Why I'm 'Christian'

[IndigoChild5559]

True, a needless insult on pagans. The Pharisees were worse than pagans.

Oh brother. "Salvation is from the Jews," Jesus said. He also admonished his followers to do and observe all the the pharisees taught, for they sat on Moses' seat.

 

[eik]

Oh brother. "Salvation is from the Jews," Jesus said. He also admonished his followers to do and observe all the the pharisees taught, for they sat on Moses' seat.

Bunkum. The most they had to do was obey them.

Matt 23:2,3 “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything "they tell you." But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…"​

"They tell you" i.e. order you to obey, but not what they teach:

Matt 16:6 “Watch out!” Jesus told them. “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
.
.
Matt 16:12 "Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Bunkum. The most they had to do was obey them.

That's what I said. Do and observe what they teach. (Not what they do since not all of them did what they themselves taught.)

 

[eik]

That's what I said. Do and observe what they teach. (Not what they do since not all of them did what they themselves taught.)

No, not what they teach (Matt 16:6). Rather, what they command you to do by way of law. What some one "teaches" is entirely optional. Only what they order you to do by threat of penal sanction for disobedience is mandatory,

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, not what they teach (Matt 16:6). Rather, what they command you to do by way of law. What some one "teaches" is entirely optional. Only what they order you to do by threat of penal sanction for disobedience is mandatory,

I think you are trying to create a distinction that is just not there. The pharisees are essentially teachers of the Law. If anyone has a question about something difficult about how to apply a law in a given situation, the rabbis are who they are to go to.

 

[eik]

I think you are trying to create a distinction that is just not there. The pharisees are essentially teachers of the Law. If anyone has a question about something difficult about how to apply a law in a given situation, the rabbis are who they are to go to.

I don't agree. Not everything that is taught is mandatory. Not all law is mandatory. Only what is directly commanded on pain of penal sanction is mandatory. Thus the selling of merchandize in the temple precints was taught as acceptable by them, but it didn't involve an injunction on anyone to actually sell merchandize in the temple precints. In fact much of what the Pharisees taught were ways to evade the law, rather than adhere to it. If you know anything about Jewish casuistry in those days, you'll know that the teachers of the law were expert manipulators of the law, always seeking ways to thwart the law's intended application.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't agree. Not everything that is taught is mandatory. Not all law is mandatory. Only what is directly commanded on pain of penal sanction is mandatory. Thus the selling of merchandize in the temple precints was taught as acceptable by them, but it didn't involve an injunction on anyone to actually sell merchandize in the temple precints. In fact much of what the Pharisees taught were ways to evade the law, rather than adhere to it. If you know anything about Jewish casuistry in those days, you'll know that the teachers of the law were expert manipulators of the law, always seeking ways to thwart the law's intended application.

Let's take one of the above, your assertion that the Pharisees taught people how to "get around the law." What actually happened was that the Pharisees looked forthe most lenient interpretatations possible, so as not to make the law an excessive burden. Now the question is, did they have a right to do that?

The answer is, they had GOD GIVEN authority to do exactly that. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 gives them the authority to interpret the law, and we are not to question them.

So next time you want to accuse the Pharisees of manipulating the law, just remember the God who gave them the absolute authority to interpret.

 

[eik]

Let's take one of the above, your assertion that the Pharisees taught people how to "get around the law." What actually happened was that the Pharisees looked forthe most lenient interpretatations possible, so as not to make the law an excessive burden. Now the question is, did they have a right to do that?

The answer is, they had GOD GIVEN authority to do exactly that. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 gives them the authority to interpret the law, and we are not to question them.

So next time you want to accuse the Pharisees of manipulating the law, just remember the God who gave them the absolute authority to interpret.

Incorrect. The passage you defer to involves primarily judging disputes, and not issues of interpretation of the holiness law (law of justification). As the NIV puts it Deuteronomy 17:8-13 deals with matters of justice in "bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Incorrect. The passage you defer to involves primarily judging disputes, and not issues of interpretation of the holiness law (law of justification). As the NIV puts it Deuteronomy 17:8-13 deals with matters of justice in "bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults."

It is not so narrow in its application. This verse has been used since its inception to give the religious authorities the right to interpret the law. All of judaism is based on Oral Torah. It is to resolve "whenever a a difficult matter comes up." I don't know where you are finding the phrase "bloodshed, lawsuits, or assaults" in the opening verse.

 

[eik]

It is not so narrow in its application. This verse has been used since its inception to give the religious authorities the right to interpret the law. All of judaism is based on Oral Torah. It is to resolve "whenever a a difficult matter comes up." I don't know where you are finding the phrase "bloodshed, lawsuits, or assaults" in the opening verse.

Literally translated,

Deu 17:8 ¶If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, (i.e. shed blood), between plea and plea (i.e. legal causes), and between stroke and stroke (wounds).

If there is any extension to the whole of the law, it would be based on the "plea and plea" phrase being extended into criminal law as well.

In any case, I have allowed for the interpretation of criminal law to be the exception to Jesus' injunction to beware the leaven of the Pharisees. I never denied that much, and Jesus made the criminal law the exception also. So I am not seeing you are making a case for justifying adherence to the teachings or the general theology of the Jewish casuists of Jesus' age, or any other age.

 

[Muffled]

I think most Christians realize that their faith is not 100% accurate and has its downfalls but is the closest to the truth in certain areas and that alone is why it's followers are many.

I believe having Jesus who is the Truth, guarantees all the accuracy I need.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not sure it's possible to be a Christian at all without also being a heretic. There are groups who see the slightest deviation from their particular interpretation of Christianity as heretical. Since you can't be a member of every one of those groups (which would also be heretical anyway!) there's always going to be somebody who considers you a heretic.

This is why I went for apostasy myself. It makes things less confusing.

I believe that is called throwing out the baby with the wash water.

 

[Muffled]

We are Christians because we have placed our faith on the work of The Cross and His resurrection for our redemption and sanctification.

Didn't say we had to be in the unity in the doctrines that we hold to but rather the unity of the faith.

I always give leeway for others to be wrong in their doctrine

I believe neither of those sanctifies. Only having Jesus as Lord sanctifies. Anything else is just self justification.

 

[Kenny]

I believe neither of those sanctifies. Only having Jesus as Lord sanctifies. Anything else is just self justification.

I thought that is what I said. Is there salvation without a cross?

 

[Kenny]

I believe neither of those sanctifies. Only having Jesus as Lord sanctifies. Anything else is just self justification.

There is no salvation without the cross and the resurrection. Otherwise death was not defeated.

But, yes, Jesus must be Lord for sanctification

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Literally translated,

Deu 17:8 ¶If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, (i.e. shed blood), between plea and plea (i.e. legal causes), and between stroke and stroke (wounds).

If there is any extension to the whole of the law, it would be based on the "plea and plea" phrase being extended into criminal law as well.

In any case, I have allowed for the interpretation of criminal law to be the exception to Jesus' injunction to beware the leaven of the Pharisees. I never denied that much, and Jesus made the criminal law the exception also. So I am not seeing you are making a case for justifying adherence to the teachings or the general theology of the Jewish casuists of Jesus' age, or any other age.

You are using a different translation, and believe me mine was quite different. Also, my favored translation is the Stone Tanakh, which is like your translation.

@RabbiO can you comment on this passage?

Regardless, this verse has aways been used to justify the interpretations of the religious leaders and the existence of Oral Law.

 

[eik]

Regardless, this verse has aways been used to justify the interpretations of the religious leaders and the existence of Oral Law.

May be so. But now one greater than they has appeared. By the prophet John:

John 1:26 “I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands One you do not know. He is the One who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

Luke 7:28 "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John, yet even the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
​

So if Christ says, beware the leaven of the scribes etc, then it counts for something.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

May be so. But now one greater than they has appeared.

You have put yourself in a position where you believe in a God that lies. In Genesis, God states that the covenant between Israel and him is "everlasting." You are saying he changed his mind and replaced it.

This is why Jews will never, ever accept Christianity. It is at its foundational level in contradiction to what God told Israel.

 

[eik]

You have put yourself in a position where you believe in a God that lies. In Genesis, God states that the covenant between Israel and him is "everlasting." You are saying he changed his mind and replaced it.

The foundation of Christianity is that the covenant continues. Paul explains the nature of the covenant in Galations and Romans. The christian covenant is one of faith, not bondage to law (Hab 2:4)

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”e]">[e]

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”f]">[f] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.​

and ROmans 10 (& 11):

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”a]">[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”b]">[b] (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”c]">[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”d]">[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”e]">[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”f]">[f]

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”g]">[g]

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”h]">[h] 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”i]">[i]

19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,

“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”j]">[j]

20 And Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”k]">[k]

21 But concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”l]">[l]
​

This is why Jews will never, ever accept Christianity. It is at its foundational level in contradiction to what God told Israel.

The reason why you won't accept christianity is because you are enslaved to your teachers, whose words are not "what God told Israel." As Jesus spointed out, not everyone who sits in the seat of Moses is worthy to sit there. There is nothing in scripture to gurantee that the occupiers of Moses' seat are worthy. There is nothing that prohibits freedom choice when it comes to deciding who is worthy to sit there. According to what rationale have you decided that your teachers are worthy?

Many Jews have accepted Christ.
Home

 

[Deeje]

I think most Christians realize that their faith is not 100% accurate and has its downfalls but is the closest to the truth in certain areas and that alone is why it's followers are many.

Who do you think that Jesus is addressing in Matthew 7:21-23?

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"

These claim Jesus as their "Lord".....they do many things, even miracles 'in his name' yet he rejects them completely, calling them those who "practice lawlessness"......so who are these ones that Jesus "never knew" ?