Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
These were animal sacrifices…not money. The treasury is where money was given.
-
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!
Paul declares the God of Israel dead!
- Thread starter Simplelogic
- Start date
These were animal sacrifices…not money. The treasury is where money was given.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Swing and a miss. You have failed to address Paul's argument. Paul states that there are three different individuals involved to make this logic work:
First- (them that know the Law) Jews/Israel = The wife
Second- God of the Law =first husband (If this husband dies the law becomes void)
Third- Jesus (without law) =second husband (clearly states that the woman will be married to another husband…not the first one she had.)
Paul is clearly saying that the God of Israel died. Now that He has died, the Jews are free to remarry ANOTHER HUSBAND. One without the Torah. This verse is speaking about the Jewish people being freed from the God of Israel. Paul then carries this point on to make it applicable to gentiles. He believes that since God Himself died, should we not also die to become attached to Jesus (without law).
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Notice how it says ye "also" have become dead??? The also is referring to the God of the Jews who died. He is saying that since God died, shouldn't you also die so that you can be attached to Jesus (without law).
Who gave Paul the authority to declare the laws given to the prophets was now dead? Paul was a Jew a Pharisee who strictly kept the laws and persecuted the early Hellenic Christian Jews for breaking Jewish law by adopting a new creed. This was before his conversion.
It appears after his conversion he turned very liberal and was in disagreement with the other apostles. Where Jesus said. I did not come to change the laws of the prophets, but to fulfill them.
Paul said Jesus had fulfilled the laws and therefore it was no longer necessary to follow them after accepting Jesus.
Today, Gentiles converts to Christianity do not follow the prophets laws, they are exempt from it thanks to Paul. But who gave Paul the authority to abolish the law? Was it changed to make it easier for Gentiles to convert without becoming Jewish?
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Ingledsva, post
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
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.
No dead God of Israel anywhere in this text!
*[/QUOTE]
You just got finished saying that Paul was not talking about God dying but the Torah itself. So are we really supposed to believe that in verses 1-6 Paul is teaching on why the Law is DEAD (which you argued for), but in verses 7-25 he teaches it is valid again!!!??? This is classic Pauline schizophrenia which has puzzled countless scholars and theologians. Many try to use the same argument as you and say that Paul upheld the Law of Moses because of verses like this. This is intellectual suicide at its best.
Paul had a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF LAW. Whenever Paul mentions the law in a positive way (and there are few examples of this) he is referring to the mysterious "law of Christ". This law has nothing to do with the Law of Moses and it attempts to "spiritualize" every concept in the Torah.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
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.
No dead God of Israel anywhere in this text!
*[/QUOTE]
You just got finished saying that Paul was not talking about God dying but the Torah itself. So are we really supposed to believe that in verses 1-6 Paul is teaching on why the Law is DEAD (which you argued for), but in verses 7-25 he teaches it is valid again!!!??? This is classic Pauline schizophrenia which has puzzled countless scholars and theologians. Many try to use the same argument as you and say that Paul upheld the Law of Moses because of verses like this. This is intellectual suicide at its best.
Paul had a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF LAW. Whenever Paul mentions the law in a positive way (and there are few examples of this) he is referring to the mysterious "law of Christ". This law has nothing to do with the Law of Moses and it attempts to "spiritualize" every concept in the Torah.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Many argue that Paul was making it easier for Gentiles but this was not the case. Paul is making the argument in Romans 7 that Jews and Gentiles are no longer under the Law of Moses.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear Harikrish…I don't agree with Paul at all.
outhouse
Atheistically
If you were right, and I doubt it.
It would be in context that Hellenistic Jews were no longer under the Law of Moses, as they had been perverting Judaism fro a long time
rrosskopf
LDS High Priest
Torah should be read as covenant. The covenant of the law is being replaced with the covenant of the gospel. It is likened to marriage, which is also a covenant. The covenant of the law was fulfilled in Christ, so a new covenant was needed. Only through covenant can anyone receive salvation. In Christianity, that covenant is baptism. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper renews that covenant. By binding ourselves in a covenant with God, as witnessed by proper priesthood authority, we become members of his kingdom.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Except Jesus says that the "old covenant" with its laws and ordinances will be in place "until heaven and earth pass away". Which contradicts your statement of Jesus establishing a different one.
Also, the whole "new" covenant concept was born out of Jeremiah 31. But look at what Jeremiah says about that covenant:
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law (Torah) in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; Jer 31: 31-33
Notice that this covenant was NOT made with gentiles but with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah". Christians are wrong. Also notice how YHVH says that the TORAH (law of Moses) will be written on the hearts of men. They won't be replaced by a different covenant and a different set of instructions.
Salek Atesh
Active Member
The quote seems to me to be saying that the Law (Torah) is dead and supplanted with the new Law (Gospel). Which is something as a Baha'i I can agree with (at the time of its writing). Our Scriptures speak of this elsewhere as well, teaching that the current "Living" Law is the Kitab-i-Aqdas which replaced the Law of the Bayan which replaced the Law of the Quran which replaced the Law of the Gospel. The "Death" of the old Law and the "Birth" of the New is part of our view of religious history, each Law for its own Age.
Why assume Jeremiah has any more authority then Paul. Not saying you can't just why? Don't know either one personally.
Actually just want to point out that Paul addresses this in Hebrews 8 & 9. Though seems a matter of personal preference to me whether NT or OT authors have any authority.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
This is a valid question and I understand your perspective. I won't attempt to prove to you why you should believe this or that. I will explain how I determine such things and the logic I use.
The Torah (first 5 books) is the center of belief for me. I believe it was given by God Himself and the statutes are perfect and unchanging. Every other prophet or piece of literature which was added after the Torah had two primary requirements if it was to be considered "authoritative". The prophet had to agree with the Torah and could not add to it or subtract from it. (Deut 12:32, Deut 4:2). The secondary test is that when a man says the words "thus says the Lord", and it comes to pass, he can then be considered a valid prophet AS LONG as he doesn't add to or take away from the Torah!
So now, with that framework, lets look at the prophet Jeremiah and compare him to Paul.
Jeremiah- Taught all Israel to return to the Torah his whole life. He also declared numerous prophecies that actually came to pass. This gives him authority in my view according to the words of the Torah.
Paul- Taught against much of the Law of Moses which disqualifies him from being considered a valid mouth piece. Nor did he ever make a valid prophecy to establish His credibility. Even though Paul claimed many "miracles", God tells us not to follow any miracle worker who teaches against the commandments of God. Paul does claim to have met Jesus, but their were no corroborating witnesses to establish this as fact. Not to mention the fact that Jesus said that "every eye will see him" when he returns. He also warns against listening to claim they "met Jesus out in the desert" which is exactly where Paul claims he had this vision.
There is also another factor to consider. Jesus himself talked about the New covenant, yet Jesus taught the same concept as Jeremiah. He believed the New Covenant wouldn't be a replacement of the "Old" but a "RENEWED" covenant with the same laws and statutes. This is why Jesus said this:
17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5: 17-19
Jesus taught the New covenant concept multiple times while on earth, yet he still believed that the Law of Moses would still be in effect "until heave and earth pass away". This means that Jesus and Jeremiah were in complete agreement on this issue and further validates the words of Jeremiah while at the same time exposing the concept of Paul. A covenant which REPLACES the "old" one minus the laws and statutes.
I hope this long explanation helps you at least see my perspective a bit better.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Anyone?
roger1440
I do stuff
What is the fulfillment of the Law?
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
I think he means the typical Christian meaning of fulfillment, which is really abolishment. Ironically this is completely opposite of what Yeshua said. I am going to go through Matt 5: 17-19 verse by verse to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Yeshua believed the Torah would continue:
17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
The word abolish is being contrasted by the word fulfill which means that the word fulfill is the opposite of abolish! When you look up the greek for fulfill, which is pleroo, you will find that this word means to fill up or to fully keep. Its mind boggling the way Christians dance around this very direct statement concerning Torah observance. Moving on:
18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Once again, the Christians claim that the phrase "all is accomplished" is referring to Yeshua's death. Putting aside the fact that it is ludicrous to suggest that Yeshua was merely suggesting obedience to the law was only necessary until his death, which would have been less than a year away! Is it not glaringly obvious that "all is accomplished" is related to the previous phrase "until heaven and earth pass away"?? I mean come on! Can we please stop with the bend-over-backwards apologetics and just admit that Yeshua believed that the WHOLE law of Moses would be valid until "heaven and earth" pass?
19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Yeshua could not be any clearer on his stance regarding the law of Moses! Once again, why would Yeshua make such a bold statement regarding mans need to keep it if it was only going to be around for ONE MORE YEAR! It is obvious to me that many are unable to accept the clear and simple reading of Matt 5. The church's love affair with Paul's law abolishing doctrines has thrown a serious monkey wrench into these beautiful and simple verses which mandate Law observance. As long as people read Yeshua's words through a Pauline lens they will never be able to see the true messiah of Israel. They will continue to water down the words of our messiah and king in order to make room for Paul's convoluted concepts. Hopefully someday people will stop robbing Jesus to pay Paul.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
Matthew 5:17-20 - Fulfilling the Law; Fulfilling the Prophets.
Yes there is a contrast between destroy(annul) and fulfill. And this can be likened to breaking and keeping a promise. However, both when you break and when you keep a promise, in both cases the contract ends. Only with the breaking, one's 'yes' becomes 'no,' and with the fulfilling one's 'yes' becomes 'yes.' After writing about how his intention to visit the Corinthians was thwarted even though he did not take his promise lightly, Paul assured the Corinthian congregation that "for no matter how many the promises of God are, they have become 'yes' by means of [Jesus]. Therefore, also through him is the 'Amen' said to God, which brings him glory through us." - 2 Corinthians 1:20
Jesus made it clear that now John the Baptizer finished preparing the way for Jesus that the time for fulfilling both the Law and the Prophets had arrived.
"The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled. - Luke 16:16,17
How was this true in the case of the Prophets? Here is one example:
"So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found that place where it was written: 'Jehovah's spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, to preach Jehovah's acceptable year.' (Isa 61:1,2) With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all the synagogue were intently fixed on him. Then he began to say to them: 'Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled." - Luke 4:17-21
Yes, now that the King designate was in their midst, and as he was bringing refreshment both physical and primarily spiritually he was fulfilling, or satisfying, the conditions of that promise.
Now that Matthew 5:17,18 has been covered. What of the rest of the passage? Here it is in full review:
"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter of one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens." - Matthew 5:17-20
Those that keep the Law and taught others to keep it as long as it was in force (not the hypocritically righteous), were the type of people that Jesus was willing to make a new covenant with at the end of his ministry, thus fulfilling the promise of Exodus 19:5,6. He did this on the night before his death. (Jer 31:31-34; Mt 26: 27,28; Mr 14:22-24; Lu 22:20; 1Co 11:25; Heb 8:8-12; Re 20:6)
"Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property (or "treasured possession.") out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." - Exodus 19:5,6a
Yes, had enough of the Jews in Jesus' day been faithful in keeping the Law as it was intended - being led to recognize and honor the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 - all those that could have entered into that new covenent would have also been from those under Law. They would have completely filled the ranks of secondary kings and priests under Christ in God's Kingdom. No need would there have been to graft in those 'not my people,' to become 'my people' so as to fill the ranks. (Hosea 1:10)
Yes there is a contrast between destroy(annul) and fulfill. And this can be likened to breaking and keeping a promise. However, both when you break and when you keep a promise, in both cases the contract ends. Only with the breaking, one's 'yes' becomes 'no,' and with the fulfilling one's 'yes' becomes 'yes.' After writing about how his intention to visit the Corinthians was thwarted even though he did not take his promise lightly, Paul assured the Corinthian congregation that "for no matter how many the promises of God are, they have become 'yes' by means of [Jesus]. Therefore, also through him is the 'Amen' said to God, which brings him glory through us." - 2 Corinthians 1:20
Jesus made it clear that now John the Baptizer finished preparing the way for Jesus that the time for fulfilling both the Law and the Prophets had arrived.
"The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled. - Luke 16:16,17
How was this true in the case of the Prophets? Here is one example:
"So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found that place where it was written: 'Jehovah's spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, to preach Jehovah's acceptable year.' (Isa 61:1,2) With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all the synagogue were intently fixed on him. Then he began to say to them: 'Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled." - Luke 4:17-21
Yes, now that the King designate was in their midst, and as he was bringing refreshment both physical and primarily spiritually he was fulfilling, or satisfying, the conditions of that promise.
Now that Matthew 5:17,18 has been covered. What of the rest of the passage? Here it is in full review:
"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter of one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens." - Matthew 5:17-20
Those that keep the Law and taught others to keep it as long as it was in force (not the hypocritically righteous), were the type of people that Jesus was willing to make a new covenant with at the end of his ministry, thus fulfilling the promise of Exodus 19:5,6. He did this on the night before his death. (Jer 31:31-34; Mt 26: 27,28; Mr 14:22-24; Lu 22:20; 1Co 11:25; Heb 8:8-12; Re 20:6)
"Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property (or "treasured possession.") out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." - Exodus 19:5,6a
Yes, had enough of the Jews in Jesus' day been faithful in keeping the Law as it was intended - being led to recognize and honor the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 - all those that could have entered into that new covenent would have also been from those under Law. They would have completely filled the ranks of secondary kings and priests under Christ in God's Kingdom. No need would there have been to graft in those 'not my people,' to become 'my people' so as to fill the ranks. (Hosea 1:10)
Last edited:
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
All of God's covenants are conditional and require human participation. God probably realized that humans would continue to sin so He created a system of repentance/sacrifice in order to teach men how to follow Him. It was never an all or nothing system where one sin gets you thrown out. Rebellion is what removes someone from His covenants.
Luke 16:16,17- Don't you think you are reading a little to far into this. Especially considering the fact that Yeshua teaches the opposite in Matt 5 and throughout his ministry?
I don't follow the rest of your argument. Basically you believe that Yeshua kept the whole law of Moses…correct? Yet you believe He did it so we wouldn't have to, correct? So then you don't believe in actually doing what Yeshua did because he was operating under the law of Moses, yes?
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
We recently covered this in the first couple weeks of December as part of our weekly meetings at the Kingdom Hall. This is a copy of a box embedded in one of the two articles in the Oct 15, 2014 Study Ed of The Watchtower. Not all the covenants are conditional. Not going into detail into breaking these down by scripture, (anyone can still look up the articles online if they wish), two of these covenants with imperfect humans are not conditional. The Abrahamic and the Davidic. Those were legal contracts that bound Jehovah only once they became binding.
HOW GOD WILL ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSE
The Edenic promise points to the Kingdom as the means by which God’s original purpose for the earth and mankind will be fulfilled. The following six covenants advance the outworking of God’s purpose:
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
PARTIES: Jehovah and Abraham
PURPOSE: It forms a legal basis for the “offspring” of “the woman” of Genesis 3:15 to rule in the Kingdom
LAW COVENANT
PARTIES: Jehovah and natural Israel
PURPOSE: It protects the “offspring” and leads humans to the Messiah
DAVIDIC COVENANT
PARTIES: Jehovah and David
PURPOSE: It establishes that the Messianic King will come from David’s line and that what the Kingdom accomplishes will be everlasting
COVENANT FOR A PRIEST LIKE MELCHIZEDEK
PARTIES: Jehovah and Jesus
PURPOSE: It provides a legal arrangement for Jesus—the primary part of the woman’s “offspring”—to be king and priest forever
NEW COVENANT
PARTIES: Jehovah and spiritual Israel
PURPOSE: It provides a legal basis for 144,000 Christians to be adopted as sons of God and to form the secondary part of the “offspring”
KINGDOM COVENANT
PARTIES: Jesus and spiritual Israel
PURPOSE: It legally joins anointed Christians with Christ to rule as kings and serve as priests in heaven
outhouse
Atheistically
What your fail to understand is that Hellenistic Jews were not following the laws anyway.
But since when did you ever follow credible history ???
outhouse
Atheistically
Proselytize much?