Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, it doesn't. Our fervent friends seem to be so intent on proving Christians/Torah law connection that they will cherry-pick scripture while creating even new 'canons' to prove their theory.
-
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!
Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
No, it doesn't. Our fervent friends seem to be so intent on proving Christians/Torah law connection that they will cherry-pick scripture while creating even new 'canons' to prove their theory.
Shermana
Heretic
No, and neither can you. That's my point. You simply don't know.
Okay and?
Because of his promise to Abraham about his descendents perhaps?
It most certainly does. You're just putting it on the wrong foot.
Thank you for once again ignoring the "For ALL Generations" part. It's okay, most Paulinists run away when that's brought up too. :ignore::run:
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Do you plan on ever actually contributing to the specifics of the discussion?
If you want to accuse us of "cherry picking" by all means show what verses are being taken out of context. I can just as easily accuse Paulinists of cherry picking and ignoring key passages.
However, seeing as you don't like to actually back your claims or discuss your assertions, that may be asking for too much.
And please, stop with the "Creating new Canons" thing, you've said that so many times and failed to respond to criticisms of this objection that it's just annoying at this point. Again by your logic, no critical higher/textual scholar who dismisses any of the text is allowed to discuss the text.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
"The discussion", if it only includes your selected scripture, is pointless to argue. Time and again you have called books/verses "interpolations", well that's great, that means anyone can pick & choose scripture the same way...I choose to not agree with you on the meaning of "laws" when in context of the OT, but I don't even bother arguing that point because you simply refuse to look at the Bible logically.
BTW, Pegg has explained all of this to you anyway, I think you should take her arguments into serious consideration
L'Shalom
Shermana
Heretic
Pegg explained nothing. I refuted Pegg's explanation. You (edit: choose) just to not agree, you choose to completely ignore the actual discussion and then you run behind your "Canon" issue to evade actual discussion on the text itself. I suggest you take my refutations of her point into serious consideration, or you take the effort to actually try to explain why my rebuttal doesn't address it.
Telling me that I refuse to look at the Bible logically is about all you're capable of doing in terms of rebuttal.
You probably wouldn't even know the first thing about the scholarly discussions on what is an interpolation and pseudipigraphic text. Again, by your logic, no higher or textual critical scholar is allowed to bother discussing the text. That's beyond dishonest. You're under the assumption that unless one accepts the whole of the text that they're not allowed to discuss it? As if none of the scholarly arguments and manuscript issues and critiques are allowed to be presented? As if they're just automatically wrong? As if unless one accepts the whole NT as is (regardless of manuscript versions), that they aren't capable of discussing the implications of one who does take it?
I do not wish you peace in return.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Shermana
Heretic
By all means explain how I've evaded discussion by referencing to canonical and interpolation issues. You seem to confuse dismissal of issues like the authenticity of the Council of Jerusalem using scholarly quotations as "evading". You simply don't have any idea what you're talking about. Such accusations that I'm "evading actual discussion" are not only false but downright insulting. With you however, such accusations of evading actual discussion are 100% accurate which anyone can see by your replies. You simply refuse to even back your own assertions, and you merely repeat the same dismissiveness without getting into the specifics each and every time, outright ignoring what I actually say.
With that said, how is this reply even cogent to what I said about Pegg's rebuttals?
Prove an example of me cherry picking. Making such accusations without being able to back them is also about all you're capable of. I don't think you actually understand what cherry picking means and are confusing it with textual criticism. Paulinists on the other hand I could write a whole book on how badly they cherry pick his own epistles and ignore vast swaths of what he does teach.
Thank you for admitting your complete and total disregard for textual scholastics. Are you implying that since no one can determine what the text says that no one should bother trying to make heads or tails of it?
That's a whole discussion topic, how we know what exactly it says and what the context is.
But how is that in any way relevant to the issue of interpolations and canonicity issues?
Take it as you want. You're not even supposed to bid heretics good day or let them enter your house. Likewise, I don't wish peace on those who are so insistent on such fallacies and dishonest approach to debate. Time after time you have repeated the same accusations, refused to follow through on backing your assertions, and ignored my counter rebuttal. I'm not the only one who's called you out as unwilling and incapable of having honest discussion. You simply don't like to have to actually debate the specifics of the historical issues at stake.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
which is why i dont make the claim that it must have been mosiac law they were adhering to.
What they did adhere to were Gods moral laws of righteousness....and we know this from various accounts that showed how they upheld Gods moral standards. For example, when Potiphars wife tempted Joseph to engage in sexual immorality with her, he firmly refused and stated: How could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God? (Genesis 39:9)
there is also the example of Job who upheld Gods high moral standards...he lived long before the mosaic law was given, and he wasnt even an Isrealite:
Job 1;8 And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad?
and Paul greatly stressed the need for christians to also uphold Gods high moral standards.
why didnt the Isrealites know what to do with someone who worked on the sabbath? If they were followers of Mosaic law, then surely the Sabbath law would have been well known....yet it wasnt. It was a new law for them.
that might be an uncomfortable thought for someone who believes the 'ordinances, statutes and judgements' included Sabbath observance & circumcision
Shermana
Heretic
Instead, you make the claim that it necessarily wasn't paralell, as a matter of fact, as if you know defacto that it wasn't parallel.
Why didn't they know?
Did you completely ignore what I said about how 400+ years in Egyptian captivity maybe would have caused them to forget?
The issue of Job would be just like Abraham. We don't know what they followed one way or the other. How do you know what they considered wrong back then? Got a handy list?
I'll be back in a few hours folks.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
in 400 years did they forgot about circumcision too?
Do you find any account in the OT where they all had to be circumcised when they came out of Egypt?
Where did the genelogical lists of Adams descendents come from? To think that all those names listed in genesis were not forgotten.... but one simple command about the sabbath was is not very well thought out.
you'll find many of them in the book of Job
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Matthew 5
17: "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"
33: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shall not foreswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thy oaths:
34: But I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven: for it is Gods throne
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also".
Just a couple of examples, quite different from the original laws, not merely reinterpreting" them in their original meaning, but outright refutation/change
17: "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"
33: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shall not foreswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thy oaths:
34: But I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven: for it is Gods throne
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also".
Just a couple of examples, quite different from the original laws, not merely reinterpreting" them in their original meaning, but outright refutation/change
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Jesus was not refuting the Law but explaining the wrong perceptions. Of course it's "reinterpreting" them, and it's not really changing them. If he did change them, he'd be contradicting himself.
To this day, Jews interpret "Eye for an eye" much like how Jesus was espousing, not as literal and restrictive as they thought.
Notice how Jesus says "I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it".
Many misinterpret "fulfill" to mean "Do away with", yet have no problem with how Paul says for believers to "fulfill the Law of Christ". Does that mean to do away with the Law of Christ according to Paul?
Of course not. Thus, the idea that Jesus "Fulfilled" the Law in the sense of abolishing it (Which he specifically says he did not come to do) or "replace" it or "do away with it", is completely bunk.
As for not swearing, that's not a violation of the Law or refutation whatsoever. That's advice on how to not break it.
I don't see where turning the other cheek has anything to do with refuting the Law.
As you can see, the problem is in the interpretation, to say that Jesus actually commanded to violate the Law would render him not the Messiah.
Why would any Jew think he fulfilled Messianic requirements if he taught to broke the Law?
Had Jesus taught to actually break the Law, the Pharisees would have had no problem bringing it up as an excuse to kill him before Pontius Pilate at his trial. But they could not, because they recognized that he was not teaching any lawlessness or to break it. Thus they had to trump up charges on him of claiming to be the King of Israel. You'd think they would accuse of him of actually teaching to break the Law at his trial before Pilate.
Besides, according to this logic, Peter and James did NOT GET THE MEMO EVEN BY ACTS 21.
I have oft repeated (And it unsurprisingly gets oft ignored) that Jesus said that anyone who breaks and teaches to break the Least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom. (Whether they will be in the kingdom and called among the least as in the lowest of the heavenly hierarchy, or called the least among those in the kingdom like the angels while not necessarily being in the Kingdom itself is not clear).
1 John says that the Love of God is obedience to the commandments. He also says anyone who claims to know Jesus but refuses to obey his commands (which involve Torah obedience) are "liars".
Thus, those who break and teach to break the Law, according to 1 John and Jesus are "liars", "doers of lawlessness", "The least", and shall be rejected from the Kingdom altogether.
So you can say that Jesus contradicted himself, broke Jewish Law and taught to break Jewish Law, and that it's extreme to say otherwise, but I'll take that extreme label and go with what the text says.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Not necessarily.
Not at first. But Moses was almost killed for not circumcising his son. How do you explain that?
Prophecy? Are you forgetting that the belief involves these later authors having access right to the Source? This logic assumes Moses couldn't have gotten those names from Heaven either.
To think that later Prophecy couldn't have attributed is not very well thought out. Besides, have we proven that they did NOT follow Sabbath? According to some Midrash and extracanonical writings, they did. We simply don't know.
So when you've proven that they did not actually follow Sabbath and where it explicitly says this, then you can talk about how well thought out these arguments are. The only thing that you can argue for is the commandment to kill those who disobeyed could have been new to them.
Name some. I asked you to find a handy list, not just tell me that you'll find it there. Even then, it's not a complete list now is it.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the mosaic law WAS literal. If you took out someones eye, your own eye was to be taken out. If you took someones life, your own life was to be taken.
look at all of what Jesus said:
“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for the smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.”
He's not saying the law would be forever binding, rather he says it would not pass away until 'all things took place'. It stands to reason, that as the prophecies of the law (which included the prophets) became fulfilled, then it would not longer apply. For example, the prophecies of the Messiahs coming dont still apply today because he has already come.
When Jesus read the Isaiah prophecy, it became fulfilled in Jesus and therefore is not longer applicable because it has already happened,
Luke 4:17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed upon him. 21 Then he started to say to them: “Today this scripture that YOU just heard is fulfilled.”
It stands to reason that Jesus’ subsequent words about those breaking the Law and teaching others to do the same would apply only while that Law was in force. It wouldnt apply if the law was complete, just as the command for Noah to build an ark in preparation for the flood never applied to anyone who lived after the flood....the requirement to do so was fulfilled and finished....and the words from the scroll of Isaiah are complete and they will never apply to anyone because they were fulfilled in Jesus.
Shermana
Heretic
Not even Jews believe this to this day. It's a reference to compensation.
You don't just get to say "it's completely literal because I said so".
Why don't you ask the Judaism DIR what they think of this?
Messianic: An Eye For An Eye
"Till all things take place" can mean a lot of things....like ALL THINGS until the end of time.
With that said, how many times have you completely ignored the "For all generations" part by now?
It stands to reason that this logic entails that God lied, and it stands to reason that your reasoning involves reading into the text what's simply not there. It also stands to reason that your logic means that the Church of Jerusalem, including Jesus's own brother, apparently never got this memo.
That doesn't mean ALL THINGS have happened.
So again, about the "For all generations" thing. I should count how many times you've dodged from that, even when I specifically used emoticons to demonstrate this.
Hopefully you're willing to at least admit that the word "Fulfilled" doesn't seem to mean "Completed and done away with" when Paul uses it, right?
http://www.seedofabraham.net/fulfill.html
Again, your logic also involves James and the Jerusalem Church somehow missing the memo even by Acts 21.
And he never said anything about the Law not being in force. And even Paul says "As the Law says". So if Paul says "As the Law says", that means Paul even believed the Law was still in force. Apparently even Paul disagrees with your interpretation of "All things" being accomplished.
And then there's the whole 1 John 5:3 that the Love of God is obedience to the commandments.
Sigh, do I have to repeat how the word "Fulfilled" is abused and misinterpreted yet again?
So how come the word "fulfilled" means something different when Paul says "Fulfill the Law of Christ", does that mean do away with it?
So let's try this "For ALL generations" thing one more time. Your logic says that God lied. And your logic implies reading into the text something that's simply not there.
Last edited:
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
The fact that I have no stake either way in what view is right, lends help to me being able to better use reason, and not faith, to look at the texts objectively, and not through emotional response. I have not cherry-picked anything, I have simply given what is there. As far as creating new canons, I have no idea what you're talking about, unless that reference is not for me.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Apart from the fact that Moses grew up in an Egyption household, i think you missed the point here. You said that in 400 years they had forgotten about the sabbath law and mosaic laws.... yet they somehow remembered about circumcision on the 8th day. Why would they remember circumcision but not the Sabbath? You only circumcise a child once, but you have to observe the Sabbath every 7th day week in week out year in year out. .....so how could they forget something that was so common, yet remember something so infrequent?
Of course im sure much of it did come through direct revelation, but one of the hebrew expressions he uses with regard to the genealogies could also indicate a written historical document was being used.
Job was not an adultery or fornicator, he upheld his own chastity...he did not practice polygamy for he only had one wife to whom he was faithful.
Job 31:1“A covenant I have concluded with my eyes. So how could I show myself attentive to a virgin?”...
9 If my heart has been enticed toward a woman,
And I kept lying in wait at the very entrance way of my companion,
10 Let my wife do the grinding for another man,
And over her let other men kneel down.
11 For that would be loose conduct,
And that would be an error for [attention by] the justices
Job rejected Idol worship which was common in his day...he did not involve himself in worship of the sun or moon, rather he was committed to worshiping the True God.
Job 31:26 If I used to see the light when it would flash forth,
Or the precious moon walking along,
27 And my heart began to be enticed in secrecy
And my hand proceeded to kiss my mouth,
28 That too would be an error for [attention by] the justices,
For I should have denied the [true] God above.
Job gave to the needy.
Job 29:12 For I would rescue the afflicted one crying for help,
And the fatherless boy and anyone that had no helper.
Job did not hate his enemies or seek retribution against them.
Job 31:29 If I used to rejoice at the extinction of one intensely hating me,
Or I felt excited because evil had found him—
30 And I did not allow my palate to sin
By asking for an oath against his soul
He showed hospitality to all.
Job 31:32 Outside no alien resident would spend the night;
My doors I kept open to the path.
Job exercised justice
Job 31:14 My justice was like a sleeveless coat—and a turban.
15 Eyes I became to the blind one;
And feet to the lame one I was.
16 I was a real father to the poor ones;
And the legal case of one whom I did not know—I would examine it.
17 And I would break the jawbones of the wrongdoer,
And from his teeth I would tear away the prey.
Job was not a liar, nor deceptive in his dealings.
Job 31: 5 If I have walked with [men of] untruth,
And my foot hastens to deception,
6 He will weigh me in accurate scales
And God will get to know my integrity.
Job treated everyone as equals and afforded everyone human rights...he viewed both men and women, no matter what their station in life, as creations of the same God and he beleived he would be accountable to God if he did not treat his fellowman that way.
Job 31;13 If I used to refuse the judgment of my slave man
Or of my slave girl in their case at law with me,
14 Then what can I do when God rises up?
And when he calls for an accounting, what can I answer him?
15 Did not the One making me in the belly make him,
And did not just One proceed to prepare us in the womb?
all these standards of righteous conduct can all be pointed to in the mosaic law....yet this man was not an Isrealite, nor did he live at the time of Moses. So this really draws the point that man can live by the righteousness of the mosaic law without actually knowing anything about that law code. And this really justifies the view that christians could serve God without the mosaic law....by living righteously according to Gods standards as Job did. We could even go so far as to say that the laws of God were inscribed on Jobs heart because his way of life was governed by them.
Last edited:
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
We still have the problem of the fact that the OT states several times that the law would remain forever. Regardless of what metaphors we use to assume that it wouldn't, the Bible is clear on the fact it would. I can't reconcile the idea that the law would eventually be done away with, with statements in the OT that it would always remain in force.
You're combining two different passages that don't seem to be interconnected except by Christian theology. Moses never said that the prophet to come would be the one who would institute the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah. And Jeremiah never said that it would be the prophet to come who would institute the new covenant, he mentions no one but god on that topic.
This is a good point. There were servants of god before the institution of the law of Moses, who were acceptable to god. God did not give them a law, so there was none to practice. But, after he established the law, he said from that point on it would remain forever. We can't discount this. We can't assume that god would not institute the law of Moses forever just because he didn't give it before Moses, or else we'd have to say the same of the new covenant. It's something to explore in more detail.
Ok, let's assume that it was Peter and the apostles, of their own accord, who decided that the gentiles would not have to follow the law. Are they infallible? Jesus clearly taught otherwise. For the apostles to go against what Jesus taught, especially when he echoed the sentiments of the OT, would mean that the apostles were in error. We can't assume that they were right just because faith says they are. If we look at it objectively, we can see clear distinctions between Jesus who taught to follow the law, and those who taught that it was not necessary.
Shermana
Heretic
I said the only thing you can maybe prove is that they may have forgotten to KILL EACH OTHER if they disobeyed it.
Point?
That in no way implies he thought Polygamy was a sin, but fornication alone.
J
Okay, so we see SOME things he considered righteous.
Does that mean he has to list them all?
None of that justifies anything, you haven't proven that Job didn't obey things that are covered in the Mosaic Law, just like I can't prove that he did.
You seem really, really stuck on the fallacy that just because the text doesn't say something that it means it didn't exist.
Like I said, we have no idea what those "Ordinances, statutes, and judgments" were, and you have no idea what they said or didn't say either. You can't just say that they didn't say something.
Who told Noah what animals were clean and unclean? Doesn't God told him. All it says is that God commanded him to bring 7 pairs of them. So are you prepared to say "Well God would have told him even though the text doesn't say he did?"
And seriously, how many times are you going to skip the "For all generations" part? Seriously, this is getting old. Do I have to put it in size 7 font?
If I must.
FOR ALL GENERATIONS.
Do I need red font and underlining too?
Seriously, I will repeat this EVERY POST if I have to.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Then why did the mosaic law allow 'unintentional manslayers' to flee to the 'cities of refuge' ?
Those cities were real...they were not a metaphor.
because there is a difference between the words 'fulfill' and 'fulfilled'
it could simply mean for 'all generations' until the new covenant is installed too...or until God decides otherwise.