Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, a friend emailed me with a very common claim, namely, that, “Paul hijacked Christianity with no personal connection with Jesus and filled his letters with personal opinions.” This could be rephrased in the more common claim: Paul invented Christianity.
This claim is especially common among Muslim apologists who use it in an attempt to explain why the Qur’an simultaneously affirms Jesus as a true prophet while also contradicting the Bible at every major point. However, since my friend is not a Muslim and is not coming at the issue from that angle, I will just deal with the question more broadly.
My friend alleges that some of the “personal opinions” of Paul that were interjected into the New Testament include: “slaves obey your masters; women not to have leadership roles in churches; homosexuality is a sin (though there is Old Testament authority for this last, Paul doesn’t seem to base his opinion on it).”
“None of [of the above] were said by Jesus and would perhaps be foreign to his teaching,” he wrote. “I think Paul has created a lot of mischief in Christianity, simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived.”
Let’s deal with this point-by-point.
No personal connection to Jesus
Paul, in fact, did have a personal connection to Jesus. This is revealed in the famous “Damascus road” accounts in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6–11 and Acts 26:12–18. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke.
The only way one can maintain that Paul had no connection to Jesus is to rule out the conversion experience of Paul a priori based on a presupposition. Of course, I can argue that such a presupposition is untenable, but that would take an entire post to itself. For the sake of brevity, I would just point out that it is illogical to employ such reasoning. It would go something like, “It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen because it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen therefore Paul had no personal connection to Jesus.”
Personal opinions
Yes, Paul does interject his personal opinions into his writing! However, when he does, he clearly delineates what he is saying as his personal opinion as an Apostle.
For instance, in dealing with the issue of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly distinguishes between his own statements and the Lord’s.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)…” and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul says, “To the rest I say, (I, not the Lord)…” This example shows that Paul was not in the business of putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Paul had no problem showing when he was giving his own charge and when it was a statement made by the Lord Jesus, as it was in this case (Matthew 5:32).
Yet it is important to note that other Apostles recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16).
Paul’s “personal opinions” and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldn’t have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldn’t for over 1,000 years.
The claim that there is only Old Testament authority for the last of the examples is false. The same goes for the claim that Paul does not base his statements on the Law.
It is abundantly clear that Paul actually does derive his statements on homosexual activity from the Law.
For instance, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul mentions homosexuality in the context of the type of people the Law was laid down for (1 Timothy 1:9-11). This short list indicts all people, just as Paul does elsewhere (Romans 3:23), showing that all people require the forgiveness that can only be found through faith in Jesus Christ.
When Paul deals with it elsewhere, he mentions it in the context of other activities explicitly prohibited by the Law (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), again going back to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ sets apart (sanctifies) His people and justifies them.
As for the command for slaves to obey their masters, this is regularly claimed to be objectionable by critics. By way of introduction, is important to distinguish between what we have in our mind about the institution of slavery as Americans and the institution of slavery as it existed in Paul’s day. After all, Paul explicitly listed “enslaverers” (or man-stealers) in the same list mentioned above (1 Tim 1:10). Since the entire institution of slavery in the United States was built upon the kidnapping of people, it is clearly radically different from what Paul spoke of. Furthermore, the stealing of a man was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16). The practice of slavery in America would never have existed if the Bible was actually being followed.
Paul also exhorted his readers to buy their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7:21) and instructing the master of a runaway slave to treat him as “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 11). Paul grounded his statements in the defense of “the name of God and the teaching.” Paul said that bondservants should “regard their masters as worthy of all honor,” not just for the sake of doing so, but so there might be no chance to slander the name of God and the gospel.
The fact is that Paul knew the Law quite well (Philippians 3:5-6) and the Law does deal with slavery.
Ultimately, the claim made by my friend requires more fleshing out on his end and some evidence on his part in order to be more fully dealt with.
Paul’s teachings foreign to Jesus’ teachings?
This is another common claim. First off, one must ask if this statement implies that Jesus would simply have to repeat everything Paul said and vice-versa or else they would remain foreign.
The fact is that there is nothing contradictory between Paul’s writings and Jesus’ teaching. One must wonder why Luke – a traveling companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts – would have no problem writing the gospel that bears his name if he perceived such a contradiction. Furthermore, one must wonder why this apparent conflict was lost on the earliest Christians, including the Apostle Peter, who viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (see above).
In affirming the Law (Matthew 5:17), Jesus affirmed all that Paul that was clearly grounded in the Law. Furthermore, if there was a real contradiction between Paul’s writings and the teachings of Jesus, Paul would have been rejected, instead of accepted as he has always been.
The Christian community existed before Paul became a Christian, as is clearly seen by the fact that he was persecuting Christians (Acts 8:1,3), and he even met with the leaders of the early church. They did not reject Paul, but instead affirmed what he had been teaching (Galatians 2:2,9). This makes it even clearer that Paul could not have invented or hijacked Christianity.
As for the claim that Paul has had such a large impact “simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived,” all one has to do is look at the other early Christian writings that survived in order to see that is not a valid metric.
We have seen that the claim that “Paul hijacked Christianity” is without evidence. While I have taken the burden of proof upon myself in responding to this claim, in reality the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim in the first place. No such evidence has been presented and no substantive evidence can be presented since Paul did not invent Christianity or hijack Christianity or anything similar to it. Instead, Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, something that he clearly did by establishing churches and penning many letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we can still read today.
When one reads the gospels and the other writings contained in the New Testament, the message is cohesive and clear: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23), God demands complete perfection (Mt 5:48) and all we have earned through our sin is death (Ro 6:23) and hell. Yet God offers the free gift of eternal life to all who repent and believe (Mk 1:15, Ro 10:9–11) in Jesus Christ, who died as a propitiation (Ro 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 4:10) for all who would ever believe in Him (Jn 6:44) and rose from the grave three days later, forever defeating sin and death. Those who believe in Him can know (1 John 5:13) that they have passed from death to life (Jn 5:24) and will not be condemned (Jn 3:18), but will be given eternal life by Jesus Christ (Jn 6:39-40). Paul and Jesus in no way contradict each other on what the gospel is, in fact the four gospels and Paul’s letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
The question was not about whether this means one will persevere in faith, but whether faith appropriates justification.
Grace through faith appropriates all.
[roamer_1:] Murder was always in the heart, not the action.
No, murder was also action, and only that was penalized [...]
Only the action CAN be penalized, even to this day. That doesn't negate the fact that a true interpretation of Torah will line up with what Yeshua said. YHWH has always been interested in the circumcision of the heart, not the flesh. And murder has always been in the heart. Without the thought, the action would never occur.
while the Lord Jesus expanded love of brethren to enemies, contrary to the hatred of enemies enjoined as in "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever," (Deuteronomy 23:6) "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)
You are comparing cats and bananas. National instruction vs. personal instruction.
[roamer_1:] Your point is not lost on me - but you might digest the fact that the spirit of the law, in every instance wherein Yeshua interpreted, was stricter than the letter - Even thinking of murder IS murder
Thanks for affirming my point that you just combated, that "the Lord fulfilled the Law in its fullest intent, going beyond what the letter of the law of Moses said,"
But I am not affirming your point. There is plenty of evidence that Torah is pointed at the heart. But one has to read it with that in mind.
Wrong, they were saved by grace by faith in the mercy of God, looking toward Christ, while the Law condemned them. For you deny what the Holy Spirit says about salvation under the Law in contrasting it under grace,
And you are saved by grace by faith in the mercy of YHWH looking back at the cross, and thereby toward Messiah, while the law condemns YOU. There has never been salvation under the law - that is not what the law is for. What has changed is that the Better Blood has come. Every time you sin, it is the blood of Messiah that is your covering. The mechanics of the thing have not changed. Sin must be repented and covered by blood.
[roamer_1:] Wrong answer. The law cannot be added to nor taken from.
It is you who is in error, as we are taking about the letter, not its intent, and the new covenant is distinctly stated to be,
Who is talking about the letter? The intent was always there, and IS there, if you would but find it. How can the literal law not contain the intent for which and of which it is written? That is simply schizophrenic.
Yes, they were based on the Law. Such things as "the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things" (Mk. 7:7) are easily seen to be derived from purification statutes upon which principal baptism was based, but went beyond them in making doctrines of them, and grievous to be borne. In such a case only what God affirmed was enjoined, thus the baptism of John was of God, and not of men.
Thank you for making my point - it wasn't the law itself, but rather the traditions of men - and that much we can agree upon. But traditions of men based upon the law, are still traditions of men. In every single case, Yeshua upheld Torah, and excoriated the Pharisaical law.
Wrong, you are a heretic who denies the manifest nature of the New Covenant, with the distinctions it makes btwn types of laws, and the literal observances thereof, obedience under which constitutes obedience to the Lord who instituted that Covenant with His own sinless shed blood!
Not at all - Obedience to Yeshua is all I can have, as his disciple. He is the one who said to keep Torah. And I will point you to the prophets, who declare my position as being true in the Kingdom. Why would it not also be true today?
To be consistent, you must hold that saving faith is only that which literally obeys all the ordinances of Torah entoto, as able, and thus you are substantially no different than "certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)
According to whom? I am consistent in two things: To be a disciple of Yeshua is to follow his every example and word. And if we love YHWH we will keep his commandments. I have never ever said that keeping Torah is salvific, or that I expect it to justify me... BECAUSE I am saved, I keep Torah. Not the other way around. 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments' ... 'how do we know we love God, when we are walking in his commandments' - That seems simple enough to me.
[roamer_1:] It is in my case. Yeshua is our example. That means we do what he did. That is what obedience to the Rabbi is - As perfect an emulation as one can produce.
The "it is in my case" is equivocation - "A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth." (The Free Dictionary)
No, it isn't. I am not in a position to place expectations upon others - that is above my paygrade.
It should be obvious this is not dealing with issues such as infants or the ignorant, but obedience to Christ by those who can hear and obey His voice, as per my reference, (Jn. 10:27,28) and if obedience to Christ means keeping the Torah including 7th day Sabbaths keeping, feasts, dietary laws etc. for you, then it means it for all such as who can hear and obey the Scriptures.
It is not my place to decide that. All I can do is tell folks what I see. Presbyterians are way different from Pentecostals... Is one right and the other wrong? My mother is far more comfortable with her old hymns and quiet ceremonies... But my sister would wither in that environment. It isn't in me to judge either one.
Meanwhile, by ignoring covenantal distinctions past and present, you must enjoin literally keeping the Law upon men as Enoch. But if such could be righteous before the Sinaitic covenant was given, so can those under the New Covenant which is not according to that.
...And so can those under Moses, as has obviously occurred. I just see those distinctions being differently placed, in order to reconcile Paul to John and to Peter, and in order to reconcile the present with the past and future.
Which essentially makes you a modern day heretical Judaizer.
LOL!
[roamer_1:] The yoke of a Rabbi is his interpretation of Torah, which the disciple is bound to strenuously keep, and duty bound to emulate (sometimes on pain of death) ). Is it your position that Peter was strenuously keeping Yeshua's interpretation of Torah by *not* keeping Torah? It is ridiculous! What then can the 'yoke we could not bear' be?
This is indeed ridiculous. Your response was to the yoke "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," and thus it was you who made that yoke being that of another rabbi, but which remains non-sense, for again, the context is not that of rabbinical additions, but,
> But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)
When a Pharisee says 'Law of Moses', one has to realize what it is that they believe is the 'Law of Moses'. They believe in TWO Torahs handed down, the oral and the written, and ALL of that is (to them) the 'Law of Moses'. The fact that they are demanding something that is not in Torah should be a clue. What they are demanding is NOT in Moses.
And thus the contrasting requirements was not that of releasing the Gentiles from such things as the washing of cups, while keeping all feasts, dietary laws etc., but that of Noahide essentials, keeping the primary moral law (idolatry is the mother of all sin) and the primarily offensive practice of eating blood.
The Noahide essentials are where anyone starts out. Another clue is that not all of the Noahide essentials were listed... It is obvious to me that these things which were set forth were but a starting place, with an intention that they would learn more as they go.
Under the Law every time a man had marital relations, or even touched a dog or cat (or anything that walked upon its 4 paws) left one unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 11:27; 15:16) That's a lot of "unclean time," in addition to the constant sacrifices.
No, one is unclean for touching a dead carcass, not the animal itself.
Peter himself had been told to violate the dietary laws in Acts 10, regardless of any denial, and further proof that this referred to abrogating observance of the ceremonial law is seen in the reiteration of the sentence of Acts 15 by James in Acts 21, in contrast to Paul showing that he was one who "keepest the Law" such as in undergoing temple washing, for in contrast he states,
LOL! No, he wasn't. Peter doubted in himself what the dream should mean, and then interpreted it himself in the house of Cornelius.
Thus it is incontrovertible that this "yoke" is what Peter referred to no matter how much you try to spin it to refer to rabbinical additions, the rejection of which was already a foregone conclusion. .
The thing that is in your way is that a disciple is not greater than his teacher, and the Teacher said to do and teach Torah. It is plain to me that Torah does not require circumcision of male adults, and certainly does not say it is needed for salvation. So the premise from which this started is *not* Torah - Thus it must be referring to something else.
[roamer_1:] And as for meats and drinks, diverse washings, and carnal ordinances: What meats? What drinks? What diverse washings? What carnal ordinances? Specify please.
A valid question indeed.
And a well thought out answer - But if it is as you say, then why the return to Sabbaths and washings, and ordinances in Ezekiel's temple? Somehow that has to be reconciled, and I reject the dispensational view outright.
[roamer_1:] No, Torah keeping has nothing to do with salvation. Loving YHWH means keeping his commandments, and following Yeshua means copying him as an example. In both cases, that includes Torah.
But while works do not actually earn eternal life, following Christ is what faith does (and repents when convicted of not doing so)[...]
If following Messiah means keeping Torah to me, and my conscience will not allow me otherwise, what is that to you?
[...] and thus as caring for the brethren is one of the primary "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and those who habitually are forsaking the assembling of believers together (Hebrews 10:25) are testifying against having faith, then it follows that not keeping the ceremonial law would also be the latter, if this is necessarily part of obedience to Christ as you contend.
How does that follow in the least?
But instead it is clearly stated, despite the Judaizer spin, that dietary laws are abrogated, as are those re holydays, the new moon, or the sabbath, and rather than being enjoined, going back into such is only rebuked.
Then you will have to explain the disciples participating in such. And the prophets proclaiming such to be the future... And explain how the ONLY one to change the times and laws is this guy:
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
There is no other changing Torah. And I think this happened long ago... The frog in the pot can't tell...
That was my point - in fact, according to Torah, the priest and the rabbi were *not* following the letter. There is nothing that says a Jew cannot render aid to a gentile - and there is plenty that says he should. Even modern Jews will tell you that is true.
But more or less, beyond that point, we agree : )
We don’t know from the parable if the injured one was a gentile or not....
A basic requirement of logic is that, if you are going to make an argument, you must be able to support it with something. If your argument is baseless, what to do? You just ignore the person, as what they say is nothing more than noise.
If you really want to keep pinging and spamming us with these posts, why not respond to posts given to you ages ago which you ignored entirely and rectify the problem of arguing when your absurd claims have already been shown to be nothing but a house on sand?
Then every Hebrew from Abraham's children onward are in hell.
We do not follow the Law...We follow Jesus...
And Yeshua said to keep Torah.
[...]We do not follow the law because the law condemns...And there is no condemnation in those who trust in Jesus as their Savior...
Hmmm... Well, there is this:
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
These should be a caution. How many here have prophesied? Cast out demons? yet these folks, powerful in the Lord by our standards, were called 'workers of iniquity' (that means 'without Torah' in Hebrew-speak).
Did they not think the same?
People who follow (are subject to) the law do it out of fear...Fear of the consequences...
Why would you say that when I have made my motives crystal clear?
Our command is to love Jesus and love our neighbor, NOT to follow the law...
That isn't true. Nowhere does it say not to keep Torah. And HOW to love God, and HOW to love your neighbor is contained in Torah.
And by loving Jesus and our neighbor we will have fulfilled the law...If I love my neighbor, I will not murder him; I will not steal from him; I will not covet anything he has...
No disagreement there...
I do not fear the consequences of the law since Jesus paid the price for my failure to perfectly live up to the law...
Neither do I... But that doesn't mean I ain't trying...
[roamer_1:] All the world will keep Torah, to include the Sabbath and the Holy Days.
And if we don't, then what???
In that context, those who don't will get no rain.
[roamer_1:] Indeed. He has said it is those who keep his commandments AND have the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah that are his own.
And yet, Jesus says,
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
That's before we even have a chance (or not) to follow his commandments...
Not quite. funny thing about 'heareth'... to a Hebrew, that would be 'sh'ma or shema' and means something way closer to 'hear and do'... Might be good for you to study on that. It is an important concept.
If you shoe horn every thing back into the Old Testament, nothing fits...And no one can make it fit unless one starts adding a word here or taking away a word there from the scriptures...
To the contrary - I think everything fits a whole lot better. You just have to step outside of your well-worn paradigm and 'hear'.
It's much easier that way.
OF course; he COULD be away from his computer for a while.
HMMMmmm...
ח
Luke 4:8 And Yeshua answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Learn Hebrew and tell me the Names. And don't miss my first post on this thread, #332
Except to observe this. By the strangest irony, you appear to end up in a place very much like that of the most advanced dispensationalists. I grew up among dispensationalists, so I know who I'm talking about. In fact, while a student at Moody Bible Institute back in the '70's, I actually met John Walvoord. I set aside his fame and cut directly to the chase and asked him about the restoration of the temple sacrifice during the millennium. I can't remember exactly how I stated it, but basically I couldn't imagine a worse blasphemy against the Son of God than that millennial believers should, by reverting to the law of sacrifice, "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" by returning to the temple system.
This is also, as you must recognize, a parallel irony in that the chief problem New Covenant Christians have with the Roman system is that it too is a regression to Old Covenant shadows, complete with a recapitulation of the daily sacrifice, held together by Aquinas' sophistry concerning transubstantiation.
Whereas the New Covenant teaching countenances neither form of regression to the old wine skins. We have new wine, and we must have new wine skins.
But again, you already know all this, because it has been repeatedly presented to you. So there is no point in having yet another correspondent on those matters. But I do find your apparent alignment with Rome and the dispensationalists simultaneously alarming and entertaining.
BTW, I do not mean to offend you with my blunt descriptions. I have direct experience with cults, a family member who was draw into one for a time. It was a heartbreaking situation. There is a specific tone to the cultic mindset, and I am seeing it on these pages. For example, this cult my family member was involved with would teach salvation by grace through faith, substitutionary atonement, etc., etc., everything a good hearted follower of Christ would want to hear. That is why the scam works so well. It appeals to people who truly love Jesus, because it provides, as you called it, a means to know how to love God and man, a precisely codified handbook that removes the risk of uncertainty in relying on the Spirit for the infilling of agape, the divine love. Instead, just do x, y, z, and you will know you have behaved lovingly. Love by rules.
And here is where it goes dark, and here is why Paul's teaching on the believer's being dead to the law, and the teaching in Hebrews on the genuine newness of the New Covenant, is so critically important to the exercise of Christian faith. In any belief group, there is the formal teaching and there is the de facto teaching. It's best when the two are the same. Very often they are not. In the cult I had to deal with, the formal teaching was grace, faith, etc. The true, de facto teaching, what was practiced by manner and tone, was guilt, fear, burdens of the law, same as all the so-called law cults.
For you see, the practical problem with grace, is how do you know you've received it? Well there has to be evidence, right? And what better source for the evidence than a rule-based system visible to the carnal eyes of man, what one eats and drinks, what one wears or touches, how one celebrates certain holy days, or uses the "best" way of speaking of God, the sacred names, etc. All of these easily quantifiable by observers. And so the leadership becomes the observer class, watching closely for signs of false faith by deviation from the cherry-picked rules. Then the fear of failure sets in, and takes over, and takes control of a person's mind and life. It very nearly destroyed the sanity of my family member.
This is why Christian liberty, per Galatians and elsewhere, is not merely a nice additive with which you can mix the law. It is really a dramatically new way for the love of God to work in the hearts of humankind:
John 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. (38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)The Spirit of God makes us new creations in Him. The foundation is love, not fear:
1Jn 4:17-19 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. (18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (19) We love him, because he first loved us.See, it is not, "we love him, and we know it because we do x, y, z." It's that we really love Him, and so we don't have fear, and the torment that accompanies it. We love Him, not because we live in fear of condemnation, but because our hearts cannot help but to respond to the love He has shown to us. This love is the power of God by which He draws us to Himself, as His own chosen people.
Rom 7:4-6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.Peace,
I don't have to learn Hebrew to know that the passage you quoted was Jesus' response to the Devil:
The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ (Luke 4:5-8)
We don't worship or serve ANYONE but the Lord God which is why we DO worship and serve Jesus Christ, He is Immanuel - GOD with us.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
Deut 6:13 את יהוה אלהיך תירא ואתו תעבד ובשׁמו תשׁבע׃
Rather, it is a translation of THIS phrase, which actually IS what the Holy Spirit inspired Dr. Luke to write, in which the tetragramaton (YHWH), highlighted above, is substituted with Kurion, "Lord," as highlighted below:
και αποκριθεις αυτω ειπεν ο ιησους υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα γεγραπται προσκυνησεις κυριον τον θεον σου και αυτω μονω λατρευσειςSo it seems to me a bit too agressive to second guess the Holy Spirit and fabricate a Hebrew Luke (who was a gentile), just so the tetragramaton could be falsely inserted n the New Testament text. I will never understand why people think they need to "help" God make some point via fabrication. Mind-boggling. If God the Holy Spirit wants to say Kurion, then so be it. Just get out of His way.
This raises several beautiful problems for you which you are apparently unaware of. Judaism, at least its modern and talmudic counterpart, believes in two different places for the poor Goyim, one better than the other
Your first mistake is in relying on Rabbinical Judaism to define Temple Judaism. Your second mistake is in relying upon a Christian commentary to define Rabbinical Judaism.
Basically, what you have is close - Noachide, or Gentile of the Gate is pretty accurate, albeit that a Noachide would (if he chose) endeavor through stages to become righteous.
It is the righteous Proselyte that I refer to, and your information is obviously inaccurate. One who is mikvah'd and circumcised is not a gentile any longer, but a full member of Israel. This is true even now, according to what I know... The educational phase is long, and the final acceptance is the mikvah, circumcision, and a new name... See here and here.
For a more historical understanding, see here, and especially here, the latter of which conforms more to my understanding. To wit:
[...] Another class kept practically all the Jewish laws and customs, but were not circumcised. Some again, though not circumcised, had their children circumcised (Juvenal Sat. xiv.96 ff). Such Jewish customs as fasting, cleansings, abstaining from pork, lighting the candles on Friday evening, and keeping the Sabbath (Josephus, Apion, II, 29, etc.) were observed by these Gentile sympathizers. Schurer holds that there were congregations of Greeks and Romans in Asia Minor, and probably in Rome, which, though they had no connection with the synagogue, formed themselves into gatherings after the pattern of the synagogue, and observed some of the Jewish customs. Among the converts to Judaism there were probably few who were circumcised, and most of those who were circumcised submitted to the rite in order to marry Jewesses, or to enjoy the rights and privileges granted to the Jews by Syrian, Egyptian and Roman rulers (Josephus, Ant, XIV, vii, 2; XX, vii, 1; compare XVI, vii, 6).
I probably got my understanding through Josephus, Philo, and Juvenal... among others.
And it only stands to reason that many men would stop short of full conversion for the fact of circumcision - I know that I would need a very powerful persuasion to get me past that point ; )
So I will just wander down your screed from here, till I find something beyond this topic... Ahh, this bit:
There is also another point of yours which offends common sense:
[roamer_1:] A righteous gentile might never be circumcised, though his children will be
Now this is illogical for a couple of reasons. As far as I can tell, you are denying the necessity of circumcision in the first place, so why make it a requirement for children?
The main premise for circumcision is *for* children. The Eighth Day.
Secondly, this would require circumcision for your fictional class of proselytes at least as a command for all children, and yet, Paul makes no such requirement, but equates the condition of circumcision and uncircumcision, making it absolutely of no value for anyone, even under the spurious logic that if we "love God" we will grab some sissors and gladly circumcise ourselves, even though it does not save us:
Since Paul said to keep Torah, the only way his words are not psychotic is for the argument to be about adults.
1Co_7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
How exactly does one become 'uncircumcised'?
[roamer_1:] It isn't a claim - More often than not, Paul was speaking from synagogues, and even secular history and the Roman church agree that the Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism, in the synagogues.
Notice your wording and lack of any scriptural evidence. Paul "spoke" in the synagogues.
*sigh* Why would I have to provide evidences for something so common? There is much, much more, but this will do:
Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures>,
You seem to be acknowledging that the task of the Apostles in the synagogues was evangelism, not co-equal worship between two groups who are essentially the same except for their belief in Christ.
You seem to be ignorant of Temple era Judaism. There were many sects. The Nazarenes were but one of them... Pharisees, Saducees, Hellenists, Zealots, Essenes, Karaites, etc... And more to the point, many followers of different rabbis, and some of them falsely messianic. This idea of a monolithic Judaism is not true until many years later... It perhaps began with the fall of Jerusalem, but really not until Bar Kochba - Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity both began to become monolithic around that point, though Chrysotom was still whining about Christians attending synagogues and observing Sabbath even in his day...
It would really be a good study for you, this 'Christianity and the Synagogue' concept. It will offer a brilliant counterpoint to the Roman church fathers' antisemitism.
This is a red herring and also very irrational. My response was directed in wondering, if the Christians were in the synagogues being subjected to the law of Moses, how is it that they avoided being commanded to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses? Now unless you do not believe the law of Moses isn't taught in the synagogues, then your statement is simply absurd. They would have received the command, no matter how it was couched, whether for the "purpose of salvation" or for the purpose of being holier than thou.
No doubt it was a bone of contention, But your view of gentiles in the synagogue is rather narrow. Doesn't it seem odd in your view that so many gentiles were in the synagogue to hear Paul? Why were they there? Because they went there all the time. There were many righteous gentiles.
Secondly, the "law of Moses" is specifically the subject of contention in the chapter, as it says directly "circumcision and the law of Moses," and whether or not one is "commanded" to obey it or not, whether for salvation or not.
That is precisely my point - you have to look at who is saying 'circumcision and the Law of Moses'.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Pharisees believed TWO Torahs were given at Sinai - one oral and one written - and these (to them) constitute the 'law of Moses'. Since the Torah certainly says nothing about circumcision being salvific, and little about adult men necessarily being circumcised, perhaps one might look to the oral torah to find such rules. No doubt you will find them there.
"Now if "no such commandment" was given, how is that possible if the commandment was given by Christ? Who came first? Christ? Or the Apostles? And what do they preach all the time in the synagogues they are supposedly present at?
No doubt the commandment was given by Yeshua, as it is written. Mat 5:17-20. And the Apostles cannot change the words of their Master - So that should color your interpretation.
I will also point out the characterization of it. They called it the "subverting" of their souls to be commanded to be circumcised and to keep the Law. Peter described it as the "yoke" that neither he nor his fathers could bare, and he also says that the Gentiles, who were not following the Law of Moses, are "purified" by their faith, and lastly, that they are saved by grace, "the same as we" (Acts 15:7-11).
Right. Understand that oral torah (where these things are found), is not to be followed... and understand the' Yoke of a Rabbi'. The 'oral torah' was a compilation of the works of the rabbis... a super-set of 'yoke'... Mat 23:1-3 addresses this directly from Yeshua (if you can understand what it says).
You also quote the fact that the Pharisees considered it essential to salvation to follow the commandments, [...]
No, what was essential to the Pharisees was their oral torah, which overrode Moses all the time.
[...] by which you probably mean "Well, you should still do it, although it makes no difference for your salvation."
Huh?
Yet you have repeatedly implied that it is a "sin" to not be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and have explicitly stated that it is part of becoming more Christ like to refrain from eating Bacon (because what is the worst sin of all? Not denying the trinity, but eating a piggy). By this we can then presume that you would believe that Peter was in obedience to the "law of Moses," although he clearly called it a unbearable "yoke."
Huh sommore? Do you need to take some pills or something?
As absurd as that already is from the context, I will put another nail in the coffin and point out that Peter was, in fact, living as the Gentiles do all along:
LOL! That isn't what it says. The context is that he separated himself from the gentiles to go hang with the Jews. You need to understand that the 'wall of separation' was never meant to be. Study the passage hard... and maybe look at the Nestle-Alland Greek text for comparison. Paul is hacking on him for his hypocrisy, and for sinning in front of the Gentiles.
[roamer_1:] I didn't see that. However, I can tell you right now that I would disagree with your interpretation.
Who cares what your opinion is? Stop giving me assertions instead of well-defended arguments.
How can I give you anything more if I never saw the post??? Gimme a link.
But of beautiful note is that you did not dispute my statement on the failure of the Roodites to affirm the Trinity. Though they try to hide this, the Roodites are indeed extremely heterodox on every subject, whether they like it or not, and therefore no denomination, knowing these facts, will accept them. Indeed, the Roodites are anathema, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Armonstrongites, and all the other cults, and not condemned by the Pope, but by God.
HAHAHAHAHA! You should really do standup.
Must be nice to speak for YHWH. 'Thus sayeth the Lord', and all that... Like the popes, the arrogance needed to belch such a thing usually means the one laying down anathemas doesn't need to be listened to. I certainly know I won't listen to you anymore.
Philo says himself that circumcision is necessary according to the Law:
"It is true that receiving circumcision does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions, and the putting away of the impious conceit, under which the mind supposed that it was capable of begetting by its own power: but let us not on this account repeal the law laid down for circumcising" (Philo, Migration 92)
And in order to become a full convert, a Proselyte of Righteousness, this command is absolutely necessary.
Juvenal distinguishes between "God Fearers" who might abstain from pork and keep some Jewish customs, and those who are proselytes (God fearers are not proselytes):
"Juvenal, like Petronius, distinguishes between two degrees of being Jewish, namely the stage of those who observe the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of heavens, and abstains from eating pork, and that of those who "in time" undergo circumcision. The former obviously are the... 'God fearers,' who kept some of the Jewish observances but did not go as far as to become proselytes; the latter are those who did undergo circumcision and thus became proselytes in the fullest sense of the word." (Shafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes Towawrd the Jews in the Ancient World, p. 80)
As for Josephus, he was a Pharisee (if he did not convert to Christianity later), and a historian. Reporting the existence of something does not mean they conform to his theology or to the Bible.
Your second mistake is in relying upon a Christian commentary to define Rabbinical Judaism.
Actually, though I took the quotes from Gill, Gill was only quoting the Talmud or summarizing it. Instead of explaining how they are "inaccurate," you just say they are inaccurate, while not really being so. Everything I have written is indeed the accurate teachings of the Jews on the matter. A Proseltye of Righteousness is not a "half convert," but one who is circumcised and follows all of the Jewish laws, not some prohibitions that they choose to hold themselves too.
Your first mistake is in relying on Rabbinical Judaism to define Temple Judaism.
In order to claim that you possess a pure form of "Temple Judaism," and that Rabbinical Judaism is tainted in its belief that a Proselyte of Righteousness must be circumcised, you would need to demonstrate how one can follow bits and pieces of the law without following the whole law, according to the law. You also need to be more specific about what I am so wrong about. Just saying "Well, you are inaccurate," and then failing to demonstrate what is inaccurate about it, does nothing for you.
Basically, what you have is close - Noachide, or Gentile of the Gate is pretty accurate, albeit that a Noachide would (if he chose) endeavor through stages to become righteous.
By definition, these are only "half converts," since, as you said:
"One who is mikvah'd and circumcised is not a gentile any longer, but a full member of Israel."
This is the end goal of conversion in the first place, and is necessary for one to engage in full fellowship with the people of God and to partake of the Passover and other Jewish feasts and benefits. Hence why they are called 'Proselytes of the Gate' to begin with. They were not permitted to come any further into the Temple, and hence your claim that "Temple Judaism" accepted them is false even from their very name.
A Gentile may light candles, or do this or that, but without circumcision, he is only play acting, or operating as a half-convert. He is not actually following the whole law and has not, therefore, become a Proselyte of Righteousness.
Thus the Jews of ancient times did not command these to follow all the laws of the Gentiles, not even dietary prohibitions, and actively taught them that they could actively perform those things which were forbidden for them, such as eating foods that had died of themselves. And this they based on scriptural commands:
Deu_14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
"not to the proselyte of righteousness, for he might not eat of it any more than an Israelite, and if he did, he was obliged to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and was unclean until the evening, as in Lev_17:15 but to a proselyte of the gate, who took upon him, as Jarchi observes, not to serve idols, one that has renounced idolatry, but has not embraced the Jewish religion; such an one might eat of things that died of themselves, or were not killed in a proper manner. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan call him an uncircumcised stranger or proselyte, who had not submitted to circumcision, as the proselyte of righteousness did" (John Gill, Exposition of the Holy Bible, Deut 14:21).
It is the righteous Proselyte that I refer to, and your information is obviously inaccurate.
The Proselyte of Righteousness, by definition, is the one that is circumcised and follows the whole law, and is not the Proselyte of the gate, who is not bound to any laws except what the Jews describe as the Noahide laws. None of your links support your claim that someone may be regarded as a Proselyte of Righteousness without being circumcised. Even if you put a time table on the process like the modern Jews do, the time table is still that of waiting to become a full convert. They are not a full convert while they are only in the process of it, and until they are a full convert, they are not bound by any Jewish laws.
The educational phase is long, and the final acceptance is the mikvah, circumcision, and a new name... See here and here.
Temple Judaism, if that is what you will refer to as the plain words of the text, does not require any sort of waiting period for the Gentile to be circumcised, but just commands it as a necessity if they will sacrifice or celebrate Passover (Num 15:16, Exo 12:48).
The main premise for circumcision is *for* children. The Eighth Day.
This has already been proven false several times. Abraham and his entire house were all commanded to be circumcised, and the same is true for adult converts. There is nothing in the law that says circumcision is only nececessary for children, but voluntary for adult converts.
You also don't answer the question: If you argue that circumcision is not required by the law, why then is it required for children, in your strange world?
How exactly does one become 'uncircumcised'?
By drawing back the skin, as reported in Maccabees and Josephus:
"or "draw on" the foreskin; as some did in the times of Antiochus, for fear of him, and to curry favour with him, who, it is said, 1 Maccab. 1:15, "made themselves uncircumcised", and forsook the holy covenant; and so did Menelaus, and the sons of Tobias, as Josephus reports (b); and there were many, in the days of Ben Cozba, who became uncircumcised by force, משוכין, they had their foreskins drawn on by the Gentiles against their wills, and when he came to reign were circumcised again (c); for, according to the Jews, circumcision must be repeated, and not only four or five times (d), but a hundred times, if a man becomes so often uncircumcised (e)" (John Gill, Ibid, on 1 Co 7:18)
*sigh* Why would I have to provide evidences for something so common? There is much, much more, but this will do:
You quoted me affirming that you wrote that Paul "spoke" in the synagogue, that is, evangelized there, as opposed to worshipping there along side Jews as essentially identical worshippers. You then quote Acts which shows Paul evangelizing in the synagogue to prove... what?
The Nazarenes were but one of them... Pharisees, Saducees, Hellenists, Zealots, Essenes, Karaites, etc... And more to the point, many followers of different rabbis, and some of them falsely messianic.
And which group are you claiming represent true Temple Judaism, and which ones do not require circumcision, and upon what scriptural basis would they decide this on?
Doesn't it seem odd in your view that so many gentiles were in the synagogue to hear Paul?
Where does it say the congregation was filled with Gentiles? And if there was a Gentile present, they would have heard the Jews teaching the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
Since the Torah certainly says nothing about circumcision being salvific,
The Torah teaches that it is necessary for a person to be circumcised even to offer a sacrifice. That nothing they could do actually saved them is irrelevant to that necessity.
Pharisees believed TWO Torahs were given at Sinai - one oral and one written -
If the bone of contention was with tradition, then the Apostles would have said so, as they do in plenty of other places. Instead, they spoke against the requirement that it is necessary to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses, and explicitly gave commands that were consistent only with the Noahide laws, and even this, not based on strict necessity as in the dietary prohibitions, but to ease relations between Jews and Christians.
No doubt the commandment was given by Yeshua, as it is written. Mat 5:17-20. And the Apostles cannot change the words of their Master - So that should color your interpretation.
If they say "no such commandment was given", it cannot be said that a commandment was given. This is a contradiction, and so, this only colors your logic and reveals it to be nothing.
LOL! That isn't what it says. The context is that he separated himself from the gentiles to go hang with the Jews.
The context is that of "living as do the Gentiles," and requiring Gentiles to "live as do the Jews." That makes no sense if they are only talking about Jews and Gentiles sitting and eating next to each other.
I certainly know I won't listen to you anymore.
You never did, so it's no difference.
Absolutely unqualified statements such as that are almost never true. It's like the fellow who picked two passages from the Bible at random and called it doctrine. The first was "Judas went ... and hanged himself." The second was "Go and do thou like wise." Wouldn't the reader benefit from a little context here? For any given passage, you need to know the setting, the audience, what just went before, what immediately follows, why is the statement made, are there any qualifiers, etc., etc. Without a proper framework, you can't comprehend the meaning.
All that needs to be added to the context that already inhabits the Christian mind is a preference for the Hebrew custom over the Greek. This is a perfect example thereof, as a Greek 'disciple' has an entirely different connotation than an Hebrew 'talmudim'. Understanding the extreme service a talmudim provided to and for his master necessarily colors this story - These were not mere students sitting at the feet of a philosopher (which is the image we all have caught in our heads), but rather, a profound and passionate emulation and preservation of every word and deed, every movement and gesture - If the master was left handed, the disciple would endeavor to become left-handed. The intent was to preserve the master in the disciple, to the very best degree possible.
Thus, it is true that a disciple would record, and live out every word that passed from the mouth of his master, And that he uttered. even once, a ratification of Moses, makes it so forever. No disciple can gainsay the words of his master - it simply wouldn't happen. A fairly cursory examination of the relationship of a talmudim to his rabbi would validate this view.
This is one of the main concepts that began to separate me from the Christian 'herd', and caused me to question the easy-believe-ism that intrinsically infects Protestantism... And a whole new world opened up to me from within the scriptures.
But this is precisely how cultic sophistry works.
It would be an odd thing for me to be assigned to a cult. I have no affiliation except to a non-denominational stereotypical praise-centered Evangelical church. My erstwhile affiliation with Calvinists dissolved with my divorce, and while I have drifted some among the Pentecostals too, I can assure you that there is no 'cultic leader' promoting this view in me - A view which in the main, I have held for decades.
Needless to say, my current church holds little sway over my position either, as I tired of the Platonism of the pulpit long, long ago. Even among the Reformed. I don't expect to be fed much meat in any sermon or study. When it happens (and it does from time to time), it is an astonishment. What I have received from church, for a very long time, is authority to be in submission to (where my conscience allows), and the opportunity to worship with fellow believers - Hence the praise orientation.
We know several things about this passage and the broader context that disallow the view that the law of Moses applies in the same way to New Covenant believers as it did to Old Covenant believers.
What you know, in my mind, is colored by a Greek and especially Roman eisegesis. No offense meant to you personally in that - I have little knowledge about your views beyond the generics of your denomination (which I know all too well, having come out from the Reformed). While I hold the Protestants in high regard, I think they did not protest near enough.
Except to observe this. By the strangest irony, you appear to end up in a place very much like that of the most advanced dispensationalists. [...] [I] cut directly to the chase and asked him about the restoration of the temple sacrifice during the millennium. I can't remember exactly how I stated it, but basically I couldn't imagine a worse blasphemy against the Son of God than that millennial believers should, by reverting to the law of sacrifice, "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" by returning to the temple system.
Then It may be no surprise to you that I get along fairly well with the old-school dispys, even though I reject dispensationalism per se. My own view aligns more with a pre-mil, mid-trib, historist position, and I am informed more by the OT times and seasons, to include the Jubilees.
As to the sacrifice, I am not of the same mind as you - I don't understand where that line can be drawn in the face of Paul hastening to be in Jerusalem for Passover (Passover is a personal blood-sacrificial event) among other things, and because of the case of the Prophets, who show a sacrificial system present in the Kingdom. How the 'HERE' came from 'WHEN' and gets to 'THEN' is important to me. What we think we know 'HERE' should invariably be upon the road between 'WHEN' and 'THEN'... And it is not. So too, was the case for those worshiping under Temple Judaism... Not only did they miss their time of visitation, but also the signs of their coming destruction. Complacency, and follow-the-leader left them, by and large, wholly unaware. I will state that the very same case exists, and largely has existed, within Christendom.
And Heb 6:6 is speaking of 'falling away' into sin, not into the sacrificial system. How one can quantify 'sin' without Torah is still a mystery to me.
This is also, as you must recognize, a parallel irony in that the chief problem New Covenant Christians have with the Roman system is that it too is a regression to Old Covenant shadows, complete with a recapitulation of the daily sacrifice, held together by Aquinas' sophistry concerning transubstantiation.
While I see what you are saying, I will adamantly disagree - I DO see the Roman church copying Judaism in large part, if it were possible to strip her of her paganism enough to see, but their system, like the Pharisee-ism which became Rabbinical Judaism, supplants Torah with a law of their own. It is extremely difficult, from either side (as I know Torah-keeping Messianic Jews) to peel back the many layers of Tradition to get to the pearl: Torah and the Testimony of Yeshua, that which the Bible says is the necessary core.
Protestantism, all unknowing, retained much of Romanism precisely because of their reliance upon Latin and Greek terminology and custom, and because of it, their way looks right to them. But replace the Greek lenses with Hebrew ones, and Protestant thought becomes untenable.
I do find your apparent alignment with Rome and the dispensationalists simultaneously alarming and entertaining.
Isn't it strange that I would say the same of you (at least with Rome)?
BTW, I do not mean to offend you with my blunt descriptions.
Never fear - It is a pleasure to chat with you. I enjoy directness, provided that it is not accompanied by gnashing teeth and a lot of dust thrown in the air.
I have direct experience with cults, a family member who was draw into one for a time. It was a heartbreaking situation
Yeah, me too - My sister got caught up in a similar situation. It drug her through a knothole.
It was a heartbreaking situation. There is a specific tone to the cultic mindset, and I am seeing it on these pages.
Oh, so am I, but not coming from me.
The true, de facto teaching, what was practiced by manner and tone, was guilt, fear, burdens of the law, same as all the so-called law cults.
Strangely enough, I have dropped quite a bit of my burden because of Torah. I am far more free now than when I was under Calvinism. I prefer the Torah of YHWH to the strictures thereof, of that I am certain. And I am not under fear. That would be counterproductive.
For you see, the practical problem with grace, is how do you know you've received it? Well there has to be evidence, right? And what better source for the evidence than a rule-based system visible to the carnal eyes of man, what one eats and drinks, what one wears or touches, how one celebrates certain holy days, or uses the "best" way of speaking of God, the sacred names, etc.
Yet you feel perfectly comfortable calling me back to your standards and mores, your sacred names, and your holidays... Pardon me, but it is the very same thing. You will never know how vehement and indoctrinated Christians of all denominations are until you get out of the fishbowl. Just look at this thread.
This is why Christian liberty, per Galatians and elsewhere, is not merely a nice additive with which you can mix the law. It is really a dramatically new way for the love of God to work in the hearts of humankind:
Yes, so I have heard. Apparently Christians are free to do almost anything except keeping that nasty, tricksy, old Torah. They never stop to consider that the Power of Messiah makes them capable of keeping Torah. How can 'being perfected' not include being able to withstand sin? Rather, the Christian mind takes the sin away. How convenient.
But of all that, what I hold most dear, is the liberty He bought for me with His blood, which is not simply "better blood" as you put it, it was the only blood that could save me. The blood of bulls and goats could only "purify the flesh," as the writer of Hebrews says. But the blood of Christ could do the unthinkable, could actually purge my conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:14). Dead works, All my righteousness as filthy rags to him, yet He condescends to love me enough to die for me. And what a sinner I was, what a burden of sorrow I must have added to His soul that dark day. It makes me cry to think of it. And He did all this for my liberty. His life for mine. His love giving birth to my love. To set me free:
That was beautifully rendered.
Thank you for your reasonable conversation. It is much like what I used to come to FR for. Kudos.
Peace, indeed. -roamer_1
That is true. I stand corrected. : )
Oh, not according to me. According to YHWH. One of the principles of the OT... And THE foremost proof from YHWH to the nations that HE ALONE IS GOD. I have waded through every sort of religion that you might think of - both divine and profane - The ONLY system which absolutely does not allow for change is YHWH's. What He said WILL BE. That is why Replacement Theology cannot be true. And neither can anything else that seeks to change what was originally put forth.
Study it - You will find I am right.
[...] why aren't those curses still applicable today?
Because they were hung upon a tree...
What you continue to defend is your version of what "obedience" to Jesus' commands really mean. Though Jesus ratifies every one of the Ten Commandments - imposing their spirit over the letter, we do not find Him doing the same for the 603 OTHER components of the Mosaic Law.
But Torah is indivisible. If he were to add to or take from Torah, He would not be without sin.
There's a reason for that. Jesus is our righteousness - He fulfills ALL righteousness in our place - and it is why we are also justified THROUGH faith in Him, our Redeemer.
That is right. But if we love YHWH we will keep is commandments.
So, yes, Jesus DID say if we love Him we will obey His commandments and that His commandments are not "grievous". He also said ALL the commandments could be summed up in, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt. 22:37-40)
But YHWH's commandments ARE Yeshua's commandments. They cannot be different. The son lives in his father's house.
And the Big Two have always been the Big Two. Jews know that these two are the sum of the rest. They are the summary of the two 'sides' of the big 10, which are a summary of all the rest.
If we obey this with all our hearts - through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, we will be demonstrating we are His disciples and that we love Him.
Obey WHAT? HOW? How does one love YHWH and worship Him? He has said how in the Torah.
But Christians somehow think that abstaining from what He actually ordained and sanctified (which Yeshua kept and taught from), His Sabbath and His Holy Days, in order to worship on days decreed by men (which very coincidentally, of course, fall upon pagan days) is giving YHWH his due! Imagine that! How bold! Don't you think it might be a design of Satan to distract Christians away from the images that YHWH has put forth for us to learn? Why do you think that YHWH was SO very adamant about those days? Because there is a message for YOU in each and every one, that He needed to preserve through time. And those messages must be true.
Read John’s first epistle thoroughly, then try to re-write the same post.
John plainly states that if you are not following his commandments, that you don’t know him, and he is not in you.
If you know him not, from whence commeth grace?
.
>> “SO... The law is there for those who break the law... and the law they break is Torah. So conversely, as an element of illumination: Those who don’t need the law are those who do not break it - Those who keep Torah, yes?” <<
.
Surely you know that a logical reading of the scriptures is “a different Jesus” on this forum?
Forget your Dispy De-coder bagge?
.
Man's logic and God's scripture don't play well together...
“SO... The law is there for those who break the law...
No, the law is there for those who are bound to the law...Big, big difference...
All are bound to the law, for the transgression of Torah is the definition of sin.
If he is not in you, you cannot see. Those that are his do not transgress Torah; Yeshua’s best Earthly friend tells us that in 1John1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.