Jesus And The Law

[dmgdnooc]

smokydot
Jesus is our High Priest and there was a change in the Law, as Paul describes in Hebrews.
The laws that Paul discusses in Hebrews are those that pertain to the Aaronic Priesthood; all have relation to the Temple, its services and sacrifices for sin.
There is no authority to extend his arguments beyond that; especially when it is easily seen that the Apostles, and Paul himself, were at pains to keep the Law. Excepting the sacrifices for sin.
　
Consider Paul's words (at the close of his life) to Timothy (2Tim 1.3) 'I thank G-d, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience.'
Acts 24.17 'I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings'
Acts 25.8 'I have committed no offense either against the law of the Jews or against the Temple or against Caesar'
Acts 28.23 'I have done nothing against our people, or the customs of our fathers'
　
Paul presented offerings, kept the Law and offended not the customs, serving G-d as had his forefathers.
Accepting the one-time ultimate efficacy of Christ's sacrifice he no longer made sacrifice for sin, but as can be seen he still made other offerings, kept the Law and the Customs.
　
Your mistake is to assume that the Law is solely concerned with the Aaronic Priesthood and the sacrifices for sin.
If that were the case then the Law would have ceased to be an issue, even for the most devout Jew, with the destruction of the Temple in 70ad.
　
A time that I would take up the defence of 'grace' would be if another Christian was attacking it, even then I would not neglect to balance my arguments with mention of the 'fruits of the Spirit'.
And I would do this because 'grace' without the 'fruits of the Spirit' is pernicious.
　
I think it is long past the time of talking about Christianity to the victims of 'Christianity'; their opinions are too well founded on 100s of years experience, Christians, for the most part, are hypocites and don't care who knows it.
Our priests talked to them about love and charity, compassion and sacrifice, mercy and duty, then our merchants shot them in their beds and stole their children.
　
You are opposed to the 'Jewish gloss' of the scriptures.
They were written, for the most part, by Jews; they are 'glossed' with Jewishness whether or not you, or anyone else, is comfortable with the fact.

 

[esmith]

Since Paul got all his knowledge from Jesus Christ, "Do it Jesus' way or be damned" was his message.

I still say it was Paul saying "Do it my way or be damned" I give you the following to think about. That is if you have a open mind not clouded with preconceived ideas.

You say that Paul got all of his knowledge from Jesus. Let me ask you a couple of questions
1. Was Paul human: Yes, therefore he was capable of changing or misunderstanding what he heard or thought he heard. There was no "face to face" communication.
2. Were there other "beliefs" that had the Jesus as a basis. Yes, to start with there were the Ebonites. There were probably others that we do not know about; However, at a latter date (2-3 century) there were the Marcionites. There were also the Gnostics.. Now according to the NT there were other "preachers/missionaries " going around teaching the "word" of Jesus. But there was this person called Saul/Paul that was a more charismatic "snake oil salesman" going around saying he was right. You really do not know if Jesus told these other preachers/missionaries the "real" truth and Paul got it wrong. Yet due to his personality he won out. Don't believe me? How many "different" Christian religions are there in the world. Yours is right and the others are wrong? What I am getting at is my previous point. Your religion is the Pauline Christian beliefs.

 

[smokydot]

I still say it was Paul saying "Do it my way or be damned" I give you the following to think about. That is if you have a open mind not clouded with preconceived ideas.
You say that Paul got all of his knowledge from Jesus.

The NT reports that Paul got his knowledge not only directly from Jesus, but also directly from God. (2Co 12:2-4, 7).
I believe the NT reports. . .you don't. You cannot prove the NT reports are untrue, just as I cannot prove they are true. . .so both our positions
are a matter of faith, not proof.

Let me ask you a couple of questions
1. Was Paul human: Yes, therefore he was capable of changing or misunderstanding what he heard or thought he heard. There was no "face to face" communication.

There was no "face to face" communication with Moses either when God gave him the whole book of Leviticus (Lev 1:1).

And your conjecture regarding Paul is contrary to the NT reports in 1Co 2:13, 1Th 2:13, which report that God gave Paul the very words he uses, that his teaching is not his own personal interpretation, but the very words of God himself, explaining the very truth of God himself. So just as Moses recorded the very words of God himself to Israel, and just as Jesus spoke exactly as God told him to say (Jn 12:49), so Paul speaks exactly as God told him to say. That is what the NT reports.

2. Were there other "beliefs" that had the Jesus as a basis. Yes, to start with there were the Ebonites. There were probably others that we do not know about; However, at a latter date (2-3 century) there were the Marcionites. There were also the Gnostics.. Now according to the NT there were other "preachers/missionaries " going around teaching the "word" of Jesus. But there was this person called Saul/Paul that was a more charismatic "snake oil salesman" going around saying he was right. You really do not know if Jesus told these other preachers/missionaries the "real" truth and Paul got it wrong.

That is contrary to what the NT reports in 2Co 12:2-4, 7; Gal 1:11-12. Paul got it wrong only if Jesus and God got it wrong.

Yet due to his personality he won out. Don't believe me? How many "different" Christian religions are there in the world. Yours is right and the others are wrong? What I am getting at is my previous point. Your religion is the Pauline Christian beliefs.

My religion is the whole Bible, including the OT in light of the NT.

 

[esmith]

I guess the first thing to ask you is this:
Do you believe every word and every event written down in the Bible is the absolute truth; that there are no embellishments, exaggerations, or falsehoods? If you answer yes, there is no point in you reading further because your mind and reasoning power has been closed. If you answer No, then proceed and answer the questions I have put forward to you in response to your interpretations of the passages you refer to.

The NT reports that Paul got his knowledge not only directly from Jesus, but also directly from God. (2Co 12:2-4, 7).

What you are referencing here is Paul saying that he was taken up to heaven/paradise for a "face-to-face" with God, correct?
Paul is writing this because "his" message is being challenged by "super-apostles" at his church. Think about it....he has to prove that he has the "right" message. What do you think he is going to do, plead his case. No this man is an egotistical alpha-male, he has to make a "big" showing. This passage shows that.

I believe the NT reports. . .you don't. You cannot prove the NT reports are untrue, just as I cannot prove they are true. . .so both our positions
are a matter of faith, not proof.

No, but I can use psychological reasoning that point to man that is so consumed with what he thinks is right that he will go to any means to prove it.

There was no "face to face" communication with Moses either when God gave him the whole book of Leviticus (Lev 1:1).

You are grasping at straws here. From the Jewish Study Bible: The Book of Leviticus, like the other books of the Torah, came into existence as a defined literary entity no earlier than the time of the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The Priestly source was the product of learned scribes of the Jerusalemite priesthood of the last centuries of the Judean kingdom and that it took shape in two phases, The Holiness Legislation (chs 17-26) being added to the Priestly work in the final years before the exile. So NO Moses did not have a "face-to-face" with God in this instance.

And your conjecture regarding Paul is contrary to the NT reports in 1Co 2:13, 1Th 2:13, which report that God gave Paul the very words he uses, that his teaching is not his own personal interpretation, but the very words of God himself, explaining the very truth of God himself.

1Co2:13 just says the spiritual word. This was not a sit-down God speak-Paul listen event. There have been many so-called "spiritual" revelations throughout time. Are you saying that all of them actually happened and are the "word of God"? Just because someone says they had a "spiritual" message from God doesn't mean it happened. All it means is that person is attempting to use God as proof that they are speaking the truth.

So just as Moses recorded the very words of God himself to Israel, and just as Jesus spoke exactly as God told him to say (Jn 12:49), so Paul speaks exactly as God told him to say. That is what the NT reports.

It only reports what Paul says. I am sure that there were other "Paul" types that were saying the same thing. The only thing is they lost Paul won.

That is contrary to what the NT reports in 2Co 12:2-4, 7;

Again, Paul has to prove his point. What better way than to say he went to heaven and had a sit-down with God.

Gal 1:11-12. Paul got it wrong only if Jesus and God got it wrong.

Yes brothers and sisters, what I teach is directly from God. Do not listen to anyone else, I am the messenger from God and Jesus Christ. Got to hand it to the man, he would have made an excellent modern day evangelist.

My religion is the whole Bible, including the OT in light of the NT.

Your religion is the religion that you have interpreted the Bible to be, not necessarily the correct interpretation.

 

[smokydot]

smokydot
Jesus is our High Priest and there was a change in the Law, as Paul describes in Hebrews. The laws that Paul discusses in Hebrews

Paul is not the author of Hebrews.

are those that pertain to the Aaronic Priesthood; all have relation to the Temple, its services and sacrifices for sin.

There is no authority to extend his arguments beyond that; especially when it is easily seen that the Apostles, and Paul himself, were at pains to keep the Law. Excepting the sacrifices for sin.

1) The laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood declare personal defilement by all manner of things, from bodies, to food, to childbirth, to skin diseases, to garments,
to houses. . .and for all of which the law required specific cleansings and offerings.

2) It is not clear to me if you are saying that these laws have been set aside (as revealed in the letter to the Hebrews, and as stated by Paul--1Co 9:20; Heb 7:12), or whether they have not been set aside. Which is it?

3) Paul, along with the letter to the Hebrews, says the law has been set aside (1Co 9:20; Heb 7:12)). You say it has not.
How do you decide which parts of the NT to believe and which not to believe?
Is the NT the Word of God written, or not? If it is, then all of it is the Word of God written. If it is not, then none of it matters for faith or salvation.

Consider Paul's words (at the close of his life) to Timothy (2Tim 1.3) 'I thank G-d, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience.'
Acts 24.17 'I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings'
Acts 25.8 'I have committed no offense either against the law of the Jews or against the Temple or against Caesar'
Acts 28.23 'I have done nothing against our people, or the customs of our fathers'
Paul presented offerings, kept the Law and offended not the customs, serving G-d as had his forefathers.
Accepting the one-time ultimate efficacy of Christ's sacrifice he no longer made sacrifice for sin, but as can be seen he still made other offerings, kept the Law and the Customs.

Yes, as a means of evangelizing only, Paul both kept them by choice to be a Jew to the Jews, and did not keep them to be a Gentile to the Gentiles. He explains that in 1Co 9:19-22: "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Paul did not keep the law as a matter of belief, or as a matter of righteousness. He kept it only for purposes of evangelization.
And even when he was being like a Jew among the Jews, he was very careful not to sacrifice gospel principles in any act of obedience to the law.
He would not have Titus, who was Greek, circumcised to go with him up to Jerusalem (Gal 2:3).

Your mistake is to assume that the Law is solely concerned with the Aaronic Priesthood and the sacrifices for sin.

Your mistake is to assume that the law, whose basis was the Levitical priesthood, is solely concerned with the sacrifices for sin.

The law was concerned with defilement, both personal and otherwise; with cleansing, both personal and otherwise, including the tabernacle; with regulations for the priests and the tabernacle; with regulations for feasts; with regulations for holy years; with regulations for slave ownership; with vows; with corban; with devoted gifts, including persons; with tithes--all of which have been set aside with the setting aside of the Levitical priesthood which was its basis (Heb 7:12).

If that were the case then the Law would have ceased to be an issue, even for the most devout Jew, with the destruction of the Temple in 70ad.

The law ceased to be an issue for all Christians, whether Gentile or Jew (1Co 9:20; Heb 7:12).

A time that I would take up the defence of 'grace' would be if another Christian was attacking it, even then I would not neglect to balance my arguments with mention of the 'fruits of the Spirit'.
And I would do this because 'grace' without the 'fruits of the Spirit' is pernicious.

Are you saying that grace is given without the fruits of the Spirit? Are you saying that God's grace can be pernicious?

I think it is long past the time of talking about Christianity to the victims of 'Christianity'; their opinions are too well founded on 100s of years experience, Christians, for the most part, are hypocites and don't care who knows it.

Our priests talked to them about love and charity, compassion and sacrifice, mercy and duty, then our merchants shot them in their beds and stole their children.

True Christians are sinners just like everyone else, with the difference being they repent of their sin.
Judging Christianity by false practioners of it is necessarily a false judgment of Christianity itself.

You are opposed to the 'Jewish gloss' of the scriptures.

They were written, for the most part, by Jews; they are 'glossed' with Jewishness whether or not you, or anyone else, is comfortable with the fact.

The Scriptures were written, for the most part, by Christians who were Jews. Unchristian Jewish gloss is contrary to the Gospel.

 

[free spirit]

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

Ben you are excused for thinking the way you do because you know only faith in the law.
But a true Christian should know the Law and have faith in Christ as Galatians 3:21 - 29 says; " Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the LAW has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith, which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the law has become our tutor, to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

As you know believe is something we personally anderstand to be true; while faith is something we do according to that personal belief.
You must understand that also denominational doctrines are considered to be laws to those who belong to that denomination, or religion, therefore the following scriptures will also apply to them.

Galatians 4:1 - 11, " Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,
2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.
3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the LAW.
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 in order that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying. Abba! Father!
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those, which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things of the law, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have laboured over you in vain."

You are exploiting an area were there is confusion among Christians, because some denomination try to observe the law and have a faith in christ, they do not know were they are.

 

[smokydot]

I guess the first thing to ask you is this:
Do you believe every word and every event written down in the Bible is the absolute truth; that there are no embellishments, exaggerations, or falsehoods?

I believe what Jesus believed, that Scripture is the Word of God (Mt 15:6).
And because it is the Word of God, it is wholly trustworthy, wholly reliable and wholly true.

I have shown this more fully in the following:
See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299244-post85.html --at the second quote, point 3)

If you answer yes, there is no point in you reading further because your mind and reasoning power has been closed.

That was easy.

If you answer No, then proceed and answer the questions I have put forward to you in response to your interpretations of the passages you refer to.
What you are referencing here is Paul saying that he was taken up to heaven/paradise for a "face-to-face" with God, correct?
Paul is writing this because "his" message is being challenged by "super-apostles" at his church. Think about it....he has to prove that he has the "right" message. What do you think he is going to do, plead his case. No this man is an egotistical alpha-male, he has to make a "big" showing. This passage shows that.
No, but I can use psychological reasoning that point to man that is so consumed with what he thinks is right that he will go to any means to prove it.
You are grasping at straws here. From the Jewish Study Bible: The Book of Leviticus, like the other books of the Torah, came into existence as a defined literary entity no earlier than the time of the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The Priestly source was the product of learned scribes of the Jerusalemite priesthood of the last centuries of the Judean kingdom and that it took shape in two phases, The Holiness Legislation (chs 17-26) being added to the Priestly work in the final years before the exile. So NO Moses did not have a "face-to-face" with God in this instance.
1Co2:13 just says the spiritual word.

It says "spiritual truths in spiritual words." And that is what I talk about. . .spiritual truths.

This was not a sit-down God speak-Paul listen event. There have been many so-called "spiritual" revelations throughout time. Are you saying that all of them actually happened and are the "word of God"? Just because someone says they had a "spiritual" message from God doesn't mean it happened. All it means is that person is attempting to use God as proof that they are speaking the truth.
It only reports what Paul says. I am sure that there were other "Paul" types that were saying the same thing. The only thing is they lost Paul won.
Again, Paul has to prove his point. What better way than to say he went to heaven and had a sit-down with God.
Yes brothers and sisters, what I teach is directly from God. Do not listen to anyone else, I am the messenger from God and Jesus Christ. Got to hand it to the man, he would have made an excellent modern day evangelist.
Your religion is the religion that you have interpreted the Bible to be, not necessarily the correct interpretation.

The Word of God is verbal. Words signify and safeguard meaning; the wrong word distorts the intended sense. God gave the Biblical text
in order to communicate his Word, therefore, he has ensured that the words written were such as did convey it.
The words of the Biblical text are to be taken at their meaning. . .the words mean what they say. . .period.

 

[free spirit]

Smokydot
Yes, as a means of evangelizing only, Paul both kept them by choice to be a Jew to the Jews, and did not keep them to be a Gentile to the Gentiles. He explains that in 1Co 9:19-22: "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Paul did not keep the law as a matter of belief, or as a matter of righteousness. He kept it only for purposes of evangelization.
And even when he was being like a Jew among the Jews, he was very careful not to sacrifice gospel principles in any act of obedience to the law.
He would not have Titus, who was Greek, circumcised to go with him up to Jerusalem (Gal 2:3).

Smokydot you should learn to rightly divide the word because the scriptures contains lies and slander against the Lord and his apostles. Here is one of them.

(III) In the book of Acts 16:3, we read: “Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”
We should be horrified by this false accusation of hypocrisy attributed to Paul. I ask, has anyone read the book of Galatians? Paul was not able to do it; the Spirit of the Lord would not have allowed him to circumcise Timothy. Or do we think that Satan retains some control over the chosen servants of God? If that were so, none of us would be able to become a bond-slave of the Lord. If the servants of our Lord are so weak and insecure, how could they face and overcome persecution or martyrdom without repudiating the faith?
It has been suggested to me that Paul is excused, for in 1Corinthians 9:22 he says, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” This is true in principle, if you apply it to yourself, but there are limits that believers should not cross, because if we do, those whom you are trying to win for Christ may rightfully think that they have won you.
Are we also to believe Galatians 2:11-15, in which Paul (conveniently forgetting what he said in 1Corinthians 9:22) allegedly rebuked Peter. “For Peter was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.” If so, we may easily get the impression that hypocrisy was widespread among the apostles. If that is true (and I do not believe that it is,) what hope is there for us? So you see, Satan’s concealed or subtle schemes are design to discourage “our hope of glory” by hindering our repentance toward God and trapping the unwary.
I know that some believers, and I was almost one of them, take comfort over the sins of David and the alleged weakness of the Apostles to justify their own shortcomings. Believe me, if this is your thinking you are deluding yourself, for you have fallen into the comfort of Satan’s trap. Repentance of our shortcomings is the only way to escape the comforting captivity of Satan.

 

[smokydot]

Smokydot you should learn to rightly divide the word because the scriptures contains lies and slander against the Lord and his apostles. Here is one of them.

(III) In the book of Acts 16:3, we read: “Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

Whose mother was a Jewess and believer.
This is another example of conformity for the expediency of evangelizing, as in the case of Timothy. Titus' case was different, circumcision was being demanded by the Judaizers as necessary for salvation (Gal 3:2). Therefore, Paul would not violate gospel principles for the sake of the Judaizers.

We should be horrified by this false accusation of hypocrisy attributed to Paul. I ask, has anyone read the book of Galatians? Paul was not able to do it; the Spirit of the Lord would not have allowed him to circumcise Timothy. Or do we think that Satan retains some control over the chosen servants of God? If that were so, none of us would be able to become a bond-slave of the Lord. If the servants of our Lord are so weak and insecure, how could they face and overcome persecution or martyrdom without repudiating the faith?

It has been suggested to me that Paul is excused, for in 1Corinthians 9:22 he says, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” This is true in principle, if you apply it to yourself, but there are limits that believers should not cross, because if we do, those whom you are trying to win for Christ may rightfully think that they have won you.
Are we also to believe Galatians 2:11-15, in which Paul (conveniently forgetting what he said in 1Corinthians 9:22) allegedly rebuked Peter. “For Peter was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.”

These are different situations.
One is for expedience and effectiveness, where it being necessary for salvation is not an issue, and therefore not a violation of the gospel.
The other is a demand by Judaizers as being necessary for salvation, which is a violation of the gospel of free grace, and on which Paul would not compromise.

that If so, we may easily get the impression that hypocrisy was widespread among the apostles. If that is true (and I do not believe that it is,) what hope is there for us? So you see, Satan’s concealed or subtle schemes are design to discourage “our hope of glory” by hindering our repentance toward God and trapping the unwary.

I know that some believers, and I was almost one of them, take comfort over the sins of David and the alleged weakness of the Apostles to justify their own shortcomings. Believe me, if this is your thinking you are deluding yourself, for you have fallen into the comfort of Satan’s trap. Repentance of our shortcomings is the only way to escape the comforting captivity of Satan.

I am not one of those, and am in agreement with you on this point.

 

[esmith]

Originally Posted by esmith
I guess the first thing to ask you is this:
Do you believe every word and every event written down in the Bible is the absolute truth; that there are no embellishments, exaggerations, or falsehoods?

I believe what Jesus believed, that Scripture is the Word of God (Mt 15:6).
And because it is the Word of God, it is wholly trustworthy, wholly reliable and wholly true.
The words of the Biblical text are to be taken at their meaning. . .the words mean what they say. . .period.

Then you have been led down the path of many "believers"--- that what is written or spoken is true. These "believers" may be of a theology, political, social-economic, race, tribe, cultic,or geopolitical ilk. Since we are in a theological discussion I will give you a few examples of falsehoods, exaggerations,and or establishments found in the bible.

1. Exodus 12:37 600,000 men, aside from children. Moreover, a mixed multitude went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds.
Adding women and children would give yields of a population of at least two and half million people. The land of Goshen and latter the Sinai peninsula could not have sustained such a population. The number probably originated in hyperbole.
2. Mark 16:9-xx. The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-xx. These were added at a much latter date.
3. The oldest manuscripts do not have John 8:3-11. Added around the middle ages
4. John 8:3-11 not found in any of the text of the ancient Greek manuscripts. These passages were not found until the time of the printing press 13th century.

Therefore as you can see there are problems with the writings in the Bible. You can go to any expert you wish and they will confirm what I have stated. If there are these obvious problems, what do you think the probability that there are many others.
No you can not use the excuse "These were inspired by God and the author added them as God directed him/her to do."

 

[dmgdnooc]

smokydot
Yes, I know that Paul is, most probably, not the author of Hebrews. The ascription is purely in conformity with tradition when I make it - old habits die hard and traditions are not bad in themselves.
　
1) So, Hebrews speaks of the passing of the sacrifice for sin only. Do you acknowledge that?
　
2) You must know that there is a textual argument to be dealt with in 1Cor 9.20.
I am not qualified to make it; I think, neither are you.
So I will say that I accept the KJV based on vs 19 because, for a Jew, keeping the Law is a commandment of G-d and on vs 21 where Paul says, in contradiction to Griesbach's vs 20, that he was 'not without law ... but under law'
When Paul spoke to Jews (1Cor 9.20) he spoke 'to them that are under the law'.
In the next verse he says that when he spoke to Gentiles he spoke 'as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ).
The Jews were 'under the law', Paul says of himself that he was 'under the law to Christ'.
How do you get from this that the law passed away, every jot and tittle of it?
Let me say it again, except for the sacrifice for sin, a Jew is obliged to keep the law - as Paul and all the Apostles did.
That is my strong opinion and nothing you have said so far has even scratched its surface.
　
3) Read 1 Cor 9.20-21 again noting that Paul and the Jews to whom he spoke are both 'under the law', they are not 'without law' as are the Gentiles.
Show me in Hebrews where any aspect of the Law is said to have passed, other than the Aaroonic Priesthood and the sacrifice for sin.
And explain why a Gentile convert who had himself circumcised was 'compelled to live as a Jew' (Gal 2.14) Or how circumcision would (Acts 15.10) 'put a yoke upon the neck of the (Gentile) disciples' if they were not, thereby, obliged to keep the law.
　
So, finally, you admit that Paul and the Apostles kept the Law.
But you say that it was only kept for the purposes of evangelisation.
Why then were circumcised Gentiles burdened with the Law?
　
When I said 'Your mistake is to assume that the Law is solely concerned with the Aaronic Priesthood and the sacrifices for sin.' that came out wrong. My apologies, it is not what I meant at all.
What I object to is the idea that the whole law passed away (for a Jew) with the passing of the Priesthood and Christ's one-time sacrifice.
　
At this point it would be helpful if a practicing Jew could explain how the Law adapted to the loss of the Temple. That is, the loss of the Priesthood, their services, and the Altar.
Which can be seen to be a similar case to the one that the Apostles faced.
　
As Hebrews 7.12 says 'For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change also of the law.'
A change in the law does not signify its consignment to the garbage heap of history.
And quite clearly Paul kept the feasts, undertook vows, purified himself, made offerings, kept the Sabbath all in accordance with, and obedience to, the Law.
And throughout his life he identified himself not merely as a Jew but as being a Pharisee, a Hebrew of the Hebrews.
Acts 20.6+16, Acts 18.18, Acts 21.26, Acts 24.17, Acts 16.13, Acts 17.2, Phil 3.5
Clearly your view of a Jew's relationship with the Law is at odds with Paul's behaviour.
　
I think that you know that I have said that grace is the free gift of G-d and is not a reward for works.
And that it is a gift to the faithful and that the faithful will exhibit in their lives the fruits of the Spirit.
Yes, there is a circle of interdependancies; and decoupling grace from faith or fruits from faith is pernicious.
It implies a freedom from responsibility for one's actions that has been abused, and is abused, throughout the world.
　
I agree, it is a false judgement of Christianity; but it has wide currency and is justified not only because of the experiences of its victims, but also because the Churches do not speak out against the perpetrators of the atrocities.
The Churches have aided and abetted and given comfort to the enemies of Christ, all for a few bags of coin.
　
When you say that the scriptures were written by Christians who were Jews I can smile as I understand what you are saying, and in a sense agree.
But Paul puts it a different way and says that we, being wild branches, have been grafted in to the good Olive tree and should not be high-minded and boast against the natural branches.
That, in fact, 'he is a Jew who is one inwardly' (Rom 2.29); so that a Christian is a Jew on the inside, although not the outside.
There is a shift in perspectives here between you and I; but we are looking at the same thing.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben you are excused for thinking the way you do because you know only faith in the law. But a true Christian should know the Law and have faith in Christ as Galatians 3:21 - 29 says; " Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the LAW has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

No Free Spirit, you are mistaken. My faith is in God, Whom I am grateful to for having given us His Law. Read Psalm 119.

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith, which was later to be revealed.

24 Therefore the law has become our tutor, to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

We are stil under the Law. Above the Law, only God is. Out of the Law are the criminals. There is no other option but to be under the Law, which are all law abide citizens.

25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

No longer under the Law! Does it mean that now we are outlaws? That's bad! And when God said that, "Israel is My Son..." in Exodus 4:22,23, was it according to the Law? Who effected the change, Paul? He invented baptism and now we closed in Jesus? Nice strategy. Now, the Paulne rhetoric is we are all one but in Jesus, right? I wonder why I feel the smell of Replacement Theology here. So, now to be of the Abraham's offspring one must belong to Jesus? How that be what you say if the seal of the Abraham Covenant was the circumcision and Christians, who claim to follow Jesus have abolished the everlasting commandment given to Abraham by the Almighty Himself?

As you know believe is something we personally anderstand to be true; while faith is something we do according to that personal belief.

Well, Disraeli once said that where faith begins, knowledge ends. And Hosea says that for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6) No wonder almost a thousand of the faithful of Jim Jones were poinsoned to death.

You must understand that also denominational doctrines are considered to be laws to those who belong to that denomination, or religion, therefore the following scriptures will also apply to them.

As you can see, laws are everywhere. I wonder why Christians abhor God's Law.

Galatians 4:1 - 11, "

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,

2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.
3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the LAW.
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 in order that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying. Abba! Father!
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those, which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things of the law, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have laboured over you in vain."

I was right when I was smelling the rat of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Read Galatians 4:21-31 That's the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology. They robbed us of our Jewish brother Jesus to make a Greek demigod out of him, and now also of our Theology.

You are exploiting an area were there is confusion among Christians, because some denomination try to observe the law and have a faith in christ, they do not know were they are.

They behave like the Jews for Baal of the time of Elijah: Waving before the Lord and Baal. In their indecision, Elijah took them down to the valley of Kidron and slashed the throats of 850 of the prophets of Baal. Lucky ones those of today that Elijah is no longer around.

 

[smokydot]

No Free Spirit, you are mistaken. My faith is in God, Whom I am grateful to for having given us His Law. Read Psalm 119.
We are stil under the Law. Above the Law, only God is. Out of the Law are the criminals. There is no other option but to be under the Law, which are all law abide citizens.
No longer under the Law! Does it mean that now we are outlaws? That's bad! And when God said that, "Israel is My Son..." in Exodus 4:22,23, was it according to the Law? Who effected the change, Paul? He invented baptism and now we closed in Jesus? Nice strategy. Now, the Paulne rhetoric is we are all one but in Jesus, right? I wonder why I feel the smell of Replacement Theology here.

It's Fulfillment Theology from the NT letter to the Hebrews.

So, now to be of the Abraham's offspring one must belong to Jesus? How that be what you say if the seal of the Abraham Covenant was the circumcision and Christians, who claim to follow Jesus have abolished the everlasting commandment given to Abraham by the Almighty Himself?
Well, Disraeli once said that where faith begins, knowledge ends. And Hosea says that for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6) No wonder almost a thousand of the faithful of Jim Jones were poinsoned to death.
As you can see, laws are everywhere. I wonder why Christians abhor God's Law.
I was right when I was smelling the rat of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Read Galatians 4:21-31 That's the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology.

It's Fulfillment Theology from the NT letter to the Hebrews.

They robbed us of our Jewish brother Jesus to make a Greek demigod out of him, and now also of our Theology.

They behave like the Jews for Baal of the time of Elijah: Waving before the Lord and Baal. In their indecision, Elijah took them down to the valley of Kidron and slashed the throats of 850 of the prophets of Baal. Lucky ones those of today that Elijah is no longer around.

 

[smokydot]

I guess the first thing to ask you is this:
Do you believe every word and every event written down in the Bible is the absolute truth; that there are no embellishments, exaggerations, or falsehoods?
Then you have been led down the path of many "believers"--- that what is written or spoken is true. These "believers" may be of a theology, political, social-economic, race, tribe, cultic,or geopolitical ilk. Since we are in a theological discussion I will give you a few examples of falsehoods, exaggerations,and or establishments found in the bible.
1. Exodus 12:37 600,000 men, aside from children. Moreover, a mixed multitude went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds.
Adding women and children would give yields of a population of at least two and half million people. The land of Goshen and latter the Sinai peninsula could not have sustained such a population. The number probably originated in hyperbole.

Wrong. . ."probably" is not fact. . .4,000,000 people can live in a 60-mi square.
You obviously know nothing of their encampment, and are just regurgitating someone else's novel speculations which you've read.

2. Mark 16:9-xx. The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-xx. These were added at a much latter date.

It doesn't contradict the rest of the NT, but is very much in line with it, so what's the problem?

3. The oldest manuscripts do not have John 8:3-11.

It was originally attached to another narrative. So what's the problem with the truth of it?

Added around the middle ages
4. John 8:3-11 not found in any of the text of the ancient Greek manuscripts. These passages were not found until the time of the printing press 13th century.
Therefore as you can see there are problems with the writings in the Bible. You can go to any expert you wish and they will confirm what I have stated. If there are these obvious problems, what do you think the probability that there are many others.

There are no problems with the truth of them since they in no way conflict with the rest of the NT.
But they do help confirm unbelievers in their unbelief. . .and that's not a coincidence.

No you can not use the excuse "These were inspired by God and the author added them as God directed him/her to do."

That's pretty lame. . .

 

[Ben Masada]

It's Fulfillment Theology from the NT letter to the Hebrews.It's Fulfillment Theology from the NT letter to the Hebrews.

Fulfillment Theology! Oh yes, of course! Like the Law; if it got fulfilled it is gone and replaced by faith. But don't forget that Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law." (Mat. 5:17) Then, about 30 years later Paul came and said, "Nonsense, he abolished everything on the cross." (Ephe. 2:15) Paul contradicted Jesus's own words. To contradict is to stand against. The prefix for "to stand against" is "anti." If you believe that Jesus was Christ, it is not too hard to figure what was Paul.

 

[free spirit]

Whose mother was a Jewess and believer.
This is another example of conformity for the expediency of evangelizing, as in the case of Timothy. Titus' case was different, circumcision was being demanded by the Judaizers as necessary for salvation (Gal 3:2). Therefore, Paul would not violate gospel principles for the sake of the Judaizers.
These are different situations.
One is for expedience and effectiveness, where it being necessary for salvation is not an issue, and therefore not a violation of the gospel.
The other is a demand by Judaizers as being necessary for salvation, which is a violation of the gospel of free grace, and on which Paul would not compromise.
I am not one of those, and am in agreement with you on this point.

Well Smokydot if Paul was plying to be a Jew for the sake of evangelizing what do you think they would think of him after they found out that Paul had tricked them.

 

[esmith]

Wrong. . ."probably" is not fact. . .4,000,000 people can live in a 60-mi square.
You obviously know nothing of their encampment, and are just regurgitating someone else's novel speculations which you've read..
It doesn't contradict the rest of the NT, but is very much in line with it, so what's the problem?
It was originally attached to another narrative. So what's the problem with the truth of it?
There are no problems with the truth of them since they in no way conflict with the rest of the NT.
But they do help confirm unbelievers in their unbelief. . .and that's not a coincidence.
That's pretty lame. . .

I give up smokdot, you will never admit that you might be mistaken. One can not discuss anything with you because you are always, as far as you are concerned, right. Go back a copy and past in:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ticus-seedbed-nt-theology-23.html#post2350849

 

[smokydot]

smokydot
Yes, I know that Paul is, most probably, not the author of Hebrews. The ascription is purely in conformity with tradition when I make it - old habits die hard and traditions are not bad in themselves.
1) So, Hebrews speaks of the passing of the sacrifice for sin only. Do you acknowledge that?

I do not. . .the NT letter to the Hebrews reveals that the law has been set aside because its basis, the Levitical priesthood has been set aside (Heb 7:11-12).
That includes much, much more than the sacrifice for sin only.

2) You must know that there is a textual argument to be dealt with in 1Cor 9.20.

I am not qualified to make it; I think, neither are you.
So I will say that I accept the KJV based on vs 19 because, for a Jew, keeping the Law is a commandment of G-d and on vs 21 where Paul says, in contradiction to Griesbach's vs 20, that he was 'not without law ... but under law'
When Paul spoke to Jews (1Cor 9.20) he spoke 'to them that are under the law'.
In the next verse he says that when he spoke to Gentiles he spoke 'as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ).
The Jews were 'under the law', Paul says of himself that he was 'under the law to Christ'.

Paul said he was under the law of Christ, as are all Christians, the first regulation of which is: salvation is by faith alone, and 'law-keeping' is only evidence of true faith, which is the means of free grace. Keeping Christ's law is the consequences of faith, it is not the cause. And Christ's law does not include the Levitical law, which the NT letter to the Hebrews reveals has been set aside.

How do you get from this that the law passed away, every jot and tittle of it?

I get there from Heb 7:11-12, 1 Co 9:20.

Let me say it again, except for the sacrifice for sin, a Jew is obliged to keep the law - as Paul and all the Apostles did.

That is my strong opinion and nothing you have said so far has even scratched its surface.

It's not my job to change your mind.

3) Read 1 Cor 9.20-21 again noting that Paul and the Jews to whom he spoke are both 'under the law', they are not 'without law' as are the Gentiles.

Show me in Hebrews where any aspect of the Law is said to have passed, other than the Aaroonic Priesthood and the sacrifice for sin.

I've done that.

And explain why a Gentile convert who had himself circumcised was 'compelled to live as a Jew' (Gal 2.14) Or how circumcision would (Acts 15.10) 'put a yoke upon the neck of the (Gentile) disciples' if they were not, thereby, obliged to keep the law.

So, finally, you admit that Paul and the Apostles kept the Law.

I spoke only of Paul. The NT does not report on the practice of the apostles. And Paul did so only when among Jews. He did not do so when among Gentiles,
where he spent most of his time. Law-keeping was not a matter of faith, or righteousness for Paul.

But you say that it was only kept for the purposes of evangelisation.

Why then were circumcised Gentiles burdened with the Law?

You misunderstand Gal 5, just as you misunderstand Ro 9.

When I said 'Your mistake is to assume that the Law is solely concerned with the Aaronic Priesthood and the sacrifices for sin.' that came out wrong. My apologies, it is not what I meant at all.

What I object to is the idea that the whole law passed away (for a Jew) with the passing of the Priesthood and Christ's one-time sacrifice.

Then you object to the letter to the Hebrews and to Paul.

At this point it would be helpful if a practicing Jew could explain how the Law adapted to the loss of the Temple. That is, the loss of the Priesthood, their services, and the Altar.

Which can be seen to be a similar case to the one that the Apostles faced.
As Hebrews 7.12 says 'For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change also of the law.'
A change in the law does not signify its consignment to the garbage heap of history.
And quite clearly Paul kept the feasts, undertook vows, purified himself, made offerings, kept the Sabbath all in accordance with, and obedience to, the Law.
And throughout his life he identified himself not merely as a Jew but as being a Pharisee, a Hebrew of the Hebrews.
Acts 20.6+16, Acts 18.18, Acts 21.26, Acts 24.17, Acts 16.13, Acts 17.2, Phil 3.5
Clearly your view of a Jew's relationship with the Law is at odds with Paul's behaviour.

Clearly you do not understand the issue with Paul.

Is it time to find another lab rat?
　

 

[free spirit]

No Free Spirit, you are mistaken. My faith is in God, Whom I am grateful to for having given us His Law. Read Psalm 119.



We are stil under the Law. Above the Law, only God is. Out of the Law are the criminals. There is no other option but to be under the Law, which are all law abide citizens.



No longer under the Law! Does it mean that now we are outlaws? That's bad! And when God said that, "Israel is My Son..." in Exodus 4:22,23, was it according to the Law? Who effected the change, Paul? He invented baptism and now we closed in Jesus? Nice strategy. Now, the Paulne rhetoric is we are all one but in Jesus, right? I wonder why I feel the smell of Replacement Theology here. So, now to be of the Abraham's offspring one must belong to Jesus? How that be what you say if the seal of the Abraham Covenant was the circumcision and Christians, who claim to follow Jesus have abolished the everlasting commandment given to Abraham by the Almighty Himself?

Well Ben you are a religious person your character has not changed sence you believed and put your faith in the law to perform them, and that is very well if you could keep all the requirements of the law.

On the other hand I was also a religious person observind the doctrine of a Christian denomination but sence I become a true Christian my character has changed I am no longer under the law or doctrine of any religion, because I have put on the holy character of Christ, now by his grace I am under the law of love, which is the fulfilment of the whole law.

Well, Disraeli once said that where faith begins, knowledge ends. And Hosea says that for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6) No wonder almost a thousand of the faithful of Jim Jones were poinsoned to death.

fraudulance has allways been a problem, gullible people has allways existed.

As you can see, laws are everywhere. I wonder why Christians abhor God's Law.

Christian do not abhor the law, because by his grace we are fulfilling it.

I was right when I was smelling the rat of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Read Galatians 4:21-31 That's the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology. They robbed us of our Jewish brother Jesus to make a Greek demigod out of him, and now also of our Theology.
They behave like the Jews for Baal of the time of Elijah: Waving before the Lord and Baal. In their indecision, Elijah took them down to the valley of Kidron and slashed the throats of 850 of the prophets of Baal. Lucky ones those of today that Elijah is no longer around.[/quote

]
Well Ben you are also gullible to to believe replacement theology through the new interpretation of the old testament.

 

[smokydot]

I give up smokdot, you will never admit that you might be mistaken. One can not discuss anything with you because you are always, as far as you are concerned, right. Go back a copy and past in:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ticus-seedbed-nt-theology-23.html#post2350849

I will never agree that the NT is wrong, any more than Jesus would agree that the OT is wrong. The Word of God is not wrong.