Lisa
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 20,288
Whoa!You're not annoying. I actually enjoy your posts.
Whoa!You're not annoying. I actually enjoy your posts.
You are welcome Todd. Not just "break a command." It is break the least of the commandments ... stealing bearing false testimony etc... But the greatest commandment? That's another thing altogether as God says in His Final Revelation: Verily, God forgives not that partners should be set up with Him (in worship), but He forgives except that to whom He wills; and whoever sets up partners with God in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.Thank you for sharing that @grateful servant
I just noticed something in this verse for the first time. It says that whoever teaches someone to break a command will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Notice they are still in the kingdom, but just considered the least...it doesn't say they will be removed from the kingdom.
So I can disagree with Paul's teaching (or at least the modern interpretation of it) and acknowledge that he may still be in the kingdom, no? I don't want to be least in the kingdom, so I don't think I'm going to throw the Torah out. Somebodies gotta be least in the kingdom right? so I guess I shouldn't mind all these Christians who want to ignore the law. (yes I'm being facetious)
Actually Todd Peter was clearly agreeing with Paul, and we have a 3rd party objective Historian who records Peter outright accepting and agreeing with Paul, his name is Luke and we can read about it in Acts, unless of course you have decided to reject Acts, and Luke...First, neither Peter or Paul ever had the notion that the letters they were writing were one day going to be part of the Bible. They were simply letters of correspondance between leaders and the members of the Church. The greek word translated as "scripture" is graphe which simply means "writings". There is nothing in the context to suggest a connotation of "holy" writings or the "word of God". So even if Peter was saying he agreed with the things that Paul wrote (which he wasn't) it still can't be used as proof that Peter thought of Paul's writings as the word of God.
I mean of course you can reject this as you must in order to reject Paul, but the facts are Scripture means Scripture, these Epistles were being circulated around by the Church for the exact same reasons as the all the other Scriptures were, for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Paul even declares in his Epistles that God commanded certain doctrine, but you would like to tell me that he and the Churches that were recieving and circulating these Epistles didnt believe they were written by men who were inspired by God to write them? Yeah Ill go with what they specifically said and what the Early Church accepted as opposed to you...1124 graphḗ – properly, writing. 1124 (graphḗ) is used 51 times in the NT – always of holy Scripture, i.e. the inspired, inerrant writings of the Bible (the 66 books of Scripture, 39 in Hebrew, 27 in Greek).
[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124
I guess maybe you are more vain that Paul? The fact that Peter doesnt say Apostle here does nothing to negate what he ends up saying, which is Paul is a beloved brother first and foremost. If Peter rejected Paul then why would he call him a beloved brother? If I rejected someone and believed they were a False Apostle (Which is essentially what you are wanting to declare about Paul) I would never call them my brother and I definitely wouldnt call them beloved!!Second, Paul's writings all contain a defense that he is an Apostle (which of course he would have only done if there was questions about his apostleship). So If this part of Peter's letter was supposed to be an endorsement of Paul and his writings, and there were questions and doubts about Paul's apostleship, why did Peter only call him a brother and not an Apostle? If I were constantly defending my position and title and then a friend of mine wrote a letter, stating his personal opinion of me and did not use my title, I would be pretty upset.
Umm no, you are simply proving what is written here as true, you wrest with Scripture unto destruction because you one reject Scripture and two are unable to comprehend what Paul has written concerning Christ fulfilling the Law...Third, after Peter warns that Paul's writings are difficult to understand he specifically calls out in verse 17, how people are being mislead. He specifically calls out lawlessness in the same portion of his letter that he is talking about Paul and Paul's writings. How anyone can rationally talk about the obsoletion of the law, claim Peter endorsed Paul's writings, and then read Peter's warning against the teaching that leads to lawlessness, is beyond me. Even if Peter wasn't directly calling out Paul himself, he was warning against anyone who took Paul's writings to mean we no longer need to follow the Torah (the definition of lawlessness).
My position and the Israelite one as well is that destruction comes by the way of disobedience to God's instructions/laws/commandments. So "Peter" (if he even wrote it which is doubtful) saying people wrest with scriptures to their destruction, isnt talking about me who tries to personally insist on obedience to God. Its talking about you who read the bible and said that obedience to God is not necessary/expected/required... Disobedience to the commandments in the Israelite view, brings destruction. Going by Deuteronomy 28 at leastWait what? Goodness KM you think Peter is making a case for your position and against Paul? Sorry but that is not the case, it is very obvious to anyone who reads just that verse let alone the surrounding text that Peter is literally endorsing Paul and his doctrine.
Yea Im different than you as in I dont care if you believe the truth or not. And I dont come here to convince you or anyone else of any truth. I like discussing these type of topics among others, so I come here to do that. Just as if this was a basketball forum, my presence in it wouldnt necessarily mean that Im here to convince you or anyone that Lebron is better than Michael Jordan. Maybe I just like discussing the poisition, while I hold my personal view as my position no matter what. Same in the context of this website.You are correct that most people wont find the path to Life, and Jesus specifically told us exactly how to find the path of Life which was to believe on Him not the Law, because He is the Way the Truth and the Life. He also said to love one another and by doing so you are keeping the Entire Law
It is clear that your made up Doctrine is the complete Anti Thesis to what Jesus and the Apostles all taught and preached so according to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles your Doctrine one doesnt lead to Life, and second your Doctrine since it doesnt lead to Christ and Christ Alone leads to Death and Hell. You can say you are not trying to get anyone to follow anything but the fact of the matter is you are clearly endorsing your Doctrine as the correct Doctrine thus the way to Life, while negating the Doctrine people are showing is the Doctrine to the way of Life according to Jesus, the Apostles and the Word of God. We can do a dance but the facts are when we lay our cards on the table your telling people that in order to have Eternal Life they need to accept the things you say and those who dont arent going to find Eternal Life, and I am out here preaching the Gospel which is the only way anyone will find Eternal Life, which is what all the Apostles and Jesus preached. I am not here to mince words, I am here to preach the Gospel, to show others the path to Eternal Life, and hope that those who are reading can come to hear the Gospel and be saved, aka find the path to Eternal Life. If you want to tell me that you dont believe the Doctrine you preach is the Doctrine to Life and you are out here trying to explain it so others can find Life then so be it but I dont accept that, no need to beat around the bush for political correctness....
Instead of assuming, you could ask as to why I put quotes around Jesus. And I dont do it often, but every once in a while I do to point out how "Jesus" was a slave ship, and not the name of the person its regularly attributed to. And yes, his name not being Jesus is important since Acts 4:12 says we are saved under ONE (not three) name under heaven which of course at the time that was being said, was not "Jesus". With that said, I do feel that your view of Jesus is the antichrist/satan as I view the antichrist/satan as the only one(s) that would suggest for others to NOT follow God's commandments and demean those who try to.I also want to point out to those reading that you put quotes around Jesus, because you dont actually believe in Jesus, you have made up your own Religion apart from Christ and even Moses, Abraham and all the forefathers, because in all reality the Faith of Moses, Abraham, Jacob and the forefathers is the Faith in Christ the Messiah, which is preached by the Apostles and made known in the New Testament...
Yea. Because the OT says that at the end of days the Most High would gather the Israelites to their land, to where He and His servant David, would live amongst the Israelites forever. Ezekiel 36 and 37 for that. That doesnt fit your belief on what "Jesus" will be coming back to do.You ask why I believe Jesus is coming back for me?
Yea Moses would have called such a belief paganism, but to you yours and his, his right? What you believe is irrelevant. What matters is what God says. And He NEVER said He Himself or someone else would come put an end to His laws. According to the OT that is.I believe what He said concerning those who believed on Him for Eternal Life, which is that He is He has gone away to prepare a mansion for me in Heaven and when He returns it will be for those who believe on Him as the Messiah, the Son of God who died on the Cross for their Sins, that became the Propitiation for their Sins and who 3 days later Resurrected overcoming Death and Sin declaring that the Sacrifice was accepted and then proceeded to Ascend to the Right Hand of the Father..
The OT disagrees with you not me lol. It's the OT (well really the Most High) that says that God would regather the Israelites (a bloodline/nationality). I mean it's one thing if you're Muslim or any other belief and say "I don't believe what it says is true". I get that. I don't get christians who say they believe the Bible yet act confused when I say it will happen.The Israelities believed He was going to do alot of things, but He ended up not doing most of them as they had believed, and I believe His 2nd Coming with be the exactly the same concerning those who believe they are the physical descendants of Israel, who put stock in that as tho it matters, it will be another rude awakening for them because He isnt coming back to do what they want Him to do, He is bringing Judgement upon everyone who rejects the Gospel regardless of heritage. People who think Jews will get some free pass are sorely mistaken, no one enters the Kingdom of God unless they accept Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God who died on the Cross for their Sins and if they havent done so by the time He Returns, the door is shut, Judgement awaits all who reject the Gospel..
What I am saying is that your issue with the law supersedes any argument that you make in support or against the apostle Paul. It doesn't really make sense to argue that Paul isn't applying the right interpretation if you do not agree that the law is accurate to begin with.If you're not asking me to engage on your terms, than why isnt my answer good enough? I've repeatedly said to you that theres no mention in the law of the law being "fulfilled" by someone at some future point in time and at that time that meaning that no one else had to follow it anymore, so why would that be something Im expected to explain?
Group A- Everyone from Moses to Jesus/James in the bible: "We're going to follow the law and you should too"
Group B- MAYBE Peter/Paul: "We're going to kinda/sorta follow the law but you shouldnt"
KM: I think Im going to go in Group A's footsteps
Rainerann: Why? Why shouldnt we go in Group B's footsteps?
Thats essentially where we are in this conversation. You really havent established exactly where Im off base with this line of thinking. Also what do I have to "prove" concerning the law being tampered with when its Jeremiah (not me) who made the statement that it was tampered with? When its God who said He gave Israel over to statutes they could not keep? Shouldnt you be going to God for that understanding on why He had His servants write those things down if we were not to take them as I did? Certain things in the bible can only be established by precept over precept, but if you cant even accept the first one, how could I go further at establishing anything? You'd argue against Jeremiah saying the lying PEN of the SCRIBES handled the law falsely, so how could I go further to Ezekiel and show that God Himself gave Israel over to statutes they could not keep (i.e. the corrupted law)? You keep asking me to explain what he meant by fulfill, but you're not even addressing the starting point.
Instead of continuously speaking for me and suggesting what Im saying, why not leave it at what is actually being said in my posts? What my posts actually suggest is that you should probably approach scripture from the lens of the Israelites so that you could see that Jesus only came to restore them to their worship of God and not institute a "new" way of worship like what would have happened if we went with the assumption that "Jesus" instituted "christianity".
He is saying that the law will be included in the instruction until He returns. It says in Isaiah 8:16, "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." This is evidenced in the composition of the Bible. Has there ever been a New Testament only Bible?Sure. The verses read:
17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…
Heaven and earth have not passed away and Jesus has not yet returned to earth to complete (fulfil) his ministry. Therefore the law that he followed and preached is still in effect. Law is the Commandments, the greatest of which is: Know the Lord your God is one and worship only Him. I ask God for guidance for us all.
Well maybe if you read the book of Acts you would see that Luke clearly documents disagreement and conflict between Peter and Paul.Actually Todd Peter was clearly agreeing with Paul, and we have a 3rd party objective Historian who records Peter outright accepting and agreeing with Paul, his name is Luke and we can read about it in Acts, unless of course you have decided to reject Acts, and Luke...
Because Christian lexicons have no bias right? The correct greek word, as used in the bible, to denote the actual words of God are Logos and Rhema. Not all Scripture is the word of God. It's not that difficult a differentiation to see.Also you make this contention that the word graphe simply means writings, that there is nothing holy about it, but lets go to the Greek Lexicon and see if what you say is true?
The gentile Chruch accepted Paul's writings becasue they were converts of Paul. The Jersualem leadership, most specifically James, did not, which is exaclty why he wrote his letter, which is a point by point refutation of the teachings of Paul in his letter to the Galatians.I mean of course you can reject this as you must in order to reject Paul, but the facts are Scripture means Scripture, these Epistles were being circulated around by the Church for the exact same reasons as the all the other Scriptures were, for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Paul even declares in his Epistles that God commanded certain doctrine, but you would like to tell me that he and the Churches that were recieving and circulating these Epistles didnt believe they were written by men who were inspired by God to write them? Yeah Ill go with what they specifically said and what the Early Church accepted as opposed to you...
You are right, Peter is not an idiot. That is why he chooses to add the modifiier of prophecy before the word "graphe" to differentiate a prophetic writing from a common writing. I'm glad you brought this verse up, because Peter is saying that no prophetic writing (i.e. word of God) comes by the will of man, but only by the Spirit of God. Yet in 2 Peter 3 Peter specifically says that Paul's writing is from his wisdom...quite different than giving credit to the Holy Spirit.BTW, the same word Peter used here in the same Book, but it doesnt mean Divine Holy Scripture right?
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/1-20.htm
Be consistent Todd, either this doesnt mean Holy Scripture or the other one does, Peter isnt an idiot...
Your argument only proves that you cannot accept somebody that you disagree with as a brother. Paul makes a few derogatory remarks about the leadership of the Jerusalem Chruch, yet Peter takes the high road and acknowledges Paul as a beloved brother, even though he does not agree with all his teaching.I guess maybe you are more vain that Paul? The fact that Peter doesnt say Apostle here does nothing to negate what he ends up saying, which is Paul is a beloved brother first and foremost. If Peter rejected Paul then why would he call him a beloved brother? If I rejected someone and believed they were a False Apostle (Which is essentially what you are wanting to declare about Paul) I would never call them my brother and I definitely wouldnt call them beloved!!
I'm still confused how Peter's words are a ringing endorsement? Where do any of the NT writers name names when talking about false teachings. The had a level of tact and respect that is missing in our day today. Instead of calling out individuals they called out the characteristic of the teaching itself that was incorrect. Maybe they all had the revelation that everyone who follows Christ is trying to sort all this out as part of our spiritual journey and instead of attacking people (flesh and blood) they attacked false ideas and doctrines. Maybe Peter actually agreed with what Paul wrote on this particular aspect (see Ephesians 6:12)If Paul was a False Apostle as you would have us believe and one to be rejected, then why wouldnt Peter say, beware of the False Apostle Paul, he is wolf dont read anything from him, burn his epistles!!! That is what we would find in a mention of Paul if he was False in anyway, not a ringing endorsement...
You want to talk mental gymnastics and logic? How does saying someone who specifically warns agaisnt teachers of lawlessness agree with somone who teaches we are no longer under the law make any sense? Who is doing the mental gymnastics? Those who try to reconcile Paul and Peter.It makes no logical sense, but again like KM do whatever mental gymnastics you must to try and find fault with Paul so you can reject him when he doesnt line up to your personal doctrine...
I may be vain but at least I have unconditional love and can call someone I disagree with a brotherSimple Logic, if I reject a person one of which I have read their works, then 1) I would not call them Brother, I definitely wouldnt call them Beloved 2)
How you can read 2 Peter 3 and not see it as warning that Paul's writings are leading people astray is still beyond me.If there were huge doctrinal difference I would never commend their writings and tell others they are worthy of being used in the same manner as the other Scriptures.
Again, Peter is giving credit to his readers and expecting them to judge for themselves. Jesus told the disciples that the leadership of the believers should not be like the leadership of the world where we "Lord over" others. Peter gives his warning and expects his readers to make up their own mind.3) If someone I rejected also were calling themselves a title that I knew they werent and thus were outright lying, I would not only refuse to call them a Beloved Brother, refuse to endorse their Writings, I would if I ever mentioned them say, this person says he is an Apostle in his writings but hes not, dont listen to him!!!
No not really....one just has to be willing to step out of the box of Chruch tradition and look at the facts to know that Peter and Paul had conflict thoughout the NT. It makes more sense to read these verses in that light than to read them in the light of the modern day fairy tale that Peter and Paul preached the same gospel.Honestly the only way to reject Paul after this is to decide to say Peter didnt write it, its literally your only defense and of course I am sure when one isnt lead by the Holy Spirit, that is where they will eventually take it because there is zero logical reason to reject Paul after Peters confirmation here...
There is much less wrestling in coming to the conclusion that Paul and Peter did not agree than trying to reconcile what they taught.Umm no, you are simply proving what is written here as true, you wrest with Scripture unto destruction because you one reject Scripture and two are unable to comprehend what Paul has written concerning Christ fulfilling the Law...
You are plain wrong here. The Torah makes it clear that the sacrifices of the temple were a prophetic shadow of the real deal. How does that make the guidance and instruction that God gave for holy living obsolete? Jesus became our Priest, yet the Pauline Church denies that we don't need a priest by continueing to teach that tithing is necessary. The purpose of tithing in the OT was to provide for the temple and the priesthood. By accpeting the modern day teaching of tithing you are denying that Jesus is your priest and unwittingly conceding you need the modern day equivalent to hear from God. Hence you parrot what is taught from the pulpit rather than letting God speak to you personally about his word.Peter is no where endorsing following the Torah and if that is where we would like to take the conversation, you yourself are not following the Torah. If you believe we are to follow the Torah then you must believe we ought to establish a Temple and make Sacrifices for Sin again. If you believe that then you must believe Jesus hasnt come to fulfill the Sacrifice and that His Blood doesnt cover your Sin. However if you in anyway believe that Jesus did come, did die and His Blood was the Final Atonement then you adhere to Jesus coming and fulfilling that part of the Torah and thus has rendered it obsolete. Its a rather massive Doctrine, as your Salvation is Dependent upon whether you accept Christ as fulfilling the Sacrifice for your Sins or if you reject Christ has done this or believe that something else is needed...
I have never once rejected what Jesus did on the Cross. If anything by rejecting the teachings of Paul, I have recieved a greater revelation and appreciation of what Jesus did on the cross. For 20 years I walked as Christian mostly following the teachings of Paul, as that is what dominated what I heard from the pulpit. Since I have focused my attention away from Paul and more on Christ, I feel closer than I ever have to God and the Messiah. My doctrine is being constantly refined and purified through the word of God. Most Christians doctrine is stagnant and unchanging, resulting in little growth through the years. If we are truly growing in God he refines and purifies our character along with our doctrine and theology.But as my first post stated it doesnt take long to see that those who reject Paul immediately begin down a path of their own personal made up Religion that usually ends up destroying the Gospel and building False Doctrine upon False Doctrine. I just hope and pray you truly dont reject that Jesus came and fulfilled the need for Sacrifice because if you do, then you are preaching a False Gospel and your sin abides upon you...
Interesting - so I take it you are untroubled by the evidence for the tampering with the manuscripts? Having read the whole book, I will watch with interest how the critical community are able to respond to these observations. I particularly liked the square worm holes ;-)The majority of scientists are not at a consensus when it comes to macroevolution. That's only what the elite want us to perceive. There thousands of scientists that don't believe macroevolution to be a fact because it's not observable and the fact that there's no physical evidence to prove that it occurs.
The same is not true with the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus has been carbon dated to be authentic in age and we physically have it in our possession and is observable.
Hmm... I really can't make sense of what you are saying rainerAnn. I guess it depends on what the word fulfil means to you. Where is your proof for saying that the commands that Jesus is referring to are his own? I though he and the Father are one according to your belief. In context it is apparent that Jesus is talking about God's commandments and...heaven and earth have not passed away, yet more than "one jot and one stroke of the pen" have been changed by the followers of Paul.He is saying that the law will be included in the instruction until He returns. It says in Isaiah 8:16, "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." This is evidenced in the composition of the Bible. Has there ever been a New Testament only Bible?
No, from the Bible's creation in the time of the early church, the law has always been included because the disciples were given the responsibility of preserving it according to the prophecy.
The commands He is referring to are His own. Fulfilling His ministry is different than fulfilling the law, and what the prophecy says is that the law will continue to be taught with the testimony until the prophecy is fulfilled, which is being done.
I am referring to the teachings from the Sermon on the mount, which were not direct quotes from the law and I am saying that the law and the prophecy are two different things. The prophecy says in Isaiah that the law and the testimony will be combined and preserved by the disciples. That is we why we include the Old Testament with the New. That is in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah.Hmm... I really can't make sense of what you are saying rainerAnn. I guess it depends on what the word fulfil means to you. Where is your proof for saying that the commands that Jesus is referring to are his own? I though he and the Father are one according to your belief. In context it is apparent that Jesus is talking about God's commandments and...heaven and earth have not passed away, yet more than "one jot and one stroke of the pen" have been changed by the followers of Paul.
Maybe has something to do with the attitude/energy you're approaching the conversation with.What makes you think I approach Scripture and discussion of it negatively? Because I reject your Doctrine?
lol Do you also go to clubs, parks, malls, convenience stores etc.. to spread the gospel? Or are those all no fly zones for the gospel you have to spread?No Thanks, this is the perfect place for me to be, so that the Gospel is preached to those who are clearly wanting to know the Truth because they are no a Forum that is exposing the Illuminati and other ideologies. I dont need to preach the Gospel to those who already believe, the Gospel needs to be preached to those that have yet come to accept it. I also believe this is a wonderful place for me to present the Gospel in light of False Doctrines so that others who are hungry for the Truth can see the Light next to the Darkness of the many False Doctrines that are preached on this board and the World...
Yes this is the root of the convo. The rest of your post is all incorrect but Im not going to go line for line with you on it. So in a roundabout way, NO, I did not say the law wasnt PART of the covenant. I said the law was NOT the covenant. In either covenant in the OT, or the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31 is the law the actual covenant. Both covenants were covenants/agreements that if they OBEYED GOD they'd be blessed and if they disobeyed they'd be cursed. The law itself is not the covenant which is why it says the LAW will be part of the NEW COVENANT as it will be written on people's hearts. Thats without mentioning that the new covenant is a covenant between God and Judah/ISRAEL. Not anyone and everyone. But anyways, I then brought up Deuteronomy 28 to show the terms of the covenant. Which was obey, get blessed in certain ways, disobey, get cursed in certain ways. This is the same covenant as the first, just with different people as the people the first covenant was made with, were put to death. The last covenant was different because everyone when the new covenant is in effect (showing that its not in effect) will OBEY God and NO ONE will have to ask of Him because they will ALL know Him. But besides the last covenant, the other covenants were the same. Obey God, and it goes good, dont, and it goes bad. THAT is the agreement God made with them. That if they obeyed, they'd essentially be the "illuminati". If they disobeyed, they'd be hated and despised. Which leads to the irrelevant, but true topic you brought up.Alright lets take this back to the root of the discussion, you went on about how Jesus said He didnt come to destroy the Law but fulfill it, I made a post that showed in laymen terms so others who are reading along can more easily understand, what it meant to fulfill the Law as opposed to destroy it. I stated that the Law was Contract that the Law was a Covenant, Jesus came lived up to and fulfilled the Legal Obligations of the Law, He didnt destroy it but fulfilled it in the same manner one who enters into a Contract with a business that has obligations must live up to and complete them and once they are lived up to and completed then that Contract is fulfilled and no longer binding.
The problem with your interpretation of "fulfill" is that its not supported in the OT. Nothing in the OT says anything about a person coming along later, "fulfilling" the law, to where it should not be followed anymore. So to an Israelite, what you're proposing would be an abomination that would only lead to their destruction. So thats why I disagree with your and if you say so Paul's take on not following the law anymore because Jesus did.What I am saying is that your issue with the law supersedes any argument that you make in support or against the apostle Paul. It doesn't really make sense to argue that Paul isn't applying the right interpretation if you do not agree that the law is accurate to begin with.
Basically, what you are saying is that you have no way to present a different explanation of what we should do as Christians in following what Jesus says about the law being fulfilled again. The Torah is the same as the law is today. A judge will take a case and he will use the law to interpret a ruling. That is what the Torah is for; however, you have to be acclimated with it in order use it in the same way a judge would.
For example, a counter argument could be that Paul should have been teaching how the people were approach lepers. It was the duty of the priests to address the lepers. Depending on the severity of the leprosy, the priest would be responsible to check on this person and declare him clean if the leprosy went away. Jesus even tells a man to show himself to the priest so that the priest can declare him clean in keeping with the law. This one would have been a very easy example to use if you were really familiar with the law. It can be found in Leviticus 13 and Luke 5:14.
Anyways, these laws regarding leprosy resulted in many people suffering with leprosy for a very long time as described in the Gospel. The law was clearly being neglected in that time. However, it can seen as fulfilled because while Jesus told the man to be declared clean by the priest, He also healed Him.
The trial that was given to those who had leprosy is unclear, but leprosy does appear to be some kind of judgement because it is an illness that is supervised by a priest and a priest is basically supposed to wait and see whether it will be resolved or the judgement on the man with be resolved in other words.
When Jesus healed the leper, he fulfilled the law that declared that leprosy was a judgement. Therefore, there are no New Testament commands regarding leprosy.
As a result, I would have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with an argument against the apostle Paul made by someone who cannot even use or interpret how Jesus applied the law in the Gospel.
Still, your question about the law being fulfilled in the law. Jesus says, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me." (John 5:46).
We don't have this. It doesn't surprise me that we don't have this because the priests hated Jesus. Therefore, there should have been something about how Moses spoke of Jesus. However, this still does not eliminate the connection between the lesson on lepers and women in their time after having a baby, which are the only two I will include for now because of length. Therefore, we are still able to understand what Jesus means when He says that the law is fulfilled either way. I do believe the Bible is accurate; however, I do also recognize that there are missing pieces of the puzzle that I believe were destroyed during the persecution of the early church.
See, the problem with your interpretation is that you don't know how to interpret the law according to what you think Jesus was referring to when he said that He fulfilled the law and didn't change it. Basically, you object with Peter referring to the people as a Holy priesthood then because only a Levite could be a priest (1 Peter 2:9). According to the Old Testament, people died carrying the ark because there weren't Levitical priests (2 Samuel 6:6-7).The problem with your interpretation of "fulfill" is that its not supported in the OT. Nothing in the OT says anything about a person coming along later, "fulfilling" the law, to where it should not be followed anymore. So to an Israelite, what you're proposing would be an abomination that would only lead to their destruction. So thats why I disagree with your and if you say so Paul's take on not following the law anymore because Jesus did.
In short, God came, gave them the law, told them to obey it and left it at that. He didnt give them the law, then say "Hey later, I'll send this guy (might be Myself) who will come and do the law the right way and then you guys wont have to follow it anymore". And I dont see how me NOT seeing Him say/insinuate that, equates with a weak position. But I think thats just you placing the NT over the OT rather than me seeing anything the wrong way.
Sounds like a copout. You cant show where God left room for His law being done away with, so you say Im childish for insisting on this as an important point for my belief in continuing to follow it? Since there was no room for the law being done away with by man, plus Deuteronomy 13 suggesting that people who lead away from the commands of God are false prophets, what conclusion should I be coming to other than anyone (including you and Paul) who leads me away from following God's commandments is false and should not be listened to? If Im wrong, why cant YOU bring anything from the OT or Jesus that exemplifies how Im wrong? That would do more for the discussion than your swipes at my person. Imo at least.See, the problem with your interpretation is that you don't know how to interpret the law according to what you think Jesus was referring to when he said that He fulfilled the law and didn't change it. Basically, you object with Peter referring to the people as a Holy priesthood then because only a Levite could be a priest (1 Peter 2:9). According to the Old Testament, people died carrying the ark because there weren't Levitical priests (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
You understand then what a brazen thing it was to refer to the people who were following Christ as a priesthood according to the law then?
I still think you are trying to play off the fact that you don't really understand the law to begin with. You have no insight to give for what the church should be doing instead of what they are doing. You are just kind of yelling on the sidelines and harassing them like a spectator watching a football game thinking that the quarterback could have won the game if he passed the ball. It is a lot of noise without substance.
Again, the peace offering was required by the law of Moses according to Leviticus 3. According to the instructions, if someone wanted to give a peace offering, he would have to bring an animal from their herd to a priest. A priest (who would be one of Aaron's sons) would sprinkle the blood on the altar. They would offer the fat of the animal and the internal organs as the offering that would be acceptable to the Lord.
Now, in the modern world, most people don't have a herd. So in your discernment as a proponent that the law should still be practiced, how would we we apply this law into the modern world so that Jesus' intention in saying that the law was not changed when it was fulfilled is applied accurately?
I will provide my own understanding on this. This was fulfilled and so Christ says blessed are the peacemakers. They will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9). To be a peacemaker is to "submit to one another out of reverence to Christ," (Ephesians 5:21). This is in fulfillment of the law that encouraged bringing a peace offering before the Lord. That is now three applications of an actual law and how it is fulfilled, while you have provided not one counter interpretation to the previous two yet.
This is what I am looking for. If you are unable to answer a question like this, you are not in a place to criticize others in their understanding of the New Testament teachings. There is an old saying that goes something like, "if you are not helping, you are in the way."
If you cannot help provide a better understanding of how the law is to be used today, then you are in the way. Maybe try to just answer the question with your knowledge of the law instead of making childish comments that the law doesn't say that in being fulfilled it would change the way it is described in the New Testament. Anyone can make a statement like this. A five-year-old could parrot it. Please try to include something of substance from your testimony that you provided which included reading the law and understanding that obedience to God included continuing to keep it. How do you keep the law?
Paul had to defend his Jewishness. He had to really assert "nah, trust me- I'm really Jewish". Why would he even need to defend that?
I think he served the interests of the Romans that were oppressing the Jews and so I don't think he really had the Jews' interests att heart and that's why it came up.
The fact that he had to defend his connection to the people makes me think he wasn't really of the people. He was serving outside interests. He spoke very beautifully but the devil likes to appear as an angel of light.
That's my theory about Paul. I'm still investigating but right now that's what I'm thinking.
I trust the Quran and the OT more than than the New Testament..... at the time that the NT writings appeared, there were a lot of messianic Jewish nationalists that were threatening the Roman elites and I think the NT was created as a tool of psychological warfare.
That is my theory. I'm not 100% for sure, though. I'm still investigating but that's what I'm leaning towards.
My older homie that me and some otherscall OG Chi-Town- he says religion is a tool of controlling people and I believe it. The colonizers went all over the world then they showed uo at your door-step with some swords, some chains and some Bibles.
That being said, I still pray to Jesus regardless and I love Jesus. Jesus is powerful. I don't know if he actually existed or not but I know there's an effect when you invoke him.
My explanation of how the law regarding peace offerings is fulfilled is supported by the fact that there is no temple to present offerings. Maybe this is something for you to consider. If we are supposed to follow the law instead of discerning how the law is fulfilled, then why is there no temple?Sounds like a copout. You cant show where God left room for His law being done away with, so you say Im childish for insisting on this as an important point for my belief in continuing to follow it? Since there was no room for the law being done away with by man, plus Deuteronomy 13 suggesting that people who lead away from the commands of God are false prophets, what conclusion should I be coming to other than anyone (including you and Paul) who leads me away from following God's commandments is false and should not be listened to? If Im wrong, why cant YOU bring anything from the OT or Jesus that exemplifies how Im wrong? That would do more for the discussion than your swipes at my person. Imo at least.
But anyways no temple = God hasnt dictated a place to offer sacrifice/offerings = no sacrifices/offerings. Thats what the OT, what you said you read and enjoy equally as much as the NT, says. So just because you can connect "peace offerings" with "peace makers" and "sons of Gods" doesnt mean you're actually proving anything concerning what you're talking about. You're just connecting words from different verses and trying to force fit them together. A better way would be you explaining how a person who suggests to NOT follow God's commandments, with no hint from God Himself that this would be the case at one time or another, is not a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13. But it doesnt seem like you want to do anything but hold up hoops for me to jump through while you only jump through hoops you put up yourself. I'll have to respectfully pass on that...
The best biblical scholars have **no trouble** believing that the earliest manuscripts we have are trustworthy copies of the original manuscripts. I showed in another link very oldest manuscripts dated approx 250 AD.You're oldest most complete Bibles date back to the 4th century I believe but yet you're claiming that the NT books date back to the 1st century. Either all the scholars and scientists have it wrong and you have it right or vice versa. In any case, show me these books of the NT that date back to the 1st century?
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’…