• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus And The Law

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Again: They weren't people of Israel. They were people of Asia Minor.
And who the heck puts any stock in anything a televangelist says? replacement theology is wrong. It's not what Jesus taught, nor is it what Paul taught.

When you try to clear Paul from the charge of Replacement Theology it is because you do not understand Galatians 4:21-31; Romans 7:1-7; Ephesians 2:15; and many, many more throughout the NT and his Letters. Read them without Christian preconceived notions and you will understand what I am talking about.

And with regards to Jesus, he could never have preached Replacement Theology. On the contrary, he came to confirm Judaism down to the letter, even to the dot of the letter, as he admonished his fellow Jews to observe all the commandments or be considered out of the kingdom of God. Read Matthew 5:19.
Ben
 
Last edited:

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
we are to live by faith and abide in love with hope for eternal life...the kingdom of heaven is in and around us and fills all but the evil one is always near causing doubt enough to keep men from being one with God...when man realizes his gift then the evil one will be destroyed

There must not be hope for eternal life, because this attribute was not granted to man. Only with God belongs to live forever. Read Genesis 3:22.
Ben
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Yahshua's message was clear...Love the Lord thy God with all your heart mind and soul and do unto others as you would have them do unto you...all the other laws hang on this...sometimes the simplicity of this statement is lost in traditional beliefs...what is more important...tradition or truth?

Love is an emotion. Therefore, love cannot be dictated upon. Our love for God increases as we apply to know Him better.

And with regards to tradition or truth, of course truth is more important. But what is the truth? Jesus said that the truth is the Word of God. Read John 17:17. When he said that, he probably had Psalm 147:19,20 in mind, where it says that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. The prace of tradition is to protect the truth by erecting fences around the commandments.
Ben
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
When you try to clear Paul from the charge of Replacement Theology it is because you do not understand Galatians 4:21-31; Romans 7:1-7; Ephesians 2:15; and many, many more throughout the NT and his Letters. Read them without Christian preconceived notions and you will understand what I am talking about.

And with regards to Jesus, he could never have preached Replacement Theology. On the contrary, he came to confirm Judaism down to the letter, even to the dot of the letter, as he admonished his fellow Jews to observe all the commandments or be considered out of the kingdom of God. Read Matthew 5:19.
Ben
Except that Paul didn't write Ephesians...
Additionally, I think it is you who don't understand Pauline theology. Your reaction is typically knee-jerk against Paul's abolishment of the law for Gentile Xians.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Except that Paul didn't write Ephesians...
Additionally, I think it is you who don't understand Pauline theology. Your reaction is typically knee-jerk against Paul's abolishment of the law for Gentile Xians.

Sorry Sojourner, but you need to study a litter harder. Why don't you read the preface to the letters in some translations? Paul wrote the Letter to the Ephesians from a prison in Rome at about the same time as Philemon and Colossians, and to have sent it by the same friend, Tychicus, who had been visiting him in 63 ACE.

And about the abolishment of the Law, it is not a matter of knee-jerk of mine against Paul. Against the Law, he was preaching to the Jews and not Gentiles. Read Acts 21:21.
Ben
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sorry Sojourner, but you need to study a litter harder. Why don't you read the preface to the letters in some translations? Paul wrote the Letter to the Ephesians from a prison in Rome at about the same time as Philemon and Colossians, and to have sent it by the same friend, Tychicus, who had been visiting him in 63 ACE.

And about the abolishment of the Law, it is not a matter of knee-jerk of mine against Paul. Against the Law, he was preaching to the Jews and not Gentiles. Read Acts 21:21.
Ben
"Marked differences in style, phrasing, and viewpoint between this letter and the seven unquestionably authentic Pauline letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thess., Philemon) have cast significant doubt on Pauline authorship of Ephesians. it is more likely that a disciple of Paul wrote the letter in Paul's name, probably after the apostle's death..." (Notes preceding the text in the Harper Collins NRSV. Most other eminent commentaries agree, but I don't have them at my fingertips right now. Give me one good reason why I should trust your scholarship over that of most NT scholars?
I carry a solid 4.0 gpa in NT studies at an accredited graduate seminary. somehow, I trust their assessment of my scholarship over yours. Can't imagine why...:rolleyes:

You keep bringing up Acts 21:21. That's one instance of his preaching to Jews. Most of his ministry was to the Gentiles. Therefore, your argument does not hold water. Paul departed from Mosaic Law because he saw the Xy was bigger than Judaism, and that the basic tenets of the mvt. did not depend on Jewish cultural dogma. he attempted (successfully, I might add) to bring Xy to a truly pan-cultural stance -- a stance unique among world religions.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
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
Since when did non-Jews have to follow the Law? Christians are not Jews, and thus do not have to follow the Law.

Also, I doubt you understand the Pauline Policy. Because it isn't salvation by faith only.
 

free spirit

Well-Known Member
Ben Masada;2459842]


Good answer but, there is something not cosher about this reply of yours.
Please define (cosher) for me.



How indeed did he resurrect? Was there an eyewitness to his resurrection? If you can show me one in your NT, you have won this Jew to Christianity. Go right ahead. I am all ears.
God shows no partiality even after 2000 years He made me a witness of His resurrection, obviously you don't believe me therefore I can only quote to you what is written in the ACTS 2:22-32, "22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst, Just as you yourselves know.
23 This man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death.
24 And God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
25 For David says of him. I was always beholding the Lord in my presence, for he is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted. Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope,
27 because thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow thy holy one to undergo decay.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.
29 Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
30 And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with a oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay.
32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses."




Sorry, but I can't agree with you. In one of his prayers, Jesus himself said that the truth is the Word of God. (John 17:17) He probably had in mind the Psalmist text that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. That's in Psalm 147:19,20. It means that we are not like the railway tracks, because we are indeed going in different directions.
Ben
Ben if you do not also believe that Jesus is the oncarnated word of God you will never understand Christianity; The moral standard of Judaism and Christianity is what makes us like railway tracks.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
[/b]He was charged with teaching the Jews to forsake Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to abandon the Jewish customs. (Acts 21:21) Show me please, where did he say that the charges were false.

The dead cannot use the living. So, Paul used Jesus.

Paul's notion was the epitome of his policy of Replacement Theology which is considered by some scholars as Christian Antisemitism.

Acts 23:1 ¶ And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.

Acts 24:11 Seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem:
12 and neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city.
13 Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.


Acts 26:4 My manner of life then from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5 having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee
.


Jesus is alive. However since Jesus has the Spirit of God in Him, that spirit is always with us and more so with Christians as the Paraclete.

Replacement theology is someone else's concept. Paul never uses those words. Where is the evidence that Paul has abandoned Judaism? When asked to reveal his Judaism, He didn't refuse as though it no longer mattered to Him. However there are elements of the new covenant that replace the old. Temple sacrifice is no longer required. Communion replaces that. Washing oblations are no longer required. Baptiesm replaces those. However I don't recall Paul ever mentioning those facts as a matter of policy.

So what are you saying by the anti-semite charge? Are you saying it is better to follow parts of the old covenant that God no longer requires than it is to follow God's new covenent? If I have to be called an anti-semite in order to follow God so be it. However that means that God is also an anti-semite. And what does that make you, an anti-Christ? And as a result, anti-God as well.




 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Except that Paul didn't write Ephesians...
Additionally, I think it is you who don't understand Pauline theology. Your reaction is typically knee-jerk against Paul's abolishment of the law for Gentile Xians.

I have never seen any evidence of this. Do you have references?

My Bible says that Paul wrote this letter while in prison in Rome. I am sure scholars could be found with a different opinion but the style is definitely Paul's.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I have never seen any evidence of this. Do you have references?

My Bible says that Paul wrote this letter while in prison in Rome. I am sure scholars could be found with a different opinion but the style is definitely Paul's.
I wrote it somewhere else here recently, so I'm not going to type it out again, but most reputable scholars cast serious doubt on Paul's authorship of Ephesians. The style (to put it too simply) doesn't match his authentic documents. It is likely that a student of his wrote it in his name (which was a common practice at that time).
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Please define (cosher) for me.

God shows no partiality even after 2000 years He made me a witness of His resurrection, obviously you don't believe me therefore I can only quote to you what is written in the ACTS 2:22-32, "22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst, Just as you yourselves know.
23 This man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death.
24 And God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
25 For David says of him. I was always beholding the Lord in my presence, for he is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted. Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope,
27 because thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow thy holy one to undergo decay.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.
29 Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
30 And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with a oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay.
32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses."

Ben if you do not also believe that Jesus is the oncarnated word of God you will never understand Christianity; The moral standard of Judaism and Christianity is what makes us like railway tracks.

Cosher means pure, correct, right, without the shadow of a doubt, straight, fit for consumption, etc, etc.

Regarding my request of an eyewitness for the resurrection of Jesus, I am afraid you did not understand the post or read it in a rush and missed eye before the witness. I said EYEWITNESS. Do you wanna try again or have persuaded yourself that there was none?

And to believe that Jesus was the incarnated word of God I had to be Greek. It just happens that I belong to the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism. And in Judaism there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. And for the moral standard of Judaism and Christianity, it is obscene even to compare. We have lost millions of Jews to Christianity through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Hollocaust. I am sorry... I mean, Christians should be sorry.
Ben
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
"Marked differences in style, phrasing, and viewpoint between this letter and the seven unquestionably authentic Pauline letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thess., Philemon) have cast significant doubt on Pauline authorship of Ephesians. it is more likely that a disciple of Paul wrote the letter in Paul's name, probably after the apostle's death..." (Notes preceding the text in the Harper Collins NRSV. Most other eminent commentaries agree, but I don't have them at my fingertips right now. Give me one good reason why I should trust your scholarship over that of most NT scholars?
I carry a solid 4.0 gpa in NT studies at an accredited graduate seminary. somehow, I trust their assessment of my scholarship over yours. Can't imagine why...:rolleyes:

You keep bringing up Acts 21:21. That's one instance of his preaching to Jews. Most of his ministry was to the Gentiles. Therefore, your argument does not hold water. Paul departed from Mosaic Law because he saw the Xy was bigger than Judaism, and that the basic tenets of the mvt. did not depend on Jewish cultural dogma. he attempted (successfully, I might add) to bring Xy to a truly pan-cultural stance -- a stance unique among world religions.

Well, are you going to show me in your NT when Paul went to the Gentiles or not? What I have from your NT is that it was his custom to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues and overturn them into Christian churches. Since the Road to Damascus, when he went to the synagogues of Damascus for three years, and until Rome his only concern was to preach in the synagogues of the Jews as if Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. When he was arrested and taken to Rome, soon, from the third day he was in Rome, under chain in a private house, he invited the Jews over to preach to them his gospel. (Acts 28: 16,17)
Ben
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Well, are you going to show me in your NT when Paul went to the Gentiles or not? What I have from your NT is that it was his custom to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues and overturn them into Christian churches. Since the Road to Damascus, when he went to the synagogues of Damascus for three years, and until Rome his only concern was to preach in the synagogues of the Jews as if Gentiles were to be found in the synagogues of the Jews. When he was arrested and taken to Rome, soon, from the third day he was in Rome, under chain in a private house, he invited the Jews over to preach to them his gospel. (Acts 28: 16,17)
Ben
Can you show where the NT says that Paul goes to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues and overturns them into Christian churches?

Can you show where any Christian church is even mentioned? Because the term Christian is only mentioned twice in the NT. Nazarene is only mentioned once. So I think you are making things up.

And there would have been Gentiles in the Jewish synagogues. That is accepted. They were called God-fearers. It is an accepted term, and an accepted idea among scholars.
 

free spirit

Well-Known Member
Cosher means pure, correct, right, without the shadow of a doubt, straight, fit for consumption, etc, etc.
Thanks Ben Much apreciated.

Regarding my request of an eyewitness for the resurrection of Jesus, I am afraid you did not understand the post or read it in a rush and missed eye before the witness. I said EYEWITNESS. Do you wanna try again or have persuaded yourself that there was none?
The resurrection occurred somtime during the knight there was no one around to see it but the dishiples did see Him after, I am a witness because in the beginning of my Christianity I have felt His doing in me, and after I have seen Him in a dreem.

And for the moral standard of Judaism and Christianity, it is obscene even to compare. We have lost millions of Jews to Christianity through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Hollocaust. I am sorry... I mean, Christians should be sorry.
Yes Christian religion has been unkind to the Jews, however true Christianity is not a religion but a way of life with his centre piece love thy neighbour.
The Jews on the other hand have been holy from time in memorial. Isn't that so Ben?
 
Last edited:

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Thanks Ben Much apreciated.


The resurrection occurred somtime during the knight there was no one around to see it but the dishiples did see Him after, I am a witness because in the beginning of my Christianity I have felt His doing in me, and after I have seen Him in a dreem.


Yes Christian religion has been unkind to the Jews, however true Christianity is not a religion but a way of life with his centre piece love thy neighbour.
The Jews on the other hand have been holy from time in memorial. Isn't that so Ben?




The Mystery of the Empty Tomb


All the four gospel writers are unanimous on it that the tomb was empty. But how it got empty is the answer we have got to find for the question.

Starting with Matthew, at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at the sunset, Mary Magdalene with another Mary, went to see the tomb. Never mind that the tombstone was sealed and the guards were there to prevent the approach of any suspect. They either did not know it or the conspiracy to provide an eyewitness had backfired.

As the women arrived there, there was nothing of the sort. However, the writer of Matthew reports an earthquake, as an angel came down to move the tombstone, and sat on it. Who was inside the tomb? Nobody. The tomb was empty. Then, the angel addressed the women and said, "I know you are looking for Jesus. As you can see, he is not here." The tomb was empty. Even the angel could not be used as an eyewitness, because when he removed the tombstone, the tomb was empty already. (Mat. 28:1-6)

Let us ask Mark about this. He says almost the same, except for the earthquake. When that Sabbath was over, the women brought perfumed oils to anoint Jesus' body. They were worried only on how to remove the tombstone, which was huge. Never mind that it was sealed and kept by guards, because when they got there, they saw nothing of the sort. So much so that the stone was already removed and the tomb was empty, except for a youngman who was there, telling them that Jesus was not there. That he had been raised. He was right, because by the will of God one rises, but by the will of man one is raised. It means that someone had indeed removed Jesus from there. (Mark 16:1-6)

How about Luke? What did he have to say? That the tombstone was removed, the tomb was empty, but there were two guys asking why the women were looking for the living among the dead. And that Jesus had been raised. Mind you, not risen but raised. The women went to tell the disciples, and they refused to believe their "nonsense and idle tale," as those were their very words. Probably, Jesus had never mentioned such a thing about himself. (Luke 24:1-11)

Last but not least, we have John, who brought to the tomb only Mary Magdalene. The tombstone was removed as usual, and the tomb was indeed empty. All that Mary could think of, was that Jesus had been taken from the tomb. They all probably had never heard about resurrection. Mary remained at the tomb crying her eyes out. Then, to a guy there, whom she thought was the Gardener, she asked to let her know where he had put Jesus' body, so that she could take it away with her, if he had been the one who had removed Jesus from there. It means that Mary had come to the tomb with the intention to remove Jesus from there. Bad luck for her, because obviously Joseph of Arimathea had done the removal during the first hours of Friday night. (John 20:1-15)

As we all can see, the mystery is not in the empty tomb but in the how the tomb got empty. Quite easy to solve if we try to understand the difference between rising and being raised, and the inconsistency among the four gospel writers on reporting the "idle tale" of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

Ben
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Can you show where the NT says that Paul goes to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues and overturns them into Christian churches?

Can you show where any Christian church is even mentioned? Because the term Christian is only mentioned twice in the NT. Nazarene is only mentioned once. So I think you are making things up.

And there would have been Gentiles in the Jewish synagogues. That is accepted. They were called God-fearers. It is an accepted term, and an accepted idea among scholars.

Acts 11:26; Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:21; and many more.
Ben
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Acts 11:26; Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:21; and many more.
Ben
Nope. You showed exactly nothing. I'm not even quite sure what you are trying to prove with the last two verses. As for the first, it doesn't mention a Christian church, a Nazarene synagogue, or robbing of any kind.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Nope. You showed exactly nothing. I'm not even quite sure what you are trying to prove with the last two verses. As for the first, it doesn't mention a Christian church, a Nazarene synagogue, or robbing of any kind.

Acts 11:26 - This text says that Antioch was the place where Christians were called Christians for the first time. Why? Because Paul had been invited by Barnabas to help him with the work in the Nazarene synagogue. Why Nazarene? Because the synagogue of Antioch was getting crowded with the expulsion of the Jews in Rome by Emperor Claudius. (Acts 18:2) And James chairman of the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem had assigned Barnabas to head the Cause in Antioch. (Acts 11:22-26) After only a year that Paul was there with Barnabas the synagogue of the Nazarenes in Antioch had become a Christian church. Therefore, Paul had overturned that synagogue of the Nazarenes into a Christian church.

Galatians 1:6; 4:21 - The Nazarene synagogue of Galatia had also been victim of Paul, as had the one of Ephesus and many others. Then, some of the Nazarenes were sent from Judea to try to salvage the synagogue by persuading the members to return to the real gospel of Jesus, preached by the Nazarenes. Then, Paul got really upset to see that many of them were indeed returning and said that he was wondering that they were so soon leaving the grace of his Christ to another gospel just to be under the Law, whose gospel, even if an angel had brought it down from Heaven he would curse it. (Gal. 1:6-10; 4:21)

And so forth, this was happening to all the nazarene synagogues throughout Asia Minor and North Africa. He would keep away from the Jewish synagogues belonging to the mainstream Judaism because IMO, he was afraid to be killed. That's the last time I repeat this explanation to you. Now, I am through.

Ben
 
Top