The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[Ben Avraham]

Interesting, your OPINIONS are dog dropping's without evidence. Where is your EVIDENCE that Paul was a hellenist ?Your "logic" is just your method of thinking, nothing more. So, your method of thinking leads you to make statements as facts, facts without evidence, based upon the convolutions of your mind, dog droppings. Actually, Paul was the ultimate Jew, a Jew not captured by religious arrogance and parochialism, a Jew who knew that the Messiah had come for the world, a Jew totally in harmony with God., Your statement re the law show's your inability to grasp the fundamentals of Christianity. re the law........ Christ made it absolutely clear that Judaism and it's followers did not and could not keep the law. He also called a Gentile Roman Centurion who did not and could not keep the law as having greater faith than any man in Judea. He said, " you shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH will set you free". You choose to carry the burden of the law, it is your choice. You choose to work your way into God;s good graces, that is your choice. You choose not to be free, that is your choice. You are of the people that God has declared favored and blessed, I haven't a clue how he will ultimately deal with you after you have rejected the Messiah, but I do know he keeps his promises, to you, to me, to all. Hmmmm, I have hurt your heart feelings ??? By pointing out your the lack of evidence for your bizarre conclusions ?

And you show zero knowledge of Hellenistic culture in every letter that Paul wrote and, especially his Hellenistic former disciples. You can read the NT more than several times and you will not identify Hellenism as the basis of it. That's the problem with people under the control of Christian preconceived notions. Since you cannot see Hellenism in the NT how about opening the Catholic Encyclopedia and read the chapter on the NT? Perhaps you'll be able to find out Paul as a Hellenist. But if you have the chance to handle a version of the New American Bible, Christianity is defined in the dictionary at the end as a Hellenistic religion.
Myself, I don't need to go for extra-Biblical literature to see how Hellenistic was Paul. I can see it from reading the NT. That's a shame that a Jew has to make you understand your own Bible.

 

[MountainPine]

You want to continue under the old covenant made with Israel, and struggle and fail to not sin, and if you say you don't sin, there is no truth in you.

Obviously, you didn't read the OP. There you go, taking 1 John 1:8 out of context. Did you ever read 1 john 3:4-9?

I have already quoted Pauls words regarding meat, and it is obvious that he wasn't concerned about methods of butchering, nor your precious vegetarianism, he had important things to deal with.

Paul was a vegetarian himself.

"It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, nor to do whatever by which your brother stumbles." Romans 14:21

"Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I am never again going to eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." 1 Corinthians 8:13

The speech in the last verse (v. 13) is not confined to the subject of food offered to idols, but is more abundant. He is not saying, "I will not eat food offered to idols," he is saying, "I will not eat meat because it offends my brother." This indicates that Paul was a vegetarian.

I have already given my explanations on Romans 14 and 1 Corinthian 8 (the whole chapters) already in this thread (post #30)

They, like you, are bound by a system that has passed away, and neither they nor you can grasp the Gospel, Grace, Faith and sanctification.

Only the Levitical sacrificial system has passed away, but not the Law of God. Guarding the commands encompasses more than just the "10 Commandments," but all the laws regarding morals and statutes. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is not one of the 10 Commandments but still applies.

Faith is defined as expecting that God will do as he promised in return for our full obedience. (see Hebrews 5:8-9) To be under Grace is to obey and to stop sinning (Romans 6:15).

I sin, as do you, but your sin's are compounded by ignorance, you don't even know which law you are to keep. I bet you keep the sabbath too, right ?

Really? LOL. If you're not going the read to OP, then don't bother commenting. You're wasting my time, and yours too.

You are right, the old covenant (law) was not to pass away till all was fulfilled, and it was fulfilled at the Cross

Wrong.

“For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens." Matthew 5

Heaven and Earth haven't passed away, so the Torah is still in effect. There isn't much difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, except that the Old was written in stone and the New was written in our hearts, but both have the same principles. (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 11:27, Hebrews 8:10).

 

[shmogie]

Obviously, you didn't read the OP. There you go, taking 1 John 1:8 out of context. Did you ever read 1 john 3:4-9?



Paul was a vegetarian himself.

"It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, nor to do whatever by which your brother stumbles." Romans 14:21

"Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I am never again going to eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." 1 Corinthians 8:13

The speech in the last verse (v. 13) is not confined to the subject of food offered to idols, but is more abundant. He is not saying, "I will not eat food offered to idols," he is saying, "I will not eat meat because it offends my brother." This indicates that Paul was a vegetarian.

I have already given my explanations on Romans 14 and 1 Corinthian 8 (the whole chapters) already in this thread (post #30)
I see, to you Paul isn't an Apostle, nor are his teachings relevant, because you don't understand the new Covenant. Wrong re v. 13 again, another misquote on your part., Let's see what he actually says " Therefore IF ( IF, If, IF, if) food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat again" You left out IF , he is speaking of a hypothetical situation, and what he was prepared to do IF it was required. You contend that meat is never equated with food in the Bible. Really ? Read what you happily ignored, Paul says meat is food. If FOOD makes my brother stumble FOOD then I will never eat meat again. If meat isn't food, how could the brother be offended by food if Paul eats meat ? Nonsense, it is clear, meat is food. You have absolutely NO Biblical evidence that Paul was a vegetarian, certainly Christ was not. He BLESSED fish, and multiplied it as food to feed the multitude. You are so dead wrong on this issue, I won't further discuss it with you, it is like debating a wiccan who believes rocks have spirits, if you think what you eat justifies you before God, then eat what you choose. How do you know that only the Levitical sacrificial system has passed away ? Prove it. You dodged the issue on the law. I asked you if you put menstruating women away as unclean, that isn't part of the sacrificial system, so I am sure you see that this is done, right ? I am sure you keep ALL of the law, right ? I asked if you keep the sabbath, you didn't respond, why ? That is right there in the big ten. You misrepresent faith, Faith isn't believing that God will save you because you are righteous ( "full obedience") that isn't Grace, that isn't the new Covenant. Grace is UNMERITED favor, you deny GRACE, and stand on your own works, you apparently are Not a Christian, but a hybrid. Even IF you could keep the 515 or so commands of the law, you still are a vile sinner. No doubt you reject the Reformation concept of depravity. You believe that sin is just an act, and if you avoid the act, you are a real good guy, WRONG ! You were born a sinner, in your flesh, your flesh is corrupt regardless of what you do, you are repugnant to God. The first Adam that made the bad choice had no corrupted by sin flesh, you do. The second Adam had no corrupted by sin nature, you do. There is nothing you can do to earn salvation. You and your efforts at being good are doomed for your salvation. There is only one whose efforts and sinlessness accounts for your salvation in your place. You no doubt reject this. Therefore you reject Christianity.


Only the Levitical sacrificial system has passed away, but not the Law of God. Guarding the commands encompasses more than just the "10 Commandments," but all the laws regarding morals and statutes. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is not one of the 10 Commandments but still applies.

Faith is defined as expecting that God will do as he promised in return for our full obedience. (see Hebrews 5:8-9) To be under Grace is to obey and to stop sinning (Romans 6:15).



Really? LOL. If you're not going the read to OP, then don't bother commenting. You're wasting my time, and yours too.



Wrong.

“For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens." Matthew 5
So the Torah is the standard, really ? In Matt. 5 The Christ modifies and changes the Torah. The Torah says adultery is an act, Christ says it is a thought, which is it ? He changed other aspects of the Torah, like divorce, who is right, the Torah. or Christ ? Matt. 5 :17 "Do not think that I HAVE COME to destroy the law or the Prohpets, I came not to destroy, but to fulfill" What does fulfill mean ? To complete. He didn't say that the fulfillment would come at the end of time, he said HE CAME TO FULFILL. Changing the law, to the law of Christ, proves that fulfillment. The old covenant law is irrelevant, there is a New Covenant, a new law, you just can't see it
Heaven and Earth haven't passed away, so the Torah is still in effect. There isn't much difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, except that the Old was written in stone and the New was written in our hearts, but both have the same principles. (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 11:27, Hebrews 8:10).

You totally bypassed your mis characterization of what Paul said, because it proved you wrong. Unfortunately, like many in my former Church, you haven't a clue as to what the Gospel means. You want to continue under the old covenant made with Israel, and struggle and fail to not sin, and if you say you don't sin, there is no truth in you. I have already quoted Pauls words regarding meat, and it is obvious that he wasn't concerned about methods of butchering, nor your precious vegetarianism, he had important things to deal with. So then, by your standard, Paul did not follow or teach followers to adhere to the food laws re meat. So, are you right and Paul is wrong ? Not hardly. You are right, the old covenant (law) was not to pass away till all was fulfilled, and it was fulfilled at the Cross. The law was given to Israel, not gentiles, and it was fulfilled within Judaism, with little effort to convert Gentiles, When Christ died. At his resurrection there was a new Covenant, called the law of Christ in the NT. There are numerous chapters in the NT on the failures of the OT law, it's fulfillment, and the new covenant, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews especially. Do you put the menstruating women in your household away and call them unclean ? That is what the law requires, and if you don't you have failed in the whole law, because to break one is to break all. If you decide to yoke yourself to the old covenant law, you better keep perfectly every command on every issue, you can't pick and choose. Christians like me don't take Paul's letters out of context, you did so, not I, to try and prove your erroneous conclusions. They, like you, are bound by a system that has passed away, and neither they nor you can grasp the Gospel, Grace, Faith and sanctification. No one that I know of believes Grace is a license to sin, that is claptrap. The result of ignorance of the Truth. I sin, as do you, but your sin's are compounded by ignorance, you don't even know which law you are to keep. I bet you keep the sabbath too, right ?

So, you don't believe Paul contradicted Moses, the Prophets or Jesus! Read Romans 10:4. Paul said that Jesus was the end of the Law when Jesus said in Mat. 5:17-19 that the Law would never pass away as long as heaven and earth existed. Did heaven and earth pass away? I don't think so. First contradiction of Jesus by Paul. Do you want a second one? In the same text of Mat. 5:17, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law. Then, later Paul showed up with a different gospel claiming that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephesians. 2:15) How about a third one? Jesus said that to escape hell-fire, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) Paul declared to their disciples that they had been released from the Law. (Romans 7:1-7) And mind you that he meant the Decalogue if you read verse 7 again. There are many more of those but, let me mention at least one against Moses. In the Diaspora, he was teaching the Jews to stop circumcising their children and abandon the customs of Moses. Can you see the size of the man's arrogance to tell the Jews to stop circumcising their own children! That will do for all the others.

[/QUOTE]

So, you don't believe Paul contradicted Moses, the Prophets or Jesus! Read Romans 10:4. Paul said that Jesus was the end of the Law when Jesus said in Mat. 5:17-19 that the Law would never pass away as long as heaven and earth existed. Did heaven and earth pass away? I don't think so. First contradiction of Jesus by Paul. Do you want a second one? In the same text of Mat. 5:17, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law. Then, later Paul showed up with a different gospel claiming that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephesians. 2:15) How about a third one? Jesus said that to escape hell-fire, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) Paul declared to their disciples that they had been released from the Law. (Romans 7:1-7) And mind you that he meant the Decalogue if you read verse 7 again. There are many more of those but, let me mention at least one against Moses. In the Diaspora, he was teaching the Jews to stop circumcising their children and abandon the customs of Moses. Can you see the size of the man's arrogance to tell the Jews to stop circumcising their own children! That will do for all the others.

[/QUOTE]

 

[shmogie]

And you show zero knowledge of Hellenistic culture in every letter that Paul wrote and, especially his Hellenistic former disciples. You can read the NT more than several times and you will not identify Hellenism as the basis of it. That's the problem with people under the control of Christian preconceived notions. Since you cannot see Hellenism in the NT how about opening the Catholic Encyclopedia and read the chapter on the NT? Perhaps you'll be able to find out Paul as a Hellenist. But if you have the chance to handle a version of the New American Bible, Christianity is defined in the dictionary at the end as a Hellenistic religion.
Myself, I don't need to go for extra-Biblical literature to see how Hellenistic was Paul. I can see it from reading the NT. That's a shame that a Jew has to make you understand your own Bible.

Please, I understand the Hellenized culture of Rome and to a greater or lesser extent the rest of the world. Appreciation of the arts, luxury, et.al. I asked you for proof of hellenized influence in what Paul wrote, you supply none. You just tell me how great a Jew (you) are at divining these alleged statements, and condemn me ( a Gentile Christian) for not having your deep knowledge and understanding. You point to the Catholic encyclopedia, I am not a Catholic, their theology and commentary is steeped in error, they are no authority to me. Who cares about a commentary in the New American Bible ? Opinions are like rectum's, everyone has one. Post your proof from Paul's writings, and prove they are the result of hellenization, and not of the source Paul says they came from, or get out of the way and be quiet on this issue. You are no authority, your attempts to stand on spurious authorities is lame. Either do it by proof based upon exegesis, or prove your comments to be total and empty nonsense.

 

[metis]

...Hellenistic culture in every letter that Paul wrote and, especially his Hellenistic former disciples. .

And it clearly shows up in Paul's writing style that's obviously Greek influenced with his heavy use of dichotomy (good/bad, light/darkenss, etc.-- iow, no areas of gray).

 

[shmogie]

And it clearly shows up in Paul's writing style that's obviously Greek influenced with his heavy use of dichotomy (good/bad, light/darkenss, etc.-- iow, no areas of gray).

More nonsense with no proof or exegesis. Paul was highly educated, and Greek was the transnational language of the time. So, he used it, in the idiom Gentiles would grasp. This means nothing re hellenization, especially as relates to the Faith. Secular Jewish archaeologist's, have proven with hard evidence, beyond a doubt, that Jewish leaders in Jerusalem at the time of The Christ in homes that showed massive hellenistic influences. Does that mean that the later Talmudic tradition was the result of hellenization, or even that the law at the time was interpreted in a hellenistic fashion ?

 

[shmogie]

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
The Christ said he CAME to FULFILL the law, he did, at the Cross. He said that the law wouldn't change, and to you it hasn't, a law can exist, without any authority. He changed the law, you think not ? What did Moses say about divorce, or adultery ? Even your own Rabbi's changed the law of God with the Talmud. Christ had authority to change these, his law is different from what was written in the Torah. Torah law exists and you choose to be bound by it, the law of Christ exists, and that is what I follow. Paul was in perfect harmony with the Christ, who was in perfect harmony with God. You choose not to see it, thus as God described you, you are of the stiff necked people, That is between you and God. Don't blather nonsense about things you are incapable of understanding, and obviously don't. You do not seek to understand, you seek to condemn. God has clouded your mind because that is what you choose. True Christians understand fully, because through the Christ, the Spirit, and his Apostles we are given understanding. You are trying to read a treatise written in a language you don't understand, and in your ignorance of what is written, you make foolish statements to those who can read it.

 

[shmogie]

The
[/QUOTE]
The Christ said he CAME to FULFILL the law, he did, at the Cross. He said that the law wouldn't change, and to you it hasn't, a law can exist, without any authority. He changed the law, you think not ? What did Moses say about divorce, or adultery ? Even your own Rabbi's changed the law of God with the Talmud. Christ had authority to change these, his law is different from what was written in the Torah. Torah law exists and you choose to be bound by it, the law of Christ exists, and that is what I follow. Paul was in perfect harmony with the Christ, who was in perfect harmony with God. You choose not to see it, thus as God described you, you are of the stiff necked people, That is between you and God. Don't blather nonsense about things you are incapable of understanding, and obviously don't. You do not seek to understand, you seek to condemn. God has clouded your mind because that is what you choose. True Christians understand fully, because through the Christ, the Spirit, and his Apostles we are given understanding. You are trying to read a treatise written in a language you don't understand, and in your ignorance of what is written, you make foolish statements to those who can read it.[/QUOTE]
above is for Big Ben, and the hybrids

 

[viole]

The

The Christ said he CAME to FULFILL the law, he did, at the Cross. He said that the law wouldn't change, and to you it hasn't, a law can exist, without any authority. He changed the law, you think not ? What did Moses say about divorce, or adultery ? Even your own Rabbi's changed the law of God with the Talmud. Christ had authority to change these, his law is different from what was written in the Torah. Torah law exists and you choose to be bound by it, the law of Christ exists, and that is what I follow. Paul was in perfect harmony with the Christ, who was in perfect harmony with God. You choose not to see it, thus as God described you, you are of the stiff necked people, That is between you and God. Don't blather nonsense about things you are incapable of understanding, and obviously don't. You do not seek to understand, you seek to condemn. God has clouded your mind because that is what you choose. True Christians understand fully, because through the Christ, the Spirit, and his Apostles we are given understanding. You are trying to read a treatise written in a language you don't understand, and in your ignorance of what is written, you make foolish statements to those who can read it.

Well, if the Law did not change, that is a bad news for Christians who like shrimps.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Well, if the Law did not change, that is a bad news for Christians who like shrimps.

Ciao

- viole

Amen to that !

 

[MountainPine]

I see, to you Paul isn't an Apostle, nor are his teachings relevant, because you don't understand the new Covenant.

Whatever. I never inferred Paul wasn't an apostle anyway.

You have absolutely NO Biblical evidence that Paul was a vegetarian, certainly Christ was not. He BLESSED fish, and multiplied it as food to feed the multitude.

From thenazareneway.com:

"It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish."

You are so dead wrong on this issue, I won't further discuss it with you, it is like debating a wiccan who believes rocks have spirits,

Good. I'm tired of discussing things with someone who won't bother to read the OP.

How do you know that only the Levitical sacrificial system has passed away ? Prove it.

Is that a serious question? Are any Levitical priests around to receive offerings? The righteous don't need to makes sacrifices anyway. If you are not righteous, then you are not under grace.

You dodged the issue on the law. I asked you if you put menstruating women away as unclean, that isn't part of the sacrificial system, so I am sure you see that this is done, right ?

Yes I do. I live with my friend and his wife, and she sets herself apart when she is having her monthly cycle.

I asked if you keep the sabbath, you didn't respond, why ? That is right there in the big ten. You misrepresent faith,

Yes, I keep ALL the Sabbaths. I keep the weekly sabbath (Saturday), Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, etc. I didn't respond because I didn't feel is was relevant.

Faith isn't believing that God will save you because you are righteous ( "full obedience") that isn't Grace, that isn't the new Covenant.

Hebrews 5:8-9

You were born a sinner, in your flesh, your flesh is corrupt regardless of what you do, you are repugnant to God. The first Adam that made the bad choice had no corrupted by sin flesh, you do. The second Adam had no corrupted by sin nature, you do. There is nothing you can do to earn salvation. You and your efforts at being good are doomed for your salvation. There is only one whose efforts and sinlessness accounts for your salvation in your place.

Faith without works is dead. Salvation comes by faith, and faith = obedience. I most certainly was not born a sinner, and I have already refuted the doctrine of original sin. Again, read the OP. Stop wasting time with your allegations. Your cognitive dissonance is openly apparent now. You are heavily indoctrinated by doctrines of devils. If you think you can still sin while deceiving yourself into thinking it's in your nature to do so while simultaneously believing in Jesus will save you is laziness and irresponsible, not to mention evil. You are coveting a place in the Kingdom of Heaven if you aren't doing anything to earn it. Jesus told the whore in John 8 “go and sin no more” which applies to all those believing in him. He also said that the way to merit everlasting life is to guard to commands (Matthew 19:17) and to obey the Word (Luke 11:28). If can't obey that, then you can't call Jesus your Master. (Luke 6:46)

You no doubt reject this. Therefore you reject Christianity.

You're right, I most certainly reject original sin and prevenient grace. Christianity is not a Biblical religion.

 

[MountainPine]

Read Romans 10:4. Paul said that Jesus was the end of the Law

"End" should be taken to mean as "goal," not "cessation."

Then, later Paul showed up with a different gospel claiming that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephesians. 2:15)

In the passage from Ephesians, some versions say "Law", but regardless, "Torah" or "Law" should not be capitalized. This is referring to a law of dogma or ordinances, I.e. man's law, not the Law of God. For example, the Pharisees had their own law, which was their own tradition, later written and compiled into the Talmud. Where in the Old Testament or in the Gospels does it describe God's Law as "dogma"? Clearly Paul isn't talking about the Law of Moses.

Paul declared to their disciples that they had been released from the Law. (Romans 7:1-7)

Right. The message he was conveying here and in chapter 8 is that the law reveals sin and condemns the flesh. Those who live by the Spirit do not need the law because they are righteous. One who lives in the spirit fulfills the Law, but the one who lives by the flesh is the who sins. Only sinners are bound by the Law. When Paul said we are "free" from the Law, he didn't mean that we are free to break it, but are free from being condemned by it, because someone who lives in the spirit of the Law will not break the letter. But those who break the Law are lawless (Matthew 7:21-23).

In the Diaspora, he was teaching the Jews to stop circumcising their children and abandon the customs of Moses.

Ah, you must be referring to what he said in Galatians. Here is my response I said to someone else in another thread who quoted Galatians 3:10, Galatians 5:2-4, and Galatians 6:15.

...Paul backs up his argument by quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.” Obviously one who depends on the works of the Law is one who is going through the motions—those only concerned about circumcision, dietary restrictions, Sabbath/Feast observances, ritual sacrifices, etc. and ignoring the more important things like loving your neighbor as yourself, thou shall not kill, etc. Christ got onto the Pharisees about this, saying that they "ignore the weightier matters of the Law." (Matthew 23:23) and they "reject the commandments of God for their own tradition" (Mark 7:9). The Pharisees are an example of people who depend on the works of the Law, but those who obey the Law in full are the ones with the faith. Faith is defined as expecting that God will do as he promised in return for our full obedience. (see Hebrews 5:8-9) If you are circumcised but are disobedient, then your circumcision means nothing. Abraham was rewarded because he obeyed God, therefore the true covenant of Abraham is obedience. Circumcision is only an outward expression of it. If you consider the tone of language that Paul was using to write to the Galatians, you can tell that he was displeased with them and was telling them off for disobedience.

 

[shmogie]

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Whatever. I never inferred Paul wasn't an apostle anyway.


From thenazareneway.com:

"It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish."



Good. I'm tired of discussing things with someone who won't bother to read the OP.



Is that a serious question? Are any Levitical priests around to receive offerings? The righteous don't need to makes sacrifices anyway. If you are not righteous, then you are not under grace.



Yes I do. I live with my friend and his wife, and she sets herself apart when she is having her monthly cycle.



Yes, I keep ALL the Sabbaths. I keep the weekly sabbath (Saturday), Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, etc. I didn't respond because I didn't feel is was relevant.



Hebrews 5:8-9



Faith without works is dead. Salvation comes by faith, and faith = obedience. I most certainly was not born a sinner, and I have already refuted the doctrine of original sin. Again, read the OP. Stop wasting time with your allegations. Your cognitive dissonance is openly apparent now. You are heavily indoctrinated by doctrines of devils. If you think you can still sin while deceiving yourself into thinking it's in your nature to do so while simultaneously believing in Jesus will save you is laziness and irresponsible, not to mention evil. You are coveting a place in the Kingdom of Heaven if you aren't doing anything to earn it. Jesus told the whore in John 8 “go and sin no more” which applies to all those believing in him. He also said that the way to merit everlasting life is to guard to commands (Matthew 19:17) and to obey the Word (Luke 11:28). If can't obey that, then you can't call Jesus your Master. (Luke 6:46)



You're right, I most certainly reject original sin and prevenient grace. Christianity is not a Biblical religion.

So, you are not a Christian, this was obvious from the beginning, so glad you admitted it. Of course that begs the question, the same I have asked of my Jewish friends, why are you here ? This is a discussion regarding CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINE. What could you possibly contribute that a Believer would find of any value ? Certainly your posts to this point have been of zero value. You are a slave to a set of rules and laws that have been obsolete for 2,000 years. You actually believe that jumping through all these hoops will show you good in God's eyes, no, you certainly are not a Christian. Again, why are you here? Your purpose is to pridefully condemn what you can't possibly understand, and to promote and argue about your beliefs, and misquote the Christian Scriptures. You are a prevaricator, an agitator, and most likely lost, but that's between you and God. Just leave, you know nothing of the thread, you are ignorant of the doctrines, and Christian Scriptures, you really have no place here. Find a Jewish group and convince them that they must be vegetarians based upon your vast knowledge of the Old Testament. If they will have you, which I doubt

 

[MountainPine]

So, you are not a Christian, this was obvious from the beginning, so glad you admitted it.

I am not a traditional Christian. In other words I do not accept the ecumenical doctrines imposed by the Church, such as original sin, atonement, and prevenient grace like what is being discussed here. That doesn't mean I'm not a Christian in the true sense of the word.

You actually believe that jumping through all these hoops will show you good in God's eyes

I believe that obeying God will make me good in his eyes. How can that not be the case?

Just leave, you know nothing of the thread, you are ignorant of the doctrines, and Christian Scriptures, you really have no place here.

Actually I am very educated in the doctrines of the Church, that's why I've concluded they're all bull**** because I know the Church's teachings are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I am telling Christians what the Bible says so they'll open their eyes and learn what their churches have been teaching them are lies.

Find a Jewish group and convince them that they must be vegetarians based upon your vast knowledge of the Old Testament. If they will have you, which I doubt

I would, except that bringing up such topics that are controversial to many are not allowed in the DIR's. This is the perfect place for it. Before I made this thread, I asked the admins where to post this because I wasn't sure what the appropriate category was, and they told me to post it here. This is under 'Biblical Debates' so Jews as well as Christians are welcome here to discuss this topic. Just so you know, I'm not a Jew.

Anyway, you need to stop with the ad hominem attacks and grow up. Your tone of language reminds me of a Southern Baptist preacher.

 

[shmogie]

I am not a traditional Christian. In other words I do not accept the ecumenical doctrines imposed by the Church, such as original sin, atonement, and prevenient grace like what is being discussed here. That doesn't mean I'm not a Christian in the true sense of the word.



I believe that obeying God will make me good in his eyes. How can that not be the case?



Actually I am very educated in the doctrines of the Church, that's why I've concluded they're all bull**** because I know the Church's teachings are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I am telling Christians what the Bible says so they'll open their eyes and learn what their churches have been teaching them are lies.



I would, except that bringing up such topics that are controversial to many are not allowed in the DIR's. This is the perfect place for it. Before I made this thread, I asked the admins where to post this because I wasn't sure what the appropriate category was, and they told me to post it here. This is under 'Biblical Debates' so Jews as well as Christians are welcome here to discuss this topic. Just so you know, I'm not a Jew.

Anyway, you need to stop with the ad hominem attacks and grow up. Your tone of language reminds me of a Southern Baptist preacher.

You don't understand what an ad hominem attack is either, since you have used the method quite often in our exchange, apparently without recognizing it. So, we are back to you being a hybrid in your beliefs fish nor foul, Jew nor Christian. A picker and chooser,a person who totally rejects the very foundation of Christian theology, Christ's atonement for our personal sins, past present and future. Not understanding the doctrine, you have three times accused me of saying in one form or another, that I believe in a license to sin. The doctrine of the Atonement, nor Christs substitutionary keeping of the law in our place condones sin, nor have I said that, so where did that nonsense come from ? So YOU are bringing the "truth" to Christianity, are you a "special messenger" like Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, JIm Jones, all from hell. Or, are you simply more intelligent than the Apostles, or the Reformation thinkers Like, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, et.al. Please, you want to discuss the doctrines, fine, let's do that, I can destroy your form of faith from the Christian scriptures, quoting them properly, quite easily. If we do, get off your arrogant self congratulatory high horse, stop telling me what I believe, and learn. You might actually be able to release yourself from bondage.

 

[Desert Snake]

More nonsense with no proof or exegesis. Paul was highly educated, and Greek was the transnational language of the time. So, he used it, in the idiom Gentiles would grasp. This means nothing re hellenization, especially as relates to the Faith. Secular Jewish archaeologist's, have proven with hard evidence, beyond a doubt, that Jewish leaders in Jerusalem at the time of The Christ in homes that showed massive hellenistic influences. Does that mean that the later Talmudic tradition was the result of hellenization, or even that the law at the time was interpreted in a hellenistic fashion ?

There is nothing to indicate that the Talmud would necessarily not be affected by non-Jewish culture, so forth.
As I've stated elsewhere, an argument could be made that ''Christianity'' is more likely the older religious paradigm in the area, with it's form Deity, relational aspects between the pluralistic /non-literal plurality in this instance,,Godhood, and some other concepts. ''Christianity'',Jesus adherence, predates the Talmud, and 'Jesus', in Israel, predates ''Judaism', as it is known today.

 

[MountainPine]

Not understanding the doctrine, you have three times accused me of saying in one form or another, that I believe in a license to sin. The doctrine of the Atonement, nor Christs substitutionary keeping of the law in our place condones sin, nor have I said that, so where did that nonsense come from ?

I never said that you said that, I said that you believe it—all Christians do whether they know it or not. The Christians' way of thinking is that only Jesus (and Mary according to Catholics) was righteous and that nobody else was, can, or will ever be righteous (even though this contradicts the Bible's record of people like Noah, Daniel, and Job as being righteous (Ezekiel 14:14), and the numerous commands of Yahweh and Christ commanding us to be righteous like them, ex. Matthew 5:48), and that because we can't stop sinning God sent Jesus to die for our future sins. Even though Christians will never say they believe it's okay to sin because they're covered "by the blood of Jesus," they certainly make that openly apparent in their daily lifestyles and actions. No Christian I have met who believes in original sin makes an effort to be righteous and to live by the example Jesus set, which makes them hypocrites. And they justify their hypocrisy by quoting passages like Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8-10. Salvation doesn't come by accepting Christ's righteousness, but by APPLYING it. (John 1:12-13, John 17:11). The Atonement is only applicable to those who REPENT and cease to sin (John 8:11, Romans 6:1-11), which I've thoroughly made clear at the beginning of this thread.

If the Bible truly was the "Christian scriptures" then why don't Christians actually follow it? They surely preach from it according their own doctrinal bias, but they don't take it seriously. As Gandhi said "An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching."

Jesus adherence, predates the Talmud, and 'Jesus', in Israel, predates ''Judaism', as it is known today.

That's correct. Jesus was the high priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17) which predates Abraham (John 8:58).

 

[shmogie]

I never said that you said that, I said that you believe it—all Christians do whether they know it or not. The Christians' way of thinking is that only Jesus (and Mary according to Catholics) was righteous and that nobody else was, can, or will ever be righteous (even though this contradicts the Bible's record of people like Noah, Daniel, and Job as being righteous (Ezekiel 14:14), and the numerous commands of Yahweh and Christ commanding us to be righteous like them, ex. Matthew 5:48), and that because we can't stop sinning God sent Jesus to die for our future sins. Even though Christians will never say they believe it's okay to sin because they're covered "by the blood of Jesus," they certainly make that openly apparent in their daily lifestyles and actions. No Christian I have met who believes in original sin makes an effort to be righteous and to live by the example Jesus set, which makes them hypocrites. And they justify their hypocrisy by quoting passages like Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8-10. Salvation doesn't come by accepting Christ's righteousness, but by APPLYING it. (John 1:12-13, John 17:11). The Atonement is only applicable to those who REPENT and cease to sin (John 8:11, Romans 6:1-11), which I've thoroughly made clear at the beginning of this thread.
You don't know what I believe, you think you do. "Original sin" is a Roman Catholic term and Idea. Protestants refer to "depravity", the depravity of mankind. Adam was a sinless being created with the ability to coldly and logically make choices. He chose poorly, hence the fall. Everything in creation was changed by this event, you think humans were not ? We do not have the sinless nature of Adam, we have a propensity to sin, it is perfectly clear that the flesh is depraved (no longer perfect) and can never be this side of the grave. So all creation was effected, humans were effected by aging and diseased bodies, but you maintain that their minds were not ? You came from generations of physically depraved people who lived in a world totally corrupted by sin. Unlike Adam, who walked with God, who never knew sin, who lived in a perfect environment, you have lived with sin, and the influences of sin your whole life, murder, lying, terrorists, war, on and on it goes. you have committed sins unlike Adam before his fatal choice. but Like Adam, for you sin is just a choice ? Go back to your precious law, which was given at Sinai, and the sabbath which you say you keep, which BTW was given to Israel as a sign between THEY and God forever, you don't have to keep it, unless you are a Jew, Israel, unless you believe that God bumped you in to their place. Back to the law, Israel existed centuries before the law was given. The eight righteous people at the flood were righteous without the law, just as many others were. Look at the Israelites coming out of Egypt, when were they first terrified of God, when the law was given. What did they essentially demand from God ? Give us a whole set of rules and regulations about everything, we can do it ! Well, they didn't, they can't, and neither can you. You tell me, snidely, that you can't follow the law given by God to Moses re sacrifices because there isn't a temple, or a priest, so, you just shrug that part of the law off. How can you possibly do that ? You are BREAKING the law given by God. Interestingly, Christ saw when the Temple would be destroyed, when the lawful priesthood would be disbanded, when the veil of the temple in the Holy place would be ripped to everyone would have access to the holy place, without intercession by a priest. So, by claiming all you have to do is keep all the commandments of the law to be righteous, you prove yourself by the law to be a liar, you cannot and do not keep the law regarding sacrifices and atonement, you are unrighteous, the best I can ain't good enough, you have totally failed. Why did God allow the entire system he had given at Sinai to be destroyed ? You don't see that this happened because a new system through the Messiah had come, and by 70 AD the old system was no longer needed, but still you cling to it ? Why is Christ called the second Adam ? Why not the second Noah ? Because ONLY ADAM and CHRIST had a perfectly sinless nature, body, mind totally uncorrupted by sin. Try just as hard as you want, you might as well add self flagellation and pilgrimages to your attempt at keeping the law, why, add a Buddhist prayer wheel if you think it will help, but no matter how hard you try, you can't keep the law, and you aren't Adam or Christ. Now, to your diatribe about other Christians. First, has God given you the responsibility of judging anothers relationship with God ? Aren't you busy enough yourself trying to keep the law without having to take on God;s role of judging his children ? I have personally known Christians who believe like me who have DIED in God's service, unlike you who keep rules. I know a Medal of Honor recipient, a non combat medic, who believes like me, who saved LIVES because of his Christianity, while you keep rules and judge. Dude, you are blind, you are trying to sail on a ship that has sunk without recognizing the majestic one that is sailing very near. Get off the judging, and present a scriptural argument for keeping the law. We can play in the OT if you want, but the authority is in the NT, if you can't accept that, then you are no Christian, become a Talmudic Jew then, they have eviscerated the original law too in many way's however.
If the Bible truly was the "Christian scriptures" then why don't Christians actually follow it? They surely preach from it according their own doctrinal bias, but they don't take it seriously. As Gandhi said "An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching."



That's correct. Jesus was the high priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17) which predates Abraham (John 8:58).

 

[shmogie]

Somehow my response got attached to this post, it's there. No doubt, my bad, however I did it.

 

[Ben Avraham]

"

End" should be taken to mean as "goal," not "cessation."

Jesus himself said that the Law would never cease as long as heavens and earth existed. (Mat. 5:17-19)

In the passage from Ephesians, some versions say "Law", but regardless, "Torah" or "Law" should not be capitalized. This is referring to a law of dogma or ordinances, I.e. man's law, not the Law of God. For example, the Pharisees had their own law, which was their own tradition, later written and compiled into the Talmud. Where in the Old Testament or in the Gospels does it describe God's Law as "dogma"? Clearly Paul isn't talking about the Law of Moses.

Paul was referring to the Decalogue aka God's Law. (Romans 7:1-7)

Right. The message he was conveying here and in chapter 8 is that the law reveals sin and condemns the flesh. Those who live by the Spirit do not need the law because they are righteous. One who lives in the spirit fulfills the Law, but the one who lives by the flesh is the who sins. Only sinners are bound by the Law. When Paul said we are "free" from the Law, he didn't mean that we are free to break it, but are free from being condemned by it, because someone who lives in the spirit of the Law will not break the letter. But those who break the Law are lawless (Matthew 7:21-23).

Since there has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned, we are all bound by the Law. (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

Ah, you must be referring to what he said in Galatians. Here is my response I said to someone else in another thread who quoted Galatians 3:10, Galatians 5:2-4, and Galatians 6:15. Paul backs up his argument by quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.”

I take that you are implying that Paul was cursed because he did not give a damn to the Torah.

Obviously one who depends on the works of the Law is one who is going through the motions—those only concerned about circumcision, dietary restrictions, Sabbath/Feast observances, ritual sacrifices, etc. and ignoring the more important things like loving your neighbor as yourself, thou shall not kill, etc.

Paul had no business interfering with the ritual laws of the Jews. They are not for Gentiles but for the Jews only.

Christ got onto the Pharisees about this, saying that they "ignore the weightier matters of the Law." (Matthew 23:23) and they "reject the commandments of God for their own tradition" (Mark 7:9). The Pharisees are an example of people who depend on the works of the Law, but those who obey the Law in full are the ones with the faith.

Now, that you have mentioned Mat. 23, if we are to believe Mat. 23:13-33, Jesus broke the Golden Rule 15 times in that text every time he charged the Pharisees of being hypocrites and brood of vipers. The Golden Rule says not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto ourselves. Do you think Jesus would have liked to be addressed to as a hypocrite and
brood of vipers? I don't think so. The Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious discussions, mind you!

Faith is defined as expecting that God will do as he promised in return for our full obedience. (see Hebrews 5:8-9) If you are circumcised but are disobedient, then your circumcision means nothing.

If faith is to work on the expectation that God will do as He promised, I see no difference from treats promised to dogs to behave well or act funny. I think one ought to obey no matter what but because there is a law to be obeyed, not because of rewards.

Abraham was rewarded because he obeyed God, therefore the true covenant of Abraham is obedience. Circumcision is only an outward expression of it. If you consider the tone of language that Paul was using to write to the Galatians, you can tell that he was displeased with them and was telling them off for disobedience.

Circumcision is the everlasting token of the Abrahamic Covenant with Isaac as the sign that we are His chosen People. (Genesis 17:19-21) By criticizing Jewish circumcision as only an outward expression, you are undermining the obedience of Abraham.