Shermana vs Xian Pugilist: Are Xians under the Law?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Shermana vs Xian Pugilist: Are Xians under the Law?

Post #1

Post by Shermana »

As requested, a one on one has been set up for this subject.

Shermana will be arguing that Christians were intended from day 1 to follow the Law of Moses and be obedient to the commandments and that there are works involved with getting into the Kingdom and it didn't just end at the ascension. Pugilist will be offering the counter view.

Rules of the debate:

1. The "Bible" shall be the main source of our arguments, however, the discussion of whether Paul was or was not an authentic apostle and whether he clashes with Jesus and James and (as well as himself) is up for discussion. This is not the Theology forum however, so discussion about the veracity of verses or books that are supportive of a view, such as 2 Peter, is allowable so long as there is authoritative scholarly reason (for example, much of the early Church rejected 2 Peter and many of Paul's epistles are heavily disputed), so this is not a purely Bible-as-is-based debate, for that we have the Theology board. This debate can involve historical sources, church father quotations, and such, as long as they have their proper place in the argument (i.e. Justin martyr may represent one view but not necessarily THE view.) If there is contention to a verse or book or passage being used in terms of its authenticity, as long as there's a valid scholarly reason (i.e. The issue against Ephesians is heavily supported by most scholars). If either party does not agree to this rule, then they should avoid this H2H and keep it to the Theology section where the traditional NT goes unquestioned.

2. Absolutely no personal comments. Participants can address each other in the third person respectfully such as "Does Shermana's point contradict what Paul says? Is Shermana's point coherent"? However, "Shermana's point is stupid" and such is out.

3. If one side feels that a point of theirs has not been addressed at all or addressed adequately, it must be specifically mentioned in the follow up post. No accusations or complaints about a position can be made without a direct showing of how it was ignored in the response. For example, if a point is ignored or missed, on the next post, a simple "Shermana did not address this" with a quote will be necessary to demonstrate which point still stands that has not been discussed. No one needs to concede defeat of their point or position but only to present their case for the reader to decide.

4. All outside sources are permitted so long as they are acknowledged for what they are and are not held to be authoritative over any other source just because it's that person's source. For example, if Shermana uses a "Christian" website to demonstrate that many "Christians" don't believe Jesus broke the Sabbath, it is only to be used as evidence that many "Christians" think that, however it may apply to the argument.

5. If an argument is not sustained or supported, or is a non-argument, the statement must be quoted with an explanation of why it does not work.

The debate format will be as follows:

Xian Pugilist will present his argument, Shermana will present his, followed by a cross-examination and rebuttal and closing statements and ending commentary. Unless Pugilist wants me to go first instead. If agreed, a Poll can be added once over for the audience to vote on who has presented the more decisive argument.

Xian Pugilist

Re: Shermana vs Xian Pugilist: Are Xians under the Law?

Post #2

Post by Xian Pugilist »

Shermana wrote: As requested, a one on one has been set up for this subject.

Shermana will be arguing that Christians were intended from day 1 to follow the Law of Moses and be obedient to the commandments and that there are works involved with getting into the Kingdom and it didn't just end at the ascension. Pugilist will be offering the counter view.

Rules of the debate:

1. The "Bible" shall be the main source of our arguments, however, the discussion of whether Paul was or was not an authentic apostle and whether he clashes with Jesus and James and (as well as himself) is up for discussion. This is not the Theology forum however, so discussion about the veracity of verses or books that are supportive of a view, such as 2 Peter, is allowable so long as there is authoritative scholarly reason (for example, much of the early Church rejected 2 Peter and many of Paul's epistles are heavily disputed), so this is not a purely Bible-as-is-based debate, for that we have the Theology board. This debate can involve historical sources, church father quotations, and such, as long as they have their proper place in the argument (i.e. Justin martyr may represent one view but not necessarily THE view.) If there is contention to a verse or book or passage being used in terms of its authenticity, as long as there's a valid scholarly reason (i.e. The issue against Ephesians is heavily supported by most scholars). If either party does not agree to this rule, then they should avoid this H2H and keep it to the Theology section where the traditional NT goes unquestioned.

2. Absolutely no personal comments. Participants can address each other in the third person respectfully such as "Does Shermana's point contradict what Paul says? Is Shermana's point coherent"? However, "Shermana's point is stupid" and such is out.

3. If one side feels that a point of theirs has not been addressed at all or addressed adequately, it must be specifically mentioned in the follow up post. No accusations or complaints about a position can be made without a direct showing of how it was ignored in the response. For example, if a point is ignored or missed, on the next post, a simple "Shermana did not address this" with a quote will be necessary to demonstrate which point still stands that has not been discussed. No one needs to concede defeat of their point or position but only to present their case for the reader to decide.

4. All outside sources are permitted so long as they are acknowledged for what they are and are not held to be authoritative over any other source just because it's that person's source. For example, if Shermana uses a "Christian" website to demonstrate that many "Christians" don't believe Jesus broke the Sabbath, it is only to be used as evidence that many "Christians" think that, however it may apply to the argument.

5. If an argument is not sustained or supported, or is a non-argument, the statement must be quoted with an explanation of why it does not work.

The debate format will be as follows:

Xian Pugilist will present his argument, Shermana will present his, followed by a cross-examination and rebuttal and closing statements and ending commentary. Unless Pugilist wants me to go first instead. If agreed, a Poll can be added once over for the audience to vote on who has presented the more decisive argument.

Ummm if you are taking the affirmative, you sorta have to go first, and you get to go last....

And, it sounds like you have actually been in a debate before if this is off the top of your head.

And for this format, responses should be expected to be slower. I can't do this at work, and I have some evening obligations, but I will be peompt, just not the continual daily 5 posts formula....

Fair?

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #3

Post by Shermana »

Well then. I will try to make this as short and concise as possible. There are numerous lengthy books on this subject, and it would require one to fully address everything in detail.

The most common historical view of what is called "Christianity" is that of a "New Covenant" in which the "Church" (i.e. the so-called "assembly" or more properly, the "Out-calleds" or even "assembly of Chosen/called-out ones"). It is in a way based on what is called "Supercessionism", the idea that the "Church" supplants Israel as the "Chosen People". While I as a Messianic Jew hold to a form of this view in which the "Church" is in fact the designated bearers of the Divine message, I do not believe that it involves a total abrogation of the Law, but rather a "New Covenant".

By far and large, the majority view of "Christianity" apart from groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and Sabbath keeping groups, is that the Law is not necessary for a Christian to follow. Those who say that the Law is necessary are often deemed "legalists". In many cases, anyone who says one has to obey ANY kind of standard is being "legalist". But apparently Jesus, James, Jude, Paul, and Peter, and John are all very legalist.

When Jesus says in John 14:15 that if you love him you will obey his commandments, is he referring only to the commandment to love one's neighbor? Or is he referring to all his teachings? It seems that many "Christians" indeed have a problem with the idea that Christians are actually required to listen to Jesus's teachings and obey them. And indeed, the epistles of Jude and John seem to counter these exact kinds of reductionist views. For many, convenience trumps obedience. And Jesus did say to "Strive to enter through the narrow gate".

http://bible.cc/luke/13-24.htm

What is it to 'strive for the narrow gate"?

What is Jesus even teaching in the first place? What is his message? "A message of love"? Well then, what is that "love"? Some say that Jesus replaced all teh commandments with only 2, the love of God and neighbor. Unfortunately for them, Jesus says quite the opposite, he says all the commandments "hang" on those 2. This would mean that every one of the commandments is based or summarized on love of neighbor or God. Not swearing falsely for example is loving God and neighbor. Not lusting after a man's wife (10th commandment) is love of neighbor. Not defrauding is love of neighbor. Obeying the Sabbath would be loving God. We also see this in 1 John 5:3 and 2:6. Now some may say that "the commandments" being mentioned are only to believe in Jesus as Christ and to love neighbor, but this view is untenable: It still involves obedience to some kind of standard. To attempt to reduce this ultimately will still require a degree of obedience to some kind of standard. What standard is that exactly?

This "New Covenant" is outlined in Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that the "Law will be written on their hearts" and that they will not need to be taught the Law.

What does this mean? Is it referring to the same Law all the other prophets talk about? I would say yes. Clearly we see in Psalms that "Your (God's) Law" is the same Law as given to Moses to give to the Israelite people. There is little reason to doubt that Jeremiah is referring to the Mosaic Law as part of the New Covenant being written in the heart of the believer. But what does it mean that it will be written on the hearts of the believers so they won't have to be taught? There are many metaphorical and symbolic interpretations of this view, but there's no reason for any of them to trump the literal plain reading, that those who are a part of this Covenant will supernaturally be instilled with a complete understanding of the Law, akin in a way to when Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge, except Divinely sanctioned.

Also to note is that the Mosaic Law is to supposedly last for "All generations" as in no exceptions. It does not say "For all generations up until the Messiah". Therefore, the idea that the Law would be abrogated would be a direct contradiction with this.

What is "Christianity" about even? The Jewish Messiah and his teachings, as well as the teachings about the Jewish Messiah. How do we know what those teachings are? Well...that's a difficult subject.

We have the Gospels. We have the Epistles of the Apostles. Some of those epistles are in doubt. Some of the Apostles are in doubt. Many Messianic Jewish groups, today and back then, did not like Paul's message. Indeed, in discussions of the Law, Paul is quite commonly cited, especially in Galatians, to speak against Law observance being a part of salvation. Whether this is interpreted right is another story, as some Messianic leaders like James Scott Trimm hold that Galatians is simply misunderstood (along with Paul's other writings) and that he never meant to teach against the Law itself.

http://nazarenespace.com/forum/topics/l ... ommentId=2

Indeed, Paul could just be grossly misunderstood. The general consensus on Paul is even now being thrown in doubt...however, we still have the apparent testimonies that the Ebionites did not like Paul. We also have theories like F.C. Baur's that the Pseudo-Clementine Literature was written specifically against Paul, using "Simon Magus" as the code word. When examined, it seems the back story of Simon Magus is strikingly resembling Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine ... es_of_Baur

Theories of Baur
Ferdinand Christian Baur, the founder of the Tübingen School of New Testament Higher criticism, based some of his theories about the New Testament on the Clementines. In turn, his ideas about the Clementines were based on descriptions by St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310–320 – 403), regarding the beliefs and writings of Christian Ebionites in the 4th century. This Judeo-Christian sect, which thought themselves to be the authentic remnant of the earliest disciples of Jesus, rejected St. Paul as both a false apostle of Christ and an apostate from Torah-observant Judaism. Ebionites asserted that their position also represented the Christianity of the Twelve Apostles. "Paulinism," asserting salvation by faith alone without works of the law, was thus regarded as a heresy. This Pauline gospel thus caused a schism from the authentic apostolic "Jewish" or Torah-observant Christianity originally headed by James the Just (Jesus' brother or stepbrother or half-brother) and Saint Peter.
Can we be sure of what any of the early teachers taught? Can we be sure of how to properly translate and interpret the passages that we use to base our doctrines off of? Perhaps. Perhaps not. What we can do is make reasoned estimations of what the intended meaning and context was. To begin with, the context of the Jewish Messiah must be taken into account to begin with and what it means. It seems more often than not that there is little understanding or discussion of what it even would mean to be the Jewish Messiah, other than as the "Guilt offering" mentioned in Isaiah 53.

It is the general scholarly agreement it seems that "Christianity" began as nothing more than a Jewish sect. And it seems to have been viewed by other Jews as an apocalyptic anti-Roman sect, judging by the available Talmud literature:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... to-judaism
I. It is a matter of extreme significance that the Talmudic literature, which is based on tradition at least a century older than Christianity, has not even a specific name for the Christian belief or doctrine, but mentions it only occasionally under the general category of "Minim" (literally, "distinctive species of belief"), heresies, or Gnostic sects. As one of these it could only be regarded in the second century, when Christianity was in danger of being entirely absorbed by Gnosticism. At first it was viewed by the Jews simply as one of the numerous Messianic movements which, aimed against Roman rule, ended tragically for their instigators, and from which it differed only in one singular fact; viz., that the death of the leader, far from crushing the movement, gave, on the contrary, rise to a new faith which gradually, both in principle and in attitude, antagonized as none other the parent faith, and came to manifest the greatest hostility to it
The evidence seems to indicate that the movement was originally a totally Jewish movement. The Nazarenes and Ebionites claimed to hold the original teachings of Jesus. In fact, the "Nazarenes" seemed to have been an even older sect of whom Jesus may have lived with (i.e. his hometown was "Nazareth".) and whom he may have even drew his disciples from. These "Nazarenes" may also have been affiliated with the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as a branch of a branch. The word "Nazarene" may itself mean "branch". One major problem it seems is a common association of Judaism in itself with the Pharisees and Sadducees. We can see from the scriptures that much of Jesus's rebukes are against the Pharisees and Sadducees because of their doctrinal and behavioral issues, accusing them not only of hypocrisy but of making their own rules that aren't in scripture, this is most pronounced in the "Handwashing Incident" which I will discuss later. Jesus seems, by all accounts so far, to have been hostile to the leadership of the Jews at the time and this is often confused among "Christians" with being hostile to the Law itself. Some translations may even be in on this, deliberately changing "Scribe" to "Teacher of the Law", whether they intended to change the meaning is debatable, the point being that Jesus was not necessarily against the Law itself but those teaching it.


It is often argued that all a Christian needs to do is "believe in Jesus" and that everything else will be okay. This logic would mean that no behavioral requirements are necessary other than claiming to belief. This seems to conflict completely with what Jesus teaches. Some say that Jesus "fulfilled" the Law, meaning that the law is no longer necessary. However, Paul exorts believers to "fulfill" the Law of Christ. By their logic, Paul would be telling believers to do away with the Law of Christ. Also note that Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law. Many "Christians" have flat out claimed that Jesus DID abolish the Law.

Let's look at the most famous passage in question: Matthew 5:17-20
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Many say that "All is accomplished" means the death on the cross, citing Jesus saying "it is finished". There is no basis for this presumption. What there IS basis for, is that Jesus says "Until heaven and earth disappear". This line is difficult perhaps, but it seems to be implying that Heaven and Earth WILL disappear before all is accomplished. It also seem odd for Jesus to speak on this if it was going to abrogated in 3 days. So did Jesus really "Fulfill" the Law by it being "Finished" on the cross? Not so.

Jesus says that one's righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. What does that mean? What is righteousness? Were the Scribes and Pharisees righteous? Many claim that the Scribes and Pharisees were righteous because of their law obedience. Indeed, righteousnesss in the OT is in fact stated to be for humans if they obey G-d's will and Law. So what's Jesus saying here? Considering how much he berates the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, Jesus is saying that people must be even MORE obedient than them to enter the Kingdom. Otherwise, a definition of "righteousness" must be given that negates and trumps the old OT definition of the word. What is David deemed "righteous "for? Why then is it not the same for every other believer?

A VERY commonly cited passage is when Jesus says "it is not what goes in your mouth that defiles you but what goes out"...what does "defile" mean exactly? This passage is often used with the translation "And thus Jesus declared all foods clean"...however, this is an example of how translators will deliberately distort the Greek text itself: It's in the present tense, not the past. The KJV and Douay Rheims kept it honest, but the NIV and more recent versions deliberately changed it from present tense to past. It should read "It purges all foods", not "He declared all meats clean". Also of importance is that the actual significance and context of the story is lost to pursue this doctrinal idea, much like Peter's vision in Acts 10 (where it specifically says it was meant as a metaphor for gentiles to enter the church), the idea is that the Pharisees were making up their own doctrines like ritualized handwashing (which goes on to this day in Orthodox Jewish circles) and neglecting the poor, refusing to allow them to redeem Temple gifts in emergency situations.
(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.a)

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?�

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.’b

8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.�

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’d and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’e 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.�

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’f�

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?� he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.� (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.�)
Mark 7

A very overlooked detail in this is that the text calls it a "parable". Why is it a "parable"? What does "Parable" mean? Something that's only half true but contains a point. The point was about the Pharisees. So it obviously wasn't about abrogating the dietary laws. And as I've mentioned, notice the last line that the text has to use parenthesis for, and compare it to the KJV, where it accurately reflects the actual tense, if there's ever proof of changing the text to support a doctrinal agenda among translators, here it be:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
You'd think they'd have more respect by acknowledging that it's Jesus talking and not the narrarator, I'm guessing they had to know it was Jesus talking because they had to deliberately change the tense.



And then there's the issue of whether Jesus broke the Sabbath, which has been discussed extensively on the Theology forum, if Pugilist wants to argue that point, I will repeat my arguments from there, but there is no law forbidding one to "pluck" wheat on the Sabbath. Carrying a load is not the same as picking food and eating it on the spot.


Also note that Jesus forbade the Disciples from preaching to the gentiles. Why would he do that?

The argument then is that the Book of Acts

When was the Book of Acts written? Was it written by members of the early Church? Why is it necessarily divinely inspired? Acts' historicity itself is questioned. And speaking of Acts, this leads us to our next subject: The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, of which I have a thread on in the Theology section but I will repeat the argument here: Many if not most "Christians" in argument against the Law will bring up Acts 15, citing that the Jerusalem Church (i.e. the original church) said that gentiles need only refrain from eating blood (a Jewish dietary requirement since the days of Noah), from meat sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality (this itself is a vague term and may show a sign of it being interpolated as its not very clear what that entails, if it entails the entirety of Leviticus 18 or not), and according to most manuscripts, from "strangled" animals (Which would imply that the blood is still in it), not too far removed from the Kosher slaughter standard of Jews today. But if that's the ONLY laws that gentiles are required to keep, where is Bearing false witness? Why isn't lying included? Why isn't honoring one's parents included? Why isn't not swearing falsely included? Are Christians really only required to abstain from "sexual immorality"? Do Christians abstain from such?

The next step with this is to ask: What happens to Christians who violate even the precepts of the Jerusalem Council? What happens to Christians who DO engage in "Sexual Immorality"? Are they given a slap on the wrist? Apparently not. Paul says that those who are unrepentant fornicators do not enter the Kingdom in 1 Cor 6. So there goes the argument that all one needs to do is "believe" in Jesus, closing the door on the attempt to close the door on observance of commandments. What then, is a Christian to obey? It should also be noted that numerous scholars do not think that the Jerusalem Council was a real event, like how they do not think the Council of Yavneh was a real event.

Now I'm going to just discuss the circumcision issue very quickly: There is no commandment to circumcise yourself: Only your offspring at a young age. The common argument that circumcision is part of the Mosaic Law and thus Paul speaks against Mosaic Law is false. There is no command to circumcise. If one however wants to partake of the Passover, they must be. So this common issue on the subject if anything is a big, historical red herring based on a misinterpretation of the Law itself.

Now back to what Jesus taught:

Let's look at Luke 16:16-31. A very commonly disputed passage.

16“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

18“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,c where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’�
First off, the argument that "until John" means "no longer after John" is nullified if they think the law was abrogated at the cross. John the Baptist died before the crucifixion.

The next issue is verse 17, which directly matches with Matthew 5:17-20, and may render the sometimes-used idea that Matthew 5:17-20 is referring to the commandments on the "Sermon of the Mount" rather than the Mosaic. The final issue is with verse 31: There is nothing to listen to Moses and the prophets about accepting Jesus. Nothing specifically. Thus, the only way to read this is that Jesus is warning people to listen to everything else Moses and the prophets say (i.e. follow the Torah) or they will burn. This parable I think should quash any argument on the issue, and it is rarely if ever cited in context, like many other verses that support the Messianic Jewish view in my opinion.

With that, it seems the "gentile Schism" happened long after Jesus lived. Did Jesus intend the gentiles to live without Torah? Is there anything that Jesus said that can be used for such or does it exclusively rely on Paul? Does Paul's views clash with Jesus? Is Paul even being interpreted right? Are the gentiles right in claiming the message and belief in the Jewish Messiah apart from its Jewish context? Apart from what James and the Jerusalem Church taught?

When Jesus said that Peter was to be the "Rock" of the church, and Peter was a defacto Messianic Jew, who is Paul to even step up against him exactly?

With that said, I think its quite clear that Jesus never intended his church to disobey the Mosaic Law. I don't even think Paul intended this. Paul seems to deny such accusations against him in the ending of Acts. This view seems to be developed nonetheless by the time of Justin Martyr, but is only evidence that there was in fact a schism by that time, as there were still Jewish Christian groups at that time. Socrates Scholasticus even seems to mention that Christians commonly worshiped with Jews on Sabbath before the Roman Empire outlawed it.

I believe I am approaching my 10,000 character limit so I will end this here as the base of my points. You may now proceed, Pugilist. If you need sources for anything I said, feel free to ask.

Xian Pugilist

Post #4

Post by Xian Pugilist »

Shermana wrote: Well then. I will try to make this as short and concise as possible. There are numerous lengthy books on this subject, and it would require one to fully address everything in detail.

The most common historical view of what is called "Christianity" is that of a "New Covenant" in which the "Church" (i.e. the so-called "assembly" or more properly, the "Out-calleds" or even "assembly of Chosen/called-out ones"). It is in a way based on what is called "Supercessionism", the idea that the "Church" supplants Israel as the "Chosen People". While I as a Messianic Jew hold to a form of this view in which the "Church" is in fact the designated bearers of the Divine message, I do not believe that it involves a total abrogation of the Law, but rather a "New Covenant".

By far and large, the majority view of "Christianity" apart from groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and Sabbath keeping groups, is that the Law is not necessary for a Christian to follow. Those who say that the Law is necessary are often deemed "legalists". In many cases, anyone who says one has to obey ANY kind of standard is being "legalist". But apparently Jesus, James, Jude, Paul, and Peter, and John are all very legalist.

When Jesus says in John 14:15 that if you love him you will obey his commandments, is he referring only to the commandment to love one's neighbor? Or is he referring to all his teachings? It seems that many "Christians" indeed have a problem with the idea that Christians are actually required to listen to Jesus's teachings and obey them. And indeed, the epistles of Jude and John seem to counter these exact kinds of reductionist views. For many, convenience trumps obedience. And Jesus did say to "Strive to enter through the narrow gate".

http://bible.cc/luke/13-24.htm

What is it to 'strive for the narrow gate"?

What is Jesus even teaching in the first place? What is his message? "A message of love"? Well then, what is that "love"? Some say that Jesus replaced all teh commandments with only 2, the love of God and neighbor. Unfortunately for them, Jesus says quite the opposite, he says all the commandments "hang" on those 2. This would mean that every one of the commandments is based or summarized on love of neighbor or God. Not swearing falsely for example is loving God and neighbor. Not lusting after a man's wife (10th commandment) is love of neighbor. Not defrauding is love of neighbor. Obeying the Sabbath would be loving God. We also see this in 1 John 5:3 and 2:6. Now some may say that "the commandments" being mentioned are only to believe in Jesus as Christ and to love neighbor, but this view is untenable: It still involves obedience to some kind of standard. To attempt to reduce this ultimately will still require a degree of obedience to some kind of standard. What standard is that exactly?

This "New Covenant" is outlined in Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that the "Law will be written on their hearts" and that they will not need to be taught the Law.

What does this mean? Is it referring to the same Law all the other prophets talk about? I would say yes. Clearly we see in Psalms that "Your (God's) Law" is the same Law as given to Moses to give to the Israelite people. There is little reason to doubt that Jeremiah is referring to the Mosaic Law as part of the New Covenant being written in the heart of the believer. But what does it mean that it will be written on the hearts of the believers so they won't have to be taught? There are many metaphorical and symbolic interpretations of this view, but there's no reason for any of them to trump the literal plain reading, that those who are a part of this Covenant will supernaturally be instilled with a complete understanding of the Law, akin in a way to when Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge, except Divinely sanctioned.

Also to note is that the Mosaic Law is to supposedly last for "All generations" as in no exceptions. It does not say "For all generations up until the Messiah". Therefore, the idea that the Law would be abrogated would be a direct contradiction with this.

What is "Christianity" about even? The Jewish Messiah and his teachings, as well as the teachings about the Jewish Messiah. How do we know what those teachings are? Well...that's a difficult subject.

We have the Gospels. We have the Epistles of the Apostles. Some of those epistles are in doubt. Some of the Apostles are in doubt. Many Messianic Jewish groups, today and back then, did not like Paul's message. Indeed, in discussions of the Law, Paul is quite commonly cited, especially in Galatians, to speak against Law observance being a part of salvation. Whether this is interpreted right is another story, as some Messianic leaders like James Scott Trimm hold that Galatians is simply misunderstood (along with Paul's other writings) and that he never meant to teach against the Law itself.

http://nazarenespace.com/forum/topics/l ... ommentId=2

Indeed, Paul could just be grossly misunderstood. The general consensus on Paul is even now being thrown in doubt...however, we still have the apparent testimonies that the Ebionites did not like Paul. We also have theories like F.C. Baur's that the Pseudo-Clementine Literature was written specifically against Paul, using "Simon Magus" as the code word. When examined, it seems the back story of Simon Magus is strikingly resembling Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine ... es_of_Baur

Theories of Baur
Ferdinand Christian Baur, the founder of the Tübingen School of New Testament Higher criticism, based some of his theories about the New Testament on the Clementines. In turn, his ideas about the Clementines were based on descriptions by St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310–320 – 403), regarding the beliefs and writings of Christian Ebionites in the 4th century. This Judeo-Christian sect, which thought themselves to be the authentic remnant of the earliest disciples of Jesus, rejected St. Paul as both a false apostle of Christ and an apostate from Torah-observant Judaism. Ebionites asserted that their position also represented the Christianity of the Twelve Apostles. "Paulinism," asserting salvation by faith alone without works of the law, was thus regarded as a heresy. This Pauline gospel thus caused a schism from the authentic apostolic "Jewish" or Torah-observant Christianity originally headed by James the Just (Jesus' brother or stepbrother or half-brother) and Saint Peter.
Can we be sure of what any of the early teachers taught? Can we be sure of how to properly translate and interpret the passages that we use to base our doctrines off of? Perhaps. Perhaps not. What we can do is make reasoned estimations of what the intended meaning and context was. To begin with, the context of the Jewish Messiah must be taken into account to begin with and what it means. It seems more often than not that there is little understanding or discussion of what it even would mean to be the Jewish Messiah, other than as the "Guilt offering" mentioned in Isaiah 53.

It is the general scholarly agreement it seems that "Christianity" began as nothing more than a Jewish sect. And it seems to have been viewed by other Jews as an apocalyptic anti-Roman sect, judging by the available Talmud literature:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... to-judaism
I. It is a matter of extreme significance that the Talmudic literature, which is based on tradition at least a century older than Christianity, has not even a specific name for the Christian belief or doctrine, but mentions it only occasionally under the general category of "Minim" (literally, "distinctive species of belief"), heresies, or Gnostic sects. As one of these it could only be regarded in the second century, when Christianity was in danger of being entirely absorbed by Gnosticism. At first it was viewed by the Jews simply as one of the numerous Messianic movements which, aimed against Roman rule, ended tragically for their instigators, and from which it differed only in one singular fact; viz., that the death of the leader, far from crushing the movement, gave, on the contrary, rise to a new faith which gradually, both in principle and in attitude, antagonized as none other the parent faith, and came to manifest the greatest hostility to it
The evidence seems to indicate that the movement was originally a totally Jewish movement. The Nazarenes and Ebionites claimed to hold the original teachings of Jesus. In fact, the "Nazarenes" seemed to have been an even older sect of whom Jesus may have lived with (i.e. his hometown was "Nazareth".) and whom he may have even drew his disciples from. These "Nazarenes" may also have been affiliated with the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as a branch of a branch. The word "Nazarene" may itself mean "branch". One major problem it seems is a common association of Judaism in itself with the Pharisees and Sadducees. We can see from the scriptures that much of Jesus's rebukes are against the Pharisees and Sadducees because of their doctrinal and behavioral issues, accusing them not only of hypocrisy but of making their own rules that aren't in scripture, this is most pronounced in the "Handwashing Incident" which I will discuss later. Jesus seems, by all accounts so far, to have been hostile to the leadership of the Jews at the time and this is often confused among "Christians" with being hostile to the Law itself. Some translations may even be in on this, deliberately changing "Scribe" to "Teacher of the Law", whether they intended to change the meaning is debatable, the point being that Jesus was not necessarily against the Law itself but those teaching it.


It is often argued that all a Christian needs to do is "believe in Jesus" and that everything else will be okay. This logic would mean that no behavioral requirements are necessary other than claiming to belief. This seems to conflict completely with what Jesus teaches. Some say that Jesus "fulfilled" the Law, meaning that the law is no longer necessary. However, Paul exorts believers to "fulfill" the Law of Christ. By their logic, Paul would be telling believers to do away with the Law of Christ. Also note that Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law. Many "Christians" have flat out claimed that Jesus DID abolish the Law.

Let's look at the most famous passage in question: Matthew 5:17-20
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Many say that "All is accomplished" means the death on the cross, citing Jesus saying "it is finished". There is no basis for this presumption. What there IS basis for, is that Jesus says "Until heaven and earth disappear". This line is difficult perhaps, but it seems to be implying that Heaven and Earth WILL disappear before all is accomplished. It also seem odd for Jesus to speak on this if it was going to abrogated in 3 days. So did Jesus really "Fulfill" the Law by it being "Finished" on the cross? Not so.

Jesus says that one's righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. What does that mean? What is righteousness? Were the Scribes and Pharisees righteous? Many claim that the Scribes and Pharisees were righteous because of their law obedience. Indeed, righteousnesss in the OT is in fact stated to be for humans if they obey G-d's will and Law. So what's Jesus saying here? Considering how much he berates the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, Jesus is saying that people must be even MORE obedient than them to enter the Kingdom. Otherwise, a definition of "righteousness" must be given that negates and trumps the old OT definition of the word. What is David deemed "righteous "for? Why then is it not the same for every other believer?

A VERY commonly cited passage is when Jesus says "it is not what goes in your mouth that defiles you but what goes out"...what does "defile" mean exactly? This passage is often used with the translation "And thus Jesus declared all foods clean"...however, this is an example of how translators will deliberately distort the Greek text itself: It's in the present tense, not the past. The KJV and Douay Rheims kept it honest, but the NIV and more recent versions deliberately changed it from present tense to past. It should read "It purges all foods", not "He declared all meats clean". Also of importance is that the actual significance and context of the story is lost to pursue this doctrinal idea, much like Peter's vision in Acts 10 (where it specifically says it was meant as a metaphor for gentiles to enter the church), the idea is that the Pharisees were making up their own doctrines like ritualized handwashing (which goes on to this day in Orthodox Jewish circles) and neglecting the poor, refusing to allow them to redeem Temple gifts in emergency situations.
(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.a)

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?�

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.’b

8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.�

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’d and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’e 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.�

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’f�

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?� he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.� (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.�)
Mark 7

A very overlooked detail in this is that the text calls it a "parable". Why is it a "parable"? What does "Parable" mean? Something that's only half true but contains a point. The point was about the Pharisees. So it obviously wasn't about abrogating the dietary laws. And as I've mentioned, notice the last line that the text has to use parenthesis for, and compare it to the KJV, where it accurately reflects the actual tense, if there's ever proof of changing the text to support a doctrinal agenda among translators, here it be:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
You'd think they'd have more respect by acknowledging that it's Jesus talking and not the narrarator, I'm guessing they had to know it was Jesus talking because they had to deliberately change the tense.



And then there's the issue of whether Jesus broke the Sabbath, which has been discussed extensively on the Theology forum, if Pugilist wants to argue that point, I will repeat my arguments from there, but there is no law forbidding one to "pluck" wheat on the Sabbath. Carrying a load is not the same as picking food and eating it on the spot.


Also note that Jesus forbade the Disciples from preaching to the gentiles. Why would he do that?

The argument then is that the Book of Acts

When was the Book of Acts written? Was it written by members of the early Church? Why is it necessarily divinely inspired? Acts' historicity itself is questioned. And speaking of Acts, this leads us to our next subject: The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, of which I have a thread on in the Theology section but I will repeat the argument here: Many if not most "Christians" in argument against the Law will bring up Acts 15, citing that the Jerusalem Church (i.e. the original church) said that gentiles need only refrain from eating blood (a Jewish dietary requirement since the days of Noah), from meat sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality (this itself is a vague term and may show a sign of it being interpolated as its not very clear what that entails, if it entails the entirety of Leviticus 18 or not), and according to most manuscripts, from "strangled" animals (Which would imply that the blood is still in it), not too far removed from the Kosher slaughter standard of Jews today. But if that's the ONLY laws that gentiles are required to keep, where is Bearing false witness? Why isn't lying included? Why isn't honoring one's parents included? Why isn't not swearing falsely included? Are Christians really only required to abstain from "sexual immorality"? Do Christians abstain from such?

The next step with this is to ask: What happens to Christians who violate even the precepts of the Jerusalem Council? What happens to Christians who DO engage in "Sexual Immorality"? Are they given a slap on the wrist? Apparently not. Paul says that those who are unrepentant fornicators do not enter the Kingdom in 1 Cor 6. So there goes the argument that all one needs to do is "believe" in Jesus, closing the door on the attempt to close the door on observance of commandments. What then, is a Christian to obey? It should also be noted that numerous scholars do not think that the Jerusalem Council was a real event, like how they do not think the Council of Yavneh was a real event.

Now I'm going to just discuss the circumcision issue very quickly: There is no commandment to circumcise yourself: Only your offspring at a young age. The common argument that circumcision is part of the Mosaic Law and thus Paul speaks against Mosaic Law is false. There is no command to circumcise. If one however wants to partake of the Passover, they must be. So this common issue on the subject if anything is a big, historical red herring based on a misinterpretation of the Law itself.

Now back to what Jesus taught:

Let's look at Luke 16:16-31. A very commonly disputed passage.

16“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

18“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,c where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’�
First off, the argument that "until John" means "no longer after John" is nullified if they think the law was abrogated at the cross. John the Baptist died before the crucifixion.

The next issue is verse 17, which directly matches with Matthew 5:17-20, and may render the sometimes-used idea that Matthew 5:17-20 is referring to the commandments on the "Sermon of the Mount" rather than the Mosaic. The final issue is with verse 31: There is nothing to listen to Moses and the prophets about accepting Jesus. Nothing specifically. Thus, the only way to read this is that Jesus is warning people to listen to everything else Moses and the prophets say (i.e. follow the Torah) or they will burn. This parable I think should quash any argument on the issue, and it is rarely if ever cited in context, like many other verses that support the Messianic Jewish view in my opinion.

With that, it seems the "gentile Schism" happened long after Jesus lived. Did Jesus intend the gentiles to live without Torah? Is there anything that Jesus said that can be used for such or does it exclusively rely on Paul? Does Paul's views clash with Jesus? Is Paul even being interpreted right? Are the gentiles right in claiming the message and belief in the Jewish Messiah apart from its Jewish context? Apart from what James and the Jerusalem Church taught?

When Jesus said that Peter was to be the "Rock" of the church, and Peter was a defacto Messianic Jew, who is Paul to even step up against him exactly?

With that said, I think its quite clear that Jesus never intended his church to disobey the Mosaic Law. I don't even think Paul intended this. Paul seems to deny such accusations against him in the ending of Acts. This view seems to be developed nonetheless by the time of Justin Martyr, but is only evidence that there was in fact a schism by that time, as there were still Jewish Christian groups at that time. Socrates Scholasticus even seems to mention that Christians commonly worshiped with Jews on Sabbath before the Roman Empire outlawed it.

I believe I am approaching my 10,000 character limit so I will end this here as the base of my points. You may now proceed, Pugilist. If you need sources for anything I said, feel free to ask.
You are worse than me if this is short. :) I have no beef with the lenght though. I do value that you have reasons behind your thoughts, even though I'm quite sure you are wrong. :P I'm being serious, you do think on this side of it. Now we'll see if you can think through something that rubs AGAINST your original inclinations. I'll answer this over the weekend, Saturday most likely, should post it Saturday, or Sunday latest.

Would a link to a powerpoint with voice narration be an ok medium? Provide the link, maybe post the outline? Then with VOICE the misreading intrinsic to a text only conversation would be avoided, and it would be much quicker. :) Shorter too.

And I'd like to thank you for taking this serious. I honestly didnt' expect that. Which is MY shortfall, not yours.

Xian Pugilist

Post #5

Post by Xian Pugilist »

Thank you for agreeing to a direct discussion. I find, and hope it to be the case here, that less the audience’s participation a lot of the posturing can be avoided and a race for the truth be established. Not that either of us have the truth en toto, but we should be closer when this is over than we were when we started. Knowledge is what you know, Wisdom is what you know you don’t know. May we grow in both.

I’ll address your arguments specifically, with my objections first, and then a resummarization afterwards what would present the alternative view. I guess to help direct what I’m replying to, I’ll leave part of the segment to outline the area I’m addressing. I’ll show you now, as I begin.

****Well then. I will try to make this as short and concise as possible. …

The most common historical view of what is called "Christianity…called "Supercessionism…, I do not believe that it involves a total abrogation of the Law, but rather a "New Covenant". ****

Supercessionism is not a biblically stated belief. That alone does not discredit its merits. I only mention it, to keep the perspective straight. It’s as questionable as Trinity, or any other doctrines are.

There is good reason to believe it’s an errant claim, which doesn’t say it’s not logical, just that you can question any claim that it’s sure. For example, the Council of Jerusalem, when faced with Gentile converts, decided they need not keep the law, but only imposed parts of the law. If your claim stopped there, I’d probably not bother the discussion, I don’t think that could be proven against as a viable option. However you are imposing some ambiguous (to this point) segment/s of the law that you expect to be kept. Faced with siding with YOUR suggestion, or the known position of Apostles that intimately knew Christ and His intent (post Acts Spiritual awareness), then I’m going to assume their example supercedes yours. I’ll also admit, many of the verses we will discuss CAN be read either way, so I’m not really capable of claiming you are dead wrong, but I’ll instead be of the position that your view is least likely. I don’t think anyone claiming to KNOW the truth of this either way is being very wise, nor are they being honest.

The council of Jerusalem gives me good reason to doubt the position you promote.

I would also point out, the Church of Jesus’ priesthood is established in the order of Melchizedek. As a priesthood that existed before there were Jews or Gentiles, would make imposing a set of laws that came a couple of generations after his appearance in the Bible a bit irrational. It would be akin to claiming ADAM knew the Levitical laws and should have kept them. �

I would think it was more appropriate to claim what we do know. The Jewish Apostles and the Gentile Apostles did not think the Gentiles were to be held under the law as a Jew was to be. I don’t think that James can be accused, as head of the Council, of being biased. But we do know how he judged. Overthrowing his judgment s you suggest we should, seems a bit of a stretch to me. I don’t feel I have that authority. I believe the Apostles established the Church and it’s direction of growth, and we should trust to that.

To not do so, would be as if Gideon laughed at God and called back the army, and rearmed them to charge and wreak slaughter on the enemy. �

Please answer, why were the O.T. Gentiles not held to the entirety of the law, when they became God fearers? Why was that precedent followed by James’ declaration?

And what would you call those that followed God, before the Jews existed? Or do you operate under the assumption that all were Jews from creation?

Regarding Legalists, Those you named, in your opinion kept the old standard. To present it as an absolute is erroneous. And I’m sure I’ll make the same error in her somewhere. Evidence to support the claim that they taught to go to the OT LAW for guidance, simply isn’t there, if it were, we wouldn’t have this conversation now.

And regarding what denominations believe what, I’m not going to defend nor attack any of them. I don’t think what other’s believe is how you determine the truth of a situation.



When Jesus says in John 14:15 that if you love him you will obey his commandments, is he referring only to the commandment to love one's neighbor? Or is he referring to all his teachings? It seems that many "Christians" indeed have a problem with the idea that Christians are actually required to listen to Jesus's teachings and obey them. And indeed, the epistles of Jude and John seem to counter these exact kinds of reductionist views. For many, convenience trumps obedience. And Jesus did say to "Strive to enter through the narrow gate".

The John 14:15 verse, is not a verse that changes other verses in the bible, they should all fit together and not require constant “re applying� their words to mean one thing in one place, and another later. I think we can agree on that. The problem with John 14:15 is it can be read two different ways. Since it’s wording doesn’t separate one as more likely than the other, to assume it absolutely means one way, is a bit presumptive.

Way 1, You will keep the commandments, to prove you love Him. Your keeping them here is by your power and if you fail, then you fail in love. I have to ask, what rules does a mother keep to love her child? Wait, is that natural? And because of that Love, she doesn’t commit murder, abandonment, etc??? If it is, then what a dilemma you must defend. If you deny that thought, then you have to ask, if you took away those laws, would a mother then murder her child more often in society?

Way 2, the other view is, when you LOVE as God loves, the command from Christ in matt 5:48, then the laws that were written, the commandments that were given, would be kept, automatically, because it is your nature to keep them. Your nature has changed. Scripture supports this thought by showing that God changes your heart and mind, not ourselves. Your view holds that WE must change them our self. So, you have to ignore those vss to hold to your claim. Scripture shows that the sinful nature, that internal part that makes us sin, and do what we don’t want to do and not do what we want to do, is removed and the Spirit of God replaced, at a point of maturity/perfection, while alive on earth. Col 2:11/ rom 8:9. Paul credits the Spirit of God with keeping you from giving into temptation, gal 5:16. Notice in that verse that Paul doesn’t say, the Spirit helps you to keep the law, the very thing Paul said you were freed from, so you could have a new liberty in gal 5:1. The very thing he explained away at the end of chapter 4, with the marriage, death, and freedom from that contract conversation. John credits HIS SEED IN YOU with keeping you from sinning, and John brought up sin, not keeping the law. John doesn’t even discuss the law. Any claims you make from Johnian literature, is presumed, not given regarding the law.

The LUKE verse, is just fine with my view. How hard you struggle in your change, and growth, to be taught to love as God does is irrelevant. You will struggle, you have a life of ME ME ME ism, to overcome and turn into a serve others lifestyle. So, yes, you work at it. Same as MOSES worked hard at parting the red sea. However, would you contend that Moses did the parting of the sea? Or that God did it? And if God did it, could He have done it without the benefit of Moses’ magical stick being held up? I’d bet He could have. But, you seem to imply, Moses was crucial to God’s accomplishment. Well, you really don’t, but using your logic, and applying it with consistency, we’d have to conclude just that.

Your read on the LUKE verse, doesn’t contend with a thought that you must apply your Love in life, so it can be corrected and you can grow in Love. Then, after you are taught to love as God does, and your heart, and mind changed BY HIM, to suit HIS needs, making you an INSTRUMENT of HIS righteousness, not a creator of your own, but a tool to be used by HIM, that your commandment keeping, would be by His Spirit and/or His Seed and thus your accomplishments, are…. Well. Errr. Aren’t anything,it was HIM.
pg 1

Xian Pugilist

Post #6

Post by Xian Pugilist »

What is Jesus even teaching in the first place? What is his message? "A message of love"? Well then, what is that "love"? Some say that Jesus replaced all the commandments with only 2, the love of God and neighbor. Unfortunately for them, Jesus says quite the opposite, he says all the commandments "hang" on those 2. This would mean that every one of the commandments is based or summarized on love of neighbor or God. Not swearing falsely for example is loving God and neighbor. Not lusting after a man's wife (10th commandment) is love of neighbor. Not defrauding is love of neighbor. Obeying the Sabbath would be loving God. We also see this in 1 John 5:3 and 2:6. Now some may say that "the commandments" being mentioned are only to believe in Jesus as Christ and to love neighbor, but this view is untenable: It still involves obedience to some kind of standard. To attempt to reduce this ultimately will still require a degree of obedience to some kind of standard. What standard is that exactly?

What is love you ask, was it Jesus’ message? In the last parable of Mat 25, the sheep and goats, who went to heaven, the sheep or the goats. The sheep did the work. Their work was loving works, Agapao works. It’s more than an emotion, it’s also demonstrated with action. Thus in the Septuagint, LXX, the OT rape is described with the Greek word AGAPAO. (maybe agape I’m too lazy to go make sure, but small difference.) That love was enacted by their lives, and there weren’t rules for them to follow to do those loving acts. The acts described are the same sorts of acts/works Paul coached his churches to do repeatedly. Care for the widows and the poor, etc… These are the things Paul said mattered, vs theology, in Gal 5:6. The largest theological argument of His day, keeping the law or not, circumcision or not didn’t matter, but faith WORKING through LOVE. Paul taught love trumped law keeping. So, this verse will play a part in every instance that you imply Paul taught otherwise. Without answering this verse, your claims will fall flat.

However in this conversation, rather than discussing the law, you start discussing the Commandments. Aren’t we discussing the law here? I don’t know of anyone that has challenged the commandments. Have they? The LAW is that bit that you were circumcised as part of the promise. That was the part that Paul wrote he wished the proponents of would cut off their packages rather than teach their tripe. However you feel that is somehow an endorsement to keep the law. I’m sorry, but that logic escapes me.
*******************
This "New Covenant is outlined in Jeremiah 31:31-34 " says that the "Law will be written on their hearts" and that they will not need to be taught the Law.
Ummm, God is what, exactly? Rules? Is the GOD you worship, rules? What rules does GOD follow? If LOVE is obedience, who does GOD obey? If HE doesn’t follow rules, then How do you know He loves you? If HE loves you, by your keeping rules definition of LOVE, then HOW DOES HE SERVE YOU and what rules did you put on Him? And what size coconuts did you write them on? Because I tell you, that’s pretty brazen. I believe, in my faith God is God, and HE doesn’t serve me, but I serve Him. I’m the instrument on earth of His righteousness, which is LOVE neighbor, and love God. The loving providence God gives people on earth is executed through me, as His tool. He uses me, and doesn’t get used by me. GOD IS LOVE in my theology. So, if the law God writes on my heart is consistent with GOD, it is LOVE GOD AND NEIGHBOR. God gives us a new heart, and a new mind. YOUR view has you rebuilding your heart and mind to focus on His laws. HIS word says HE will rebuild YOU, HIS SEED inside you, His SPIRIT, both of which are the enablers for you to keep HIS law. And they do it, by teaching you to love as God loves, the commandment of Christ in matt 5:48, the statement of Paul in Gal 5:6, both are examples of that teaching. In Hebrews 12, that word for DISCIPLINE? Do a study on it, the word for DISCIPLINE. It deals with training not spanking. There is a word in that segment for spanking, and it’s translated differently in English. But, God trains us through trials and tribulations, through using us to do His works, and those works are being His instruments to share His love with other people.

You join God’s baseball team. You are told you must change from a grade A, top notch, ACE, right handed pitcher and batter, to a lefty. You agree because, it’s God…. You can go study all the books, watch all the videos, study kinesiology until ONLY God knows more, but when you go out to throw the ball and bat, you are going to look clumsy, to be nice. You can make all the rules you wish. It serves no purpose. Until you sincerely try to do the work of throwing and batting, you can’t be Changed. I don’t care what your diet is, what weight lifting regimen you go through, ONLY practice, IMPLEMENTATION of that LOVE for others will change you. And God grows you in Love, by your failures in trying to love. That is the law that he places on our hearts. 1 john 4:16 makes it clear, if you followed every law, but had the love wrong, you aren’t going to heaven. If you have the love RIGHT, what law COULD, not would, you violate?
**************
Clearly we see in Psalms that "Your (God's) Law" is the same Law as given to Moses to give to the Israelite people.
That song was written for the JEWS, right…? So, ummm why would you assume it was for the Gentiles? Hehehe That’s like me telling the women in the room to go to the women’s bathroom, and you saying, OK that applies to me too. Again, why didn’t the jews hold a God Fearer to ALL the law? You are suggesting they should have kept it. So we see the Apostles didn’t agree with your view, and the Rabbis/Priests didn’t either. Your position grows bleak, these are not the arguments you were looking for…. (Insert Jedi bobblehead here…) You suggest there is little reason to doubt, but I think you meant, there is not a reason for YOU to doubt. �


Also to note is that the Mosaic Law is to supposedly last for "All generations" as in no exceptions.


And was written for the Jews, not the Gentiles…
Could GOD NOT get someone to deliver His law to the Gentiles? Does God have a bad Cell tower? If He meant for the Gentiles to keep it, I think He could have got it to them, no? So, why didn’t he? Why was it ONLY to the Jews?

They are made into one. Who are the one, Jews? Council of Jerusalem defeats that premise as they were held to a different standard.
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

The JEWS were chosen and separated, the law was part of what separated them. They were separated for a purpose, to be a holy people. Why did they need to be holy people? Where was the Messiah promised to come from, way back with Abraham….?
Deu 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His [fn]own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the [fn]earth.

Deu 14:2 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

They were to be separated from the rest…
Exodus 33:16
16 “For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Your sight, I and Your people? Is it not by Your going with us, so that awe, I and Your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the 1earth?�

Set apart again… why?
Leviticus 20:26
26 ‘Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I ahave set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.



The statutes of the law, given to the Jews was not given to others.
Psalm 147:19–20
19 He adeclares His words to Jacob,
His bstatutes and His ordinances to Israel.
20 He ahas not dealt thus with any nation;
And as for His ordinances, they have bnot known them.
1Praise 2the LORD!

PROSLYITES were required to keep the 7 precepts of Noah, they were kept out of the Temple in the NT, they were also called God Fearers.

If you argue, we are grafted into that tree, so thus we inherit the laws of the Levitical Priesthood, then you need to prove that law applied to Melchizedekian peoples, as that is where our High Priest’s Church is founded in the order of.

So, if, as written, Christ joined the people as ONE, the preponderance of Evidence suggests it was ONE in the definition of the times of Mel, not Israel who wasn’t born yet.
********************
Whether this is interpreted right is another story, as some Messianic leaders like James Scott Trimm hold that Galatians is simply misunderstood (along with Paul's other writings) and that he never meant to teach against the Law itself.
If you wish me to debate him, send him a note. I agree Paul is misunderstood, but in no way can he be twisted to supporting the law.
***************
Indeed, Paul could just be grossly misunderstood.
Granted, what makes you think you have the right view of Paul’s words? And what on earth will counter the STRONG and HARSH statement that those teaching the law and circumcision, should emasculate themselves? Any PAUL SUPPORTED THE LAW argument you wish to make, has to answer that statement adequately.

Xian Pugilist

Post #7

Post by Xian Pugilist »

The general consensus on Paul is even now being thrown in doubt


GOD is in doubt. So let’s throw HIM out too.

I’ll be glad to defend Paul, if you would prefer to change the thread to that or start another thread. Until you show that Paul has contradictions and is inconsistent with the Bible, Jesus, etc.. on this topic, all of this is just wasted pixels.
So I’m avoiding it.

Can we be sure of what any of the early teachers taught? Can we be sure of how to properly translate and interpret the passages that we use to base our doctrines off of?
Nope. But that doesn’t prove anything except we both suck when it comes to making a claim. The best we can do is provide the best reasoned statement of why we believe, this will not be proven. I think I addressed that already.

To begin with, the context of the Jewish Messiah must be taken into account to begin with and what it means.


If I grant you that we should explore this, then here is no Christ on earth yet. So there is no point in having this discussion.


Being a sect has no relevance on the topic of keeping the laws, unless you are going to discredit Jesus entirely as the messiah, and then, why have the convo in the first place, it would be jewish vs Xian debate.



Jesus seems, by all accounts so far, to have been hostile to the leadership of the Jews at the time and this is often confused among "Christians" with being hostile to the Law itself.
Actually, Jesus started off reasoning, very politely with them. As they persisted, Christ grew more and more short and terse, and finally cursed them with the largest curse He had to call them. He would have been banned from all the Xian discussion forums I’ve ever been part of. This is not a slam against this one, just an observation of the Curse He levied on them.

His anger was at the chronological end of things, not from the get go, it grew on their refusal to receive teaching. All in all, it was a natural progression of things, just as if you were walking closer and closer to the cliff, my trying to stop you would grow more and more urgent and loud.



It is often argued that all a Christian needs to do is "believe in Jesus" and that everything else will be okay.
Well, that’s true enough, but I think we agree that if a person ACTUALLY BELIEVED, it would take more than proclaiming it to make it so. So, while all they need to do is believe, I’d argue that most don’t believe anyway. Xian agnostic is the term I’d use for myself. It’s a matter of honesty, I don’t KNOW yet. But, I believe to the point of trusting he is there.

This logic would mean that no behavioral requirements are necessary other than claiming to belief. This seems to conflict completely with what Jesus teaches.
Not necessarily. But I think your position must presume that. Now show it’s a must and there are no other arguments. If you believe in Jesus, you will grow in maturity, and be changed, and HE can change you totally. In your view, YOU are obligated to change yourself. That will fail every time. The Pharisees were the most pious believers to ever walk the earth. And you don’t have near the conviction, nor belief they had.
Some say that Jesus "fulfilled" the Law, meaning that the law is no longer necessary.
You have a glass to hold water. When its purpose is fulfilled, any more water you pour overflows. How much water are you wasting in the overflow? Fulfilled means just that, finished, it’s purpose has been served.

I’d suggest the Law was written, to set a people aside as Holy, giving them stricter rules, so that SIN may be more clearly defined, and thus when the Messiah came from their peoples, He would have a standard, (the law) to be measured against. Once that sacrifice occurred on the cross, the law’s purpose was fulfilled. What saves you, keeping the law, or God accepting that you are His.

Can you keep the law and FORCE God to accept you? � Let’s agree that you ONLY get to Him, because HE will accept you. We call that Grace. Jesus’ blood doesn’t force His hand. You keeping the laws don’t force His hand. You can be HIS because He allows it, and for no other reason. What Pharisee was proven HOLY because of how well they kept the law. �


However, Paul exorts believers to "fulfill" the Law of Christ.
Christ didn’t exist at the time of Israel, although Israel fought the Word that was manifested as Jesus who was the Christ. Christ existed when Jesus was born and blessed with the Spirit of God at His baptism. What law did CHRIST give?

Love neighbor, Love God. That was the only law Christ gave. Even matt 5:48 is just a degree of that love, not a new command. So, I’m glad we can agree on we should keep the law of Christ. If you get the LOVE right, your actions will be within the law. What LOVE action is a sin?


Many say that "All is accomplished" means the death on the cross, citing Jesus saying "it is finished". There is no basis for this presumption.
You mean, other than the word, fulfilled, right?
Was Matthew 1:22 accomplished? Or are we still waiting?

How about Matthew 2:15, 23?
Was Jesus not being righteous in Matt 3:15?

I can play this game all day long. If fulfilled isn’t synonomous with accomplished, and does not fulfill the commitment to… then Jesus wasn’t the messiah, and this conversation is pointless. I say this because of the 25 plus vss I can post that will make this look rather lame.

Go look at the word, and come back and tell me, it’s not done with….
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 591&t=NASB


What there IS basis for, is that Jesus says "Until heaven and earth disappear".
Which is never. Without the law, His being the messiah would not have been so. The law defined Him as the messiah. The messiah came to die, and the law showed us who it was that died. If you take the law away, that doesn’t happen. However, like an old car in the garage that is not drivable anymore, it’s still a car. The law is still the law, and worthy to use for teaching, but it’s purpose is done for.

Jesus says that one's righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. What does that mean? What is righteousness?
I guess the real question is, what LOVING act can you commit that wouldn’t be righteous? I can show you many law keeping acts that aren’t righteous. We can start with the stonings. OH WAIT, are you still calling the COMMANDMENTS the law? Well, that settles all of it then, they aren’t the law, they are the commandments.



So what's Jesus saying here? Considering how much he berates the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, Jesus is saying that people must be even MORE obedient than them to enter the Kingdom.
Live under the law, judged under the law. So, yeah, much more righteous than them, but not more obedient. How can you be righteous? Love neighbor. Then your actions will be Righteous intrinsically. The Pharisee that walked AWAY from the bleeding man, was being obedient. Are you suggesting you follow the laws, except when you don’t follow the laws, perhaps?

What is David deemed "righteous "for? Why then is it not the same for every other believer?
For loving God. If you wish to make an argument of this, please do. But asking the question only foreshadows an argument, it is not one.


You'd think they'd have more respect by acknowledging that it's Jesus talking and not the narrarator, I'm guessing they had to know it was Jesus talking because they had to deliberately change the tense.


until one of us holds an advanced degree or three and work as translators, this is a topic above our pay grade.


And then there's the issue of whether Jesus broke the Sabbath, which has been discussed extensively on the Theology forum, if Pugilist wants to argue that point,
My arguments were better than yours. My position is it’s the MOST defended Commandment in the Bible. It’s proof to keep it. But keep it via the commandments, not the law. Which seems to be the basis for all the confusion, the law, and the commandments are as separate as your chasis is from your car.



Also note that Jesus forbade the Disciples from preaching to the gentiles. Why would he do that?
For one trip. Not for all time. �


The argument then is that the Book of Acts
I didn’t realize this was a defense of acts. Sorry. If you have proof to debunk any argument I have made based on the questioning of ACTS, then by all means, do so. Every line of every letter of every translation of the Bible is questioned. So let’s throw it all out.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, of which I have a thread on in the Theology section but I will repeat the argument here: Many if not most "Christians" in argument against the Law will bring up Acts 15, citing that the Jerusalem …..? Do Christians abstain from such?

Because those were laws for the people God set apart, and were given laws not given to other people, and only the laws of Noah were applied to Proselytes in the OT, where your beloved law is established. So they followed the examples you wish to uphold and you condemn them. �

Xian Pugilist

Post #8

Post by Xian Pugilist »

The next step with this is to ask: What happens to Christians who violate even the precepts of the Jerusalem Council?
They must confess, then repent, which means change from, and stop looking to their sins, and run the race with their eyes on the prize. If you try to do that race looking behind you at the sins, you’ll eventually drive into the barditch WITH your sins. If you keep your eyes on the prize, God, who is LOVE, and race TOWARDS THAT LOVE, the closer you get, the further the sins will be from you. You have a choice. You start in the middle of a circle, a compass if you will, you are told about sin, you can run 359 ways from sin, trying to keep the commandments, but only ONE way runs TO GOD, and that is a path of Agapao.

Now I'm going to just discuss the circumcision issue very quickly: There is no commandment to circumcise yourself: Only your offspring at a young age. The common argument that circumcision is part of the Mosaic Law and thus Paul speaks against Mosaic Law is false. There is no command to circumcise. If one however wants to partake of the Passover, they must be. So this common issue on the subject if anything is a big, historical red herring based on a misinterpretation of the Law itself.

Great, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is what the people were teaching that Paul railed against. That would be, keeping the law, and being circumcised as part of it. You can be right above, but it won’t disprove my claim. THEY taught circumcision as part of the levitical law. That’s pretty clear in the NT. I guess you can prove they were wrong, but it’s rather irrelevant, Paul spoke against THAT LAW, even if they misapplied the circumcision. Tyvm. Interesting point above though, I’ll have to dig into it more….




Now back to what Jesus taught:

Let's look at Luke 16:16-31. A very commonly disputed passage.



Heheheh ok, so the GOOD NEWS IS, YOU MUST KEEP THE LAWS! Wonderful, the Pharisees had the good news all along, why did Jesus come?

I’m sorry, those verses really don’t bear much on the chat here.


[qutoe]First off, the argument that "until John" means "no longer after John" is nullified if they think the law was abrogated at the cross. John the Baptist died before the crucifixion. [/quote]

It appears you are more interested in attacking other’s arguments on the topic than building your own case. �

With that, it seems the "gentile Schism" happened long after Jesus lived


And, yet was foretold in Psalms. That’s more than a parlor trick.



Did Jesus intend the gentiles to live without Torah?
Show me any place that says the Torah was for Gentiles too. I’ve given several places that say it isn’t. If you wish to believe every book of the Bible that speaks against your position is invalid, all I can say is that’s a neat trick to win an argument. �



Is there anything that Jesus said that can be used for such or does it exclusively rely on Paul?
Jesus referred to Himself under the Melchizedekian comparison in Psalms. How about that one.



Does Paul's views clash with Jesus? Is Paul even being interpreted right? Are the gentiles right in claiming the message and belief in the Jewish Messiah apart from its Jewish context? Apart from what James and the Jerusalem Church taught?
It appears you don’t understand, YOU are making the arguments, supposedly, not assuming with questions. What are you proving by asking questions. Nothing. These types of font exercise will be ignored going forward.


When Jesus said that Peter was to be the "Rock" of the church, and Peter was a defacto Messianic Jew, who is Paul to even step up against him exactly?
The CHURCH was the rock, Peter was merely speaking for the group and was thus addressed, it would have been rude to ignore him, and speak around him. The question was to the Church, not Peter. I trust Jesus on this one.

Well, there isn’t much of an argument for keeping the law. There are a lot of questions about why people object it though. I’ve answered those. Unfortunately, you’ve not made an argument for keeping the law, just pondered why people don’t’ agree with you and you attacked their arguments, which have no bearing on mine, nor my beliefs. What do you want me to do.

Christ’s Church is established in the order of Melchizedek.
There were no jews nor gentiles.
The making of the separated jews and gentiles into one, is to take them back to the faith as it was in Mel’s day.
That would be pre law.

Christ’s commandment is LOVE NEIGHBOR!/GOD!!
What sin can you commit, law can you break if you do that?
If you can show me just ONE, then you may have a case.
If not, then I concluded the debate is over, as I can fulfill love and not worry about the law.

Could I keep all the law and not love? Sure, theoretically. But if I didn’t have the love right, even then I’m not going to heaven. 1 john 4:16-18.

What laws do a mother need to keep to love her child?
Don’t the love come naturally at first, and any laws written to protect the child are written by those that love their children? � They had no law required to make them love. Their love made the laws.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #9

Post by Shermana »

I am going to address this backwards as I see that as the best way to hit the key topics. I will address the above posts over the week, and I will address some of the more difficult snags like the Council of Jerusalem, which has its own problems for the anti-Law side (including its apparent contradiction with Paul's account of it in Galatians) in a later post. I will also address how Paul seems to say Eating meat sacrificed to idols is allowable as long as it doesn't cause a "weak brother" to stumble, and how the Book of Revelation is squarely against that altogether in harsh terms. I will also address the issue of Paul and his apparent contradictions in more detail.

They must confess, then repent, which means change from, and stop looking to their sins, and run the race with their eyes on the prize.


Okay, but what happens if they don't? What happens if they keep on eating blood and engaging in "sexual immorality" unrepentantly? You say that there's no rules involved in "love", yet these are defacto rules, even if they are only 4, and 3 of them are about what you eat. So what happens to all those Christians (ALL those Christians) who unrepentantly fornicate? Do you think they're still forgiven in the end and they go to heaven? Even Paul doesn't agree.
If you try to do that race looking behind you at the sins, you’ll eventually drive into the barditch WITH your sins.
What does this mean?
If you keep your eyes on the prize, God, who is LOVE, and race TOWARDS THAT LOVE, the closer you get, the further the sins will be from you.


Have you actually defined what "love" is in a way that actually defeats my own scriptural interpretation of it? What is "THAT LOVE"? How do you "keep your eyes on the prize"? What are "sins" exactly? Do you not find "Lawlessness" in 1 John 3:4 to be an adequate definition? What "Law" was 1 John 3:4 talking about? To simply "love"? Quite circular if that's the case. So how does one keep their eye on the prize exactly if it's not about examining themselves and ceasing from their "Lawlessness" through their own free-willed self discipline and repentance?

You have a choice. You start in the middle of a circle, a compass if you will, you are told about sin, you can run 359 ways from sin, trying to keep the commandments, but only ONE way runs TO GOD, and that is a path of Agapao.
And what exactly does it mean to "Run to God"? Do you mean to pray to God to stop sinning? I would count that as part of the free-willed part to even seek God in the first place to help you with your temptations. So what do you think this "one way" which leads to God is, and can you give an example of those who do this?



Great, none of that matters.
Of course it matters! One of the major arguments about the Law is that Paul spoke against circumcision. If that's not part of the Law, a CRITICAL argument against the Law is proven empty and void.
The only thing that matters is what the people were teaching that Paul railed against. That would be, keeping the law, and being circumcised as part of it.
So if I say that circumcision is not part of the Law, you say none of that matters. But then you get to go ahead and say that it's part of the Law?
You can be right above, but it won’t disprove my claim.
Huh? How can I be right and NOT disprove your claim that you just basically dismissed as "not important" and then repeated as if it doesn't matter?

THEY taught circumcision as part of the levitical law.

That’s pretty clear in the NT. I guess you can prove they were wrong, but it’s rather irrelevant, Paul spoke against THAT LAW, even if they misapplied the circumcision. Tyvm. Interesting point above though, I’ll have to dig into it more….
I'm confused with your reply. Are you agreeing that the actual Law does NOT command one to circumcise themselves and that it was a false teaching of the so-called "Judaizers" to insist on Circumcision (apart from one's offspring)?



Heheheh ok, so the GOOD NEWS IS, YOU MUST KEEP THE LAWS! Wonderful, the Pharisees had the good news all along, why did Jesus come?
A common, mistaken view is that the Pharisees were obeying the Law perfectly. Jesus was quite clear that they were neglecting key parts of it like helping the poor while maintaining the "Traditions of the elders" which they had confused with part of the Law. This is very similar to how the Talmud is today with Halakha. Jesus came, partly, to rebuke them for their false interpretations of the Law and their misappliance. For example, they wore their tassels (fringes) long to show off rather than for the spiritual meaning of them.
I’m sorry, those verses really don’t bear much on the chat here.
Of course they do. Apparently Pugilist thinks he gets to decide what verses he can brush off that ultimately prove a decisive blow against his case? How do they NOT bear much here?

It appears you are more interested in attacking other’s arguments on the topic than building your own case. �
?? Is Pugilist insisting that I'm not supposed to attack common misinterpretations about the subject?
And, yet was foretold in Psalms. That’s more than a parlor trick.
Foretold in Psalms? Parlor trick? Huh? Where? How?



Show me any place that says the Torah was for Gentiles too. I’ve given several places that say it isn’t. If you wish to believe every book of the Bible that speaks against your position is invalid, all I can say is that’s a neat trick to win an argument. �
First off, we have Exodus 12:49 that soundly refutes this common objection.
New International Version (©1984)
The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.
"

Now the question is what does "living among you" mean? Does that mean it only applies to gentiles in the Holy Land? Even if so, doesn't this count as an argument that the gentile is required to obey the Law, even if it's when among the Israelites? The next step to this is that the "Gentile" is supposed to graft himself to the Tree of Israel. How would that NOT be "living among you" in such context?

This is repeated in Leviticus 18:26
New International Version (©1984)
But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things,

And Numbers 15:15-16
New International Version (©1984)
The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.'"
The stranger in the Land has to obey the Sabbath as well.





It should also be noted that in Zechariah 14, at the end times, the Egyptians are supposed to go up to celebrate Succoth or they will experience Drought.
16Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain. 18If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lordd will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
How's that for "dwelling in the land" among them?

Why must the Egyptians celebrate Succoth or face plague and drought? Note, Zechariah, as many Christians agree, even Gotquestions.org agrees, takes place in the end days, along with a return to sacrifices even!






Jesus referred to Himself under the Melchizedekian comparison in Psalms. How about that one.
While I agree the Melchizedekian priesthood applies, I don't see the signifiance of the rebuttal.

It appears you don’t understand, YOU are making the arguments, supposedly, not assuming with questions. What are you proving by asking questions. Nothing. These types of font exercise will be ignored going forward.
Huh? Those were legitimate questions that were summarizing my points. Now you're telling me you're going to ignore my "font exercises"? What don't I understand here? I'm merely summarizing my questions in Socratic form. To say that I'm proving nothing by these questions and that you'll ignore them I take as you forfeiting and looking for an excuse out of the questions.

The CHURCH was the rock, Peter was merely speaking for the group and was thus addressed, it would have been rude to ignore him, and speak around him. The question was to the Church, not Peter. I trust Jesus on this one.
The Church is the Rock? Ah, and you have scriptural backing for this to say that Peter wasn't the Rock but the "Church" was? Who was the "Church"? Was it not the assembly under Peter? At what point did "The Church" include those outside of those being taught by the original Disciples?
Well, there isn’t much of an argument for keeping the law.


You have not presented much real counter-argument for not keeping the Law, your statement is posturing.
There are a lot of questions about why people object it though. I’ve answered those.


I will address your "answers" to the rest of my statements, but you can't just write off my questions about people's objections, those are part of my argument.
Unfortunately, you’ve not made an argument for keeping the law, just pondered why people don’t’ agree with you and you attacked their arguments, which have no bearing on mine, nor my beliefs. What do you want me to do.
I think you mean to say that you disagree with my arguments? Are you saying there's something wrong with attacking commonly held arguments against my view? To say they have no bearing on your arguments I'll leave to the reader to decide.

Christ’s Church is established in the order of Melchizedek.
There were no jews nor gentiles.
The making of the separated jews and gentiles into one, is to take them back to the faith as it was in Mel’s day.
That would be pre law.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, we simply don't know if the pre-Mosaic period knew of the Law (i.e. Noah knew which animals were clean). So if you agree that we go back to the faith of Mel's day, then that means you should obey the Kosher dietary laws, right? That means you should give 10% of your spoil and wealth to a priest like Abraham did?
Christ’s commandment is LOVE NEIGHBOR!/GOD!!
That's Christ's only commandment? Does your Bible not include the Sermon on the Mount to say the least? Or perhaps your understanding of "hangs" and "summarized" is a bit off?
What sin can you commit, law can you break if you do that?
In another thread you said that one was allowed to lustfully leer at his neighbor's wife, correct? Otherwise, it seems that you're ultimately giving weight to my own claim here that the Law IS Love for neighbor and God, each of the Laws is all about love of neighbor and God, that's what "hangs" means.

If you can show me just ONE, then you may have a case.
Care to defend your view why coveting is now allowed? You said I misrepresented your view about this, so please correct me. Did you not say that Coveting your neighbor's wife is now allowable? That you're allowed to look lustfully at her?
If not, then I concluded the debate is over, as I can fulfill love and not worry about the law.
Are you forgetting that it's also about love of GOD? If you don't obey Sabbath, you don't love God. That's my scriptural interpretation of 1 John 5:3. Anyone can say they love God. Do they actually obey His commandmnets? Or do you simply say its not a commandment anymore to get out of it? Or do you deny what 1 John 5:3 says by saying that the only commandment is "To love" in a circular way that ultimately doesn't define what "love" means?
Could I keep all the law and not love? Sure, theoretically. But if I didn’t have the love right, even then I’m not going to heaven. 1 john 4:16-18.
You use this "Getting the love right" thing over and over, and you never explain what it means, even though insist my definition of "Getting the love right" is wrong.
What laws do a mother need to keep to love her child?
How about not abandoning them in a Subway like they have actual subway advertisements in NYC against? There are MANY ways many many many mothers do NOT show true love for their children.
Don’t the love come naturally at first, and any laws written to protect the child are written by those that love their children? � They had no law required to make them love. Their love made the laws.[
It appears that the meaning of "love" is a Semantic mess to begin with. Do you think a mother's love of her child is the same love in question? If you don't think there are rules in love involved, yet you say you wouldn't violate any of the Law by loving, your point is inherently contradictory. OF course there are rules in love. Why wouldn't there be? Do you not think its a rule to not kill someone you love? That's a rule. Do you not think its a rule to not defraud someone or steal from them? That's a rule. But apparently you seemed to have a problem with the rule to not lust after your neighbor's wife. Can you clarify your position on that?

I will address the rest of your posts this week, but I think we can clearly see that Pugilist's points are shaky, based on presumptions that basically involve shucking 90% of what Jesus actually teaches on the matter, and reinterpreting terms like "love" itself.

Do any of his points stand so far? I don't think so. I don't think writing off my claims and points and saying that they aren't pertinent to the "chat" is a good way to actually counter the concepts therein.

Post Reply