You misread acts 21, and Luke 16 doesn't hold up as a mosaic regulation observance - I've already shown that on page 24.
So those two are out the window as supportive verses unless you can show why my counter arguments aren't correct.
No, YOU misread Acts 21 and Luke 16.
It's quite obvious, James is telling Paul that he has heard a rumor about him teaching Jews to not follow Moses, and they were "Zealous for the Law". Apparently early Jewish Christians were "Zealous for the Law".
And the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is in context to Luke 16:17 which says the Law will never be undone.
You simply don't like direct context.
John's quote in 1 John 5 ties in with the rest of the letter, which when taken together alude to the fullness of what Jesus taught in John 15. And my reading of John 15 is accurate (I challenge you to prove othewise based on what I already posted two pages back about John 15 and it's connection with Matthew 7).
I challenge YOU to prove me otherwise. You basically won't accept any interpretation whatsoever and you'll say I don't use scripture when I do. So we're in a stalemate.
We can play this "nuh uh" game all day. You simply refuse to acknowledge the actual context of the Judaic situation, do you even know what the Messianic criteria was in the first place?
I may take the time later to do a more full and and hopefully more clear exposition on John 15, and how it ties in with 1 John's teachings.
Oh so you're admitting you weren't actually that clear in how you proved John 15 fits what you're saying? Probably because you have to twist it so badly.
So all you're really left with is a verse in Matthew 5 where Jesus references "these commandments", followed by an exposition on the spirit, not the letter, behind the law and the prophets - That's what He means by "These" commandments. The ones that follow in His teaching.
No, all YOU are left with is twisting the heck out of each passage that directly proves what I'm saying. It's basically your interpretation versus mine, except mine actually accounts for context.
I showed several times in the thread that the "Spirit of the Law" does not mean "The Written Law does not matter". You seem stuck on this idea. The issue is that Jesus taught how to properly interpret the Law. You ignore this concept. I question how familiar you are with what Jesus actually taught besides whatever cherry picked verses you may be aware of.
Which make perfect sense in the context of His teachings and the teachings of His disciples as a call to live by the Spirit of God.
What makes perfect sense is that you are twisting the context and ignoring the key indicators that reveal it's all about teaching the correct version of the Law. What makes sense is that you don't understand what "Spirit of the Law" means and you think that the Spirit of the Law somehow trumps and supercedes the Written Law, rather than defining it.
To put it simply, you can't have a Spirit of the Law without knowing what the written law says first. The Spirit merely CLARIFIES the written Law. You are claiming it SUPERCEDES it.
That makes NO SENSE.
Your interpretation of Matthew 5 just doesn't fit with the wholeness of His teachings, or the teachings of His disciples.
No, YOUR interpretation just doesn't fit, and it doesn't fit with the very reason why he's Messiah in the first place. We can go back and forth and say "nuh uh", do you want to do a 1x1 with a poll?
I seriously doubt whether you are familiar with what he actually teaches.
If anything you are demonstrating just how off the wall non-Nazarene context is in understanding the scripture.
And if you consider Acts authoritative enough to cite it (and Luke too), Acts verifies Paul as an apostle appointed by Christ. His teaching is just as valid.
I consider it authoritative enough to prove to people like you what it says according to their own doctrine. You said I don't understand what Acts 21 says, no it's the opposite. It's YOU who doesn't get it.
Acts 21 is crystal clear that James and the Jerusalem Church were "Zealous for the Law". Your interpretation means that JAMES WAS WRONG.
His outline of doctrine in Romans does not go against anything Jesus taught.
Sure it does. You just interpret what Jesus taught incorrectly, as I've demonstrated.
His lay-out of how we are to live by the Spirit in Romans 8 is restatement of what Jesus teaches about abiding in Him and obeying in John 15.
What I did with that whole three post long response on Matthew 7 vs Ephesians 2 shows in some detail how Paul and Jesus are in unison with their teachings, despite claims to the contrary.
Ephesians is not authentic to begin with. They are not in unison. Again, you are proving greatly how one can make the Bible say anything they want without regards to actual context.
I have repeatedly stated that the Jews would ONLY understand lawlessness to mean "Against Mosaic Law", you have ignored this each time.
I don't think it's going to be possible to convince you otherwise, but it's okay, because you won't convince me either. We'll just have to let the reader decide which of us is interpreting correctly.
You're going to have real trouble trying to support your position using two books that you shouldn't even consider canon if your goal is reject the apostleship of Paul.
If you aren't even able to understand why I used Acts 21 in the first place, you probably aren't going to understand what Acts 21 means in the first place. You're going to be in trouble actually convincing people that I'm wrong when you twist the heck out of each passages beyond what they plainly say and deny any and all cultural context.
You can hardly reject Acts without rejecting the gospel of Luke too.
Not necessarily. Besides, what I'm rejecting in Acts is certain parts that may have been interpolated later. Did you not understand the difference between rejecting a particular passage as a scholarly-backed position of interpolation and rejecting the whole book? If you can't understand a simple argument, you're gonna have a hard time understanding a complex gospel.
If he's reliable enough to write a Gospel, he's reliable enough to write a church history as well. But if his church history can't be trusted, then neither should his gospel.
Again, you simply don't understand the difference between denying a particular passage as a spurious interpolation and denying the whole book.
So start by learning how to actually discern a person's argument from what he says and maybe you'll have better luck discerning what a complex Biblical text says especially in terms of cultural context.
