Paul declares the God of Israel dead!

[dawny0826]

These were always the top two commands that every other law hinged upon. These two laws encapsula te the rest of the commands in the Torah. They don't "fulfill" them in the replacement sense.

Please provide scriptural reference within the Torah to support this statement.

 

[roger1440]

Please provide scriptural reference within the Torah to support this statement.

Deuteronomy 11

 

[roger1440]

The fulfillment of the law is to cleave to God.

 

[dawny0826]

Deuteronomy 11

Deuteronomy 11 does not describe love as ultimate fulfillment of the law.

It describes how through love and obedience, the believer is blessed by God.

 

[roger1440]

Deuteronomy 11 does not describe love as ultimate fulfillment of the law.

It describes how through love and obedience, the believer is blessed by God.

When one is blessed one is made holy. God is holy. When the Jews are holy they are attached to God. Love is attachment. Now we are back to cleaving to God. LOL

 

[roger1440]

Paul had tried to use contrived Jewish theology to convince the Jews to believe his spiel. When he failed he went to the Gentiles.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul’s Jesus is different than the Jesus of the Gospels. The Jesus of the Gospels is metaphors and allegory. Paul’s Jesus is a real Jewish dude. Well, so he believes or convinced himself.

O.k. we are entering speculative discussion here. The NT does give us the picture of a 'real' person. The usual arguments are about what is literal as opposed to what is metaphor, anyways, we don't need that imo for this discussion, luckily.

The New Covenant is a direct revelation of God. No longer will the Jews learn of God from a book or scroll. They will ALL know him. This can only happen when Israel unites with God. Then and only then will God be in the Jews presence. Jesus is that union, FIGURATIVELY.

Right..but this doesn't mean that Jesus isn't 'literal'.

 

[roger1440]

O.k. we are entering speculative discussion here. The NT does give us the picture of a 'real' person. The usual arguments are about what is literal as opposed to what is metaphor, anyways, we don't need that imo for this discussion, luckily.


Right..but this doesn't mean that Jesus isn't 'literal'.

Hate to break it to you but hot Jewish chicks don’t get knocked up by God. It’s impossible to feed thousands of people with a few measly loaves of bread. But if Jesus actually turned water into wine, he is most definitely invited to my next party.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, that's not what I meant. I think we're on different wavelengths here, better to not derail the thread.

 

[Simplelogic]

So you have no problem with interpolating these interpretations into translations? It is completely irrelevant if two scholars think that Paul is referring to the Torah - he didn't write 'the Torah' inasmuch as we can discern from the text -- it's not even in the translation that you chose(!).

If Paul did write 'Torah', or even if some textual tradition preserved it, then there would be no dispute, no room for interpreting Paul any other way - Yes, he would be referring to the Torah because he uses the word. But he's using a word where there is a possibility -- and with Paul, a strong possibility that he could be referring to something else.

1) nomos can be a referring to the Torah, but also many other things

2) but the Torah always refers to the Torah unless there's a significant reason why it's not

3) Therefore, when you replace the translation 'law' with 'Torah,' you are artificially closing all other doors to the other plausible interpretations. If you preserve 'law' it can refer to Torah, if you prove it... but the proof is an interpretation, not in the text itself.

I think it's more than a little intellectually dishonest AND it displays a bit of insecurity in the argument when you must knowingly interpolate your interpretation into the text... especially when it's something this significant.

I would love to hear a Christian scholar who doesn't believe Paul was speaking of the Torah. I realize that you don't like my usage of the word Torah, in the text. You are a Greek student and you appreciate the text. My utilization of the word Torah is consistent with main stream Christianity's views on this passage. I'm not the problem here.

 

[Simplelogic]

What? That says nothing about the God of Israel being dead. What do you mean?

In fact it ends with -

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

*

Yes…it certainly does. You might want to scroll back through the threads. Paul is claiming that someone died on order for the Torah to become "fulfilled" He also claimed that this person that died was not Jesus.

I have already addressed Paul's pro law comments. Paul believed in the "law of Christ"..not the law of Moses.

 

[Simplelogic]

The New Covenant is a direct revelation of God. No longer will the Jews learn of God from a book or scroll. They will ALL know him. This can only happen when Israel unites with God. Then and only then will God be in the Jews presence. Jesus is that union, FIGURATIVELY.

I disagree. The New Covenant has not happened yet for one simple reason:

34“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, Jeremiah 31:34

This has not happened yet.

 

[Simplelogic]

Paul’s Jesus is different than the Jesus of the Gospels. The Jesus of the Gospels is metaphors and allegory. Paul’s Jesus is a real Jewish dude. Well, so he believes or convinced himself.

What are you talking about??? Where does Paul even quote Jesus' words?

 

[Simplelogic]

Deuteronomy 11 does not describe love as ultimate fulfillment of the law.

It describes how through love and obedience, the believer is blessed by God.

Sorry..here you go:

"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Deut 6:5

 

[Simplelogic]

Deuteronomy 11 does not describe love as ultimate fulfillment of the law.

It describes how through love and obedience, the believer is blessed by God.

Love was always the centerpiece of the Law. I think your notion of fulfill is where we are parting ways.

 

[dawny0826]

Love was always the centerpiece of the Law. I think your notion of fulfill is where we are parting ways.

Sure. From the perspective that when we Love God, we're inclined to abide by his law and commandments. Clearly, there were men and women who did Love God with all their hearts and were blessed and favored because of their love and obedience.

There is significant difference between fulfillment of law through love when comparing Torah to NT teachings. .

Moses could not live in Love alone and steer from established Jewish law. It wasn't enough, particularly in regards to atonement. The punishment for disobedience was often death throughout Torah teachings, by the command of God. Though this has changed, atonement greatly differs between Judaism & Christianity.

 

[dawny0826]

When one is blessed one is made holy. God is holy. When the Jews are holy they are attached to God. Love is attachment. Now we are back to cleaving to God. LOL

Love as it involves atonement differents greatly between Torah & the biblical gospels. Do you argue this?

 

[Simplelogic]

There is significant difference between fulfillment of law through love when comparing Torah to NT teachings. .

Moses could not live in Love alone and steer from established Jewish law. It wasn't enough, particularly in regards to atonement. The punishment for disobedience was often death throughout Torah teachings, by the command of God. Though this has changed, atonement greatly differs between Judaism & Christianity.

We see this a little differently. I don't believe one thing changed from "Torah to NT". But I do not regard 80% of the NT personally. What I mean is, Yeshua taught the same concept of Torah obedience. He reiterates this concept over and over with each teaching and parable. They are all about turning from evil and doing YHVH's commandments with your heart! The same way Israel was commanded to from the beginning.

I do agree that Christianity teaches a different concept. However, I am willing to debate that this is ONLY because of people putting Pauline teachings above those of Yeshua. I also believe that Christianity has never recovered from this and continues to read Yeshua's words through Paul's lens.

 

[Simplelogic]

Love as it involves atonement differents greatly between Torah & the biblical gospels. Do you argue this?

Yes. I argue this.

 

[dawny0826]

Yes. I argue this.

Please provide NT scripture to refute.