Jesus And The Law

[Ben Masada]

A distinction without a difference. . .and misleading.

"

The Way" referred to what were later called Christians. Paul was a member of the Way (Ac 24:14), the Lord's disciples were members of the Way (Ac 9:1-2),

the people of the Way were Paul's people (Ac 24:17).

In Acts 24:14 Paul was lying to Court in the hope to escape the charges he had been arrested for. In Acts 24:17 he continued with his lies to escape arrest. Israel was never his nation. His nation was Rome. He was never allowed to build a church in Israel. And for Acts 9:1,2, he himself confessed that he had gone to Damascus to arrest those who were living according to the way.

[quote}"The Way" was the way to be saved (Ac 16:17), the way of truth (2 Pe 2:2), the way of the Lord (Ac 18:25), the way of God (Ac 18:26), and those of the Way were eventually called Christian, beginning at Antioch (Ac 11:26).

How misguided you are for trying to deceive me. All the expressions above about followed by the word "way" have nothing to do with "The New Way" called the Sect of the Nazarenes. Nice try though. That is so lame. . .

Were they of the line of David?

Did they come to pour out their blood, and die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28; Jn 10:11)?

Who knows? They could have been. Now, Jesus, for sure was not. You have denied him Joseph, a Jewish father fom the line of David, and rather have exposed him to be a son of Pantera, who wasn't even Jewish. You have made of Jesus a Jew without a Tribe.

No, their blood did not count.

But of course! Tell me something I don't know. Replacement Theology is back.

Well, all those bulls and goats, lambs, pigeons and doves up at the Temple were sacrificed and died for the iniquity of the one who offered

them.

You don't know the ABC's about Jewish sacrifices.

Substitutionary

atonement began with the God of the Jews. . .as a prefigure of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus the Christ.

According to whom, to you or to Paul? To me both are the same.

The place of no return in Job 10:21 is the grave (Job 7:9).

Finally, you learned something. That's right once one goes back to the dust of the grave, he will never return.

Jesus has already returned from the grave, on the third day after he was entombed. His enemies were unable to produce his body.

What for? He was not dead. Remember the 40 days he spent with his disciples eating and drinking just before the crucifixion? Then, he left Israel with Joseph of Arimathea and his wife Mary Magdalene.

And there is no law of God or man that keeps him from returning from heaven, just as he came from heaven the first time (Jn3:13, 6:38, 42, 62).

Well, you have waited 2000 years. Another 2000 years won't take too long.

Actually, Jesus said he came to die as a ransom for many. . .that would be only those who believe in him (Jn 3:18, 36).

Really! Did he indeed? So, why did he pray three times in the Gethsemane, asking God not to die on the cross? It doesn't look to me that he came to die for many or for all. In fact, John 3:18,36 says nothing about his dying for many. What are you trying to do again, to deceive me into believing in a myth?

 

[smokydot]

[/color]

How misguided you are for trying to deceive me. All the expressions above about followed by the word "way" have nothing to do with "The New Way"

And you know this how?

You say Paul repeatedly lied to the court. . .of course! . .how did I miss that?
I should have remembered that he was following Moses' example when Moses repeatedly lied to God. . .which is why his mediatorship of the covenant was stripped from him. . .well, at least Paul is in good company.

But of course! Tell me something I don't know.

Jesus died as substitionary atonement for the sin of those who believe in him.

You don't know the ABC's about Jewish sacrifices.

But the book of Leviticus does. . .see http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2355110-post262.html

once one goes back to the dust of the grave he will never return.

Ah, so you are a Sadducee. . .you don't believe in the resurrection.
Your fellow Jew, the Pharisee, disagrees with you.

 

[Ben Masada]

Yes in Romans chapter 7 Paul is describing how he was as a Jew, in other words how he was as a religious person but devoid of the Holy Spirit.

HAA, HAA. how convenient.

The true Israel were the Jews that believed and will believe togeter with the believing gentiles.

Jesus was the only one to be crucified with the willing consent of the high priest, the others were all crimonals.

He come to fulfill the law for us, therefore He died for us, so we can be reconcile to God.

But one, they were all criminals.

Those who reject him are many, therefore those have separate themselves from the all.

Judaism is a dead branch.

If Jesus and Paul are Semitic, how can it be considered antisemitic.

The descendants of Abraham are those with faith, of which Jesus is the foremost.

By His grace I judge, and my judgement is correct.

Yes the law was fulfilled on the cross and was replaced by his Holy character, in other words the Holy Spirit.

FS, sorry, but you are too anti-Jewish and a fine promoter of Replacement Theology. Regarding the rest, you don't even know how to handle your own NT. I advise you to study it a little better in order to be able to discuss it with me. Besides, you don't seem to be serious about anything you try to say.

 

[smokydot]

FS, sorry, but you are too anti-Jewish and a fine promoter of Replacement Theology.

The NT Letter to the Hebrews reveals Fulfillment Theology. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318469-post513.html

Regarding the rest, you don't even know how to handle your own NT.

Nor do you know how to handle the OT, particularly Leviticus. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2355110-post262.html

I advise you to study it a little better in order to be able to discuss it with me. Besides, you don't seem to be serious about anything you try to say.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Ben Masada]

And you know this how?

I have read your book.

You say Paul repeatedly lied to the court. . .of course! . .how did I miss that?

I should have remembered that he was following Moses' example when Moses repeatedly lied to God. . .which is why his mediatorship of the covenant was stripped from him. . .well, at least Paul is in good company.

Do you remember why Paul was arrested in the Temple? Because he was teaching against our people and the Law. True or not, that was the reason. (Acts 21:28) When he was taken to Court, he said that it was because of his hope in the resurrection. As you know, that was not the reason. So, he was a liar.

Jesus died as substitionary atonement for the sin of those who believe in him.

Jesus died against his will. He prayed three times not to die on the cross. When he realized he was wasting his time, he said, "Be thy will done and not mine." Wow! what was his will then? Not too hard to figure. He didn't want to diie for nobody. The poor fella was forced to take the cross on political charges of being proclaimed king of the Jews by some jerks who were following him. That's what Pilate wrote on that plate and nailed on the top of his cross.

Ah, so you are a Sadducee. . .you don't believe in the resurrection.

Your fellow Jew, the Pharisee, disagrees with you.

Another lie of Paul's. The Pharisees were too intelligent to believe in bodily resurrection. We believe in a metaphorical resurrection accoding to Ezekiel 37:12. Resurrection from the graves of exile and return to the Land of Israel. That's the Jewish resurrection we believe in, and that does not go against the Scriptures nor against natural laws.

 

[Ben Masada]

The NT Letter to the Hebrews reveals Fulfillment Theology. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2318469-post513.html
Nor do you know how to handle the OT, particularly Leviticus. See http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2355110-post262.html
Physician, heal thyself.

You don't seem to be able to help your friend either.

 

[smokydot]

You don't seem to be able to help your friend either.

That's antichristian. . .and a lousy attempt to earn brownie points.

 

[Hawkins]

As regards to the Law. in the last couple of centuries and perhaps more, Jews have been liberating themselves from the Law. mainstream Jewish culture lives by political interests and healthy common logic. while still firmly holding to a Jewish identity and heritage, and manifesting this identity in a way which is relevant to the time.

So it means that both Jesus and Paul are right about the Jews even 2000 years ago. Paul said that it is because the Jews can no longer keep the Law given to them that the New Covenant is in place.

 

[free spirit]

FS, sorry, but you are too anti-Jewish and a fine promoter of Replacement Theology. Regarding the rest, you don't even know how to handle your own NT. I advise you to study it a little better in order to be able to discuss it with me. Besides, you don't seem to be serious about anything you try to say.

You should repent, for it is the key to begin to understand Christ the Lord and your place in God. Proverbs 9:10, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy one is understanding."

 

[Hawkins]

About Jesus and Paul,

Acts 22:
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.

14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’



So by your definition (which is actually not important), is it a "face to face" communication?

 

[smokydot]

So it means that both Jesus and Paul are right about the Jews even 2000 years ago. Paul said that it is because the Jews can no longer keep the Law given to them that the New Covenant is in place.

That's not quite what Paul said.

The NT reveals that the Law (ceremonial, not moral) is no longer in place because its basis, the Levitical priesthood, has been set aside. (Heb 7:11-12)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's as much a "face-to-face" communcation as Moses had (Lev 1:1) when God revealed to him what was to be done.

That's a heck of a leap.

 

[smokydot]

That's a heck of a leap.

:bow: :bow:

 

[smokydot]

About Jesus and Paul,

Acts 22:
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.

14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
So by your definition (which is actually not important), is it a "face to face" communication?

It's as much a "face-to-face" communcation as Moses had (Lev 1:1) when God revealed to him what was to be done.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's as much a "face-to-face" communcation as Moses had (Lev 1:1) when God revealed to him what was to be done.

Moving posts again.

I'm sure you'll leap-frog over this post as well, but consider this: can you think of a time in the NT where God spoke to the disciples but did not appear face-to-face like God did with Moses?

And again in the texts that you're misinterpreting, God has spoken or will speak to Paul. Your "Word of God written" says something completely different from how you are interpreting it - not only are you saying that this is the same as God appearing face-to-face, it's face-to-face like Moses.

And do you remember what happened to Moses after he was in the presence of God? He had to wear a veil for the rest of his life. Did Paul have to do this? If it were the same experience, he would have experienced the same outcome.

 

[smokydot]

Moving posts again.

I'm sure you'll leap-frog over this post as well, but consider this: can you think of a time in the NT where God spoke to the disciples but did not appear face-to-face like God did with Moses?

And again in the texts that you're misinterpreting, God has spoken or will speak to Paul. Your "Word of God written" says something completely different from how you are interpreting it - not only are you saying that this is the same as God appearing face-to-face, it's face-to-face like Moses.

And do you remember what happened to Moses after he was in the presence of God? He had to wear a veil for the rest of his life. Did Paul have to do this? If it were the same experience, he would have experienced the same outcome.

Obviously, you didn't read Lev 1:1 (See Ex 25:22). . .trying checking out the Scriptures before postulation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously, you didn't read Lev 1:1 (See Ex 25:22). . .trying checking out the Scriptures before postulation.

Before postulation?!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously, you didn't read Lev 1:1 (See Ex 25:22). . .trying checking out the Scriptures before postulation.

Postulate this: did the events of Exodus 34 occur before or after Lev 1.1?

(he was already wearing the veil!)

Before you assume I didn't read something, do some reading yourself. I realize that thinking is a challenge, I believe that you can do something as basic as this.

 

[smokydot]

Before postulation?!

:bow: :bow:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*pees*