Jesus And The Law

[Ben Masada]

Jesus and the Law

This is one of Jesus' secret teachings, not because Jesus meant it to be a secret, but because Christians find it so hard to understand that it is taken as a secret. It is in the parable of the Richman and Lazarus.

Since you can read the whole parable in Luke 16:19-31, I am cutting short this thread by going straighht to the bottom line: Verses 29-31. Somehow, the Richman must not have been a good man, because his afterlife was to be spent in Hell. Lazarus, who was a beggar, and a good man in his ways, also happened to die and spend his afterlife in Heaven. As the text say, in the bosom of Abraham.

It happens that the Richman in Hell lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said: "Oh father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to my father's house, because I have five brethrens and Lazarus could testify to them, so that they would not fall in this place of torment."

The answer to the Richman in Hell put in the mouth of Abraham by Jesus was: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." And the Richman insisted, "Ney, father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they wouldl repent." And Abraham (Jesus) said to him: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither they will be persuaded even if one rose from the dead."

IMHO, that was a prophecy of Jesus' in the form of a parable which has been fulfilled by Christians in general. They do believe that Jesus rose from the dead; nevertheless, they just can't be persuaded to listen to Moses and the Prophets, which means the Law, in order to prevent themselves from falling in Hell. They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

 

[esmith]

To me your interpretation reads valid. Just out of curiosity I looked up the interpretation that the NIV Study Bible says. They have come to the conclusion that: "If people's minds are closed and Scripture is rejected, no evidence--not even a resurrection-- will change their minds." They also say that Luke's account seems to imply that Jesus was speaking of his own resurrection.
I also agree with your statement about the "Pauline" theology. To me, Paul changed the religion of Jesus to the religion about Jesus. Was this because he had to change the religion to be about Jesus so that the gentiles/pagans could accept this new religion without become Jewish? (something about adult males having to be circumcised might have been a "deal breaker")

 

[smokydot]

Jesus and the Law
This is one of Jesus' secret teachings, not because Jesus meant it to be a secret, but because Christians find it so hard to understand that it is taken as a secret. It is in the parable of the Richman and Lazarus.
Since you can read the whole parable in Luke 16:19-31, I am cutting short this thread by going straighht to the bottom line: Verses 29-31. Somehow, the Richman must not have been a good man, because his afterlife was to be spent in Hell. Lazarus, who was a beggar, and a good man in his ways, also happened to die and spend his afterlife in Heaven. As the text say, in the bosom of Abraham.
It happens that the Richman in Hell lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said: "Oh father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to my father's house, because I have five brethrens and Lazarus could testify to them, so that they would not fall in this place of torment."
The answer to the Richman in Hell put in the mouth of Abraham by Jesus was: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." And the Richman insisted, "Ney, father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they wouldl repent." And Abraham (Jesus) said to him: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither they will be persuaded even if one rose from the dead."
IMHO, that was a prophecy of Jesus' in the form of a parable which has been fulfilled by Christians in general. They do believe that Jesus rose from the dead; nevertheless, they just can't be persuaded to listen to Moses and the Prophets, which means the Law, in order to prevent themselves from falling in Hell. They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

That's a nice Jewish gloss. . .especially the "secret" part. . .let's take a closer look at the parable.

1) The parable says nothing about why the rich man was in Hades. You have added your personal conjecture to the parable (in blue).

2) The issue is the rich man's ignoring the teachings of Scripture, which he now feared his brothers would also do.
Abraham told him his brothers already had the teachings of Moses and the Prophets (the whole OT, not just the Law of Moses ).
But the rich man replied no, that wasn't enough, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they would repent.
To which Abraham responded that if they did not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the whole OT, not just the Law of Moses),
they would not be convinced if someone rises from the dead.

3) And that was precisely the situation with the Jews, who had Moses' promise of a prophet like Moses who was to come (Dt 18:15, 17-18),
and who had all the prophecies from the Prophets regarding the Messiah.
As did the rich man, they ignored the teachings of Scripture, and rejected the Messiah whom God sent to them (Lk 9:22). . .even when he rose from the dead.

The "tweaking" of the parable to make it about obedience to the Law of Moses, instead of about ignoring the teachings of all the Scriptures regarding the Messiah,
even rejecting his rising from the dead, is a Jewish gloss.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

I can't speak for everyone, but I think there'd be some people who would repent after a resurrection. After all, that's what most people want. To see so they can believe.

 

[smokydot]

I can't speak for everyone, but I think there'd be some people who would repent after a resurrection. After all, that's what most people want. To see so they can believe.

Seeing is not believing without the power of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the truth of it.

 

[smokydot]

To me your interpretation reads valid. Just out of curiosity I looked up the interpretation that the NIV Study Bible says. They have come to the conclusion that: "If people's minds are closed and Scripture is rejected, no evidence--not even a resurrection-- will change their minds." They also say that Luke's account seems to imply that Jesus was speaking of his own resurrection.
I also agree with your statement about the "Pauline" theology. To me, Paul changed the religion of Jesus to the religion about Jesus. Was this because he had to change the religion to be about Jesus so that the gentiles/pagans could accept this new religion without become Jewish? (something about adult males having to be circumcised might have been a "deal breaker")

You have to decide if the NT is true or not. . .and that's a matter of faith, for it can be neither proven nor disproven. . .
and therefore that it is not true is likewise a matter of faith.

So the only facts (as opposed to faith) left to determine is what the NT does and does not actually report.
The NT reports that Paul received all his knowledge and understanding of Jesus of Nazareth by personal revelation from Jesus himself.

According to the NT reports, it's not Paul's religion. . .it's Jesus' religion.

 

[esmith]

You have to decide if the NT is true or not. . .and that's a matter of faith, for it can be neither proven nor disproven. . .
and therefore that it is not true is likewise a matter of faith.

True or not true is not the question. The interpretation reached by Ben Masada and which I agreed to was that "if" one listens to Moses and the Prophets they would "be in good standing with God".

So the only facts (as opposed to faith) left to determine is what the NT does and does not actually report.
The NT reports that Paul received all his knowledge and understanding of Jesus of Nazareth by personal revelation from Jesus himself.

And where do you find this and was the "understanding" of Jesus

According to the NT reports, it's not Paul's religion. . .it's Jesus' religion.

Jesus was Jewish and Paul transformed the "religion of Jesus" to "the religion about Jesus"

 

[esmith]

2) The issue is the rich man's ignoring the teachings of Scripture, which he now feared his brothers would also do.

And which "Scriptures" is the reference to? It seems that the NT wasn't written until around 80-85 CE and supposedly this parable was many years prior to that. Therefore, the only thing Jesus could have been referring to was the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. That is unless this "parable" was written at a latter date?

 

[Pegg]

the rich man and lazarus is a metaphor

The rich man represented the jewish religious leaders, the poor man represented the poor & spiritually malnourished jewish people

With the arrival of the messiah, the rich class were being tormented by Jesus teachings because Jesus condemned their way of life and lack of spiritual comprehension. But the poor were elevated and shown the light...they were given the seats in the kingdom of God whereas the rich class rejected jesus and were thrown outside

 

[smokydot]

True or not true is not the question.

It is the question if you are going to claim that "Paul's religion" is different from "Jesus' religion," because the NT reports to the contrary.
The truth or untruth of the NT is determinitive here.

The interpretation reached by Ben Masada and which I agreed to

Blind leading the blind. . .

was that "if" one listens to Moses and the Prophets they would "be in good standing with God".

Jesus' reference to "Moses and the Prophets" was not a reference to the Law of Moses specifically, but a reference to the whole OT; i.e., all the Scriptures,
which include Moses' promise of a prophet like him to come, and the Prophets' foretellings of the Messiah.

The point of the parable hinges on one who comes back from the dead. . .that has nothing to do with the Law of Moses,
and everything to do with Moses' promise and the Prophets' foretellings.

The parable is not about keeping the Mosaic Law to be in right standing with God. . .that is a typical Jewish gloss.

And where do you find this

Your ignorance of the NT is showing. . .that Paul received his knowledge directly from Jesus personally is found in 2 Co 12:2-4, 7. . .Gal 1:11-12. . .Eph 3:3-5.

and was the "understanding" of Jesus

Read Paul's epistles. . .his understanding of Jesus is contained in all of them. . .your ignorance of the NT is showing. . .again.

Jesus was Jewish and Paul transformed the "religion of Jesus" to "the religion about Jesus"

Was Paul Jewish? . .and according to the NT reports, two responses above, it's not Paul's religion, it's Jesus' religion.

 

[smokydot]

And which "Scriptures" is the reference to?

That question is answered in the post.

It seems that the NT wasn't written until around 80-85 CE and supposedly this parable was many years prior to that. Therefore, the only thing Jesus could have been referring to was the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. That is unless this "parable" was written at a latter date?

 

[esmith]

Smokeydot here are the facts that I believe I know; if you dispute them give me reasons other than it-is-so-written. I am not agreeing that what you believe is correct or what is written in the NT is correct.
1. Paul was probably born and raised Jewish and committed to the traditions of the Pharisees.
2. Probably raised outside Palestine and probably did not know Jesus personally
3. He speaks and writes Greek but does not appear to know any Semitic language
4. Originally found Christians to be dangerous and blasphemous.
5. Believes that Jesus resurrection is the beginning of the apoplectic end. Refers to Jesus as “first fruits of the resurrection” 1 Cor 15:23. He anticipated that the full resurrection would occur soon, within his lifetime. 1Thess 4:13-18
6. Paul taught that pagan idols are dead; there is one true God. Christ, his son, died for the sins of the world, in accordance with the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures. (Because the Hebrew Scriptures did not prophecy the suffering and death of the messiah, we are not sure what passages Paul is adducing to make this point).
7. Those who want a right standing before God must believe in Christ; those who do so will be given an entirely new life. It was not necessary, though, to follow Jewish law to achieve salvation. Convinced that the end of all things was at hand he engaged in an urgent mission to get people to believe in Christ before it was too late.

Now you say Paul’s religion was the same as Jesus’ religion. However, was Jesus’ religion that you had to believe in his death and resurrection? That was Paul’s religion---the religion about Jesus. (his death and resurrection”

Now let's get back to the OP statement about Luke 16:19-xx
According to Luke we have a rich man (one poster says it is a metaphor for rich religious leaders [Sadducees?] in "hell" and a poor man (again poster says metaphor for poor & spiritually malnourished Jewish people ) taken into heaven to be at Abraham's side. Then in Luke 16:31 we have Jesus (supposedly)saying they wouldn't listen even if someone rises from the dead at tells them. This rises from the dead is interpreted by Christians as Jesus was speaking of his own death and resurrection.
Points:

Now smokeydot says "

precisely [/I]the situation with the Jews, who had Moses' promise of a prophet like Moses who was to come (Dt 18:15, 17-18),
and who had all the prophecies from the Prophets regarding the Messiah.
As did the rich man, they ignored the teachings of Scripture, and rejected the Messiah whom God sent to them (Lk 9:22). . .even when he rose from the dead.

But the poor person/people went to Heaven even though there was no "Christian" beliefs. They obviously followed the Hebrew/Tanakh teachings. Hmmmm got a conundrum here.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Jesus and the Law

This is one of Jesus' secret teachings, not because Jesus meant it to be a secret, but because Christians find it so hard to understand that it is taken as a secret. It is in the parable of the Richman and Lazarus.

Since you can read the whole parable in Luke 16:19-31, I am cutting short this thread by going straighht to the bottom line: Verses 29-31. Somehow, the Richman must not have been a good man, because his afterlife was to be spent in Hell. Lazarus, who was a beggar, and a good man in his ways, also happened to die and spend his afterlife in Heaven. As the text say, in the bosom of Abraham.

It happens that the Richman in Hell lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said: "Oh father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to my father's house, because I have five brethrens and Lazarus could testify to them, so that they would not fall in this place of torment."

The answer to the Richman in Hell put in the mouth of Abraham by Jesus was: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." And the Richman insisted, "Ney, father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they wouldl repent." And Abraham (Jesus) said to him: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither they will be persuaded even if one rose from the dead."

IMHO, that was a prophecy of Jesus' in the form of a parable which has been fulfilled by Christians in general. They do believe that Jesus rose from the dead; nevertheless, they just can't be persuaded to listen to Moses and the Prophets, which means the Law, in order to prevent themselves from falling in Hell. They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

It is true, imo, that Christians do not give enough attention to the Law and the Prophets, and I'll add, we don't give enough attention to the Gospels and Letters either.
By and large, it seems that we are lazy scripturalists who cast about for reasons to discard Paul, and or the Law, and or the Prophets; some even discard the Gospels in favour of Paul.
It is easy for us, as Christians, to lose sight of the unity of the Bible, of the OT and NT in their totality, despite the fact that the Gospels and the Letters insist on that unity.
　
So, yes, the prophecy/parable of the Richman and Lazarus does have application to Gentile Christians.
But its principal application is to those Jews who were refusing to accept Jesus as a teacher come from G-d (the covetous Pharisees who derided him, vs 14).
Jesus was speaking to Jews about the things they were missing in Moses and the Prophets that point to him.
　
The thing to be noted about Paul and 'salvation by faith only' is that he doesn't endorse the idea.
That salvation is by faith and not works of law (for Gentiles) is his emphasis but any honest reading, or even a cursory reading, of Paul will assure the reader that he most definitely insisted on standards of behaviour, and even of thought, that would not bring shame on the name of Christ or alienate the Jewish brethren.
　
Simply put Jesus taught Jews that salvation is by faith and observance of the Law, while Paul taught Gentiles that salvation is by faith and an upright life.
It is important, imo, to recognise that Jesus came to the House of Israel and sent Paul as his Apostle to the Gentiles.
It is therefore little wonder that Paul has such a poor reputation amongst Jews; he taught Gentiles and his message was tailored for Gentiles.
And Gentiles are not obliged to keep the Law, though, Paul teaches, they are expected to understand something of its precepts and principles,

 

[smokydot]

Smokeydot here are the facts that I believe I know; if you dispute them give me reasons other than it-is-so-written. I am not agreeing that what you believe is correct or what is written in the NT is correct.

Good post.

Since neither the truth nor the untruth of the NT can be proven, both are a matter of faith.
My faith is that it is true. . .whichever you believe is likewise simply a matter of faith, not proof.
So the only facts to determine/prove are what the NT actually does and does not report.

[1. Paul was probably born and raised Jewish and committed to the traditions of the Pharisees.
2. Probably raised outside Palestine and probably did not know Jesus personally
3. He speaks and writes Greek but does not appear to know any Semitic language
4. Originally found Christians to be dangerous and blasphemous.
5. Believes that Jesus resurrection is the beginning of the apoplectic end. Refers to Jesus as “first fruits of the resurrection” 1 Cor 15:23. He anticipated that the full resurrection would occur soon, within his lifetime. 1Thess 4:13-18
6. Paul taught that pagan idols are dead; there is one true God. Christ, his son, died for the sins of the world, in accordance with the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures. (Because the Hebrew Scriptures did not prophecy the suffering and death of the messiah, we are not sure what passages Paul is adducing to make this point).

Paul is saying what the NT reports that Jesus said: Mt 16:21, 26:34, 31, 54, 56: Mk 9:12.
And what the NT reports that Jesus said can be found in: Ps 22 (v.6); Isa 53:3; Zech 11:12-13, 13:7; Jer 32:6-9; Dan 9:26.

7. Those who want a right standing before God must believe in Christ; those who do so will be given an entirely new life. It was not necessary, though, to follow Jewish law to achieve salvation. Convinced that the end of all things was at hand he engaged in an urgent mission to get people to believe in Christ before it was too late.
Now you say Paul’s religion was the same as Jesus’ religion. However, was Jesus’ religion that you had to believe in his death and resurrection?

The NT reports that "Jesus' religion" is:
1) he died for the remission of sin - Mt 26:28
2) those who do not believe in him are condemend already - Jn 3:18, 36
3) his resurrection from the dead is proof of the efficacy of his sin-atoning sacrifice for those who believe in him - Lk 24:46-48.

Paul, who according to NT reports, received his knowledge by personal revelation from Jesus Christ, is in complete agreement with Jesus.

Now let's get back to the OP statement about Luke 16:19-xx
According to Luke we have a rich man (one poster says it is a metaphor for rich religious leaders [Sadducees?] in "hell" and a poor man (again poster says metaphor for poor & spiritually malnourished Jewish people ) taken into heaven to be at Abraham's side. Then in Luke 16:31 we have Jesus (supposedly)saying they wouldn't listen even if someone rises from the dead at tells them. This rises from the dead is interpreted by Christians as Jesus was speaking of his own death and resurrection.
Points: Now smokeydot says "
But the poor person/people went to Heaven even though there was no "Christian" beliefs. They obviously followed the Hebrew/Tanakh teachings. Hmmmm got a conundrum here.

1) You are assuming the reason the poor man went to heaven. The parable makes no such statement, and you have no warrant for saying it was because he kept the law.
2) You're again ignoring the hinge of the parable - listening to (believing) one who rises from the dead.
3) Based on the hinge of the parable, it is more likely to assume that he went to heaven because he listened to (believed) the OT Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets).
4) You're trying to make the parable about obeying the Law, when Jesus makes the parable about listening to (believing) one who rises from the dead.
5) That "tweak" is a Jewish gloss.

 

[smokydot]

It is true, imo, that Christians do not give enough attention to the Law and the Prophets, and I'll add, we don't give enough attention to the Gospels and Letters either.
By and large, it seems that we are lazy scripturalists who cast about for reasons to discard Paul, and or the Law, and or the Prophets; some even discard the Gospels in favour of Paul.
It is easy for us, as Christians, to lose sight of the unity of the Bible, of the OT and NT in their totality, despite the fact that the Gospels and the Letters insist on that unity.
So, yes, the prophecy/parable of the Richman and Lazarus does have application to Gentile Christians.
But its principal application is to those Jews who were refusing to accept Jesus as a teacher come from G-d (the covetous Pharisees who derided him, vs 14).
Jesus was speaking to Jews about the things they were missing in Moses and the Prophets that point to him.
The thing to be noted about Paul and 'salvation by faith only' is that he doesn't endorse the idea.
That salvation is by faith and not works of law (for Gentiles) is his emphasis but any honest reading, or even a cursory reading, of Paul will assure the reader that he most definitely insisted on standards of behaviour, and even of thought, that would not bring shame on the name of Christ or alienate the Jewish brethren.
Simply put Jesus taught Jews that salvation is by faith and observance of the Law, while Paul taught Gentiles that salvation is by faith and an upright life.
It is important, imo, to recognise that Jesus came to the House of Israel and sent Paul as his Apostle to the Gentiles.
It is therefore little wonder that Paul has such a poor reputation amongst Jews; he taught Gentiles and his message was tailored for Gentiles.
And Gentiles are not obliged to keep the Law, though, Paul teaches, they are expected to understand something of its precepts and principles,

One "small" difference here, with enormous consequences.

In Gal 5, Paul makes abundantly clear that law-keeping is not a part of forgiveness by God of one's sin, which means salvation from the just wrath of God on one's sin.

Forgiveness by God for one's sin is by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Obedience to Jesus commands does not earn God's forgiveness for sin, obedience is simply the evidence of true faith, as opposed to a false claim of faith.

When it comes to faith, there are professors (claimers) of faith, and possessors (with evidence, proof) of faith in Jesus Christ, which alone saves.

 

[esmith]

So the only facts to determine/prove are what the NT actually does and does not report.

Point 1. That is acceptable to me.

Paul is saying what the NT reports that Jesus said: Mt 16:21, 26:34, 31, 54, 56: Mk 9:12.

Point 2. Referring back to your agreement that only the "facts" can be used. We have no proof that Paul did or did not know what Jesus said. He supposedly never talked to him and the Synoptic Gospels were not written yet. Therefore you have to take it as "faith" that Paul "knew what Jesus said". Therefor you can not prove that Paul's new religion is not of his own design.

And what the NT reports that Jesus said can be found in: Ps 22 (v.6); Isa 53:3; Zech 11:12-13, 13:7; Jer 32:6-9; Dan 9:26.

Point 3. Again only the facts that are written can be used. You are interpreting the Hebrew Bible to "your" understanding. The Jewish interpretation is different Therefore, no proof one way or the other.

The NT reports that "Jesus' religion" is:
1) he died for the remission of sin - Mt 26:28
2) those who do not believe in him are condemend already - Jn 3:18, 36
3) his resurrection from the dead is proof of the efficacy of his sin-atoning sacrifice for those who believe in him - Lk 24:46-48.

Point 4. I agree that what you reference is written in your New Testament. However, if item #2 is his belief, is he not setting himself up as a deity? What of those that do not accept Jesus as their "savior". Will the God of the Hebrew Bible condemn them, or will he accept those that did not accept Jesus? If your statement in item 2 is correct, then I want no part of your deity.

Paul, who according to NT reports, received his knowledge by personal revelation from Jesus Christ, is in complete agreement with Jesus.
1) You are assuming the reason the poor man went to heaven. The parable makes no such statement, and you have no warrant for saying it was because he kept the law.
2) You're again ignoring the hinge of the parable - listening to (believing) one who rises from the dead.
3) Based on the hinge of the parable, it is more likely to assume that he went to heaven because he listened to (believed) the OT Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets).
4) You're trying to make the parable about obeying the Law, when Jesus makes the parable about listening to (believing) one who rises from the dead.
5) That "tweak" is a Jewish gloss.

Point 5. You disagree with one interpretation of the parable, what is your interpretation? Let me state first that the interpretation given by the Christian study bible says (non-italics is my wording) "Moses and the Prophets. A way of designating the whole OT. The rich man had failed to pay attention to Scripture and its teaching, and feared his brothers would do the same thing and wind up in the same place as he.
Therefor do you not agree that if the rich man had payed attention to the Scripture and its teachings he would not be where he was. If people's minds are closed and Scripture is rejected --not even a resurrection--will change them. Therefore if one, only, follows the teaching of the Hebrew Bible they are "in good standing with God"
You statement "tweak" is a Jewish gloss can also be brought back to Christians "tweak" of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[smokydot]

Point 1. That is acceptable to me.
Point 2. Referring back to your agreement that only the "facts" can be used.

I said: the only facts to be determined/proven are what the NT actually does or does not report.
One more time. . .the NT reports that Paul got his knowledge and understanding from personal revelation by Jesus Christ. The NT reports the source of all Paul's knowledge and understanding. Whatever Paul teaches, he got from Christ. If Paul taught that Jesus suffered according to the Scriptures, then Paul got that from Jesus Christ personally. That is what the NT reports.

We have no proof that Paul did or did not know what Jesus said. He supposedly never talked to him and the Synoptic Gospels were not written yet. Therefore you have to take it as "faith" that Paul "knew what Jesus said". Therefor you can not prove that Paul's new religion is not of his own design.

I can't prove anything which the NT reports is true, nor can you prove that it is not true. . .both its truth and untruth are matters of faith, not proof.
I can prove what the NT reports, and the NT reports that Paul got his knowledge and understanding by personal revelation from Jesus Christ, who was in a "position" to teach Paul everything about himself, his life, his truth and his way. (Jn 14:6)

Point 3. Again only the facts that are written can be used. You are interpreting the Hebrew Bible to "your" understanding. The Jewish interpretation is different Therefore, no proof one way or the other.

Red herring. . .the issue here is "Paul's religion" being different from "Jesus' religion". . .it's not about the Hebrew Bible.

Point 4. I agree that what you reference is written in your New Testament. However, if item #2 is his belief, is he not setting himself up as a deity? What of those that do not accept Jesus as their "savior". Will the God of the Hebrew Bible condemn them, or will he accept those that did not accept Jesus? If your statement in item 2 is correct, then I want no part of your deity.

That's what Jesus said in Jn 14:6, according to the NT report. I didn't write the NT reports. . .I just believe them.

Point 5. You disagree with one interpretation of the parable, what is your interpretation? Let me state first that the interpretation given by the Christian study bible says (non-italics is my wording) "Moses and the Prophets. A way of designating the whole OT. The rich man had failed to pay attention to Scripture and its teaching, and feared his brothers would do the same thing and wind up in the same place as he.
Therefor do you not agree that if the rich man had payed attention to the Scripture and its teachings he would not be where he was.

That would be an assumption, which the parable does not state.

If people's minds are closed and Scripture is rejected --not even a resurrection--will change them. Therefore if one, only, follows the teaching of the Hebrew Bible they are "in good standing with God"

The hinge of the parable is listening to the testimony of someone who comes back from the dead. It is not about keeping the Law.

You statement "tweak" is a Jewish gloss can also be brought back to Christians "tweak" of the Hebrew Bible.

That's just kicking up dirt to cloud the issue with a red herring. . .the Hebrew Bible is not the issue here. . .the issue is "Paul's religion" compared to "Jesus' religion."

 

[ImmortalPhoenix]

Jesus and the Law
They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

(John 3:16) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." If you believe in Christ, you have faith. (James 2:24) "See that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." If you have faith, you have works. (John 14:15) "If you love me keep my commandments." (I John 3:24) "One who keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. We know by this that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us." Therefore, if you truly believe in Christ, you have his Holy Spirit, and do his works. (Mark 16:17-18) "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in my name they will cast out demons; they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover."

I wonder how many followers of Christ have casted out demon, and healed the sick...

Here is a relative scripture to John 3:16.
I John 4:9,16: "The love of God was manifested in us that God has sent his only begotten son into the world so that we might live thorugh him. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

Paul was indeed divinely inspired, however that too is a matter of interpretation.

 

[esmith]

I said: the only facts to be determined/proven are what the NT actually does or does not report.
One more time. . .the NT reports that Paul got his knowledge and understanding from personal revelation by Jesus Christ. The NT reports the source of all Paul's knowledge and understanding. Whatever Paul teaches, he got from Christ. If Paul taught that Jesus suffered according to the Scriptures, then Paul got that from Jesus Christ personally. That is what the NT reports.

Please give scripture and verse where it says Paul got it PERSONALLY from Jesus!

I can't prove anything which the NT reports is true, nor can you prove that it is not true. . .both its truth and untruth are matters of faith, not proof.

Therefore you have reneged on the agreement, see your statement below:

So the only facts to determine/prove are what the NT actually does and does not report.

I can prove what the NT reports, and the NT reports that Paul got his knowledge and understanding by personal revelation from Jesus Christ, who was in a "position" to teach Paul everything about himself, his life, his truth and his way. (Jn 14:6)

Again , please give scripture and versewhere it says Paul got it PERSONALLY from Jesus!

Red herring. . .the issue here is "Paul's religion" being different from "Jesus' religion". . .it's not about the Hebrew Bible.

You are the one brought the Hebrew Bible into the discussion:

And what the NT reports that Jesus said can be found in: Ps 22 (v.6); Isa 53:3; Zech 11:12-13, 13:7; Jer 32:6-9; Dan 9:26.

If you make a reference you have to defend it. Not attempt to deflect my response to your statement.

That's what Jesus said in Jn 14:6, according to the NT report. I didn't write the NT reports. . .I just believe them.
That would be an assumption, which the parable does not state.
The hinge of the parable is listening to the testimony of someone who comes back from the dead. It is not about keeping the Law.

Who came back from the dead in this parable? Also the verse says "even if someone came back from the dead. Not did come back. Please read and understand.

That's just kicking up dirt to cloud the issue with a red herring. The Hebrew Bible is not the issue here. . .the issue is "Paul's religion" compared to "Jesus' religion."

Again you made the statement that it was a "Jewish tweak" and I said Christian's make "tweaks". If you can not accept that I have the right to challenge your prejudice, then this needs to go no further.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

IMHO, that was a prophecy of Jesus' in the form of a parable which has been fulfilled by Christians in general. They do believe that Jesus rose from the dead; nevertheless, they just can't be persuaded to listen to Moses and the Prophets, which means the Law, in order to prevent themselves from falling in Hell. They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

Just curious, how do you think people were saved before the Law?