what HE believes), I still think his heart is ultimately in the right place when it comes to seeking the truth. At least he is willing to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to some of the other "robots" on here who will argue their indoctrinated beliefs without any consideration of logic. You got to at least give Shermana some credit for trying!

Hi, Captain

From what you've written here, I think we have similar observations about Shermana. I began to engage him on these matters in "Same Faith Discussions > Messianic Judaism Discussions"; and as soon as I posted some scriptures, he went to radio silence. I'm glad he responded to me here; I will compose a reply to him after sending this to you.

PS Shermana is doctrinally closer to me, I think, than he is to you, seeing that we are both non-Trinitarian.

 

[Shermana]

This was your last reply to me on that thread, Bland. I'm not sure what kind of response you were looking for or what you were asking me to respond to. The issue of whether the last chapter of John clashes with Matthew is if anything a factor that favors an anti-Trinity viewpoint, and I don't think you addressed the fact that Jesus shows up in different locations in each version of the first appearance story.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3532091-post28.html

 

[BlandOatmeal]

1. Remind me which post you wanted to discuss such issues with me. Or spell out the specific questions and arguments you have. I last remember getting frustrated because you believed that being Messianic Jewish involved not having to obey the Law. I believe I asked you if you think all Christians are "Messianic Jewish" whether they are antinomian or not.

See my reply to CaptainBryce. Concerning the Christians, you read me wrong: I don't like labels in general; but no, my idea of a "Christian" is essentially a Trinitarian, regardless of whether he considers himself Jewish or not. By that definition, I am not a Christian. I have no idea what an "antinomian" is -- have to look it up here:

Antinomianism

"...In Christianity, an antinomian is "one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation".[1] Many antinomians, however, believe that Christians will obey the moral law despite their freedom from it. The distinction between antinomian and other Christian views on the moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than any external compulsion..."

-- Antinomianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you know what I know on the matter -- not much. By that definition, I am certainly not "antinomian": I don't believe faith alone is necessary for salvation: We will be judged by our works, not what Christians and others usually think of as "faith". I also have no idea what the definition is referring to "the moral law". I don't have an opinion on these matters, and don't consider them important. Jesus and the NT writers all expounded at length about the law of Moses, and how it ought to be observed. We also have the examples of the early believers for living examples on these matters. I would be happy to discuss these things -- there's much more profit in that, than in trying to label people and put them into boxes.

2. Do you think going by scholarly arguments, manuscript evidence, and the idea that the NT was in fact interpolated and edited by Anti-Judaizers means I want to "Cut and paste" as I see fit?

Yes -- the way you do it. In fact, your boundaries seem more fluid than Barack Obama's "red lines". Paul said,

Gal 1
[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

That's such powerful language, one ought not take these things lightly. "Bible scholars" are a dime a dozen -- and you can find scholars to back up any opinion you like. Finding a scholar to agree with you does not make your opinions scholarly; it simply shows that you are deeply committed to your opinions. I'm not interested in men's opinions. I just want to know God's opinion; and I get that from meditating on His teaching -- and trying to follow it.

Do you think Paul's epistles must be accepted as canonical in order to not "Cut and paste"? Do you believe the NT is a holy and inspired document, perfectly and divinely endowed with the answers, and unless one accepts it in totality, at least the version of the post 5th century orthodox (Not including the Church fathers like Ireneaus and Clement who also used books like the Shepherd of Hermas and Acts of Peter), that there is something wrong?

Do you think the early groups like the Ebionites who rejected Paul were cutting and pasting? Do you believe the NT is divinely inspired or not? If so, which version do you believe is to be the full version, and do you believe that if one believes certain verses are interpolated based on manuscript evidence, that they are "cutting and pasting"? Do you think that one must blindly accept every epistle of Paul as written by him even if they accept Paul was an authentic apostle, and completely discard the reasoning of scholarly authorties? Do you believe one must accept the "group-think" mentality and not try to piece it together on their own, assuming they have good reasons for their positions?

Concerning "blindly accepting", Jesus said,

John 9
[39] And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
[40] And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
[41] Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Balaam's donkey couldn't read or write; but he saw the destroying messenger whereas the prophet was blind to him. Jesus had to contend continually with the best Torah scholars in Israel. He was right and they were wrong. His disciples also were right; yet they were called "unlearned"; and none of the NT writers, nor Jesus himself, had the benefit of what we call the "New Testament".

All those holy people managed to get by just fine without any sort of "canon"; but if you want to get an insight into what they thought and lived by, I suggest you read the New Testament -- ALL of it. There is no disagreement between any of the NT books; but there is a lot of disagreement between them and "non-canonical" books. But you don't even agree with Jesus: He never warned his followers about discrepancies in Torah; and I think Matthew and Jesus both were mistaken about things like the meaning of some prophecies; and about which Zechariah was killed. Even so, Matthew and Jesus were right, and the scholars were wrong. Solomon said,

Qoh 12
[11] The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
[12] And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Paul said,

Rom 1
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

and Jesus said,

Matt 11
[25] At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
[26] Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Paul also said,

2 Tim 2
[23] But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
[24] And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

3. Did you read my post about the authenticity arguments about the authenticity of the Council of Jerusalem and Galatians?

Yes, I read it; and you seemed to be confused on this matter, and on what I said. The "Council of Jerusalem" was about circumcision; the passage in Galatians was about Jews eating at the same table with Gentiles. Those were two completely different issues. The Galatians passage that you were referring to (the one I brought up), moreover, was about something that happened in Antioch, not Jerusalem. The two passages are not related to each other.

I love discussing scriptures with people -- ANY scriptures -- as long as the discussion comes from an earnest desire to know God.

Shalom shalom

 

[aka[DoW]]

Please note the questions I ask here are not meant to be disrespectful, I am just trying to understand a few things that seem illogical to me.

I have stumbled upon the following few verses, and they confuse me.













Basically, my question to you is this.

After reading these verses, it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God. He goes even further and says that we should fulfill these laws, and not ignore a single "iota" or "dot" from these laws.

But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?

Also another thing I was thinking to myself. If we know the Messiah needs to be a descendant of King David, how could it be that Jesus was both a descendant of David, and the son of God.

Again, this is not meant in disrespect, Just honest curiosity as to how your scholars have interpreted these issues.

To your first question... Jesus did fullfill the Law. As He hanged upon the cross, He uttered "It is finished." When He died the Bible records tha the Earth shook and that the great curtain in the Temple was torn in two re-establishing our freedom to relate to God directly as it was before Moses. The law was perfect.. the problem was that we arent. Even if by some fluke a mere human were able to keep all the Law it would still only be the righteousness of a man which is nothing when compared to the righteousness of God. So the short answer is... At the last supper, He established a New Covenant, for He was fulfilling the old. It had served its purpose. Now this is not to say that the Law was broken, for it is still perfect. Some are called to keep it still. I show the respect to those that are. That is to say, I wouldnt invite them to a cookout and only serve BBQ pork ribs. By doing that I would commit a sin by not humbling myself to the Holy Spirit that has spoken to my brother in Christ. As for your second question, Im sure someone has answered it already.

 

[roger1440]

To your first question... Jesus did fullfill the Law. As He hanged upon the cross, He uttered "It is finished." When He died the Bible records tha the Earth shook and that the great curtain in the Temple was torn in two re-establishing our freedom to relate to God directly as it was before Moses. The law was perfect.. the problem was that we arent. Even if by some fluke a mere human were able to keep all the Law it would still only be the righteousness of a man which is nothing when compared to the righteousness of God. So the short answer is... At the last supper, He established a New Covenant, for He was fulfilling the old. It had served its purpose. Now this is not to say that the Law was broken, for it is still perfect. Some are called to keep it still. I show the respect to those that are. That is to say, I wouldnt invite them to a cookout and only serve BBQ pork ribs. By doing that I would commit a sin by not humbling myself to the Holy Spirit that has spoken to my brother in Christ. As for your second question, Im sure someone has answered it already.

What is the fulfillment of the old covenant?

 

[Shermana]

Where does it even say the "Old Covenant" was something to be fulfilled in the first place?

The only fulfillment of it was in obedience to the commandments. For ALL Generations.

But they sure don't like that "All generations" part.

 

[Shermana]

Now you know what I know on the matter -- not much. By that definition, I am certainly not "antinomian": I don't believe faith alone is necessary for salvation:

Then you're most certainly not like most Christians who do believe that "faith alone" is all you need.

We will be judged by our works, not what Christians and others usually think of as "faith".

Congratulations. We agree. And you're in the extreme minority.

I also have no idea what the definition is referring to "the moral law".

Exactly. The concept of dividing the Law into "Moral" and "Ceremonial" was a Medieval idea under Thomas Aquinas that holds great convenience to Antinomian Christians who are desparately looking for a way around this problem.

I don't have an opinion on these matters, and don't consider them important. Jesus and the NT writers all expounded at length about the law of Moses, and how it ought to be observed.

They are EXTREMELY important. Don't you see that this implies that 99.9999% of Christiandom is blasphemously, heretically, soul-damningly wrong?

We also have the examples of the early believers for living examples on these matters. I would be happy to discuss these things -- there's much more profit in that, than in trying to label people and put them into boxes.

Labeling people is how we destroy heresies. By putting titles on those who believe a certain way, we can put them into a nice straw-box for easy roasting on the fire.

Yes -- the way you do it. In fact, your boundaries seem more fluid than Barack Obama's "red lines". Paul said,

What do you mean the way I do it? There were numerous canons floating around during the early period. Besides, did you read what I posted about how Galatians may not even be by Paul? And look what Paul allegedly says as you say, anyone who preaches a different doctrine, let them be damned! What does that tell you? Well what gospel was the author of Galatians talking about?

Gal 1
[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

That's such powerful language, one ought not take these things lightly. "Bible scholars" are a dime a dozen -- and you can find scholars to back up any opinion you like.

To an extent, you're fairly right, there are scholars for all kinds of positions. However, I do believe FR Mcguire has some VERY convincing arguments, along with the entire forgotten school of Dutch Radical Criticism.

Finding a scholar to agree with you does not make your opinions scholarly; it simply shows that you are deeply committed to your opinions. I'm not interested in men's opinions. I just want to know God's opinion; and I get that from meditating on His teaching -- and trying to follow it.

Yes, but having a scholar or an entire historical school on your side means that you're not just some lone babbler out there, and that your opinion is supported.

Concerning "blindly accepting", Jesus said,

John 9
[39] And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
[40] And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
[41] Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Balaam's donkey couldn't read or write; but he saw the destroying messenger whereas the prophet was blind to him. Jesus had to contend continually with the best Torah scholars in Israel. He was right and they were wrong. His disciples also were right; yet they were called "unlearned"; and none of the NT writers, nor Jesus himself, had the benefit of what we call the "New Testament".

Right, so what does that say about the mainstream orthodox church authorities?

All those holy people managed to get by just fine without any sort of "canon";

Hold on, that's another subject. We had many books that didn't make into the later Canon that were apparently canonical earlier, like the Books of Gad, Iddo, Ascension of Isaiah, etc.

but if you want to get an insight into what they thought and lived by, I suggest you read the New Testament -- ALL of it.

Are you implying that I haven't?

There is no disagreement between any of the NT books;

Oh no no no no no.

There are many controversial clashes in the NT books. You're just stating your own opinion on the matter that happens to be the mainstream Evangelical one. I don't even think the Catholic church takes this radical position.

but there is a lot of disagreement between them and "non-canonical" books. But you don't even agree with Jesus: He never warned his followers about discrepancies in Torah; and I think Matthew and Jesus both were mistaken about things like the meaning of some prophecies; and about which Zechariah was killed. Even so, Matthew and Jesus were right, and the scholars were wrong. Solomon said,

Ummm excuse me? You're now saying I disagree with Jesus because.....I think there are discrepancies in the MODERN post-Masoretic Torah?

Do you even know the basics of canon history?

If you don't, kindly do so before bothering to respond.

Qoh 12
[11] The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
[12] And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Paul said,

Rom 1
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

and Jesus said,

Matt 11
[25] At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
[26] Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Paul also said,

2 Tim 2
[23] But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
[24] And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Paul did not write Timothy. Most scholars, even the Orthodox Church, agrees Timothy was not written by Paul. See the "Pastoral Epistles". And please don't just say "Nuh uh" which is basically what your entire reply is. With that said, I don't think you're anywhere close to being on the same page. Now what exactly is the point of you posting those passages? If anything, those should be valid arguments for proving that the Law is completely necessary to be upheld. Yet the Pauline Christians wiggle and squirm their way through Paul to get that he says the Law is undone, and that's not even considering the vast amount of manuscript issues, which you seem to want to brush aside, which point that several of these passages may in fact all be interpolations by the anti-judaizers.

Yes, I read it; and you seemed to be confused on this matter, and on what I said. The "Council of Jerusalem" was about circumcision; the passage in Galatians was about Jews eating at the same table with Gentiles. Those were two completely different issues. The Galatians passage that you were referring to (the one I brought up), moreover, was about something that happened in Antioch, not Jerusalem. The two passages are not related to each other.

I love discussing scriptures with people -- ANY scriptures -- as long as the discussion comes from an earnest desire to know God.

Shalom shalom

[/QUOTE]

Again, very few people think he was talking about two separate events.

The problem here is that you are interposing your own opinions as if they are matter of fact, as if you can just wipe away and brush off all manner of scholarly argument and that I am wrong for daring to not accept the full canonicity of the NT. You are basically just towing the official Evangelical party line. If you don't like it, I'm sorry. But that's all your entire response is to me. And none of what you quoted by Jesus is remotely relevant to the idea of the LATER manuscripts. Why don't you actually bother to learn what it is you're so adamantly arguing against me.

Essentially, you're telling me that I'm wrong for taking an approach that doesn't blindly obey the Orthodox party line, and saying "nuh uh" to anyone who has manuscript related reasons or doctrinal related reasons for arguing that the official NT and Paul's epistles may not be as Inspired as you'd like to think.

 

[dantech]

To your first question... Jesus did fullfill the Law. As He hanged upon the cross, He uttered "It is finished." When He died the Bible records tha the Earth shook and that the great curtain in the Temple was torn in two re-establishing our freedom to relate to God directly as it was before Moses. The law was perfect.. the problem was that we arent. Even if by some fluke a mere human were able to keep all the Law it would still only be the righteousness of a man which is nothing when compared to the righteousness of God. So the short answer is... At the last supper, He established a New Covenant, for He was fulfilling the old. It had served its purpose. Now this is not to say that the Law was broken, for it is still perfect. Some are called to keep it still. I show the respect to those that are. That is to say, I wouldnt invite them to a cookout and only serve BBQ pork ribs. By doing that I would commit a sin by not humbling myself to the Holy Spirit that has spoken to my brother in Christ. As for your second question, Im sure someone has answered it already.

many have answered it. But not with answers that seem logical to me, or anyone else has commented that isn't Christian.

Here is my follow up question:

You say the law was perfect, we aren't. God gave us the law knowing we wouldn't be able to abide to it perfectly, since he knows all.

So, was God lying when he said:

Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him
Or when he said:

Leviticus 23:14,21,31
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

Leviticus 7:36 "it is an eternal law for their generations."

Leviticus 16:34 "Now this is to you an everlasting ordinance.."

Leviticus 16:29 "This is to you a permanent law.."

Leviticus 17:7 "This is to them for an everlasting law in all their generations.."

Leviticus 23:14 "is to you a perpetual ordinance in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.."

Numbers 15:15 "As for the community, there shall be one law for you and for the one who converted and joined with you; An eternal Law throughout your generations, as you are, so shall the convert be before the ALL-TRANSCENDENT One."

Numbers 19:21 "So it is a law forever for them.."

 

[Thana]

Please note the questions I ask here are not meant to be disrespectful, I am just trying to understand a few things that seem illogical to me.

I have stumbled upon the following few verses, and they confuse me.

Basically, my question to you is this.

After reading these verses, it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God. He goes even further and says that we should fulfill these laws, and not ignore a single "iota" or "dot" from these laws.

But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?

Also another thing I was thinking to myself. If we know the Messiah needs to be a descendant of King David, how could it be that Jesus was both a descendant of David, and the son of God.

Again, this is not meant in disrespect, Just honest curiosity as to how your scholars have interpreted these issues.

My father is Jewish, And he says that the problem is that the Hebrew does not translate well to English. That Law in english means rules, But in Hebrew it means, Hit the mark, Teachings, Learning and so on.

I, personally, See it as the bible is a guide book, To live a good and pleasing life to God, You follow the Bible.

And I mean, Are Jews going out and sacrificing goats to God? Most likely not, Yet that was in the bible, A 'law' if you will.

 

[Shermana]

He uttered "It is finished."

That was most likely referring to the end of his earthly ministry, not some abstract reference to the totality of the need to obey the Law under the israelite covenant.

 

[dantech]

My father is Jewish, And he says that the problem is that the Hebrew does not translate well to English. That Law in english means rules, But in Hebrew it means, Hit the mark, Teachings, Learning and so on.

I, personally, See it as the bible is a guide book, To live a good and pleasing life to God, You follow the Bible.

And I mean, Are Jews going out and sacrificing goats to God? Most likely not, Yet that was in the bible, A 'law' if you will.

Houkim= laws
Mitzvot= commandments
Torah= teaching

Inside our Torah (teaching) it tells us all about our rules and commandments (houkim u'mitzvot)

There is a reason why we don't sacrifice goats, and it has nothing to do with disobeying the law. Actually, it would have been a lot easier for us to just offer sacrifices. Because we no longer can, we replace those sacrifices with hours of prayers and rituals, every day.

 

[roger1440]

To your first question... Jesus did fullfill the Law. As He hanged upon the cross, He uttered "It is finished." When He died the Bible records tha the Earth shook and that the great curtain in the Temple was torn in two re-establishing our freedom to relate to God directly as it was before Moses. The law was perfect.. the problem was that we arent. Even if by some fluke a mere human were able to keep all the Law it would still only be the righteousness of a man which is nothing when compared to the righteousness of God. So the short answer is... At the last supper, He established a New Covenant, for He was fulfilling the old. It had served its purpose. Now this is not to say that the Law was broken, for it is still perfect. Some are called to keep it still. I show the respect to those that are. That is to say, I wouldnt invite them to a cookout and only serve BBQ pork ribs. By doing that I would commit a sin by not humbling myself to the Holy Spirit that has spoken to my brother in Christ. As for your second question, Im sure someone has answered it already.

“It is finished” is a reference to Genesis 2:2-3, “2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.”Jesus spends one week in Jerusalem during Passover. Jesus’s last week is a retelling of creation. The apostle Paul says something very similar in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” The Gospel of Luke also makes a reference to Genesis. “Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.", Luke 23:43. The point is, Following Jesus is the way back to the Garden of Eden, to be in the very presence of God.

 

[roger1440]

My father is Jewish, And he says that the problem is that the Hebrew does not translate well to English. That Law in english means rules, But in Hebrew it means, Hit the mark, Teachings, Learning and so on.

I, personally, See it as the bible is a guide book, To live a good and pleasing life to God, You follow the Bible.

And I mean, Are Jews going out and sacrificing goats to God? Most likely not, Yet that was in the bible, A 'law' if you will.

You are right. The Law is teachings. If the Law was personified it would be a teacher. That would shed light on Matthew 23:8-11, “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.”

 

[roger1440]

To your first question... Jesus did fullfill the Law. As He hanged upon the cross, He uttered "It is finished." When He died the Bible records tha the Earth shook and that the great curtain in the Temple was torn in two re-establishing our freedom to relate to God directly as it was before Moses. The law was perfect.. the problem was that we arent. Even if by some fluke a mere human were able to keep all the Law it would still only be the righteousness of a man which is nothing when compared to the righteousness of God. So the short answer is... At the last supper, He established a New Covenant, for He was fulfilling the old. It had served its purpose. Now this is not to say that the Law was broken, for it is still perfect. Some are called to keep it still. I show the respect to those that are. That is to say, I wouldnt invite them to a cookout and only serve BBQ pork ribs. By doing that I would commit a sin by not humbling myself to the Holy Spirit that has spoken to my brother in Christ. As for your second question, Im sure someone has answered it already.

How does this "New Covenant" compare to :

Jeremiah 31:31-34

New International Version (NIV)

31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

These verses imply they will be taught by God, not by a book or people. We in the 21st century only know about this 2000 year old dead Jew from books.