Is "salvation" possible under the Law?

[Aberamentho]

Gentiles are free to keep or not to keep or to keep only what they feel like if this answers you question above.

Not if you let yourself become circumcised, then "Your bound to the whole Law."

Why would a Christian who reads Paul calling the Law "A curse" that is the reason people sin and "Dead" want to follow it?

His epistles are intended to be a replacement theology. Except they suck. They have nothing to offer anyone and anyone who reads the New Testament in context as a story is going to realize he is writing first century equivalents of diss tracks about the 12 apostles, diss epistles about the "circumcision faction" of "Judaizers" who "added nothing to me" are "For such boasters are false apostles of Christ, deceitful workers disguising themselves as Apostles of Christ. No wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:13

2 Corinthians 9-11 is about the Apostles and Jerusalem/Asia and the "Other Gospel", the one Yesha actually taught and not the one "No man told me" Paul claims he received through "revelations" and anyone who teaches another Gospel be accursed.

The fuss wasn't about circumcision but about Paul's inferior status as a self proclaimed, unacknowledged by an Apostle, (false) apostle.

He swears "Before God I lie not!"

Yesha said swear on nothing in Heaven or earth let yes be yes and no be no, anything else is OF THE EVIL ONE.

Matthew on oaths. Swearing "Before God" is "of the evil one" and Paul did it.

Last. Paul, in Aramaic, means deceiver. A sick joke, I don't know.

"All things to all men."

 

[Ben Avraham]

Meanwhile Paul taught people to be obedient slaves to Rome and killed the spirituality of the Gospels by declaring the Law of God a curse and dead, only to be replaced with his rambling letters about how he is not inferior to the "chief Apostles" and how "Before God, I lie not." Women be silent in church and submissive to your husbands, slaves treat your master as God not men and women.

I know what you are talking about, Paul was either a dangerous hypocrite or trying to preach his gospel by proxy as being himself the Messiah of Christianity. (Acts 11:26) How could he declare God's Law a curse and dead when Jesus himself would teach us all to listen to "Moses" aka the Law? (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Disagreeing" is not "attacking".

No, I'd say you usually come from a place like "The Bible is false here" rather than "I believe that there is an alternative", the shoe fits.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which is why I wrote in the post you responded to above "I didn't say that, nor do I assume anything one way or the other on this matter".

You have the freedom to believe in what you want to believe in, so why is it so difficult for you to grant that same privilege to me?

I am not anti-Christian, which you should be aware of since I have repeatedly said that I attend Christian services just about every weekend. But I am a scientist, now retired, who places evidence over blind faith, therefore I do a lot of questioning on all sorts of matters, including religion.

I guess because I see you do very little questioning and mostly opining. I can't recall you ever asking me or anyone a question re: Christianity here. Note that even your post above says, "why is it so difficult to grant that same privilege" to you, that is, the privilege of believing differently. You're not questioning anything.

Further, I find that people who truly question Christianity and/or Judaism spend less time on forums and more time in prayer.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gentiles are free to keep or not to keep or to keep only what they feel like if this answers you question above.

How convenient that must be for them. Please show me and others where Tanakh says Gentiles can keep the law by "feel".

 

[metis]

No, I'd say you usually come from a place like "The Bible is false here" rather than "I believe that there is an alternative", the shoe fits.

In theology, there's heavy use of the word "variations" when there are two or more narratives on the same subject that don't appear to mesh too well, and using the term doesn't intrinsically mean that they contradict as there may be a thread that may explain how they both could be right. However, some of these variations are so stark in terms of being polar opposites that it is impossible to imagine any thread that could make them all correct.

An example of the latter that I often use is the women's visitation at Jesus' tomb, which differs from one gospel to the others, and no two accounts match. They differ in terms of how many angels were there, where were they/he located, what did they/he say, and what the women did immediately after leaving the tomb? I have seen people attempt to try and connect them, but the reality is they end up with nothing but citing complete nonsense.

What is so unfortunate about some is that they assume that these "variations" either must differ or must agree even before looking at them, but I don't assume either position. Instead, if an agreement is possible, I'll definitely cut the believer some slack on this, but if not, then I simply am not going to. I think it's important to see things in terms of how they exist versus going in with predetermined positions.

 

[metis]

I guess because I see you do very little questioning and mostly opining.

Then you're not either reading what I post carefully or you just "see" what you expect to see. Look at my signature statement at the bottom of the page. Look how many times I've posted "I don't know".

I think what you write is likely a classic case of "projection". I'm the one who often says "I don't know", and yet I almost never see you question anything as you make one assertion after another.

 

[Ben Avraham]

How convenient that must be for them. Please show me and others where Tanakh says Gentiles can keep the law by "feel".

According to Jewish tradition, Gentiles qua Gentiles are under the obligation only to the Noahide laws. If they convert, they adopt all the jewish obligations as the whole Law is concerned; moral and ritual laws. (Isaiah 56:1-8)

 

[BilliardsBall]

In theology, there's heavy use of the word "variations" when there are two or more narratives on the same subject that don't appear to mesh too well, and using the term doesn't intrinsically mean that they contradict as there may be a thread that may explain how they both could be right. However, some of these variations are so stark in terms of being polar opposites that it is impossible to imagine any thread that could make them all correct.

An example of the latter that I often use is the women's visitation at Jesus' tomb, which differs from one gospel to the others, and no two accounts match. They differ in terms of how many angels were there, where were they/he located, what did they/he say, and what the women did immediately after leaving the tomb? I have seen people attempt to try and connect them, but the reality is they end up with nothing but citing complete nonsense.

What is so unfortunate about some is that they assume that these "variations" either must differ or must agree even before looking at them, but I don't assume either position. Instead, if an agreement is possible, I'll definitely cut the believer some slack on this, but if not, then I simply am not going to. I think it's important to see things in terms of how they exist versus going in with predetermined positions.

Of course they harmonize and connect. A five-year-old could tell us there were two angels, one was the spokesperson, the women fled away in fear immediately, consulted and told the apostles, etc.

All of which means nothing compared to evidence for the resurrection of Christ from ancient and modern prophecy fulfillment and the reliability of the Bible writers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then you're not either reading what I post carefully or you just "see" what you expect to see. Look at my signature statement at the bottom of the page. Look how many times I've posted "I don't know".

I think what you write is likely a classic case of "projection". I'm the one who often says "I don't know", and yet I almost never see you question anything as you make one assertion after another.

I think you must be confusing, "I don't know, and I've seen people try to explain, but the Bible isn't right," with the classic, "I don't know"!

 

[BilliardsBall]

According to Jewish tradition, Gentiles qua Gentiles are under the obligation only to the Noahide laws. If they convert, they adopt all the jewish obligations as the whole Law is concerned; moral and ritual laws. (Isaiah 56:1-8)

I'm familiar with the Lubavitcher (and others') garbage that the Gentiles follow Noahide laws rather than SEEK SALVATION from the God of Israel.

However, that statement is much different than your "Gentiles do the laws they feel they ought to do," Ben.

 

[metis]

Of course they harmonize and connect. A five-year-old could tell us there were two angels, one was the spokesperson, the women fled away in fear immediately, consulted and told the apostles, etc.

Let me recommend that you actually do put them side-by-side, which I have done and on more than one occasion, and then come back and tell us how they "harmonize". Generally similar, yes; exact, no.

All of which means nothing compared to evidence for the resurrection of Christ from ancient and modern prophecy fulfillment and the reliability of the Bible writers.

Please put forth your objective evidence for the resurrection, for just one example.

 

[metis]

I think you must be confusing, "I don't know, and I've seen people try to explain, but the Bible isn't right," with the classic, "I don't know"!

Not at all. Why don't you ask me instead of making it into a leading "question".

As a scientist, I really don't assume much of anything, but as a theist, you certainly do.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I'm familiar with the Lubavitcher (and others') garbage that the Gentiles follow Noahide laws rather than SEEK SALVATION from the God of Israel. However, that statement is much different than your "Gentiles do the laws they feel they ought to do," Ben.

I did not quote the Lubavitcher but Isaiah 56:1-8. Besides, I am not a Habad Jew. To me there is no difference between the Noahide laws and the laws in the Decalogue. I think the whole thing is pure politics between religions. And for seeking salvation from the God of Israel, salvation from what? Jesus
himself said that to achieve salvation, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) How do you seek salvation, any differently from what Jesus taught? BTW, this is my way to seek salvation.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Not if you let yourself become circumcised, then "Your bound to the whole Law."

Why would a Christian who reads Paul calling the Law "A curse" that is the reason people sin and "Dead" want to follow it? His epistles are intended to be a replacement theology. Except they suck. They have nothing to offer anyone and anyone who reads the New Testament in context as a story is going to realize he is writing first century equivalents of diss tracks about the 12 apostles, diss epistles about the "circumcision faction" of "Judaizers" who "added nothing to me" are "For such boasters are false apostles of Christ, deceitful workers disguising themselves as Apostles of Christ. No wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:13 2 Corinthians 9-11 is about the Apostles and Jerusalem/Asia and the "Other Gospel", the one Yesha actually taught and not the one "No man told me" Paul claims he received through "revelations" and anyone who teaches another Gospel be accursed. The fuss wasn't about circumcision but about Paul's inferior status as a self proclaimed, unacknowledged by an Apostle, (false) apostle. He swears "Before God I lie not!" Yesha said swear on nothing in Heaven or earth let yes be yes and no be no, anything else is OF THE EVIL ONE. Matthew on oaths. Swearing "Before God" is "of the evil one" and Paul did it. Last. Paul, in Aramaic, means deceiver. A sick joke, I don't know. "All things to all men."

What! What are you talking about! How could an 8 days old babe refuse circumcision on the reason that he did not want to be bound to the whole Law? You must be kidding! Unless he became one like Paul who released himself from the Law as an adult. (Romans 7:6)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let me recommend that you actually do put them side-by-side, which I have done and on more than one occasion, and then come back and tell us how they "harmonize". Generally similar, yes; exact, no.

Please put forth your objective evidence for the resurrection, for just one example.

Do you know the word harmony means "different things that sound sweet together"?

If we were in court, and you were a juror, making a decision not having been present at the scene, here is some of the evidence I'd present:

1. One dozen eyewitness recollected in documents for us

2. The dozen eyewitnesses give some of the same details, some different details--if all their details were exactly the same, their testimony/memory would be suspect (because metis uses a different measure for eyewitness testimony than police and jurors ought to)

3. Ten 1st century historians, none of them Christian believers, report that the Jews of the period were stirred to preach the resurrection of their Christ

4. There are zero documents from the period that contradict the resurrection of Christ

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all. Why don't you ask me instead of making it into a leading "question".

As a scientist, I really don't assume much of anything, but as a theist, you certainly do.

It's hard to talk to people who use double standards the way you do. Your quote actually says scientists are inherently less biased than theists, which is nonsensical, considering how many fine scientists through history were theists.

I think you owe me an apology for this one. It's insulting!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did not quote the Lubavitcher but Isaiah 56:1-8. Besides, I am not a Habad Jew. To me there is no difference between the Noahide laws and the laws in the Decalogue. I think the whole thing is pure politics between religions. And for seeking salvation from the God of Israel, salvation from what? Jesus
himself said that to achieve salvation, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) How do you seek salvation, any differently from what Jesus taught? BTW, this is my way to seek salvation.

You misquoted the NT, where Jesus said of Moses AND THE PROPHETS, let them HEAR THEM, not YE MUST DO THE LAW OF MOSES.

You are pursuing righteousness from Ha Shem as though it were by works, when it is by faith. He who has an ear to HEAR, let them HEAR!

 

[metis]

2. The dozen eyewitnesses give some of the same details, some different details--if all their details were exactly the same, their testimony/memory would be suspect (because metis uses a different measure for eyewitness testimony than police and jurors ought to)

Thanks for admitting you were wrong in an earlier comment, as what you wrote above was my point that you disagreed with.

 

[metis]

Your quote actually says scientists are inherently less biased than theists, which is nonsensical, considering how many fine scientists through history were theists.

I was just comapring the two, and it is obvious that historically that many scientists were theists, and some obviously are today.

It's hard to talk to people who use double standards the way you do.

I think you owe me an apology for this one. It's insulting!

It is you who have been throwing at me insult after insult as anyone can read in many of your previous posts on this thread alone. On top of that, disagreeing with someone is not an "insult", and I have gone out of my way so as not to insult you or anyone else here.

Goodbye.