If Paul's books are wrong than so are

[Wookiemonster]

Oh please, come on.

Tell me can he be divided?

:no:

:no:

:no:

 

[Riverwolf]

So I hear. Still waiting on the information. What I fear though is people will just copy and paste googled stuff about it to me, when I have been sitting here typing from my own perspective. The last thing I want to do is have to respond to googled arguments, no what I mean?

I agree, which is why I won't do that.

And I think Knight has given a few good arguments for Paul conveying false information.

 

[TheKnight]

So, if in deed God did bring further revelation about what we thought salvation was, is that a problem for you? Hypothetically speaking?

It wouldn't be a problem, but it wouldn't be helpful because salvation isn't the point. The Tanakh does not paint man as this irredeemable creature. It does not seek to show us that we are sinful and in need of salvation.

Instead, it shows us that we are unrefined, that we lack discipline, and that if we do not take measure to control ourselves then we will end up hurting ourselves or others. The entirety of the Tanakh is devoted to refinement of the human nature and of the human being. It is for the purpose of creating, within ourselves, that which God desires. Not alone, but as God's partners. He has given us the blueprints and wants us to build the completed project. That manifests itself in the law (613 for jews and 7 for non-Jews).

Salvation is a foreign concept. You come to one who observes the Torah and ask if they want salvation. They are going to ask you "From what do I need to be saved?"

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh please, come on.

Tell me can he be divided?

"Truth is One; people call it by many names."
-Rig Veda

 

[gwk230]

Oh I think killing Jesus showed that ey?

See now this is the same kind of thing that got Moshe in such deep do do with Elohim. He allowed the people to get on his last nerve which made him disobey what Elohim commanded him to do. Careful my friend. The ignore button is such a wonderful thing you know. :yes:

 

[Wookiemonster]

Christians claim that in the birth of Jesus there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of God in the form of a human being. To say that God became truly a human being invites a number of Questions. Let us ask the following about the alleged truly man-truly god Jesus. What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)? Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh? During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and bloodshed from wounds? Did the cells of his body die as in ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of God, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God. By definition, not mystery, the everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: "For I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6). Did Jesus' flesh dwell in safety after his death? 1 Peter 3:18 states Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 claims Jesus was "raised a spiritual body," that is, he "became a life-giving spirit." No mention of the survival of the flesh is alluded to. In Acts 2:31, it is claimed Peter stated that following the alleged resurrection Jesus' body did not see decay. Paul is alleged to have also made this claim (Acts 13:34-37). However, unless Jesus' body never underwent "decay" during his lifetime he could not be God, but if it did not undergo "decay" then he was not truly human.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Paul states that the law is "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13)

You have made your comment put of context. verse 12 reveals the reason for such a concept. It simply said that before Jesus came atonement and sacrfice were being done, of which Jesus finished all of those things. So if the ultimate sacrifice did in deed come, why would we keep sacrificing.
NOW before you reply, I gave you a coherant explanation for that set of verses. Please reason with me why that is a bad thing if I am right. So, I am not asking you to agree with me, but rather suppose I am right for a minute why is it such a bad thing that Jesus released us from practices that God himself said in the OT does not really please him, but a pure heart is what really pleases him.

Paul states that Jesus is the "end of the law"(Romans 10:4)

What is difficult to understand about the fact that we only had the Law because sin abounded? If at some point God made a way to rid of sin altogether, why is that bothersome to you?
When you emphasize "end of law" what do you think that means? Paul certainly didn't imply it was worthless, which is understood by reading the rest of Romans.

Paul states that the law is a "curse for those who follow it" (Galatians 3:10)

Well friend what do we learn back in Genesis. God started laying down rules for Adam right away. Again when you emphasize "curse" you again imply Paul thought the law was stupid or incorrect teaching or some such thing.
What he is saying is that God has finally revealed the liberty from this law, that we could NEVER fulfill on our own. Liberty from this is a wonderful thing.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

:no:

:no:

:no:

OK so how can God be watching over the earth lets say be in Africa, and be at the burning bush when He was talking to Moses? He would have to be divided in some sense of the word.

Please note that whatever your answer is for this, will be the same for the trinity.

 

[gwk230]

Bump!

For example, it was originally hoped that Christ would be a ruler on this earth and setup a "government" to rule. Paul teach as well as Jesus in the Gospels of something much different.

　
I see. Your speaking in terms as at the time Shaul was speaking in his letters. Your not saying that he changed the direction of the OT but rather the understanding that the people then had as to what their Moshiach was to be. They themselves wanted someone to come and save them from what they were going through with the Romans so since Yahshua came first as is prophesied in Zec 9:9 as basically a lamb and not as they wanted him as is prophesied in Dan 7:13-14 they rejected him.
　
I do however don’t quite see your thinking on the teachings of Shaul and Yahshua as being any different than that as was conveyed in the OT.
　
Care to elaborate?

 

[Wookiemonster]

OK so how can God be watching over the earth lets say be in Africa, and be at the burning bush when He was talking to Moses? He would have to be divided in some sense of the word.

Please note that whatever your answer is for this, will be the same for the trinity.

See my post above.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It wouldn't be a problem, but it wouldn't be helpful because salvation isn't the point. The Tanakh does not paint man as this irredeemable creature. It does not seek to show us that we are sinful and in need of salvation.

Instead, it shows us that we are unrefined, that we lack discipline, and that if we do not take measure to control ourselves then we will end up hurting ourselves or others. The entirety of the Tanakh is devoted to refinement of the human nature and of the human being. It is for the purpose of creating, within ourselves, that which God desires. Not alone, but as God's partners. He has given us the blueprints and wants us to build the completed project. That manifests itself in the law (613 for jews and 7 for non-Jews).

Salvation is a foreign concept. You come to one who observes the Torah and ask if they want salvation. They are going to ask you "From what do I need to be saved?"

This is exaclty why God brought judgment on his people in the OT over and over and over and over. They never understood what his will was. You can't argue with that, because the OT is full of it.
You put SOOO much emhpasis on human refinement, when God puts so much emphasis on loving him. To truly love God you have to abandon the notion of self, something Judaism teaches very little of.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I do however don’t quite see your thinking on the teachings of Shaul and Yahshua as being any different than that as was conveyed in the OT.
　
Care to elaborate?

Please rephrase

 

[Just_me_Mike]

See my post above.

I will but pleas eanswer this simple repose.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Christians claim that in the birth of Jesus there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of God in the form of a human being. To say that God became truly a human being invites a number of Questions. Let us ask the following about the alleged truly man-truly god Jesus. What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)? Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh? During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and bloodshed from wounds? Did the cells of his body die as in ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of God, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God. By definition, not mystery, the everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: "For I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6). Did Jesus' flesh dwell in safety after his death? 1 Peter 3:18 states Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 claims Jesus was "raised a spiritual body," that is, he "became a life-giving spirit." No mention of the survival of the flesh is alluded to. In Acts 2:31, it is claimed Peter stated that following the alleged resurrection Jesus' body did not see decay. Paul is alleged to have also made this claim (Acts 13:34-37). However, unless Jesus' body never underwent "decay" during his lifetime he could not be God, but if it did not undergo "decay" then he was not truly human.

Please try to space out you longer responses, it makes it easier to read and respond too.
You whole argument here is God could not in spirit dwell in Jesus the man. I believe God can be in anyone He wants to, do you not?
As such, Jesus was 100% man in the flesh, but in spirit was 100% God. You are saying this is not possible. I dare not make such a limiting claim on an infinite God. So if I misunderstand you, please try again.

 

[gwk230]

Please rephrase

I'm not quite following you when you stated that Shaul, as well as Yahshua, taught something different than what the OT stated.

Originally Posted by itwillend
For example, it was originally hoped that Christ would be a ruler on this earth and setup a "government" to rule. Paul teach as well as Jesus in the Gospels of something much different.

 

[TheKnight]

You have made your comment put of context. verse 12 reveals the reason for such a concept. It simply said that before Jesus came atonement and sacrfice were being done, of which Jesus finished all of those things. So if the ultimate sacrifice did in deed come, why would we keep sacrificing.
NOW before you reply, I gave you a coherant explanation for that set of verses. Please reason with me why that is a bad thing if I am right. So, I am not asking you to agree with me, but rather suppose I am right for a minute why is it such a bad thing that Jesus released us from practices that God himself said in the OT does not really please him, but a pure heart is what really pleases him.

I might as well get to you last question because the answer to it entails the answer to the first part of the quoted text.

Is it so bad if sacrifices were ended by Jesus? The answer to that would be yes. Yes because God Himself instituted sacrifice. God Himself commanded it.

Not only that, but because God commanded it, only God has the ability to say that we no longer have to do it. That being said, God said he is not pleased by sacrifices because sacrifice (without the internal reflection that is supposed to come with sacrifice) is nothing special. It's just another action. When we make a sacrifice, just like when we pray, it is supposed to be a time of self-reflection and connection to God. If we do it simply because we have to, then it doesn't please God.

So is it all that bad if Jesus was the final sacrifice? Well for one, he doesn't have that authority. For two, sacrifice is commanded by God and therefore only God can tell us that we don't have to do it anymore. For three, many of the actions God commanded do not please Him I done out of cyclical observance. We must perform the letter of the law, while at the same time practicing the spirit of the law.

What is difficult to understand about the fact that we only had the Law because sin abounded?

The fact that God gave the law so that mankind would make himself better. Why God gave the law is something you and I will not agree on because I assume (and I might be wrong) that you do not accept extra-Biblical literature.

That being said, God gave us the law to follow. He told us to do it forever. Anyone who says that there is an "end" to that law (and therefore an end to observance of it) is someone who is going against what God said.

If at some point God made a way to rid of sin altogether, why is that bothersome to you?

It wouldn't be bothersome to me. But the law does not come from sin.

When you emphasize "end of law" what do you think that means? Paul certainly didn't imply it was worthless, which is understood by reading the rest of Romans.

I know he didn't think it was worthless. That's not my point. My point is that Paul believes that we no longer have to observe the law. That is my problem with his teaching.

What he is saying is that God has finally revealed the liberty from this law, that we could NEVER fulfill on our own. Liberty from this is a wonderful thing.

"Liberty from the law" implies that we are in bondage under the law. However, as I said in that original post, the law is something that is a blessing. Read Psalm 119. It is entirely about the beauty of observing the law.

It's not a curse to serve God via the means which He provided for us to serve Him.

And who is to say that we could never fulfill it? God Himself said that we could. "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off...But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."~Deuteronomy 30:11, 14

I don't think you understand the beauty of the law that God gave. It is a wonderful thing. It is why I remain and will forever remain a devout Noahide. When I serve God, it is uplifting, when I fulfill His commandments I realize that I am making this world a better place, that I am bringing His light down from heaven to shine on this Earth. God's law isn't meant to be "bondage" to us. It's not meant to be something that arises from abundant sin. Rather, it is a pact, between God and us. It is a covenant to the Jews, one that is meant for their blessing and through them the blessing of the entire world. This is the main reason I disagree with Paul, the way he talks so disgustingly about the law which all of the Tanakh proclaims as beautiful.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I'm not quite following you when you stated that Shaul, as well as Yahshua, taught something different than what the OT stated.

Originally Posted by itwillend
For example, it was originally hoped that Christ would be a ruler on this earth and setup a "government" to rule. Paul teach as well as Jesus in the Gospels of something much different.

God is not concerned with this current world at all, and the Jew expect he is entirely concerned with this world and most importantly the Jews uniquely.
Jesus taugh contrary to this and so did Paul.

Does that answer it better, sorry if I still don't get your question. It is getting very late for me.

 

[gwk230]

God is not concerned with this current world at all, and the Jew expect he is entirely concerned with this world and most importantly the Jews uniquely.
Jesus taugh contrary to this and so did Paul.

Does that answer it better, sorry if I still don't get your question. It is getting very late for me.

Oh o.k.

But you do agree that they both taught Torah? :yes:

 

[TheKnight]

This is exaclty why God brought judgment on his people in the OT over and over and over and over. They never understood what his will was. You can't argue with that, because the OT is full of it.

It wasn't because they didn't know His will, it was because they knew it and did not obey it.

You put SOOO much emhpasis on human refinement, when God puts so much emphasis on loving him. To truly love God you have to abandon the notion of self, something Judaism teaches very little of.

You do not know Judaism if you believe that it doesn't teach very much of abandoning the notion of self. Selflessness is the key to loving-kindness and loving kindness is the foundation on which the world was made.

Human refinement is necessary because God made us to refine ourselves. God made us as being separate from Him because He wanted something external (or seemingly external) to Him that He could relate to. He gave us the law for self-refinement. Observance of His law is how we show our love for Him. To quote Jesus "How can you say you love me if you do not obey my commandments?" I believe God poses the same question to us.

 

[TheKnight]

God is not concerned with this current world at all.

He is entirely concerned with this world. Don't forget, He made this world, He sustains this world, He is the one who put us here. That leads me to believe that His desire is that I live here, and live as He wants me to while I am here. The purpose of His creating is this world. After all, that's why He created it in the first place.

Please answer me this, Why do you believe God created this world and put us here on it?