Six Reasons to Celebrate Hanukkah
December 23rd, 2009 by Sean
This year my wife and I decided to celebrate Hanukkah with our family. We enjoyed it immensely and found it to be entirely compatible with biblical Christianity. My son Noah, asked for a couple of nights afterward if we could do Hanukkah that night, but we had to explain to him that it only lasts for eight days. Maybe you would like to celebrate it next year.
The holiday celebrates the miraculous victory of God defeating the Greek Seleucid empire in the second century BC. Judah had returned to the land but had subsequently been conquered by the Greek empire (under Alexander the Great). Then after some time an evil king arose, named Antiochus IV, who outlawed keeping the Law of Moses. This man persecuted the people of God relentlessly forcing them to adopt Greek education, philosophy, religion, politics, etc. In a little village called Modein one family successfully stood up to this Hellenization program–the Hasmoneans (also called Maccabeans). To read the story for yourself, just get a copy of 1 Maccabees (or read it online). Against all odds the Hasmoneans were able to lead their fellow resistors in victory after victory until finally they regained control of the Temple. The temple was cleansed dedicated once more to the worship of the true God. Hanukkah is the celebration of this dedication (Hanukkah is the Hebrew word for dedication). Of course there’s more to the story than that, but it gives a glimpse of what this holiday is all about.
Though, I certainly do not think this holiday is mandatory, my family found it to be wonderful and worthwhile. Here are six reasons why you should consider celebrating Hanukkah next year:
- historical significance: The holiday focuses on events that really happened. These events are massively significant for understanding the gap between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
- it glorifies God: Hanukkah is all about how God delivered our people. The holiday memorializes how God cares enough and is powerful enough to save his people when they trust in him.
- it teaches integrity: The flash point of the Maccabean revolution was when Mattathias refused to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods even though he knew it would probably cost him his life. This reminds us that integrity matters. We should not just cave in to peoples’ requests or even demands if it conflicts with what God desires.
- encourages family fellowship: For eight days the family is together in the evening thinking about God and praising him for his deeds. This unites the family and offers a welcome interruption to a typical evening.
- resisting hellenization is just as relevant today: Though the Greeks are not forcibly converting us to think and live in a pagan manner, their mark has been indelibly left on the early Church Fathers, many of whom were philosophers before they became Christians. How has Christianity been hellenized in the past? How are we now being “americanized” in the present?
- Jesus celebrated it: John 10.22-23 indicates that Jesus was walking around in the Temple during the Feast of Dedication (remember dedication = chanukkah in Hebrew). Of course, Jesus never commands his disciples to keep this feast, but he probably did keep it.
Hi Sean,
interesting stuff!
I have a few questions:
– do we know this was a miraculous victory of God?
– how do you feel about celebrating other important events, like the exodus from Egypt or Babylon?
Now slightly (but not completely) off-topic, I was and I am curious about how and what do Jewish people think about the many disasters that affected them throughout their history after the exile from Babylon. So I asked a Jew, Rebecca Lesses – who incidentally teaches Jewish Studies at Ithaca College – on her blog, here https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5448657&postID=3608940249543883885
At first my question was met with great suspicion about my “motives” and “agenda”, and afterwards she simply refused to answer. Does anyone know if this is a very sensitive, tabu subject among Jews? Does anyone know what religious Jews (who don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah) think about this subject?
Sean,
What did you and your family do to celebrate it, besides lighting the candles?
“Jesus celebrated it: John 10.22-23 indicates that Jesus was walking around in the Temple during the Feast of Dedication (remember dedication = chanukkah in Hebrew). Of course, Jesus never commands his disciples to keep this feast, but he probably did keep it.”
Sean
I fail to see the probability of this, but can see the possibility.
there is a greater possibilty for why he was there considering during this 8 day celebration there fell 2 sabbaths and it was his custom.
this is lacking the detail for this claim.
I am also interested in John’s questions.
plus remember this was being celebrated because of the commandment of men which Jesus was against
John E,
Being that I live in Israel I think that I can answer your general question with a general accuracy. The answer is no, the subject is not sensitive, and hannukah is always focused upon the lighting of the candles to remember the BIG PICTURE, that God is the one who provided the miracle of the burning oil.
And to add, you could have phrased the question differently, instead of directly referencing to the poster as “YOUR people,” you could have simply said, ” the Jewish people.” I think that is what triggered the caution in answering your question. Just a word of advice if you are going to be trying to spread seeds for Christ within the Jewish people.
Also to point out, many of the things you responded to can be thrown right back at you. For example, a non-believing Jews can ask the same thing to you based upon various historical points throughout Christianity. I think you let your emotions run wild in that post and I would suggest that if you actually are interested in speaking with Jews on a theological level that start with a slower pace. 🙂
Hi Joseph,
thank you for your response.
To clarify, I never said “YOUR people”, just “your people”. I did that because I also wanted to make clear I am not a Jew. The Jewish race is certainly not my people. I also wanted to indicate that I want her personal opinion (“your people”), not just generalizations.
So you think “your people” would be inappropriate when a Gentile talks to a Jew about the Jewish people? Why would that be? I for one, if someone were saying to me “your people”, I would see absolutely no problem.
“Thrown back to me” might be a little harsh. I certainly did not “throw” anything towards her, I merely asked questions. Asking me back is perfectly fine, I would have answered gladly!
I actually invested no emotions in what I wrote. And as hard to believe it may be, I had absolutely no interest in “speaking with Jews on a theological level”, nor did I want to evangelize or anything like that. As I already said, I’m simply curious. Is that so hard to believe? It shouldn’t be. The answers I’m looking for are not theological treatises. All I’m interested in is how does one explain to himself the situation? How does one feel about it? Is one angry, patient, or agnostic, etc…?
So, by the way, do you think you could answer my questions? I’m really glad you saw my post and responded. The problem is, I kind of have a rough idea on what you would think on the subject because you do believe Messiah has already come. Could you lay out how religious or not-so-religious Jews, other than the few who believe in Jesus, view this? Why didn’t God protect the Jewish nation against enemies, pogroms, holocausts, etc, since they came out of the Babylonian exile? Why didn’t God send his Messiah yet? How do they explain these almost 2600 years during which God has not intervened in an obvious way in the nation’s behalf?
I saw yesterday on TCM “Fiddler on the Roof”, a very interesting movie about a small Jewish community in the Tsarist Russia at the start of the 20th century. There’s a scene where the tsarist persecution against these Jews begins, and one of them asks another “wouldn’t this be a good moment for the Messiah to come?”. I wonder how many times throughout their tumultuous history Jews have asked this question. Does it have an answer? Why didn’t God intervene to stop all these catastrophes?
Thanks
John E,
you said:
I believe it was a miraculous victory based on the narrative in 1 Maccabees and the historical unlikeliness of a puny state like Judah achieving religious and then political independence. Of course, this event, along with any other, can be explained from a naturalistic perspective, but I’m less inclined to follow that route.
Honestly, I would like to celebrate other significant biblical events too. I think many people have been struck with how well the Jews have survived though they were alienated from their homeland. I think one of the significant factors is that, as a people, they are experts at transmitting their beliefs/practices/traditions on to the next generation. This is done partially through their holidays, which really are holy-days as opposed to much of the nationalistic holidays we celebrate in the US (probably in Canada too, but I’m not sure). I’m pretty flexible with this stuff since I don’t believe keeping the Law is obligatory in light of my understanding of the New Covenant, but as the head of my family I feel that it is my responsibility to bring God to my family and so I think a lot about what traditions my wife and I would like to set for our kids. The Hanukkah one worked well, was a joy, and brought glory to God.
—————————————
MarkC,
you said:
1. we gathered in the living room
2. I told them a part of the story (from Antiochus IV to the Dedication split up into 8 segments)
3. I prayed, thanking God for various things
4. we said the blessings (these are found in the Siddur–the Jewish prayer book)
5. my wife lit the candles while I read aloud the candle-lighting blessing (Also from the Siddur)
6. my wife then read the Hanukkah “psalm” from the Siddur (It’s about the length of a biblical Psalm, though I don’t know if they call it a psalm)
7. we gave the kids each a present
It was really fun to explore the holiday with my family, though we will also be doing Christmas as well with our parents.
I think it is great that there are some Christians who celebrate the holy days of the Old Testament. I find it amazing that Jesus, Peter and the apostles and the other early church leaders considered themselves to be Jews and that the way (as the early Christians were called) was widely accepted as a Jewish sect for the first 70 years after Pentecost and yet within less then a hundred years after Constantine created his new state religion in the 4th. century that the Christians suddenly began to persecute the Jews. It is as if they had no idea where Christianity came from and had no knowledge of Jesus’ Jewish roots and his role of fulfilling all the prophesies of the Messiah. Unfortunately I am completely ignorant of the major Jewish Holy Days and would have no idea how to properly observe them.
Hi Thomas! Welcome!
Actually, Christianity’s move away from its Jewish roots began even before Constantine, and some of the persecution as well. It was a combination of forgetting their Jewish roots and over-reacting to the the Jews’ rejection of Messiah. God has and will judge them for that rejection, but that doesn’t justify persecuting them.
You could probably find any information you want about the Jewish holidays on line, just by Googling it. Just remember that for Christians it is not commanded or mandatory to celebrate them, so if you happen upon a site that pushes legalism, you should take it with a grain of Kosher salt. But as Sean has demonstrated, observing them can be a great learning adventure.
Mark C.
Thanks for the welcome and I’d like to wish you and everyone else a very Merry Christmas! I know some of you don’t celebrate Christmas and I hope I’m not offending anyone. I have never blogged before and I have no idea how to address my comment to anyone other than the last person who made a post. My son says I’m a techno dummy.
Mark C.
Please ingore my last post about having no idea how to address my comment to anyone other than the last person who made a post. I think I figured it out….
Sean,
I think we have to be very careful regarding the keeping of any Jewish festivals. We have enough problems as it is opposing “Christians” who hold to Torah, why should we complicate the matter?
Besides, I think the Christian festivals or celebrations we do have should be our main priority, as Christians!
RE: your points, let me comment on them:
Are you suggesting that the Jews before Chrtist are “our people”? I know that according to the Christian teaching we are now supposedly grafted into the olive tree [Rom 11]. As Paul calls it, “the Israel of God” [Gal 6.16]. But I have never thought of the Jews previous to this as “our people”. Since we Gentiles were not even a people, to them we were dogs:
As we know Jesus kept the Torah, kept the other feasts, wouldn’t it be proper for us to do the same? Especially if it brings the kind of fulfillment which you point out here. Unity of family, closeness to God etc.?
I just do not see how this can be helpful or edifying in light of the problems I have mentioned regarding a large section of Christendome and their adherence to certain Old Covenant laws/festivals.
I’m wondering about any connections between the celebration in the book of Esther and Christmas, the days of Purim.
It was a time of sending “portions” (presents?) to one another. (Esther 9:19)
Xavier
I hope you don’t mind me interjecting again but I find your conversation very interesting. You said ” Are you suggesting that Jews before Christ were our people?”
Moses and the prophets constantly referred to the Jews before Christ as the children of God (although sometimes they didn’t behave like it.) We are all the children of God and they are our brothers even though we may disagree on doctrine.
Jesus seems to have made contradictory statements on this subject. On the one hand he said to the Gentile woman that it would be wrong for him to give the children’s bread to the dogs. The woman replied that even the dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall from the table. Jesus was so impressed with her faith he granted her wish for her.
When Jesus first returned to his home town he read from the Torah and then said that what he had read was now fulfilled with him reading it (implying that he was the chosen one of God) and the people were very happy and rejoicing. Jesus than said that Elijah had to go outside the Jewish people to cure someone of leprosy because there was no Jew that was worthy and the crowd became so enraged they drove him out to a cliff with the intention of throwing him of the cliff apparently because of the extreme prejudice that existed against the Gentiles at the time.
In the story of the Centurian Jesus said, “Go and it will be done as you have believed.” Then he said to the crowds that he had not seen such faith in all of Isreal.
It would appear (to me anywaze) that faith is the key and the particular doctrine that the person may or not believe takes a back seat and may even be unimportant. I personally don’t believe in orthodoxy where we are all judged by our doctrines and if you are lucky enough to believe the right doctrine you automatically attain salvation.
I believe in orthopraxy where we are all judged by our actions.
These are just my opinons of course and I don’t try to force them on anyone else.
Thomas,
Now I see why you call yourself “Doubting Thomas” 🙂
I agree with you that the Israelites were called the children of God, but I’m afraid Scripture doesn’t support your last statements. Paul says that we must have “the love of the truth” in order to be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). And that to those who do not have the love of the truth of the gospel, God Himself sends them a deluding spirit that further drives them into error, hence wickedness [perversity]: 2Thess 2.7-14.
Xavier
My Christian friends up here in Canada call be doubting Thomas because I doubt all the church traditions that have been passed down and I have serious doubts about what was included in the New Testament cannon. The thing that seems to upset people the most is when I tell them I don’t believe that Paul was an Apostle and I believe that his writings are errant and that I do not study them.
At the beginning of Galations Paul in his own words says that he wasn’t appointed an apostle by mere men but by God himself. In other words he is saying that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders like James didn’t appoint him or recognize him as an Apostle. In addition the rest of the bible consistently says there were 12 Apostles the last addition being Mathius who replaced Judas.
In the book of Acts Peter lists the minimum requirments needed to become an Apostle (must have known Jesus for entire 3 year ministry etc..) I think it is obvious that Paul doesn’t even meet one of the requirments as laid out by Peter to become an Apostle.
It is clear that Paul refers to himself as an Apostle but it just as clear than no one else refers to him as an Apostle. I pray that you do not become angry at me for my beliefs. I am just a humble student of Christ like the rest of you, unfortunately my studies seem to have led me to different conclusions then most other people who have studied the same texts.
Thomas,
There is set of Apostolic teachings and traditions we should keep and believe [1Cor 11.2; 2Thess2:15;3:6]. But, if your referring to the Catholic [“Church Father”] instituted ones of the later Apostolic age [beginning with Nicea] then I agree with you.
First of all, Peter himself recognizes the letters of Paul as divinely inspired “scriptures”, even calling him “our beloved brother” [1Pe 3.15-16]. NOTE: Peter warns that the “ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction [his letters just] as they do the OTHER [Hebrew] SCRIPTURES.”
Luke, the writer of Acts, also calls him an apostle [Acts 14.14].
If this isn’t proof enough to you of their recognition of Paul as both an apostle [due to his writing “scripture”] and “fellow brother” in Christ, he himself attests to this fact in Gal 2.1-10. Further, God Himself hand picks Paul [Saul] for his commissioning as an apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 9.10-18.
Then again, Paul reiterates this fact but I guess since you do not believe Paul, this is for naught…or is it a matter of “cherry picking” what Paul writes to suit your interpretation of what he says, as in your use of Galatians?
Paul was obviously not one of the 12 Apostles. I think their place has been set, if you might say, and we cannot add or take away from it. But, Paul is clearly an Apostle [cp. 1Cor 15.9, “I am the least of the apostles”] who did “the signs of a true apostle” [2Cor 12.12; Rom 15.9].
And no, I am not angry with you for asking questions. A real truth seeker will always ask questions as long as your willing to learn and grow in your faith.
Xavier,
Yes, the people of God prior to Christ were mostly Jewish. They are still OUR people because of we been made children of Abraham as a result of THE child of Abraham.
Freedom in Christ works both ways. We are both freed to not keep holidays, kosher, circumcision, shabbat, etc., or free to keep them. The difference between my post and others by Torah-requirement Christians is that I was suggesting something for people to consider, rather than telling them what they must do. As you know we have to steer clear of the modern Judaizing movement but it is also helpful to tap into the Jewish roots to benefit from their richness.
Sean,
In light of this, how do you then interpret the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mar 7.24-30? Taking note of the parallel story in Mat 7.21-28 and Jesus’ response:
[cf. the sending of the 12 and the explicit instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Mat 10.6]
Xavier
Thank you for your response and I am glad you are not angry with me. Usually whenever I try to explain my beliefs people just call me a heretic and don’t want to talk to me anymore. Anthony Buzzard was the first person I met on the internet who didn’t call me a heretic and actually listened to my point of view on these things. He is the one that suggested this website to me.
In Acts 14;14 Luke does refer to Barnabus and Paul as apostles but it must be remembered that Luke was a companion of Paul and one of his followers. It is clear that the followers of Paul considered him to be an Apostle but it is just as clear that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders like James make no mention of Paul being an Apostle.
I have found that by eliminating the writings of Paul from my studies I get a very clear message of what Jesus said and taught with no ambiguities or contradictions. This helps me to have confidence in what I should or should not believe and increases and strengthens my faith.
You must agree that Paul’s writings contradict the rest of the bible and are the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Paul said we are no longer bound by the law and that to attain salvation you just need to believe certain doctrines that he laid out and you will somehow magically obtain salvation through grace and that your actions are not important. This not only completely contradicts everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught it also contradicts everything Moses and the prophets taught.
Jesus repeatedly said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In one spot he was so particular as to say that I have not come to change one stroke of one letter of the law. In another spot he says that anyone that teaches his brother not to follow even the least of the laws will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Was Jesus lying? Why is this freedom from the law thing only found in Paul’s writings and nowhere else?
As for our actions not being important John the baptist said that you must produce fruit, Jesus not only repeated the command that we must produce fruit, he spoke in great detail about producing fruit. James went so far as to say that faith without works is dead.
But modern scholars say we must ignore these commands that are not only repeated throughout the New Testament but also throughout the Old Testament because Paul says that we now have freedom from the law and we are no longer bound by it. Paul goes so far as to say that your works are not important lest no man brag.
I believe the reason that these things are only found in Paul’s writings is because only Paul and his followers believed it. I believe Jesus was speaking of people like Paul when he said some will come to me on the day of judgment and say Lord, Lord didn’t I prophesize (not sure of the spelling of that) and cast out demons in your name and Jesus will say to them get away from me for I do not know you, you teachers of lawlessness.
According to almost all the religious experts we are suppose to believe that right after Pentecost Peter and the Apostles and all the other church leaders taught the same thing as Paul in that the law no longer applies including the 4th. commandment about the sabbath. Yet there is not one mention in the bible about the Jews who were zealous for the law being upset or even commenting on this drastic reversal of Jewish tradition.
Why didn’t one of the many Jewish historians mention that Peter and his followers were teaching the children of Israel not to follow their fathers traditions in keeping the law of Moses? Certainly if Peter and the apostles had taught this there would have been a huge commotion and at least some mention of such controversial teachings either in the scriptures or in the history books.
As for 2nd. Peter I agree with most religious scholars that we do not know who wrote it. It is the only letter in the bible that is not addressed to anyone. In the time of Peter writing a letter was a very expensive and time consuming undertaking. Why would someone go through all the bother of writing a very long letter such as 2nd. Peter and then not bother to address it to anyone?
There is only one type of letter (that I am aware of) that is not addressed to anyone and that is a reference letter. 2nd. Peter says things like Paul is our fellow brother in Christ and Paul is a great guy and his letters are good and you should read his letters and it says very little outside of this. It is obviously a reference letter used to try to convince people that just before Peter died in Rome he suddenly reversed his teachings regarding the law and other matters.
I do not believe that 2nd. Peter and the writings of Paul should have been included in the New Testament canon. Like I said when you eliminate them you get a very clear unambiguous picture of what Jesus said and taught with no contradictions.
Thanks for taking the time to read my very long response.
Thomas,
Not directly no, but Peter does seem to suggest that the Pauline letters, which he seems to have been privy of, are “scriptures” along the same lines of the Hebrew ones he alludes to.
So if you could clear something up for me, you dont believe both Paul or anyone who you deem an associate of his?
Could you give me evidence for contradictions between the two? I have always perceived Paul as an agent of Jesus, henceforth, he sets out a continuation [if you will] of his teachings regarding the Torah and “Christian living”. Just like Jesus, Paul was [to borrow Ehrman’s phrase] an apocalyptic preacher of the Kingdom of God:
As you said, Jesus FULFILLS the Torah by spiritualising it by his Sermon on the Mount [i.e.”you have heard it say…but I tell you”, Mat 7f.]. The New Covenant which his earthly life points to [cp. Mar 7.19; Lu 11.41], finds its own fulfillment in his resurrection from the dead. Unlike the Apostles themseleves, this is something Paul [via his Damascus experience] is the first to understand and teach.
The passage I think you have in mind are those that argue against becoming conceited due to works only. But Paul also teaches that faith without works is dead and vice versa. One serves the other or better yet, true faith in the gospel message will inevitably lead to “good works”:
Or any other letter that is pro-Pauline it seems. Unfortunately for you Thomas, Christian history does not back up your findings. Everyone attests to and accepts all the Pauline letters as Apostolic. Therefore, authoritative and “scripture”.
Thomas, I agree with what you said in #14 about our faith coming first before doctrine, for we are saved by faith, not by our doctrines.
Let’s also remember that our faith came to us by some word that we heard, so the word comes first and then our faith. If we hear the right word and receive it we can have right faith. If we hear it the right way it will produce the right effect in those who are willing to endure it’s work.
Too often people seem to think they are righteous by holding a right doctrine when so often that is not the case. It takes more than holding a right doctrine to be right.
I believe there will be some people who held right doctrines but did not make it to heaven, while there will be some who had some
wrong doctrine but still made it.
Thomas, If I heard Paul as you did in # 19. I too would have to conclude he was in contradiction of Jesus. Not only that, but I think I would have to believe that Paul was the worst of men deceived,
corrupted, sinful, ignorant, and destined for hell, but this is not a true picture of the real Paul.
Everything Paul said fits with what the Lord Jesus taught as far as I can tell. I don’t understand everything he said, but what I have heard and understood from him fits with the things Jesus said. Some of the things of Paul help me understand Jesus and the rest of the scriptures, and the rest of the scriptures help me understand what Paul talked about.
I’ve found that usually my problem is that I do not understand something, rather than in any problem with the text or what I’ve found that is written.
Ray
Merry Christmas and thank you for responding to my post. Faith is usually the thing that most Christians over time struggle with and I hope my postings are not discouraging anyone’s faith. That is not my intention.
I’ve been very depressed lately because I found out my youngest son has lost his faith and is now a staunch atheist and has been for quite a while now. I finally realized that I should be glad that our relationship is strong enough that he felt comfortable confiding in me. From what I understand he has told very few people.
My friend Tim said that he went through the same doubts when he went to University as well. (My son is in his second year at Brock University) He said that I shouldn’t be too worried about it because everyone goes through these periods of doubt.
I should know that because I myself was a staunch atheist for almost 20 years. I pray that he is just being refined by God and that when he comes back that his faith will be stronger than ever.
Xavier
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posting. You said, “So if you could clear something up for me, you don’t believe both Paul or anyone who you deem as associate of his.”
I believe Paul’s followers were being misled by Paul but there is no reason to believe that Luke didn’t honestly write about all he heard and observed in both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Of course being a companion of Paul, Paul takes center stage in the book of Acts and is mentioned more than anyone else.
I thank God for Luke if it wasn’t for Luke we would have no accurate description of what happened after Pentecost. It would appear that Peter and the Apostles and their followers were so convinced that Jesus was going to be returning in their life time or shortly there after that they didn’t bother writing an account about the acts of the early church assuming that everyone would know.
You make some good points in your argument but I need to look up something Paul wrote in Galations in order to respond. I’m not very good at memorizing verses or the books and chapters that they are found in. I even have a hard time with phone numbers.
Thomas, how about asking your son if he thinks there is anything good in the Bible. I wonder what he would say. If he says that there is, ask him what it is. If he says no, challenge him on that. Tell him that it can not be opened without someone findings something good in it, no matter where it happens to open. Ask him if he believes that. If he doesn’t, then ask him if he will open a Bible
and whatever it opens to, that you will show him something good,
right there where it opens.
Do you think you can do that?
I think I will try it right now. First I will pray that God show me something good.
It opened up to Proverbs 15. I see in verse one that God reveals to us the power of words to either bring peace or to stir up anger, to resolve problems or to create them. The answers we give have the ability to create our future either for life or death. So we also see that God gives wisdom.
Now that we have found something good, let’s thank God for it.
What might happen to a man if he did this everyday? Where might he go? What might his future be like? What will be his destiny?
Then ask your son if he can show you a better way. If he can not, ask him to remember the path you just showed him. Tell him that if he should walk it faithfully that it will grow brighter and brighter unto the perfect day.
Joseph,
are you still around? I was hoping you could ask some of my questions.
Thomas, welcome.
There are indeed great doubts about the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, but they’re not caused by the supposed idea that it’s “addressed to no one”. In fact it is addressed “to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours”. There are other factors against its declared authorship. I personally am inclined to think it wasn’t written by Peter himself.
How do you know Matthew was written by an eye-witness? Isn’t this an anonymous writing? Is it written in the 1st person? Since you are to a certain degree aware of what scholarship has to say on this matter regarding 2 Peter, are you also aware of what it says regarding Matthew’s gospel? Namely, the two-source theory (the majority view), that says Matthew and Luke based their writings on two sources: Mark and Q?
About Matthew, we have discussed recently what this gospel has to say on Jesus’ birth; maybe you could start with this comment here: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/12/04/was-the-baby-in-the-mangergod-part-1/#comment-55975
As you will see, Matthew presents some problems with his narrative, while Luke may seem a bit more credible at least in some respects, when it comes to Jesus’ birth narratives.
Now you also say you “doubt all the church traditions that have been passed down”. That would include Jesus’ resurrection too, but apart from that, one such tradition is the one saying that Mark wrote what Peter told him to. Didn’t you say you doubt all church traditions?
Ray
If you indeed find that Paul clarifies Jesus’ teachings for you I don’t want to take that away from you. I can only explain my own perspective. About 15 years ago I became a Christian and I earnestly set out to find a church. I soon realized that they all had different doctrines and that in most of them if you disagreed with any of their doctrines that they would excommunicate you so that your unconventional ideas don’t have the opportunity to spread to other members of the church.
So I decided to dismiss everything I had heard about through out my childhood (I was raised Anglican) and just study the bible to try and determine for myself what it actually says (This is what eventually led me to becoming a Socinian). Many red flags (contradictions) kept popping up and I was at the point that I was about to give up because I couldn’t reconcile the contradictions.
It seemed to me to be impossible to determine accurately what Jesus had said and taught. I didn’t want to believe this so I prayed earnestly to God (as a last resort of course) to help to understand what Jesus actually said and taught.
That’s when I decided to change my focus and read some history books regarding Christianity. I noticed in this one book a reference to a large outcry of protest regarding the book of John when it was first written at the end of the first century and that there was another large outcry of protest in the year 1000 AD when the book of John was included in the final New Testament canon that was eventually passed down to us today.
It made me wonder, “Why would all these people be protesting against the Book of John.” That’s when I started to compare the book of John to the Synoptics. I quickly discovered that although all four gospels claim to be telling the story of the life and teachings of Jesus nothing in the book of John matches the Synoptics. And by looking at the concordance I discovered that whenever the book of John and the Synoptics talked about the same subject the book of John says something completely different usually the exact opposite of what the Synoptics are saying.
If you’d like I could list some examples. According to my calculations only about 2 or 3% of the book of John matches the Synoptics and that is just the names of the various people and a few well know sayings of Jesus. Contrast this with the Synoptics where almost 75% of the stories and sayings match each other which is what you would expect if three different people are telling the same story.
I also noticed that 75% of the book of John matches perfectly with the writings of Paul and that only about 2 or 3% of the Synoptics matched with Paul’s writings. It quickly became obvious to me that whoever wrote the Book of John at the end of the first century had based the book almost entirely on Paul’s writings.
I then started to compare Paul’s writings with the Synoptics and Jesus’ teachings and realized they too do not match and that Paul was teaching something completely different from Jesus. Like I pointed out in my posting to Xavier much of what Paul says about the law no longer binding us contradicts what Jesus said repeatedly over and over about the law.
Jesus repeatedly said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it he is even so specific as to say I did not come to change one stroke of one letter of the law. In another place he says anyone that teaches his brother not to follow the least of these laws will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Xavier makes a good point about Leviticus and the food restrictions and unfortunately I can’t explain this apparent contradiction. I am just a humble student of Christ, I am not a teacher.
Xavier
You make a good point about Leviticus and the food restrictions there in. Unfortunately I can’t explain this apparent contradiction between what Jesus taught and what happened with Peter in Acts.
Maybe someone more wise than I can explain it.
My basic belief is that as a Christian you must recognize that Jesus is the ultimate authority, the Christ, sent to be our teacher. If anyone including Paul contradicts anything Jesus has said then I believe you must dismiss the other person’s teaching as being errant.
I think you would agree that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders like his brother James knew Jesus best and are the most accurate source in regards to his teachings. Paul on the other hand never heard Jesus preach or even knew what Jesus looked like.
I don’t believe that Paul’s teachings originated from Jesus’ teachings. If they did they would be reflected in 1st. Peter or James or the synoptics. The quotation below will show you why I don’t believe that Paul’s teachings originated from Peter or the Apostles or other church leaders such as James who of course knew Jesus’ teachings better than anyone else.
(Galations 1:11, 12)
“For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Apparently because of his experience on the road to Damascus when Jesus blinded him and said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Paul claimed that he received mystic revelations from Jesus that allowed him to claim to be an Apostle and teach things that Peter and the Apostles and other church leaders did not teach.
To me Paul’s teachings are nothing more than mystism. I know my beliefs are very controversial and I hope again that you are not angry with me. I believe that because of my earnest prayer to God to help me to understand what Jesus actually said and taught that God has revealed these things to me over the years I have been studying the bible. I’m sure that there will be some people who will just think that I’m crazy but like I said before these are just my opinions and I don’t try to force my opinions on anyone.
In your post you said that Paul also states that faith without works is dead. I haven’t read Paul’s writings for many years now and I am by no means an expert on Paul so I will have to take your word on that…..
Ray
Thanks for your advice in 25 it’s very good advice and I will certainly give it a try. I should try this myself and see what it opens up to.
John E
I have heard about the two-source theory from my friend Tim he is non conforming Roman Catholic that has been studying these things much longer than I have. But I thought that it was written by the Apostle Mathew the tax collector. Perhaps I am mistaken it would not be the first time…
I have to go out for several hours perhaps I’ll come back on-line tonight sometime.
I don’t know about synoptics but I know that when people tell a story they may tell it differently as many times as they tell it and that it doesn’t mean they contradict what they have told in the past.
Many times I’ve noticed people tell things in a different order as they tell it, for their ideas and thread don’t always follow the same
historical order as time is concerned. The story may differ each time they tell it, and yet not contradict what they have said in the past.
I also am aware that the scriptures we have are old and have been translated and copied so many times and so I think I should
be flexible as to what I think about it. Rather than try to find out what does not fit the way I think it should, I would do better to see how it might fit.
God doesn’t have to write anything the way I think he should. He will use people and places and things the way he wants to. I might have trouble understanding how he does it. Therefore I should not rely upon my understanding but on him who gives understanding
to the heart. I believe that is the best way for me.
There is more than enough in the Bible I have for me to enter into eternal life by Jesus Christ.
Let’s remember that some people quite effectively use the Bible to keep themselves out of the kingdom of heaven and that there are some who can use it to enter in.
Guys,
Sean had a wonderful perspective about celebrating Hanukkah. Please don’t turn this into another endless argument about whether or not Christians need to obey the Law. It was done to death before. (Thomas, if you want to read what was said in those debates, click on “Law” in the list of tags at the top right of this page.)
Thomas,
Isn’t that a church tradition?
Thomas,
If you believe and read the book of Acts you have to reconcile what Luke says ragarding Paul, which coincides with what he himself says in his letters. Does it really matter if Paul did not receive the gospel through the Apostles when Luke himself says Jesus PERSONALLY gave it to him [Acts 9]?
What about Peter’s own “mystic revelations” from God where “all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds” [Acts 10.12] would include both clean and unclean animals. Something Jewish Torah forbade (Lev. 11:2–47). Isn’t this on par with Paul’s message of breaking Sabbath and dietrary laws?
Although I would agree with you that the Jerusalem church of the 12 probably kept Torah for some years, you would think that via progressive revelation [such as this] they would have come out of it since they also recognized Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 15. Furthermore, they did not impose Torah on those Gentile Christian churches.
Mark C.
Are we breaking with the newly codified regulations or something?
It seems to me that there are some things we can find from king David’s life that seem to be a break through from the strict adherence to the law and that it so happened through faith by his receiving revelations about God and his king that would come whom God would reveal to be the ruler of all that God has.
Did David receive things concerning today’s gospel of Christ? I believe that he did. It seems to me that David entered into some of the things of the gospel through faith. He found some of the hidden things of God.
The apostle Paul talked about how Israel as a whole did not receive some things they could have, for they stumbled at faith.
(Romans 11 for example)
Still, there was so much about Christ that remained hidden from David. I think too of Isaiah who also received so much concerning the gospel of God, which is Christ.
I wonder if Isaiah was killed because of his revelations. It seems to me that I heard that he was one of the prophets that was killed because of the word that he gave. Yet his prophesies continued.
It’s not uncommon for God’s elect to be refused by men. It’s not uncommon that they are misunderstood because of the spiritual nature of things. Isn’t that why we so labor to enter in, because of the spiritual nature of things?
JohnE
When I said that I have doubts about church traditions what I meant were church traditions that are not biblically based. I don’t know a lot about the subject but I believe Mathew is the Greek translation of Levi and he was one of the disciples. From what I understand it was not uncommon in the first century for eyewitness’s to write in the third person but like I said my knowledge is very limited in this area. I am not an expert on the bible nor am I an expert on anything else except maybe procrastinating…. 🙂
And just to show you that I do sometimes contradict myself even though Christmas is not biblically based it is my favorite time of year. Just tonight I was watching the Christmas show about The Little House on the Prairie and it made me cry….
Xavier and Mark C.
I’m sorry I wasn’t aware on any new codified regulations. I would be more than happy to move this conversation to another location. I did not mean to take over the conversation. You are quite correct Sean’s story about celebrating Hannukka is a wonderful story. I am not sure which tag to click as there is a long list of tags at the top right of the page.
I am sorry but this is my first time blogging…
Thomas,
I was being facetious towards Mark’s advice, I do not see what the problem is of posting here regarding this theme.
So, ahead bro, say your peace would love to hear your views on my answers to your previous post.
PS: Thanx for the kind words regarding my father in law, how do you know Anthony?
Hi Thomas,
I’m not an expert either 🙂 But “Matthew” is not the translation of “Levi”, it simply means “disciple”. The tradition that the writer of this gospel is the apostle Matthew is only a tradition of the church, it’s not a “biblical” one.
I’m not sure where you got that from. But in Acts for example, there are instances where the author writes in the 1st person plural.
Xavier
Thanks for clarifying that I did not mean to be rude or anything like that.
I was searching through Google to try to find people with similar beliefs to my own. Universal Unitarianism kept popping up but when I began to read about it, it said that most of the Universal Unitarians were not Christian. I really wasn’t looking for non Christians so I never looked any further than that.
I once found a site calling itself the Ebionites and I was all excited because I had read once that after the destruction of the temple the Christian leadership from Jerusalem had moved to Egypt and later became known as the Ebionites. Prior to this I could find very little information regarding the Ebionites because soon after Constantine announced that he had converted to Christianity he used all the powers of the Roman State to wipe out the Ebionite communities and destroyed all of their writings.
I thought for sure that their beliefs would be similar to mine but it actually said on their website that the world would be a better place if all the Pauline Christians were killed or died or something like that. (According to them all Christians other than the Ebionites are Pauline Christians).
Of course I didn’t want anything to do with any church that has such blatant hatred posted right on their website like that. So I went back to searching (I am not very good at searching for things I’m fairly ignorant when it comes to computer technology). That’s when I came across the Biblical Unitarians and that is how I eventually met up with Anthony.
Like I said he was the first person I had met on line that didn’t just call me a heretic and refuse to talk to me anymore. Of course he doesn’t agree with my point of view but he was very respectful and kind and recommended this site to me.
This post is sort of getting long I will answer your questions in my next post. Is there a limit on how long you can make a post?
Thomas,
All this blog has is a “Censorship Policy” that you can find at the very top of this page, just click on it and have a read.
I fear you will not find any “Christians” who agree with your anti-Pauline stance. Even errant “Christian” sects like Mormons and other religions like Islam recognize Paul and his letters.
Like I said, the closest you remind me of are the early Marcionites. Then again, they rejected the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures. Whichever way you go, its dangerous to do away with the traditional biblical canon.
Hope you find a way to harmonize those things you do not yet understand or see as being contradictory.
Xavier
Now to your questions. You first said, “Does it really matter that Paul did not receive the gospel from the Apostles when Luke say that Jesus PERSONALLY gave it to him (Acts 9)?”
Like I said Luke was a follower of Paul and of course he believed Paul when he said that he was an apostle and that he had special revelations from Jesus that allowed him to teach things that Peter and the Apostles did not teach. The real question is, “Can we believe Paul?”
At Pentecost just before Jesus ascended into heaven he said to Peter that he would be praying that the devil does not have his way with Peter. So even after Jesus returned to heaven he continued to pray for Peter and the church. Jesus must have known that the devil was not going to just sit around and watch Christianity blossom.
Apparently the devil was unsuccessful in tempting Peter even with all the lies and trickery that he had at his disposal. But when it comes to Paul I’m not so sure. Almost all religious experts will tell you that whenever Jesus says something that contradicts Paul you must dismiss what Jesus said because Paul’s was the later revelation sent to expand the knowledge of the new church.
It’s almost as if they believe that Paul was the real Messiah sent to correct the teachings of the false Messiah Jesus. Jesus is very clear that you are to call no man your teacher because Christ is your teacher. He goes on to say that a man can become like his teacher but no man can become greater than his teacher.
I believe he makes it quite clear that he is the final word and both he and his teachings are the final authority. Jesus’ teachings come directly from God and no man can improve on his teachings. (At least that’s the way I see it anywaze).
You also refer to Paul being referred to as an apostle in Acts 15. I have read the entire chapter and I don’t see any mention of Paul being an Apostle. But I did notice something in Acts 15;20. “but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.”
This of course is Noah’s law. Paul says the law no longer applies and yet at the Council of Jerusalem they clearly say that the Gentiles must observe the law of Noah. From what I have read Paul was so upset with this proclamation that he said that this was not a directive from the holy spirit but just a compromise made by men. Shortly after the Council Paul gets into a huge argument with Barnabas and takes off on his own to teach his own brand of Christianity which like I said he claimed to receive in revelations from Jesus and not from any human source.
I know this probably going to make a lot of people angry but I can’t help but wonder if the devil had success with Paul where he had failed with Peter and led Paul astray. Maybe Paul was convinced that he was receiving revelations from Jesus but it must be remembered that Paul didn’t even know what Jesus looked like.
Thomas,
Luke believed Paul and you believe Luke but not Paul? Am I missing something here? Either Luke was really stupid or…well you figure it out.
All the “religious experts” [real scholars] recognize Paul as one sent by Jesus. I have never heard nor read where people totally “dismiss” Paul in favour of “only Jesus”. If so, can you provide some evidence?
I do not think Paul went around calling himself the Son of God, promised Messiah or that he was greater than Jesus [his spiritual teacher and Lord]. If anything, time and time again we see him referring back to Jesus’ sayings and teachings:
How about this parallel between Jesus and Paul:
Paul teaches that Torah, Mosaic law, should not be adhered to by Christians, not Noah’s law. If anything, this is the minimum required by the Jerusalem church of Gentiles. But if anything, we are under the New Covenant law as taught by Jesus and his apostles. Which involves a “spiritualisation” of the Torah as such. As per Jer 31.31f: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.”
Whatever it is that your reading its not what the Bible actually says happened. So please recheck your soruces and compare them to the biblical account. By the sounds of it, it’ll help if you read the Pauline letters before doing away with them as heretical material.
Further, the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was whether or not to take Mark along [Acts 15.36-41]. The dispute was not a theological one regarding “Christianity” [as you suggest], but a simple dispute of whether or not to travel with this man. Their disagreement was not related in any way to the Council’s decision or to the other Apostles.
The seperation was for practical reasons since the text says “Paul chose Silus and left [Barnabas] COMMENDED BY THE BROTHERS [in Antioch] to the GRACE OF THE LORD.” [Acts 15.40] So, obviously with the approval not only of other brethren by the Lord Himself.
So what’s your beef? How is this somehow proving your fallacious points?
In your reading of Acts 15, did you read till the end? Because if you believe Luke, why [pray tell] do you not believe what this says? Seeing as how you think the Pauline letters are false.
Why do you keep coming back to a standard where Paul had to know what Jesus looked like? Anyways, Paul did see the resurrected Lord Jesus in the road to Damascus. Even if he didn’t know what he “looked like”, why would this affect his preaching the SAME GOSPEL as Jesus?
The only thing I wanted to avoid is a repeat of the long drawn out arguments that we have already had over the law issue on a few other threads. In the Tags column, click on “Law” – ninth from the bottom. You’ll see the threads where it was discussed.
Thomas, if we ever read anything that Paul wrote that seems to us to contradict Jesus, let’s try to understand that we are not properly understanding Paul. It’s either that or that we are not understanding Jesus.
Can you give us any examples that we can try to walk through
together?
This is off the subject but I wanted to run this by you all to see what you think.
I just looked up Noah’s Ark on the internet and was reading about Ron Wyatt’s discovery 20 miles south of Mt. Ararat. He tells of his findings which included a giant altar. I remember that he concluded that men were much larger in those days. Might this explain how a man might build a huge ark with the help of his sons? Could this also shed light on Genesis 6:4?
John E. (25)
I did not realize it was not biblical and that it was just a church tradition. When it comes to these things I depend on my friend Tim who like I said has been studying these things much longer than I have. He’s the one that said it was not uncommon for writers to use a literary device such as writing in the third person.
My friend Tim is very traditional and of course I am not. We often have debates about the value of church tradition. But it is my nature to doubt things that don’t seem to come from scripture. Of course that does not mean that all Church Traditions are bad.
Xavier (msg. 42)
You said, “I hope you find a way to harmonize the things that you don’t yet understand or see as contradictory.”
Thank you but I have already found my way to achieve peace and understanding and that is by not studying books or letters that appear (to me anywaze) to be errant. Paul wrote some beautiful things and some people might think that this proves it is scripture. But Ghandi and Martin Luther King also wrote some beautiful things and no one would say that this proves that what they wrote is scripture.
I’m sure that not everything that Paul wrote was errant but because I am convinced that some of it is. I don’t bother reading or studying Paul since I have no way of knowing which parts are not errant and that would simply pollute the purity of Jesus’ simple message. Which without 2nd. Peter or Paul’s writings is indeed very simple. Any child could easily understand it. What Jesus said is not complicated. Yet there are many people who will say you can not truly understand Jesus’ teachings unless you spend years at a Learning Institution like a College or a University because it is so complicated and there are all these contradictions that we must harmonize.
I have never been to a religious school and yet I believe I completely understand Jesus’ teachings and his message. As for harmonizing contradictions the books and letters that I study have no contradictions. Like I said before I do not try to force my opinions on anyone else. All I have been doing in this thread is responding to questions that people have asked me.
You keep saying that I remind you of the early Marcionites I do not see the resemblance. They believed that the scripture consisted of Paul’s writings alone and they dismissed all the rest of the scripture including the writings of Paul’s companion Luke.
I believe the exact opposite. I don’t believe that Paul’s letters should have been included in the bible at all. And I certainly believe Luke since it is part of the synoptics and is one of the sources I know I can use to learn about Jesus and his teachings.
Thomas,
The reference to Marcion and his followers is that you both have picked apart the NT and come up with your own Bible [as it were]. I was not making a one to one comparison between you and him.
Anyways, it seems you have made your choice and it would be nigh impossible to debate or reason with you any points regarding this topic since you refuse to further study [let alone read] the Pauline corpus.
Like I said, wish you luck and who knows, perhaps one day we can discuss these matters again.
Xavier (msg 44)
You said, “Luke believed Paul and you believe Luke but not Paul? Am I missing something here?”
I may disagree with the doctrines which Luke had received from Paul but I see no reason to believe that Luke was not an honest and sincere man that wrote an account in the books of Luke and Acts of what he actually heard and saw.
I’m sorry but I don’t see the contradiction…
You also said, “All the religious experts (real scholars) recognize Paul as one sent by Jesus.”
All the religious experts (real scholars) also say that whenever Jesus says something that appears to contradict Paul you must dismiss what Jesus said because it is the less accurate of the two. Paul’s teachings are considered to be more accurate than Jesus’ because they were a later revelation apparently happening a few decades after Pentecost.
Jesus clearly says that we have only one teacher and that is the Christ. I believe his exact words went something like this, “You should call no man teacher, because we have only one teacher the Christ, and that you should call no man father for you have only one father and that is your father in heaven.”
I believe Jesus added the part about our father being in heaven to this teaching to emphasize that the teachings from Christ came directly from our father in heaven.
Am I the only one who see’s the contradictions between what Jesus taught and what all the religious experts (so called real scholars) teach today. Jesus said “I thank you God, for revealing your truth in such a way as to hide it from the educated and wise yet reveal it to the children.” (or words similar to that.)
You said, “You don’t believe that Paul went around calling himself the son of God or the promised Messiah.”
I didn’t say that he did. What I said is that the religious experts treat Paul as if he were the actual Messiah sent to correct the false teachings of the false Messiah Jesus. I mean they clearly say that when Paul says something that contradicts what Jesus said you must dismiss what Jesus said, apparently because it is errant.
You said, “Paul teaches that Torah, Mosaic law, should not be adhered to by Christians, not Noah’s law. If anything, this is the minimum required by the Jerusalem church of Gentiles.”
Like I said Paul is clearly teaching the opposite of what Jesus taught about the law. You dismiss Noah’s law as just a requirement of the Jerusalem church of Gentiles whatever that is suppose to mean. Apparently you are saying that because what Paul taught contradicts the decision made at the Council of Jerusalem reached over several days by Peter and the Apostles and the elders and other church leaders that again we must just dismiss the decision at the Council of Jerusalem as not applying to us apparently it only applies to someone else that lived a long time ago in a place far far away.
Like I said before you are treating Paul like he was the Messiah apparently not even Peter and the Apostles and all the elders of the early church can hold a candle to anything he might say.
You also asked, “Why do you keep coming back to a standard where Paul had to know what Jesus looked like?”
It is because I want to emphasize the fact that in today’s modern terminology we would be referring to Paul as a baby Christian as compared to Peter and the Apostles and the elders and other Church leaders that actually spent nearly three years of their lives living and traveling with Jesus and hearing his teachings being repeated over and over to the various crowds that he taught.
From what I understand when Paul first went to Jerusalem the Apostles didn’t even want to see him, but Barnabas being one of the followers that was very knowledgeble about Jesus’ teachings and had known Jesus and heard him teach took Paul under his wing and brought him with him. Paul was clearly the junior partner in this arrangement.
With in a decade or so Paul had broken away from Barnabas and began teaching people that he was actually an Apostle and not just any Apostle the Apostle with the latest mystic revelations directly from Jesus. Peter and these poor other Apostles had not heard from Jesus since Pentecost.
I think it is clear that because Paul had no problem teaching a Gospel that was completely different from what Peter and the other Apostles taught that he actually believed that he was the greatest of the Apostles. Apparently he has somehow managed to convince all the religious experts of today of the same thing.
As a matter of fact he even out ranks Jesus and what he taught.
(Sorry if some of this sounds a little sarcastic but I’m just trying to emphasize my point.)
Thomas,
Like I said in my previous post, good luck to you!
adios
Ray (msg. 46)
You said, “Can you give us any examples that we can walk through together?”
My biggest concern about Paul’s teachings are is claims that we are now free from the law and how this contradicts both what Jesus repeatedly said and what Peter and the Apostles and church elders said at the council of Jerusalem. Why is this freedom from the law thing not found anywhere else in the bible except in Paul’s writings?
That alone raises a huge red flag for me right there. If this would have been a common belief surely you would find at least some hint of it in the synoptics or the writings of Peter and James. It must be remembered that the synoptics were apparently written after Paul had finished writing all his letters and yet nothing from Paul’s writings is found in the synoptics. Certainly these things must raise red flags for other people as well.
Like I said I am not a religious expert nor an expert on the bible. All I know is that there are no contradictions in the books and letters that I study and it gives me a very clear message of what Jesus said and did. This brings me inner peace and helps to strengthen my faith.
If other people can find inner peace and strength from studying Paul than I wish them good luck and I hold no hard feelings toward them. All I know is that there are just to many red flags for me….
Because of these wrong information you had, you said “everything Luke writes about he has heard 2nd. or 3rd. hand from other people”, and so “as a rule of thumb whenever Luke contradicts Mathew or Mark I reject Luke’s version as being the less accurate of the three gospels.” It now looks like you have no reason to do that. Shouldn’t you do your own research instead of depending on others, who might very well be wrong – like Tim here? This is important, since it seems this kind of information informs your faith.
This statement seems strange indeed, since you talk just above about Luke contradicting Matthew or Mark? You do study Luke, don’t you? Are you sure there are no contradictions among the writings you study? This question is important, because contradiction seems to be the reason you reject Paul.
Just a few simple examples: are the three synoptic gospels contradicting themselves when relating what God said at Jesus’ baptism? (see http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/11/02/this-generation-part-1/#comment-54477 for more details)
Does Matthew 12:39 contradict Mark 8:12? And there are many examples. Are you going to reject the gospels because of contradictions?
Thomas,
Not exactly. Jesus does not say that we have only one teacher and that is the Christ in Matthew 23:8. He says “do not be called Rabbi, for One is your Teacher and you are all brothers”. This is about being called a teacher, not about teaching. It is not about denying there are teachers, but about using titles that elevate one above the others (“you are all brothers”).
Jesus indicated that disciples can and should teach others:
Mt 5:19 whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
One who teaches is a teacher.
Thomas,
One of the chief reasons that what Paul teaches about the Law is not found in the Gospels is that what Jesus said, as recorded in the Gospels, was addressed to those people at that time who were still under the Law because he had not yet completed his sacrificial work. After he died, rose, and ascended into heaven, he gave further revelation, through Paul as well as James, Peter, John, and others.
Paul didn’t preach a different Gospel than Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus and his disciples preached the Kingdom of God, and you can see throughout Acts that Paul preached the same thing. The last chapter of Acts refers to Paul still preaching the Kingdom of God. However there were some aspects of the Kingdom that were not understood by Jesus’ disciples until later, particularly the fact that the King would die for our sins.
Jesus talked about mysteries of the Kingdom, including the necessity of his death. Paul simply went into more detail about what his death accomplished. It paid the price for our sins and thus replaced the Old Covenant sacrifices. Jesus himself spoke of making a New Covenant with us. That is the meaning of the term New Testament.
Paul elaborated on the differences between the Old and New Covenants. When something Paul says seems to contradict Jesus, it’s usually because it has to do with the New Covenant as opposed to the Old. Most theologians don’t say they dismiss Jesus and hold to Paul because Paul is more accurate. What they say is that what Paul says is after the New Covenant was ratified with Jesus’ blood, and thus what applies to the church now.
Before you reject Paul, you might want to see how some of the best commentaries view it. You’re not the first person to see apparent contradictions between Jesus and Paul, but many theologians have come to understand how they are complementary, not contradictory.
John E. (msg. 54)
You start out by saying, “Because of the wrong information you had you said, “Everything Luke writes about he as heard 2nd. or 3rd. hand from other people”
There must have been some misunderstanding what I said was that Luke in his own words at the very beginning of the gospel talks about how while he was in Jerusalem he had made all these various inquiries as to the facts so that he could attain what the truth was.
Luke is the who is saying that everything he writes about is 2nd. or 3rd. from other people who may or may not have known Jesus. Presumably he was trying to inquire of people that had actually known Jesus but we don’t know the specific details of his inquiries.
You comment about the contradictions between Luke and the others. I already told you how I resolve any small contradictions there might be and that is by dismissing Luke as the least accurate since he himself was not an eyewitness to these things.
You certainly can’t compare the contradictions between Luke and the other synoptics with the contradictions between what Paul taught and what Jesus taught. Paul taught the exact opposite of what Jesus taught in regards to the law and works.
This mention of this apparent contradiction between Mathew and Mark is not an obvious contradiction they could have been talking about two different groups of Pharisees that came to Jesus asking the same question.
Whenever you have three different people especially when they are separated by a period of time there will always be some discrepancies.
As a matter of fact Police are trained that if they come on to a scene and all three or so witnesses that tell you the exact same story than that raises a huge red flag for them because that is certainly very unusual maybe even impossible. Their stories will be very similar (like the synoptics that are almost 75% the same) but never identical unless they of course colluded together on the story.
John E (msg. 55)
You said, “One who teaches is a teacher.”
That is quite correct but one who teaches the opposite of what he was taught by his teacher is someone who thinks he is greater than his teacher. And like Jesus clearly says right after he says Christ is our teacher, (he adds) and no one is greater than their teacher.
Thomas, when you read the sermon from the mount, (Matthew 5-7)
does it appear to you to be more the teachings of Moses, or the liberty in the spirit that Paul preached?
Mark C. (Msg. 55)
You said, he gave further revelation to Paul after he ascended because after that the law no longer applied where before that it did.
(or words similar to that I wish there was a way I could click right on the message copy your exact words.)
I understand that that is the teaching taught by the religious experts but I’m afraid I don’t buy it. Why would Jesus have repeatedly said things like I have not come to abolish the law and I have not come to change one stroke of one letter of the law and anyone that teaches their not to follow even the least of these laws will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven if he knew that right after his ascention he was going to be giving these revelations to people that the law no longer applied?
Why would he have bothered to repeat these things over and over again to his disciples and followers when he knew full well that these things weren’t true and that they were all soon to be liberated from the law?
I’m sorry it makes no sense to me…
I’m also sorry because I have to leave you all now I am on my to Oshawa for a few days to spend Christmas with my friend Denis.
Thomas,
What Jesus said was, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” When and how was it fulfilled? Jesus completed the sacrifice and instituted the New Covenant. The New supersedes the Old, and that’s why you have differences in what Paul says.
That’s also why there are difference between what Jesus said and what Moses had said. Like Ray pointed out, the Sermon on the Mount is full of statements saying, “You have heard it said… but I say to you…” Jesus did not just reiterate Moses’ laws, he instituted a whole new way of looking at it that showed that we can’t be saved by the Law. Paul simply builds on this foundation, and doesn’t contradict.
Thomas
the testamony of Jesus was 2 things
the first being the Law and prophets and the second being the kingdom of God. I also find this very important when it come to understanding the NT and the OT as a whole. I dont find any contradictions between Jesus and Paul,I only find contradictions in traditionalist’s interpretations of Paul in which they say certain things means the law was done away with but in truth only the way it is administered changed
the ceremonial laws were certainly fulfilled by Jesus in which all of them are now been appointed to him by God
as you read the verse below you see Paul holds to the testamony of Jesus
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
some think Grace is something of the NT only when it was also a very big part of salvation in the OT. Grace has always being freely giving to the children of God even though God says he will save whomever he choses meaning that he could of even chose not to save Jesus. God Does what he pleases so if he choses you for salvation it is not of your doing. Faith is something required to know God and knowing God is very important to your salvation. Judgement will be about how we follow God’s morals(God’s laws) which was in the testamony of Jesus. Saying that his death and ressurection changed his testamony is ignoring the importance put on it by all the writers of the NT.
most of Pauls letters where adrresed to former gentile pagan converts and was to explain the importance of grace and faith not to deminish the moral laws of God as you see the same within all the writers of the NT and the testamony of Jesus.
So your real problem is you are still using traditionalist views to explain Paul instead of researching the facts. once you ignore the traditionalist and research who Paul is addresing you will see Paul is in perfect harmony with all the scriptures
Thomas,
There is some kind of misunderstanding, but it wouldn’t be one if you’d have quoted my entire sentence, which reads:
My point wasn’t that Luke got his info first-hand – he obviously didn’t, as he clearly indicates – but that because you had questionable information on Matthew (that he supposedly had 1st-hand info, was an eye-witness, he is the apostle Matthew, etc), you give more weight than to Luke. For no good reason then. There’s nothing in what you mention, that would justify your preference for Matthew over Luke.
See above for arbitrarily assuming Matthew was an eye-witness. Also, the fact that you dismiss Luke to resolve contradictions does not resolve the contradiction that you created when you said “the books and letters that I study have no contradictions”. Luke (a book you study) is still in contradiction with Matthew, right?
Allow me to disagree. It is an obvious contradiction, and nothing from the text itself prompts you to assume there were “two different groups of Pharisees that came to Jesus asking the same question”. Just continue reading and you’ll see both texts continue in the same way (the disciples think Jesus is talking about bread, etc). My way of studying these things prevents me to invent this kind of solutions. It’s not about what could have been, it’s what the text itself says. Otherwise anybody can imagine anything about everything. Anything invented or issued arbitrarily can also be dismissed arbitrarily. I am not willing to find excuses for the text, I am taking it as it stands.
Oh and by the way, you accidentally forgot to mention anything about the Mark-Matthew contradiction on what God said at Jesus’ baptism.
Yes, I’m familiar with this line of apologetics. But it doesn’t work in real life. A court of law will not dismiss the testimonial of 2 witnesses because they agree in all details.
That seems to be a bold statement, especially coming from someone who doesn’t actually study Paul (as you admitted above). So how can you say Paul contradicts Jesus? Are you sure they are contradicting each other?
You seem to understand Jesus’ words that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all be fulfilled” in the most literalistic way (Mark already emphasized the keywords here, “till all be fulfilled”). It is clear you weren’t aware of Jesus actually doing away with some articles from the law – the unclean food for example, as Xavier mentioned. I would also mention divorce and oaths under the law. So if you don’t have the whole (or at least an accurate) picture, could it be that you also don’t have one when you claim Paul contradicts Jesus regarding the law? By your method, even Jesus contradicts Jesus when it comes to the law.
Many times people will think a Christian is out to destroy the law because they talk about how Jesus delivered us out from under it’s
authority over us, taking us out from under that school master which had it’s long list of do’s and don’t’s which brought punishment upon us for our violations of it. Jesus being now lord over us, (rather than the written law) teaches us, disciplines us, and instructs us by his spirit which he gave us.
By this life in Christ through the spirit of God, we can no longer live in sin
and can no longer seek to establish our righteousness by any practice of strict adherence to the law.
Our new way is not the old way of keeping the traditions of the law
for righteousness, but of being reconditioned of God by his spirit which renewes us day by day through the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
When we are in obedience to Christ we establish not the law in the sense of keeping the strict adherence to the traditions of it, but
we establish the righteousness of it without the strict adherence to it’s traditions.
Before Jesus fulfilled the righteousness of the law, as he lived and ministered the good news about himself and the kingdom, he taught the people to obey the law, not by the letter of it but by the righteousness of it.
Once Jesus fulfilled the righteousness of the law through his adherence to it by the holy spirit, having kept himself from sin, having died on the cross, having received his bodily resurrection, and going back up where he was before by his ascension, and giving the holy spirit, he began to lead his apostles into the new
covenant and new covenant keeping by that spirit which he gave,
which had authority over the old way. To go back to law keeping
by works for righteousness is sin, and an act of carnal flesh which can not please God. It is contrary to the message of the cross.
There always were those who thought they could be righteous by keeping the law who went about teaching others to keep the strictest adherence to it, who became the most lawless, for they themselves would be found to avail themselves of just about anything as long as it wasn’t true, just, honest, right, or good.
They were living in their own darkness thinking they were in the light of God, having deceived themselves by their own confidence
in their works. Jesus revealed to those sinners their hypocrisy. I wonder if they thought they were doing good by crucifying Jesus.
Isn’t that why he said that our righteousness had to exceed the righteousness of the scibes and Pharisees? It seems to me that if
those kind had truly tried harder to keep the law, in an honest and pure heart, they would have become broken by it, and become the poor in spirit, those that mourned, those that were meek, those that hungered for righeousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers.
Wouldn’t they have become the righteous judges, the deliverers, the ministers of reconciliation that were needed for the work of the kingdom of heaven, had they only chose the fear of the Lord?
John E. (msg. 40)
You said, “Mathew is not the translation of Levi it simply means disciple. The tradition that Mathew is the Apostle Mathew is only church tradition and not biblical.”
Maybe Mathew was not written by the Apostle Mathew maybe not. But if it’s proper translation is Disciple than I think that would imply that the writer was an eyewitness making this more likely biblical than traditional. Just because the writer uses the book of Mark and Q to ensure that his wording is exact does not necessarily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the writer was not an eyewitness. (At least from my humble perspective anywaze.)
As for you comment about my friend Tim I depend on people who have been studying these things longer than I to fill me in on things that I don’t understand. I can see that there are many people here on this site that have been studying these things longer than I have and I am sure I will be able to learn a lot by reading your posts and asking question of you.
Please don’t take it personally if I don’t agree with everything you say. I don’t agree with everything my friend Tim says either. I have a very analytical mind and don’t trust authority figures. If a so called religious expert can’t explain his position to a layman like myself in words that I can understand how much of a religious expert could he really be.
I can explain (using scripture) my point of view to anyone. Whether they agree with me or not is another story…
Like I said I don’t try to force my opinions on anyone.
Ray (msg. 47)
You are asking about the story of Noah’s ark. If you don’t mind I would like to share my point of view on this with you.
There are two types of history, oral history and written history. Everything from Moses onward is written history and can be considered more accurate than what was written before Moses since it was either written down immediately at the time (like the ten commandments) or it was written down within a generation or so like the synoptics.
The story of Noah is oral history and was passed on orally from generation to generation for many many generations. This type of history usually becomes distorted and exaggerated over time and is not as dependable as written history.
600 years before Noah there was a huge flood in Asia that flooded about 20,000 square miles of land. Apparently there was a huge lake very high up between some mountains and it is believed that heavy rains caused it to breach it’s walls and quickly flood the plains below. Scientists estimate it would have taken a very long time for the flood waters to recede (just like in the story on Noah).
Since we only have a rough idea of when Noah lived by reading through how this person begat this person etc… It is not impossible that we could be 600 years off in our estimate of when Noah actually lived.
Since some 20,000 square miles of land was flooded it would have appeared to Noah and his family that the whole world had been flooded. I believe that this flood which has been scientifically proven proves that the flood mentioned in the bible was actually a real event.
I do not believe that Noah had two of every animal in the world on his ark (for example two penguins, two polar bears, two kangaroos, two lions, two elephants, two North American Buffalos, two south American whatever etc…)
I believe that he had two of all the local animals that he and his family would have needed after the flood. (IE – sheep, cattle, chickens, dogs, etc..) I believe that because it was oral history that over the many generations that the story was passed down the number of animals were exaggerated to fit the story that the whole entire world had flooded and the size of the ark was also exaggerated to be able to fit all these animals.
From the description of the ark in the bible it would have been a bit bigger than one of the Laker ships that ply the great lakes. It costs about 65 million dollars and many thousands and thousands of man hours to build one of the great lake ships. I find it hard to believe that Noah would have had access to that kind of money or by himself could have spent that many man hours building the ark.
I think it is more likely that the ark was actually much smaller than the bible describes. Like I said being oral history it is not as accurate as the rest of the bible.
Of course this is just my opinion and people are free to agree or disagree with me if they want.
Thomas,
Maybe Mathew was not written by the Apostle Mathew maybe not. But if it’s proper translation is Disciple than I think that would imply that the writer was an eyewitness
Why would that be implied? “Disciple” does not mean eye-witness. It simply designates a follower, eye-witness or not. In the 1st century and later, “disciple” did not mean eye-witness, and we have Luke’s Acts to indicate this. For instance:
Acts 6:1, 7; 9:10, 19, 25, 36, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20-22, 28; 15:10; 16:1; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:1, 30; 21:4, 16
In addition to this, the titles of the gospels were added later; Mark therefore did not title his writing as “the gospel according to Mark”; these titles are traditions, created by people who thought they knew the identity of the writer.
I am absolutely not taking this personally. Why would I?
John E. (msg. 63)
You talk about various contradictions like at Jeus’ baptism for instance.
Like I said when you have more than one person telling a story especially when the two stories are separated by any length of time you will always find some minor discrepancies. Minor discrepancies are not the same as contradictions.
A contradiction is like when Jesus repeatedly says he did not come to abolish the law (or destroy the law if you like) and that he did not come to change one stroke of one letter of the law and that he said that any one that teaches his brother not to follow even the least of these laws will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven and the Council of Jerusalem said that the Gentiles must follow the law of Noah then this obviously contradicts what Paul teaches about the law since Paul teaches the exact opposite.
This is not a minor discrepancy but a contradiction. I think you are making to big a deal about the minor discrepancies found in the synoptics. Like I said in an earlier post these discrepancies should be expected. If these discrepancies were not there that would raise a huge red flag that the authors of the synoptics had colluded together to write their stories. Which they obviously did not.
Ray (msg. 64)
You write a beautiful and heart felt defense of your beliefs regarding the law and I must admit that I agree with most of what you wrote. But I still believe that we as Gentiles are bound by the law of Noah.
Sorry, my quoting attempts failed in my previous post; let’s try again:
Thomas,
Why would that be implied? “Disciple” does not mean eye-witness. It simply designates a follower, eye-witness or not. In the 1st century and later, “disciple” did not mean eye-witness, and we have Luke’s Acts to indicate this. For instance:
Acts 6:1, 7; 9:10, 19, 25, 36, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20-22, 28; 15:10; 16:1; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:1, 30; 21:4, 16
In addition to this, the titles of the gospels were added later; Mark therefore did not title his writing as “the gospel according to Mark”; these titles are traditions, created by people who thought they knew the identity of the writer.
Actually the writer does is not interested in reproducing the exact wording of Mark and Q. Matthew changes words and phrases used by Mark.
As for “proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the writer was not an eyewitness”, this an inadequate approach. The textual facts must provide indications (“beyond a shadow of a doubt” if you want) that the author is an eye-witness, in order for one to legitimately claim the author is an eye-witness. It’s not the other way around. One must not start with the assumption that he’s an eye-witness, one has to start without any pre-conceived hypothesis and go with the flow. Right now there are indications the author wasn’t an eye-witness.
I am absolutely not taking this personally. Why would I?
John E. (msg. 67)
Thanks for not taking it personally. I find that very often when you disagree with someone’s core beliefs they take it personally and become angry. From what I understand this is just normal human behavior.
I am learning a lot from talking with you. It is obvious you know a lot more about this subject than I do. Thank you for not just dismissing me as a heretic and not talking to me anymore.
I guess I will have to concede this debate to you. I had thought that Mathew was an eye witness but I guess I was probably mistaken.
Thomas,
you’re welcome. We all have much to learn; in fact, “Matthew” literally means “one who learns, learner, pupil” in Greek.
For your consideration, here is the beginning of a series of articles from Tektonics.org about the authorship of the Gospels:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html
Two points I should make as a warning. One, the author, James Patrick Holding, is a Trinitarian, so he may make comments about that in his writing. Two, he tends to be somewhat abrasive and even condescending at times, so you have to look past his style. But his points, especially on this subject, are valid and worth considering.
Also for your consideration Thomas, is that this guy Mark mentions is an apologist. It’s in his direct interest to paint a rosy picture. His approach also betrays an over-simplistic view in this case. For instance:
Luke is not so obscure if he appears in the NT by name, especially if Paul speaks very highly of him. Mark is simply assumed to be the Mark of Acts 15, no rotten kid here. For Christians Matthew was not an IRS man.
The apologist doesn’t seem to have a handle of how the tradition was passed down. Oral tradition circulated first, and then this was put in writing. The oral tradition was authoritative, the writings only repeated generally what the already accepted oral tradition was already saying. There’s was no need to know the author, and the gospels themselves show this by not identifying their authors.
This betray an obvious ignorance. There have been many other “gospels” and “letters” who were self-identifying as written by known apostles, and people (not all of course, as is the case with some NT writings) accepted them. I would suggest reading some scholarly literature on the subject.
You can find a more balanced view at NTGateway.com, the page of Mark Goodacre, a professor in the Department of Religion at Duke University. You can read about the authorship of Matthew here:
http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-matthew/introduction-to-matthews-gospel/
Regarding the validity of the Pauline corpus, could anyone comment on the following excerts from “Idol food in Corinth: Jewish background and Pauline legacy” by Alex T. Cheung [pp. 183-84]. Which you can find online: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FsZacM8EE8wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=idol+food+cheung&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Thomas, how did Noah know what was right? He had no Bible that we know of. Wasn’t it that he lived in the fear of God, and that he
was a devout worshiper of God, a meek man with a pure heart, perhaps a peace maker.
John E. (msg. 74)
Thanks for the link to the expanation of the authorship of Mathew’s gospel it was very informative.
Ray (msg. 76)
I agree with the last part of your message but I don’t really understand the question, How did Noah know what was right? I believe God looked around in the area that Noah lived and Noah was the only righteous man in the flood area so God instructed him to build an ark for himself and his family and take two of each of the animals with him into the ark.
Other than the measurements of the ark and the number of animals I believe the rest of the story is quite accurate. At least as far as I can tell anywaze…
Ray (msg. 59)
Sorry Ray I missed your question way back there. I’m not used to carrying on multiple conversations at the same time. I usually just talk to one person at a time about my beliefs.
You were asking about the sermon on the mount.
I believe this is a good example of how Jesus fulfills the law. He says you heard it said that murder is a sin but I tell you if you are angry at your brother it is a sin.
And he says, your heard it said that adultery is a sin but I tell you if you even look at a woman with lust it is a sin. (or something similar to that.)
I believe he is going to the root of the sin. Anger leads to murder and is therefore a sin and lust leads to adultery and is therefore a sin. He is expanding on the law not abolishing it.
The law was one of the cornerstones if not the keystone of the Jewish faith. If Peter and the Apostles had taught against this tradition or cornerstone the Jews who were zealous for the law would have started a riot just like they started a riot when they found out that Paul was in the holy city of Jerusalem.
It seems this subject is tabu among Jews after all…
John E,
This can pose a big problem theologically for Judaism. In a nutshell…
The Jews are taught that Jesus is not the Messiah because many Messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, specifically the end time prophecy when Messiah comes to liberate the Jewish people after the temple is rebuilt. As Christians, we believe that Yeshua will begin to fulfill those prophecies at his second coming.
Most Jews don’t know that Judaism teaches two Messiahs, Son of yosef, and Son of david. This is clearly stated in the Talmud and believed amongst learned Jewish Scholars. This is why Chabad messianism exists, to fill in the blank of the first Messiah to come, ben yosef. So the question can be asked, when will ben yosef come so that ben david will arrive?
A large percentage of Jews don’t know about the two Messiahs and often won’t debate the issue. Judaism believes two Messiahs at two different times, while Christianity teaches one Messiah at two different times. Once we lay that out on the table we can begin to talk about what scenario better fits Scripture.
There are a few good articles on the subject that go into better detail that I’ll post once I can dig them up from my browser.
Joseph,
thank you. Of course a discussion about the various views on Messiah is an interesting one. I know that in 2nd temple Judaism, at least one Jewish sect (the Essenes) were waiting for two Messiahs – an Aaronic Messiah and a Davidic Messiah – and that there wasn’t one singular and unified view about the Messiah.
But my question was, how do Jews today deal with the fact that for at least 2600 years, God did not intervene definitively against the oppressors (through His Messiah or not), and has allowed Jews to undergo tremendous persecution, pogroms, holocausts. The Jewish Scriptures have instances where God has intervened at a national scale and saved the nation, but why hasn’t he done so for 2600 years?
Thomas, about the question about Noah, Noah was a preacher of righteousness. (see II Peter 2:5 KJV) I was thinking that you were
as aquainted with that verse as I.
So as Noah didn’t have a Bible that we know of, it seems to me that he was a worshiper of God, one with a true heart, meek, perhaps one who mourned at the spiritual condition of the world around him, having the characteristics of the “Be” attitudes Jesus
mentioned in the sermon on the mount.
When Jesus preached he revealed some things that were hidden from our perceptions. He didn’t abolish the law by his preaching, he established it, but by his death on the cross, he abolished some
things. (See II Cor 3:13 and Eph 2:15)
Ray (msg. 83)
I do not believe that 2nd. Peter was written by Peter and I believe it was written by the followers of Paul maybe even Paul himself to try to convince people that just before Peter’s death in Rome that he suddenly reversed his teachings on the law and other matters. Therefore I do not study or read 2nd. Peter and I was completely unaware of the verse but I did look it up (ESV) I do not own a KJV.
I understand Jesus made some mention about the changes when it comes to oaths divorce etc… But like I have repeatedly said I do not believe Paul’s teachings that the law no longer applies, and I don’t read his writings and am not that interested in his ideas about Noah.
The biggest false teaching of the religious experts is that Paul’s teaching were basically the same as the teachings of Peter and the Apostles. Peter and the Apostles lived peacefully in Jerusalem going into the temple every sabbath to debate with the other Jewish sects about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not.
Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem caused such an uproar that there were huge riots and 40 men swore an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. Why did the Jews who were zealous for the law treat Paul so differently than they treated Peter and the Apostles if their teachings were basically the same.
I’m sorry again this makes no sense to me and really don’t see what any of this has to do with my posting about my theory on the story of Noah and his Ark.
My theory is simple. Noah and his family had thought that the whole world had flooded (there was no CNN to tell them otherwise) and consequently their decendants many generations later had to reconcile this story that the whole world had flooded and that Noah had taken 2 of every animal (wrongly assuming this meant every animal in the world) into the ark and eventually came up with this distorted story of a huge wooden ship the likes of which had not been built up until that time and has not been built since. Even to this day.
Even the Greek and Roman Empires with their huge resources were not able to build a wooden ship the size that Noah’s Ark is suppose to have been. His decendants simply misunderstood the story and didn’t realize he had only taken 2 of every animal that he and his family would have needed after the flood (ei- 2 sheep, 2 goats, 2 cattle, 2 chickens, 2 dogs, etc…)
If the decendants had understood this they probably would not have ended up exaggerating the size of the Ark. Of course this is just my own personal theory and I don’t try to present it as a fact.
I simply offer it out there for anyone to accept or reject as they wish.
Like I said before other than the number of animals and size of the Ark the rest of the story is probably quite accurate.
Thomas,
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I’m just amazed that you admit to not having a lot of knowledge of Paul’s writings, and haven’t even read them in years, yet are willing to consider that he was deceived by the devil and writing complete falsehoods. And that in turn implies that Christians for hundreds of years have been equally deceived by the very Bible they believe is God’s word.
Before I would even consider such a thing, I would make very, very sure I understood what Paul was saying so that I could be certain that it in fact contradicted. But many theologians much smarter than either of us have had no trouble understanding how Paul’s words fit with those of Jesus. I highly recommend you do some serious studying of this subject before rejecting Paul’s words.
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” ~Prov. 18:13
Thomas, I thought for sure you would believe Noah and about the flood.
Ray (msg. 86)
Of course I believe Noah about the flood. Jesus himself talks about Noah and the flood. I’m just pointing out that 600 years before we estimate that Noah had lived there was a huge flood that covered nearly 20,000 square miles and that the scientists believe it would have taken more than month for the flood waters to recede (just like in the story of Noah).
If Noah and his family were caught up in this flood surely they would have thought that the whole world had flooded. Thus the story was passed down that the whole world was flooded. It would have been impossible for Noah and his family to know what was happening beyond the horizon.
I believe that this scientifically proven flood is proof that the story of Noah was an actual event that happened in history.
Mark C. (msg. 85)
You said, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Prov. 18;13)
Haven’t you read the story in the book of Acts about what happened when Paul returned to Jerusalem after being away many many years establishing churches among the Gentiles. (It must be remembered that many people who were strong with the holy spirit had told Paul that the holy spirit did not want him to go to Jerusalem but he ignored them and went anyway.)
(Act Chapter 21 versus 17-25) After we arrived in Jerusalem the bretheren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James and all the elders were present. After he greeted them he began to relate one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
And when they had heard it they began glorifying God and they said to him, “You see brother how many thousands there among the Jews of those that have believed (probably referring to the Jews who now believed in the way of Jesus and were now following his teachings) and they are all zealous for the law and they have been told about you that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.”
“What is to be done then? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men that are under a vow take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads and all will know that there is nothing to the things which have been told about you but that YOU YOURSELF also walk orderly keeping the law.” (In this case the law of purification that must be followed when repenting for a serious sin like teaching Jews to forsake Moses and not follow the customs of their fathers.)
“But concerning the Gentiles who have believed (that Paul had converted) we wrote having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” (This of course is the decision reached at the Council of Jerusalem that the Gentiles had to follow the law of Noah.)
At the beginning they were glorifying God not for Paul’s teachings but for the work God was doing among the Gentiles and the Jews sending his Holy Spirit down to them. It is clear that James and the church elders are upset if not angry that Paul is teaching the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses and the customs of their fathers. At the end James and the elders announce that they are sending letters to the Gentiles that Paul had converted telling the that they must follow the law of Noah.
Why should I ignore what James and the church elders clearly say about Paul being errant in his teachings to the Gentiles and believe what the religious experts of today say about Paul being the greatest Apostles whose teachings are infallible.
If someone could explain this to me than perhaps I must start reading and studying the writings of Paul. Until then I refuse to study writings that I believe are clearly errant.
Thomas, I try not to put too much confidence in scientists as their
methods do not always suffice.
If a scientist were to examine the wine that Jesus made from water at the wedding in Cana (John 2), how old would he have acertained it to be, and would he have been able to prove where it came from?
And which is easier, for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, or for all those animals to enter into the ark?
Thomas,
Those are valid questions. But what is the best and most honest way to deal with them? To ignore what answers have been given because your mind is made up, or to look into all possible viewpoints and decide which makes the best case? I would also recommend checking out some of the resources Sean links to in his post on Apologetics.
PS –
Regarding the Flood, if it was only a local flood, how would you explain the fact that many other cultures from many other parts of the world have similar stories of a worldwide flood?
Mark C.
Regarding the Flood, like I said in my message this is just my own personal theory I use to explain the apparent contradictions in the story presented in the bible. Like I said as oral history it is not as reliable as written history and we must try to reconcile the facts of the story with the known facts we have today in the 21st. century.
My experience with the youth of today is that they look at some of these stories especially in the old testament and conclude that they are unbelievable. Then they dismiss the entire bible and Christianity with it. It is not enough to say you just have to have faith that these stories are true. You must be able to explain them in a way that seems reasonable to them.
I know this from my own experience with my son. A few ago we were talking about Adam and Eve and how they were the first people that God created and my son (with knowledge he obtained through the internet) pointed out how this could not be and he used the very words of the bible to prove it. The only thing I could think of saying was you just have to have faith.
Withing a year of that he announced to me that he didn’t believe in the old testament anymore and no longer was interested in becoming a priest (my wife and her family are Catholic). I said that it was alright to have doubts but don’t ever stop believing in Jesus and his message. Then just recently he told me that he was a staunch atheist and had been for quite a while and that he loved to read these atheist web sites.
I still can’t come up with a good counter argument to his beliefs about Adam and Eve which he can clearly prove using the very words of the bible. But I was watching a documentary about this ancient flood which they said they believed was the largest flood yet discovered and how the flood waters quickly rushed down from the mountains destroying everything in it’s path and how the flood waters would have taken more than 40 days to recede and I immediately thought about how it sounded just like the the flood in the old testament.
Further investigation showed that this happened just 600 years before we estimate that Noah would have lived. Since we depend on stories like this person begat this person etc.. and we don’t know exactly when Noah lived it is not impossible that this was the flood story that Noah and his family passed down to us.
Because everything that was written before Moses is oral history and not written history it is not as reliable and accurate as the written history in the rest of the bible. This story that was eventually written down several dozen generations after the flood could very well have been distorted and exaggerated. You must admit that there are a lot of problems with the story of the flood as presented only some of which I have pointed out in my messages.
If we can admit that this is just oral history that is not accurate and reconcile the facts of the story with what we know today about the millions of species around the world many of which only live in certain isolated areas and are found no where else in the world and the fact that from an engineering standpoint it would apparently be impossible to build a workable wooden ship the size that Noah’s Ark was suppose to be (that just wouldn’t break apart under it’s own weight).
We can than present reasonable alternatives to the many young doubting Thomas’ out there who are leaving Christianity in droves.
I have managed to come up with a scientifically plausible explanation to explain the story of Noah’s Ark. Like I said there is no need to present it as a fact but as a reasonable possibility. That’s all anyone struggling with their faith is looking for.
Unfortunately years later I still can’t explain away the contradictions my son pointed out to me about Adam and Eve being the first people that God created with what the bible actually says on the subject. It simply does not match and I can’t explain it. Maybe one of you can but I have tried and I certainly can’t.
Every where I turn I hear these atheists getting louder and louder almost like I’m being surrounded. I think we have to overcome our differences in doctrines and come up with theories like mine to help our fellow sheep before they become lost. We just have to present them with possible alternatives to just rejecting the bible and Christianity with it.
Thomas,
The first thing I’d like to point out is that recent studies have shown that oral tradition is not as unreliable as many skeptics claim. In ancient cultures they would train the children to recite things over and over and make sure they got it right.
Second, it’s not necessarily true that everything from before Moses wrote Genesis was only oral traditions. There are some reasonable theories about the possibility of written records that were kept, and that Moses may have put them together.
Third, there are a number of studies on the feasibility of the ark which indeed prove that it was possible. I saw the program you mentioned (at least it sounds like the same one). While the description of that flood sounds somewhat like the description of Noah’s flood, it in no way proves that it WAS the same one.
As I said in my last post, if it was only a local flood there is no way to explain the various other cultures who also have similar stories of a worldwide flood. They are as widespread as from Japan to South America. If all these cultures have legends of a worldwide flood, that seems to suggest that something really happened, even if the legends have varying details. A local flood in one part of the world would not explain it.
You say we need to have reasonable explanations and not just say you have to take it on faith. I agree 100%. But there are in fact several sources that offer reasonable explanations. There are also reasonable explanations for the other apparent contradictions that skeptics say disprove the Bible. You just have to be willing to look for the answers rather than accept what the skeptics say without considering what rebuttals are offered. And there are reasonable rebuttals to everything that the skeptics say, not just “take it on faith.”
A few suggestions for where you could start are:
* Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org)
* Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org)
* Biblical Creation (www.gospelway.com/creation)
* True Origins (www.trueorigin.org)
Henry Morris and John Whitcomb did a marvelous book called The Genesis Flood that is worth looking into, and quite a few others. Google Noah’s flood or Genesis flood and see what’s out there. But it’s very important to look at all sides of the question. Many scientists (though not all) begin from the position of unbelief in the Bible or in anything supernatural, and so cannot accept any evidence to the contrary.
One thing I’m curious about. What “evidence” from the Bible’s own words did your son use to prove that Adam and Eve could not be the first people God created?
There have been a number of times that I have come across what seemed like clear cut evidence against God or the Bible. Yet when I dug a little deeper, and looked into what competent Christian apologists said in response to the apparent “evidence,” I was not only convinced but my faith was strengthened.
I have also read the testimonies of former Christians and even former ministers who have found such “evidence” and were turned from their faith. What always surprised me is that they simply accepted the so-called “evidence” without even looking at what Christians offer as explanation. It is a common misconception that Christians simply accept the Bible on blind faith in spite of clear evidence against it. There are good, reasonable answers if people take the time and make the effort to look for them.
This goes right along with my post on “Blind Faith” and Sean’s post on “Apologetics.” If one really wants to know the truth and not just prove his own viewpoint, it requires some effort, but it is possible. And like I said, there are good, reasonable explanations for the so-called contradictions between Jesus and Paul. I implore you to search for these answers and not make up your mind before you have heard all the evidence. If you genuinely want to find the truth, God will not disappoint you.
I was watching a progam on TV about a Tsumami that occured hundreds of years before any white people settled the west coast
of the United States. The knowledge of how far the waters went
inland was kept by an Indian tribe as they handed down the information through the generations. A man from the tribe told of how he heard the story from all his elder relatives and it was told
word for word the same. He was instructed to hand it down word for word also just as he heard it.
Geologists were checking on the evidence of the sea waters and found the information to be accurate.
Jesus did so much. Who could remember everything word for word?
Maybe this is why Christians began to write the gospel down as they were led by the spirit.
Thomas, I find it interesting to see how God is teaching you through watching a documentary of the flood, or at leas of a flood,
to help you believe. That’s how God often works in our lives, giving us all that we need to believe. So watch and be aware of how he teahes us. We know that he is with us because of Jesus.
Mark C. (msg. 90)
You said, “Those are good questions, but what is the best and honest way to deal with them? To ignore what answers are given because your mind is made up, or t look into all possible viewpoints and decide which makes the best case.”
I’d like to ask you what is the best and honest way to deal with the facts that I have pointed out about what the real religious experts (James and the elders of the early church) said and what theologans that you study that lived in the middle ages have said?
The Roman Catholics believe that the so called Holy Fathers were the wisest men that have ever lived and no person can contradict one of their teachings. You apparently study religious experts of the middle ages and say they are wiser than us and we cannot contradict what was passed down to us. We are all students of Christ and we can’t say that these ancient students of Christ are wiser than us and therefore infallible and we must just blindly follow their teachings.
Is YOUR mind made up or can you look into all possible viewpoints and decide which makes the best case? The doctrines we believe cannot remain stagnant in the middle ages or whenever these people that you claim are wiser than us may have lived.
Jesus repeatedly said, “Those with ears let them hear!” I believe he is saying that we must keep an open mind as to what he and Peter and the Apostles and the other leaders like James and the elders of the early church may have said and taught!
Mark C. (msg. 93)
You said, “The first thing that I’d like to point out is that recent studies have shown that oral tradition is more reliable than skeptics claim. (at least I believe that is what you meant to say).
The basic story is always true it is the details that become fuzzy. Each generation has to reconcile the oral history that was passed down with the facts that are available and they make changes where necessary. The same thing can be said of scientific theories as well.
You also said, “It is not necessarily true that everything before Moses wrote Genesis was only oral traditions.” I find it interesting that the first countries to invent writing (using letters to represent sounds rather than picture words like the Egyptians did) happened to all be in the same area that Moses and his people traveled through on there way to the promised land. (The time that these first written languages appeared fits as well.)
It is my own personal belief that God taught Moses how to read and write using letters to represent sounds during the 40 days on the mountain. And that the ten Commandments were the first things that were written in this modern form of communication that has revelutionized human development from that point forward. Of course this is just my own personal theory.
Genesis makes no mention of the Jewish people under slavery having their own collection of writings that were passed down to them from Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. I find it rather hard to believe but I guess I can’t prove this as being impossible.
You also said, “Third there are a number of studies on the feasibility of the Ark which indeed prove that it was possible.” During the Greek and Roman empires the largest wooden ships they could build were known as Dreadnoaghts (not sure of the spelling on that) there basic purpose was to ram and sink enemy ships. They were the most effective maritime weapon of their day.
Of course the bigger the Dreadnoaghts were the more success they would have at ramming and sinking enemy ships. Even with all the resources that the Greek and Roman empires had the biggest wooden ship they were able to build was about half the size of what Noah’s Ark was suppose to have been. Maybe there are theories that say different but in the practical world of actual ship building it would appear to be impossible to build a wooden ship of the size the Ark was suppose to have been that would be seaworthy and not break apart.
You also talk about flood stories from around the world. Huge floods though not frequent are not uncommon and have indeed happened all over the world. But like I said this particular flood in Asia minor was by far the largest of all the other known floods.
I will tell you about my sons beliefs regarding Adam and Eve in another post I have to take a break now. I find if I spend too much time in front of the computer I get a headache. That is why I like good old fashion bibles made of paper…. 🙂
Thomas,
Who said anything about the Middle Ages? For the most part the theologians who have offered sound rebuttals to the supposed contradictions that skeptics point out are modern, contemporary ones, although a few are from the 1800’s. I’m not Roman Catholic nor do I consider the Church Fathers infallible.
As I said, when I encounter apparent evidence that would seem to contradict God or the Bible, I look into the evidence itself, and also the rebuttals that are offered by Christians, and see who makes the best case. The point is to look at all the viewpoints. It’s never a good idea to refuse to read part of the Bible because you think it’s wrong. If God had his hand on His Word for hundreds of years before, can you really imagine He would allow the NT to be filled with the writings of someone who was deceived and not writing His revealed truth?
I would still like to hear what evidence from the Bible’s own words your son used to prove Adam and Eve weren’t the first people God created, though.
There is evidence that contradicts that theory. You’re welcome to hold to that if you want, but is your goal to come up with theories that you like or to seek the truth?
The Jews in Egypt didn’t have their own collection of writings, but each section of Genesis that starts with “the generations of…” reads like it was from separate writings that were incorporated into the writing. There are also other reasons for thinking there were earlier writings that were used, as directed by God. Still, there is no absolute proof of this theory (which isn’t my own, BTW).
Not just theories. Look into it on the sources I referred to before. I think you’ll find it interesting.
The flood stories from around the world speak of a WORLDWIDE flood, not just a “huge” one. And they all involve the destruction of the world except for one survivor, just like Noah in the Bible.
I’ll look forward to that. Thanks.
Maybe building an ark out of wood and gluing it together with tar
is one for Myth Busters. I think it certainly could be done, but it would take awhile. I trust it would float and not fall apart if it was done right.
I’ve often thought about what would happen if I bought some petroleum product roofing cement, similar to what naturally occurs in the tar pits I’ve seen on TV, and bonded two two by fours together with it and let it sit for a dozen years or so.
Do you think I could pull them apart, even if I soaked them for half a year? (if they were covered within and without with pitch)
Maybe I should try it sometime. I don’t think it would come apart.
I think it could be as strong as any laminated beams of today.
No matter what, isn’t God able to hold things together when they are built his way? I think Noah built it sturdy, stout, and strong.
Mark C.
Sorry I took so long to get back to you. About my son he pointed out to me that in the story of Adam and Eve after Cain kills Able the bible says that God banished Cain. Cain was worried that he would be injured or killed by the people of the world so God marked Cain and told everyone that if anyone hurt him that the full wrath of God would come down upon them. Eventually Cain ends up marrying a girl from a village.
The obvious point being that if Adam and Eve were the first people and Cain and Able were the first children. Where did all these other people come from that the bible talks about?
I asked my friend about it and he said that they were probably other children that Adam and Eve had had. But the bible clearly states that after Cain killed Abel a very long time passed before Adam and Eve had any more children so this didn’t seem to make any sense.
Like I said it ended up I couldn’t come up with a response to this obvious contradiction of beliefs that Adam and Eve were the very first people that God created and what the story in Genesis says…
Mark C.
You asked in one of your messages “Is it your goal to come up with theories that you like or are you seeking the truth?”
I am just like everyone else. We are all just trying to seek the truth even the lost sheep of God who have turned to atheism were just trying to seek the truth. As for your comments about coming up with theories that I like that is the way I maintain my faith. A theory that you like and makes sense to you may help you in your faith but if it doesn’t make sense to me it cannot help me with my faith and vice versa.
Thanks for the links I will look at them tomorrow it is getting late now.
Let’s look at this. First, when God created Adam and Eve, he told them to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28). We are not told how long after that the fall was, nor how long after the fall Cain and Abel were born. It just says “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel…” (Gen. 4:1-2).
Then 4:3 says, “And in process of time it came to pass…” So some time passed before Cain rose up and killed Abel. We are not told how long that was, nor does it say that Adam and Eve had no other children during that time. It doesn’t mention any other children because the subject of this passage is Cain and Abel.
After Cain kills Abel and has the mark put on him, he goes and dwells in the land of Nod, where there are now people. They must be descendants of Adam and Eve because Gen. 3:20 says Eve is “the mother of all living.”
There is actually no verse that says that “a very long time passed before Adam and Eve had any more children.” It lists some things that happened with Cain, in verses 16-24, and then begins a new subject with verse 25, which just says “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth…” It makes no mention of how long after Cain killed Abel that Seth was born. It couldn’t have been very long if Eve considered Seth a replacement for Abel. (“…For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”)
In Gen. 5:3 we are told that Adam was 130 years old when he begot Seth. But it doesn’t say that Seth was his firstborn (that was Cain) or that he was the only other one besides Cain and Abel. It mentions Seth in this chapter because it is about to delineate the genealogy of Adam through Seth. Then in verse 4 it says, “And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.”
So there were definitely sons and daughters born after Seth (and it doesn’t say it was a long time after Seth either), and there is nothing to suggest that sons and daughters were not born to Adam and Eve before Seth, after Cain and Abel in that “process of time” that 4:3 mentions. It stands to reason that there would have been, since God had commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
Therefore Adam and Eve would have had children after Cain and Abel, and also after Seth. And in the total 930 years of Adam’s life he could have had many children, grandchildren, etc. The fact that only three children are named in no way indicates that they were the only ones.
The fact that so many Christians have no answer to this question is a perfect example of what Sean was talking about in his post about Christian Apologetics. Far too many Christians remain ill-equipped to answer such questions, giving skeptics the impression that the questions can’t be answered. This in turn has caused many Christians to lose faith. But if we just do a little homework (which the Internet makes extremely easy today) we can “be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).
Every one of us is a descendant of Adam and Eve. Even Jesus has a connection with them through his mother Mary.
These blogs are good if we manage them well so we can help one another get through some things. We all need help from one another.
Eve ate from the tree with the forbidden fruit. The tree was bad and so was the fruit, though all was created good by God. Adam and Eve were created good but came to know evil as well as good
because they ate of the forbidden tree.
Though they became dead in tresspasses and sins because of it, by the mercy of God they did not physically die the very day they ate of it. (unless we consider the evil age that began as that very day.)
All of us began our lives in sin and grew up as dead men walking,
in need of spiritual life from God. This we can receive by the good word of God which is able to give us life in Christ Jesus. It’s good to eat what God has given us to eat. By so doing, God strengthens us for the journey through this world.
Through his word we can help sustain one another.
Mark C. (msg. 102)
Thanks for your response that makes perfect sense to me now. I wish there was someway I could forward your response to me to my son (via e-mail). I don’t think I could convince him to read this website. Even when he did believe in God I was not able to convince him about my Unitarian beliefs. He is a lot like me he seems to have to learn things on his own in his own way…
John E,
I’m going to have to disagree on your point. Since the land of Israel has been reinstated as a Jewish state, the people as a Nation has persevered and been victorious in numerous wars against their oppressors (surrounding Arab nations). If you have studied these wars than you will know that this is somewhat of a miracle that Israel has been victorious in so many ways while growing in strength,, not only in defense, but also in resources. Recently Israel has also discovered a couple of natural gas deposits that hold a mountain of wealth.
So, historically there has been plenty of instances when people have tried to smite out the Jewish people, but what we have seen is that the Jewish people still live on and now flourish in this day. It can be said that this sustaining of the Jewish people through historical trials has been a blessing from God and his promise to his chosen people.
Thomas,
I’m glad I could help. As for getting it to your son, you could just copy and paste it into an email. I’ll pray for him.
Marc C.
Unfortunately I don’t know how to copy and paste I am fairly new to this computer thing but it is alright I was just talking to him and he’s coming over to spend the night and I’ll just show him your post on my computer. I went to the links you provided and I could not find anything about Noah’s Ark on any of them (seemed to all talk about evolution). I am not very good at searching for things I once did a search regarding our local recycling company to see what I could or could not recycle and it just ended in frustration. I found out how many employees it had and when they moved into their new facilities and all these other useless facts, but I was not able to find any rules stating what I could or could not recycle.
I ended up getting very angry and shutting my computer off……
Thomas,
I’ll see if I can find some good overviews of Noah’s ark and post the links.
Thomas,
I have been going through some of the conversation and I notice that you take the position that the Torah is still a factor in the Law that Jesus spoke about. Is this correct? The reason I ask is that many in this blog take the position that the Mosaic law is not part of the Christian life, but I happen to take the opposite view. There is no reason to see Paul teaching against the Torah for we know in Acts he verified that he was a keeper of God’s law in a affirmation of faith when being questioned where he stands. Paul used a Torah Lite approach as a missionary and it makes perfect sense if we put it into context. For example, Paul came from the nation of the one God, as a Jew he was a learned student of Scripture. Do you think that if Paul were to live amongst the Pagan ridden gentile nation teaching 100 percent obedience to Torah that he would have gotten anywhere? Of course not, the pagans where babies to the faith, and we know that scripture teaches us that a baby starts their spiritual life with milk. Paul gave the gentile nations what they needed to come to God and Messiah, that is milk. If he would have slapped a steak on their plate there would have been no way for them to digest their meal and Paul would have failed in his missionary work. The context is overwhelming, Jesus and his disciples were doers of the Torah, so why shouldn’t we be?
At this time perhaps we should note the exhortation and harsh warning the writer of Hebrews has in store for people who continue to ingore the knowledge of the truth so as to not love it:
Joseph (msg. 109)
You asked, “I notice that you take the position that the Torah is still a factor in the Law that Jesus spoke about. Is this correct?”
From my understanding the Torah is only still a factor for Jewish Christians. I believe we gentile Christians are bound only by the law of Noah as mentioned in the decision reached at the Council of Jerusalem and repeated later again when James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church sent letters to the Gentiles that Paul had converted as mentioned in the book of Acts near the end of Chapter 21.
You also said, “There is no reason to see Paul teaching against the Torah for we know in Acts that he was a keeper of God’s law in a affirmation of faith when being questioned where he stands.”
I’m not really sure which chapter of Acts you are referring to here. If you could be more specific I will read the chapter and refresh my mind as to what it says. But I do agree with you that Jesus and his disciples were doers of the Torah. However Peter and the Apostles decided that we Gentile Christians should not be put under the burden of the Torah but it is enough for us to be bound by the law of Noah.
Why they would decide to have a higher standard in regard to the law for the Jewish Christians is really beyond me because they don’t elaborate on their reasoning in this matter. I only know what I have read in the book of Acts on the subject. Like I said in an earlier message I don’t read or study Paul’s writings and I am by no means an expert on Paul and his beliefs.
Joseph, It seems to me that the law of Moses is very much a part of the Christian life for most of us on this blog. That is not to say that most of us here on this blog believe that we must keep the law in order to be righteous as if it was still the whole standard it was at one time, for Jesus changed all that for us.
We no longer build altars of stones, assign cities of refuge, go to priests about problems pertaining to the skin, and so many other things that have been abolished by Jesus.
That is not to say that the law of Moses in not a part of our lives, for we still read about it, learn from it, and are thankful to God to be delivered from it’s rigid constraints.
I never was a Jew. I never was born under the law. I didn’t live in that time. I was never brought up that way. I was not a part of God’s people of Israel. I was born a Gentile, yet have entered into their consolation of God which is Christ, the rest God has given to his people.
I no longer fret over things of the law for keeping them as if I am under those things for the sake of righeousness, but the law is still a part of my life because I read about it and learn some things from it. I am often humbled by it. I learn to respect those who lived under it. I understand some things concerning sin by it. I learn about my nature from it, and why God delivered me from it.
Thomas (and anyone else that’s interested),
Here are a few links to get you started:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/noahs-ark
http://www.icr.org/article/resource-for-answering-critics-noahs-ark/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ — Go to this page and you’ll see a search box right below the title. Type in Noah’s Ark and select TrueOrigin Archive below that. Then click on the Search button. You’ll get a page with many articles from the TrueOrigin site about Noah’s Ark.
I know this is a bit off topic but I think we should all be thankful for all the Americans and Canadians and others who have died and are dying in Afghanistan in the fight against terrorism. I pray that God will do what he can to keep them safe…
Yee, that is “off-topic”…
Xavier
Sorry I was just watching the news about recent events I guess this is probably not the forum to discuss these things because they can be somewhat political in nature…
Mark C.
Thanks for the links. I can’t believe how much technical research has been done on the structure of Noah’s Ark it is very impressive indeed. I am still amazed at the information that’s available on the internet. I still have my doubts about how he could have collected species from remote Geographical locations though. But that is my nature and has been since I was child hence the blogging name Doubting Thomas…
Thomas
Try this link
http://loveyourenemies.wordpress.com/
I read a little about some of the large ships that have been built which were made of wood. Some of them were about the size of Noah’s ark, (through the links Mark gave us in #113.)
I wonder if his ark looked like a ship. It seems to me that it didn’t have to go anywhere. It simply needed to float and stay together.
It didn’t need to have a hundred oars as some of the big ships had that I read about.
I wonder if it looked like a big box. Maybe it looked like a ship. I just don’t know.
Noah didn’t get the animals on the ark by himself. They didn’t come on by the help of man alone.
I wonder if the ark looked like a maze inside with lots of partitions.
If so, all of that could help to brace it.
There were giants in those days. If these giants were men, and I think they were, I wonder how big Noah was. I wonder if he hired people who are taller and stronger than men are today. Maybe Noah was a giant of a man by today’s standards.
Maybe men in that day were able to carry trees that weighed half a ton when they worked together. I suppose.
Genesis 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh two of every sort shalt thou cause to come into the Ark,…
Because Noah was a righteous man, I suspect that he prayed and what he prayed must have been according to the will of God in this
Ark business that God told him to do, and the fervent prayer (I say
fervent because of this huge undertaking) of a righteous man avails much. (see James 5:16. I’ve heard it said that God doesn’t move but that the thing come first through an intercessor.)
Noah being a man who had not corrupted the way of God, must have been just, teaching justice, knowing good from bad and choosing the good, being a restorer of men, and working to restore the times he lived in against all odds, for the days were evil. Such a man found grace in the sight of God.
Surely the grace of God could help him build the Ark and bring him the animals and keep the wind and the waves down enough to keep all that God had invested in it, for the future of his creation,
his purposes in Christ Jesus.
I find plenty of reason to believe all this about Noah and the Ark.
Genesis tells us that those “giants” (Hebrew, nephilim) were the product of wicked angels cohabiting with men.
Gen. 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (See also Jude 1:6 & II Peter 2:4-5)
I don’t think Noah would have been one of them.
Thomas and Ray
Can both of you say with 100% certainty that somewhere in your geneology that there wasnt one of your ancestors a Jew.
Many Jews were assimilated into christainanity to be called christians only.
Also when Judah went into Babylon captivity only a very small percent ever returned and the rest were absorbed into the gentile nations.
Now on another line of ancestory.
When Israel when into Assyrian captivity none of them ever returned and were mixed amongst the gentile nations. that was 2700 years ago and there was 10 millions plus Israelites at that time.
So you see there is a great probabilty that you are a real decendent of Jacob, Isaac and Abraham.
Mark, I think the Bible tells us that the giants were a result of the worshiping men of God who were led by the spirit of wisdom, (the sons of God) that saw that the daughters of men (the carnal beings)
were fair and took to them their wives, and had children who were not those who were led by the spirit of wisdom from God, and that these became mighty men in the earth.
Robert, I think there is a very small probability that I am a decendent of Abraham according to the flesh, but a much greater
chance that I am connected by the spirit of God. I am not a Jew according to the flesh. Nor do I consider myself a spiritual Jew, though through
faith, having recieved the gospel I am a child of Abraham, in that manner.
I don’t know my geneology but for a few generations. I have no idea about it and don’t see what difference it makes anyway. Being born again, the spirit of God instructs me to have no confidence in the flesh.
Why bother people about their geneology? What difference would it make?
If the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 were the angels of God (I suppose who had not yet fallen or turned bad, or maybe already had fallen) who had taken on the form of man somehow in order to
impregnate the daughters of men, I wonder how that goes.
I wonder if they were like drifters that had to come up with some kind of story as to their family lineage, like maybe they were just on their horse and a thunderstorm came up and as it was his mother died in childbirth, and his dad was trampled to death by the stampeding cattle, he became a drifter looking for a job, so he sees a light in the window and smells the smoke from the chimney
and seeks shelter in the barn or stable. In the morning he smells the bacon, biscuits, and beans and in exchange for breakfast he is willing to chop some wood or mend some fences.. and I suppose he has to prove his morals to the young widow who has a young son who is in need of a father to show him how to handle a handgun, and he gets into a gunfight (only because he has to) and kills a few bad guys, and thus gains the favor of the widow..but these things usually work out that he gets shot in the end. But we never know if he has left the widow with a child in her womb who will grow up to be a mighty man of renown…
I just don’t know about angels or fallen angels of God living with
people on earth and living either a hundred and twenty years or on up to nine hundred and then dying, with nobody being the wiser.
I just don’t know about all that.
I have a note in my 1599 Geneva Bible that says of the “sons of God” in question (Genesis 6:2) , the study note from the reformers of that era, says, “The children of the godly, which began to degerate.” It also has a note on the “daughters of men” and says
“Those who came of wicked parents, as of Cain.”
I wonder if it’s a modern day idea that the sons of God were of the
angel sort.
Has anyone found some study notes of old on this? Maybe the idea
has been around longer than I suspect, but at least we see there are two opinions on it.
I suppose we all have to decide which one to go with.
There’s a study note on I Peter 3:19 about how Jesus went and preached in the days of Noah by the spirit, even preaching repentance through Noah’s preaching. (1599 Geneva)
There’s also a note on Jude 1:6 about the fallen angels. “The fall of the Angels was most sincerely punished, how much more then will the Lord opunish wicked and faithless men?”
Nothing in their notes connects them here (Jude 1:6) with the time of Noah, though I suppose they were active against godly men causing them tribulation, and working through the ungodly. I suppose Jude is saying that all the fallen angels, since their fall, have been held under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (the day of the Lord)
Could it be that angles of God had left their heavenly place to cause trouble among men on this earth without the permission of God, and thus they sinned? (even without impregnating women as some have suggested)
The following is from an article by Anthony Buzzard, entitled Angels, Demons, and Elohim. (The entire article can be found on his web site.)
I’m not a follower of Anthony Buzzard.
I don’t know my ancestry. Abraham decended from Shem, while
Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress told the Porter who stood at the gate of the house that was built by the Lord of the Hill, that he decended from the race of Japheth whom God pursuades to dwell in the tents of Shem.
I wonder if I too am of the race of Japheth. I really don’t know what
my ancestry is.
“Robert, I think there is a very small probability that I am a decendent of Abraham according to the flesh”
Ray
If you are from European anglosaxon dececent than the probabilty is nearly 100% that there is some connection by blood to Jacob.
there are between 1-2 billion presently that have this blood connection. the rest of christians are spiritual Israel whom true Israel brought the blessing(Jesus) to.
Thomas this fact puts you within Gods spoken law also even if you are only spiritually Israel as a christian
Robert, maybe my chance of being connected by geneology to Abraham is much greater than I imagined. I was only basing it on the fact that there were so many people in the earth by the time Abraham came along. I really don’t know about the numbers or the odds.
I consider myself and the apostle Paul to be connected by the same blood, the blood of Jesus, by faith.
I can’t help but think of the following verse in light of the previous comments:
The Pharisees and Sadducees claim to being blood descendants of Abraham didn’t seem to impress Jesus very much.
Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Brian
Jesus wouldnt be impressed with anyone who did these things because their actions were actually denying this fact
Robert (msg. 121)
You asked, “How do I know 100% that I am not of Jewish heritage?”
I don’t know but what I do know is that Jewish law states that for someone to be considered a Jew there mother must be Jewish. My grandmother (mother’s side) was a baptist and my other grandmother was an Anglican. We were raised Anglican until an incident that happened when I was 11 years old and from that point on we went to the Gospel Hall. By the age of 14 I was a staunch athiest and I remained an athiest for almost 20 years.
I’m don’t believe there is any synagogue in the world that would consider me to be a Jew…
Mark C.
Just to update you my son was over last night and I showed him your posting and he said he couldn’t believe that Adam and Eve’s decendants could of numbered enough to be considered a village. Then he also pointed out the story of the tower of Babylon and logged on to an atheist website and showed me a cartoon that not only mocked the story but also made God look like a bumbling idiot.
My first reaction was anger but it quickly subsided when I remembered that when I was a young atheist I too thought I was smarter and wiser than these people that believed in God and would often make sarcastic comments against people who would be naive enough to believe in God. I quickly realized, “How could I be angry with my son and these other atheists when I know I did the same thing myself.”
Anywaze thanks for your post like I said it makes sense to me….
Mark C. (msg. 124)
I can see that Anthony Buzzard has put a lot of time and effort into studying the Old Testament texts. I went to 21stcr.org and saw the video clip he did there and was very impressed with his teachings. I would recommend this video to any of my fellow Unitarians to watch. Unfortunately I could not get his PDF posting to work on my computer like I said I’m not very good with computer technology.
Thomas
You do understand a jew is an Israelite but an Israelite is not necessarily a jew. A jew can only be of the tribe of judah through the flesh or of the tribe of Benjamin or Levi through nationality.
Decendents of the nation of Israel(nothern kingdom) can not ever be called jews.
as i told Ray if your are of Anglosaxon decent you are probably a decendent of the Northern Kingdom, who is the True Israel by Birthright and the Promise and therefore are held also by the Spoken Commandments of God physically and spiritually.
Robert
No I wasn’t aware of any of that. Like I said in my posting, “Why the Jewish Christians were held to a higher standard of behavior in regards to the law is beyond me.” It doesn’t really make a lot of sense but I do believe that this was a decision of the Holy Spirit. Acts says that after Stephen proposed that the gentiles not be burdened with the law of Moses and it is enough that they follow the law of Noah than everyone agreed that this was the clear decision of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that God is a forgiving God and that if there is no synagogue in the world that would consider me to be Jewish than he would give me the benefit of the doubt on this one.
At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
Thomas,
Here are some interesting observations you could point out to your son. We don’t know how old Adam was when Cain was born, but he was 130 when Seth was born. So from child-bearing age (let’s say around 20, although there’s no reason it couldn’t be in his teens) until 130, he would be having children, and then continuing for a few hundred years after that. Remember, he lived over 900 years.
Then we have to consider his children. They reached child-bearing age when they were about 20 and Adam was about 40. They started having kids, and meanwhile Adam continued having them. Then Adam’s grandkids would have started having kids when they were about 20, their parents were about 40 and still having kids, and Adam was about 60 and still having kids. And so on… It’s not just Adam’s kids that made for a large number. Many generations coexisted since lifespan was longer then. He didn’t just add, he obeyed God and multiplied.
And if your son has trouble believing that people lived that long, point out that the corruption that causes people to live shorter lives now had not multiplied to the extent it later did. Purer bloodstream means a longer life. The environment before the flood was also different and could well have contributed to their longevity. Notice how the lifespans get shorter very quickly after the flood.
There’s really nothing that disproves what we read in Genesis. Skeptics usually start from the point of view that it couldn’t happen and then mock rather than disprove.
As some people think it’s important to be related to Abraham according to the flesh, let’s remember that the apostle Paul counted all that as dung. Fleshly geneologies are not impressive to God. He looks for the blood of Jesus. We should honor our relatives
but let’s not put any confidence in what “stock” we came from. We were all born in sin. We are all of one blood. We all came from Adam. We all need Jesus. We are more the same than we could ever be different, though each gift of God is unique, his own child by Jesus Christ.
Romans 11:1
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Ray
read the whole bible before commenting, seems very important to him to me
Being an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin,
doesn’t get a person into heaven, only Jesus does. He’s able to save anyone, Jew and Gentile alike.
Ray
do you claim the blood of Jesus covered your past sins
Ray
You said, “He’s able to save anyone, Jew and Gentile alike.”
I agree completely. Jesus’ teachings helped me to understand what God wants from us. Like he kept saying to the Pharisees, “God wants compassion not sacrifice!” I can see you like me are a compassionate person and are passionate with your beliefs. Passion is a good thing. From my perspective anywaze….
Passion is good but it must be restrained. I believe there is a passion of God as well as passions of the flesh and it isn’t always easy to keep things in check.
I believe the passion of God is in the blood of Jesus, which covers and cleanses us from our sins. All our sins of the past which are under the blood of Christ will not be legaly held against us to condemn us. It’s God’s amazing grace to us by Jesus Christ.
The enemy might bring up our past that has been covered by God, to use it against us, to hurt or hinder us,
but in so doing he has violated justice. God is our justifier.Praise the Lord Jesus,for without him I would have no hope in God at all.
What a covering God has given us, and it’s legal! It’s all because of Jesus. Nothing illegal will stand in God’s courts. What wonderous grace!
Robert,
This is a good point. The problem is, it shouldn’t matter whether we have Jewish blood or not. Why would someone not want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the Apostles in accordance to the law?
Many Christians today tend to define any law beyond the ten commandments is a burden. Can someone that has actually followed these “extra” laws from this group prove to me that the Mosaic law unfettered is a burden? Who here has actually lived by the Law that Jesus and Jews lived by? We know Paul pledged himself to the law to his Jewish brethren. Was Paul a hypocrite, or faithful missionary?
Just how did they perfectly keep the law, Because also within the law was the remedy for breaking it. The remedy was the sin sacrafice which those of faith knew from the prophets was actually the Blood of Jesus that saved them not animals blood. Where there is shadows there is always something that cast them. THIS IS WHAT FAITH IS
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Joshua 22:2 And said unto them, Ye have kept all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I commanded you:
Judges 2:17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
1 Kings 11:34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:
2 Kings 18:6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.
Psalm 119:55 I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law.
The Bible recognizes that many kept the Law. Even David is included in that group.
1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
Ray
You said, “Passion is a good thing but it must be restrained.”
I agree. Both Jesus and Peter said we must be humble and reverant when defending our beliefs. Passion can sometimes work against this and must be kept in check.
I remember how Jesus taught men to not put new wine into old bottles, and to not put a piece of new cloth onto an old garment.
This is how Jesus and Paul lived and taught the gospel. Everything has it’s place in the kingdom. God doesn’t want things in a disarray.
There’s a divine order we are to keep.
A Messianic Rabbi’s perspective:
He’s asking for opinions:
http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/pauls-practice-in-the-book-of-acts/
Joseph (msg. 142)
You asked, “Can someone that actually followed these “extra laws” from this group prove to me that the Mosaic law unfettered is a burden?”
It depends on whether you believe what Peter and the Apostles and the church elders and other like James said or not. If you believe the book of Acts then it clearly says that all these practicing Jews that followed these “extra laws” thought that the Mosaic law unfettered was a burden that the Gentiles shouldn’t have to bear. Clearly they said they considered it a burden.
I would think the majority of the people here in this group believe not only what they said but believe that because this was a decision of the Holy Spirit that this means that they knew what they were talking about and also that they had authority in this matter. (The authority of the Holy Spirit.) At least I think the majority of the people here in this group would believe this. I know I do…
I was really hoping this thread wouldn’t go this way, as Sean’s original subject has been overshadowed by a rerun of the endless debate over the Law. I don’t want to rehash the same arguments that were made before, but here is one of the threads where it was debated:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/05/29/new-covenant-commandments/
Mark
Search the beginning comments and you will find it was Sean himself that opened the can of worms.
there is other people here besides you to be concerned with.
back to the original topic
Should we also celebrate other victories that God Caused like the assyrian victory over the Israelites and the babylonian victory over Judaea. Both were done by the power of GOD.
GOD FORBID!!!!!!
Mark C.
I went to the link you provided in msg. 148 and found it very informative on what you and others believe on this matter. Thanks…
‘This is a good point. The problem is, it shouldn’t matter whether we have Jewish blood or not. Why would someone not want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the Apostles in accordance to the law?”
I agree
Being the son of Joseph has nothing to do with my love of Gods morals.
Righteousness is something we can only have from loving God with all of our heart and mind.
I am sure your question will be one of the first questions asked during judgement.
self righteousness is redefining Gods morals to fit your own will, not HIS
All man’s attempts at loving God will never bring him the righteousness he needs to enter heaven. He will always fail. He will fall short of righteousness repeatedly. Therefore God sent Jesus to do for him what he could never do for himself. The only man who could ever be found to be righteous by right examination
of his life as to whether or not he loved God with all his heart and mind is Jesus, and unless one attains the righteousness of that man, he will not be allowed to enter heaven. His righteousness can not be attained by a man loving God with his whole heart and mind, unless that man is Jesus, but his righteousness can be imparted to those who have fallen short, by faith in his words and work which was throughout, without fault or failure.
Robert (msg. 149)
You said, “Should we also celebrate other victories that God caused like the Assyrian victory over the Israelites and the Babylonian victory over Judea. Both were done by the power of God. God Forbid!”
These are not Jewish holy days. I don’t think there is anything wrong with showing respect for God’s mighty works in the old testament by honoring the ancient holy days. That honoring might be by just saying a thankful prayer on the day or by doing like Sean and saying the appropriate Jewish prayers and and doing some sort of ritual.
Having freedom from the law means each of us can choose or not choose to honor these holy days and to do it in the way we feel is most appropriate. I can’t see God being upset about what Sean and his family did as a matter of fact I think just the opposite. Like I said earlier I think that this could be a nice family tradition…
Robert
I’ve been going through an old thread that Mark C. posted above in msg. 148 and it would appear that your beliefs about the ten commandments and the sabbath are similar to my own.
I choose to honor the sabbath as a the holy day of rest. Unlike the 7th. Day people who say that anyone who does not honor the sabbath cannot attain salvation. I believe that because Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath that as long as people keep one holy day to rest that this is also okay.
Just wondering if we do indeed have similar beliefs on this.
Yes Jesus states clearly that the Sabbath was made for man, He doesnt say it was made for Israelites,jews or those who lived in Israel. HE SAYS IT WAS MADE FOR MAN.
We know from Genesis what day that is, it is the seventh day , we know from the bible and history that day is what is called today saturday.
if your belief is we should hold that day holy to God then yes we believe the same.
The sabbath is a sign your are a child of God and the first day is a sign you are a child of satan by serving the sun god who is satan’s highest name amongst his many names.
As for mosaic law i believe it was for Israel but the 10 commandments prexisted from the beginning.
the law was added for transgessions means there had to be something to transgess and these transgressions even are pre-Noah
I came across a reference to the book of Jasher in Joshua 10:13 so i searched to find it. It covers from Adam to the entering of Israel. heres the link
http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html
Robert
Sorry I took so long getting back to you. It would appear our beliefs about the 10 commandments are the same. I realize that for several thousand years before Constantine made Sunday the official day of rest in honor of the Sun God that Sunday had always been considered to be the day of the Sun God. I also realize that throughout the old testament the Sun God was God’s biggest competition with people sacrificing their children to the Sun God.
But most people that live today do not know this and believe the traditions passed down since the time of Constantine that Sunday is the Lord’s day and is the new holy day of rest. Although it is true that the Jesus’ followers gathered on Sunday to have a common meal that included bread and wine (known as the communion) to celebrate Jesus’ resurection there is no evidence that it was ever a holy day of rest before Constantine (the Sun God worshiper) appeared on the scene.
Since most people don’t know this and think they are honoring Jesus in keeping Sunday a holy day of rest. Do you really think that God is going to condemn them for this? They are simply following their church leaders who are in turn are following the self appointed religious experts of the 4th. century and their traditions.
BTW your link on the book of Jasher is interesting I have never heard of it before but the Old Testament is not my specialty. My friend Tim says I should spend more time studying the Old Testament in order to better understand the New Testament.
“Since most people don’t know this and think they are honoring Jesus in keeping Sunday a holy day of rest. Do you really think that God is going to condemn them for this?”
Thomas
I think the question should be whether God would redeem someone for that?
Ignorance is a very poor defense when everyone has acess to the truth on their own
Robert
You said, “I think the question should be whether God would redeem someone for that? Ignorance is a very poor defense when everyone has acess to the truth on their own.”
I can’t argue with the logic of your reasoning. But I look around me at people like my friend Tim who is non conforming Roman Catholic and has spent most of his life studying what the various so called religious experts from Augustine onward have said and is very much a traditionalist in comparison to me.
He is a great person who would never lie or cheat anyone and has always been there to help me out (we have been best friends since high school). Yet I could never convince him about my beliefs regarding the sabbath because he will keep saying that these religious experts are wiser than we are and we cannot contradict them because he looks up to them and respects them.
I can’t believe that God would not have mercy on someone like him and include him among the sheep on the day of judgment. I know this is not a logical argument but is one from my heart. But not all my beliefs come from logic some do come from my heart…
Thomas
their are 2 judgements but i am only concerned with the first which is being a part of the Kingdom of God. I am sure that the decieved will recieve fair judgement otherwise what would be the use of the second Judgement.
there are many great people now and through out mankind that never had the chance to hear the Word of God or simple was decieved. we can pray for those
Robert
I hate to show my ignorance but I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of the second judgment…
Thomas
there are 2 judgements in Revelation 20 one before the 1000 years reign with Jesus here on earth and one before the new Heaven is reinstated here on earth
Robert
I thought that it might be from Revelations unfortunately Revelations is not one of the books that I study. I do not study anything written by John.
From what I understand at the end of the first century there were about a dozen collections of books. The writings of Paul and John were never included in the same collections as the synoptics. There is all kinds of historical evidence that the followers of Paul referred to the followers of the synoptics as heretics and they in return referred to the followers of Paul as heretics.
The followers of Paul rejected the synoptics because they had their own gospel the gospel of John. 75% of the book of John matches perfectly with the letters of Paul and only about 2 or 3% matches the synoptics (and that is just the names of various people and a few well known sayings of Jesus.)
If you look at your concordance you will notice that when ever the book of John talks about the same subject as the synoptics the book of John says something completely different often the exact opposite of what the synoptics say. Nothing in the book of John matches or supports what is said in the synoptics. I can list examples if you wish.
I don’t study the writings of Paul or the writings of his followers like John.
Thomas
All i can say is thats a shame you have allowed other people to make your your mind up.
I know that i have studied it along with the whole bible and find it fits Gods plans. this book is probably the least corrupted of the NT and could of only been given by revelation
Robert
You said, “All I can say is that’s a shame you have allowed other people to make your mind up.”
I didn’t receive this belief from another person. I received it by studying the bible and studying various history books about Christianity. As far as I know there in no-one else that has the exact same beliefs that I do. I prayed to God to help me understand what Jesus said and did and earnestly studied for many years. During these years God has revealed these things to me through my study and through his grace.
The book of Revelations says there is going to be a seven headed dragon and the three horses of the Apocolypse and a whole bunch of other things that are apparently going to happen in plain sight for everyone to see and that everyone is going to be able to know years before Jesus comes that he is coming.
Jesus repeatedly said that no one knows the exact day or hour of the end days. Not the angels in heaven nor the son but only the Father and that it will be like a thief coming in the night and that it will be like the time of Noah when no one knew the flood was coming. I choose to believe Jesus over John any day.
“The book of Revelations says there is going to be a seven headed dragon and the three horses of the Apocolypse and a whole bunch of other things that are apparently going to happen in plain sight for everyone to see and that everyone is going to be able to know years before Jesus comes that he is coming”
Thomas
this is revelation that God gave to Jesus to give to John to write.this sets no time its just states what must happen. I have to think that Jesus knows the exact time now because God gave him this knowledge.
I believe Jesus over all NT writers
robert,
I thought “all NT writers” were inspired by the same Spirit which ITself is synonymous with both the “Spirit of Christ Jesus” & “Holy Spirit [of God]”?
CHECK: Rom 8.9
Jesus recieved the spirit of God(word in the flesh) without measure, Who else does it state the same. all context of NT writers should be understood first through Jesus and should never contradict Jesus. while almost all NT writtings have been corrupted by translations there is still enough clear there if you seek it out
robert,
Just to understand you correctly…when you say “all NT writings” do you include the Gospels or not? Now if all of NT scripture “have been corrupted by translations”, as you suggest, so how do we know which is which or what is what?
In other words, which would be the “authetic Jesus sayings”? Although, I do agree with you that there is no definite NT translation, what we do have is still good enough.
Just to understand you correctly…when you say “all NT writings†do you include the Gospels or not?
Yes
Matthew is an obvious rewrite of the gospel of the hebrews which has been destroyed but references are made by early christian writers.
the rest have been translated with grammical errors and bad translations of words.
But using logic and common sense they still can be used effectively.
the real problem is with the so called scholars who twist every word to push their agenda of receiving praise for their intellect
robert,
Then how do “all context of NT writers should be understood first through Jesus and should never contradict Jesus”, if we don’t even know what’s legit?
And how is it so “obvious” to say that Gospel of Matthew is a “hebrews rewrite” if it “has been destroyed”?
‘Then how do “all context of NT writers should be understood first through Jesus and should never contradict Jesusâ€, if we don’t even know what’s legit?”
Xavier
If you use the whole scriptures and a little common sense this shouldnt be a hard task.
“And how is it so “obvious†to say that Gospel of Matthew is a “hebrews rewrite†if it “has been destroyedâ€? ”
there are some very early witnesses that provide some insight.
Last year when i actually first read the whole bible ,when i came to mat 1;22-23 reference to Isaiah 7;14 i knew that it had been corrupted at that point because Isaiah 7 was still fresh in my memory and this wasnt a prophecy about Jesus. a little research and i found that virgin isnt even used in the original hebrew text but was mistranslated in greek text which is heavily debated but still this is no prophecy of Jesus. there are even more added references to prophecies that are not prophecies about Jesus thtu out mat which lead to the conclusion this was not from the original gospel of matthew. it is commonly held belief that The gospel of mark influenced this writing but it looks like to me that it was a rewrite using both the gospel of the hebrews and mark plus a agenda by the rewriters to promote their own beliefs. the virgin birth is something i am not very sure of because it is not mentioned other than luke thru out the NT which could be explained by bad translation. i feel that if this was true than it would of been used throu out the NT writers because this would be an important sign that Jesus was the Son of God thru conception but as we know it Jesus didnt actually achieve this reality till his ressurection as most NT understand.
I believe that Jesus quotes are still close enough to created doubt of corruption to the point of not being to understand them
Robert (msg. 165)
You said, “This is revelation that God gave to Jesus to give to John to write.”
I understand that this is what the religious experts claim. What I don’t understand is, Why would God give Jesus revelations to give to John to write that he apparently just a few decades earlier was not willing to give to Jesus so that he could make these revelations himself?
Jesus in his lifetime gave his own revelations of the end days. Why would God decide a short time later that this other person needed to give different revelations?
None of the claims of the religious experts in this regard makes any sense to me.
robert,
Having some trouble understanding your post but should I assume that you do not believe in the virgin birth narratives? And that Matthew and Luke are not verifiable witnesses due to the “corruptions, mistranslations”?
If that is the case, are you a Christian at all? Or like Bart Ehrman, someone who just “loves the bible” yet doesn’t believe what it says? Similarly to Catholic-Protestant Christians and Muslims.
why should i believe something that is obviously not believed by other writers in the NT.
as far as you calling me not a christian i am used to that already by the trinitarians. now there are 2 groups that do this but both are actually the same. people who think jesus is God are the ones who have corrupted and mistranslated things to prove their point.
Now to clarify this.
I see no importance to a virgin birth to prove who Jesus was or who he is now.
I just use common sense over traditions that make no common sense.
quite frankly you deny more of what the bible says by denying the important prophesies that actually exist in the OT
robert,
Anyone who denies the virgin birth of the Lord Messiah is really not a believer of his unique status and one-of-a-kind [monogenes, Jn 1.18] birth right. And we know what the NT says regarding those who deny the Son.
Everytime the “other writers of the NT” make mention of Jesus as THE Son of God, we have to assume it refers to his natural sonship [via the virgin birth, Lu 1.35].
In other words, Jesus “Son of David…according to the flesh” and “Son of God…according to the Spirit of holiness” [Rom 1.4], which created him [viz. Lu 1.35].
‘Everytime the “other writers of the NT†make mention of Jesus as THE Son of God, we have to assume it refers to his natural sonship [via the virgin birth, Lu 1.35″
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power [2] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
than under your assumption God can change my birth into a virgin birth.
“In other words, Jesus “Son of David…according to the flesh†and “Son of God…according to the Spirit of holiness†[Rom 1.4], which created him [viz. Lu 1.35]”
Being Jesus is the Son of David according to the flesh states that he was of a human father by which this OT prophecy says.
we were giving who Jesus’ father is concernig the Flesh and Thats JOSEPH. God is everyones Father according to the Spirit without a need of a virgin birth
robert,
Nowhere does the NT say that Jesus “was of a human father” [i.e. Joseph]. The reference to “Son of David…according to the flesh” fulfills the Davidic promise of 2Sam7 [cp. Ps 2].
Douglas Edwards tackles this very topic in his “The Virgin Birth: In History and Faith”, 1963 [p.43f.]:
Jesus’s uniqueness came from the fact he obeyed God fully without fail. he was chosen by God from this to be the Lamb of God, He was the first to received the word in the flesh as promised to those of the New Covenant, he was the first begotten of the dead, he was the first to acend to the presence of God in Heaven.
He was a man in the flesh with a human father and to deny this is to deny he came in the flesh as the seed of David according to the flesh.
you have to ignore the prophecies and ignore several reference to his human blood line thru Joseph. you also have to claim mysteries on how Joseph is not his Human father by claiming adoption which the bible NOWHERE EVER STATES.
your belief can only exist by using the methods used by trinitarians and by ignoring pure fact of the scriptures
robert,
Unfortunately your statement lacks any scriptural credence. Jesus is “the seed of the woman” [Eve, present tense=Mary, future tense, Gen 3.15], hence, through Mary, Jesus is “descendant of David according to the flesh”.
Then again, this is another [similar] subject apart from the Virgin Birth.
You have no scriptual evidence that the seed of woman refers to mary, no scriptual eveidence that mary was a decendent of david, but on the other hand i have scriptures that prove he was the son of joseph and that was the proof of who he was
Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
these 2 verses show he was born with a human father and mother
your claim has to involve pure speculation and mystery
4 And declared [1] to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Here is where Jesus became the Son of God.
there would be no need to declare it by the resurrection of the dead if he was already the Son of God.
this is nearly the same type of discussion several of us are having with Ray right now because it requires ignoring facts in the scriptures and assigning meaning to verses that are not scriptual based.
the word used for virgin in greek also can be used for young woman of marrying age but the word in original text for virgin used in isaiah means young woman of marrying age and there is a word for virgin that wasnt used even though the word actually used can be descibing the status of a virgin as a young unmarried woman. this would explain Luke’s use of it.
Every copy of NT was subjected to people who had an agenda to present Jesus as a God and most translations were done by the same type of people with an agenda the show Jesus as God.
So dont deceive yourself by thinking you can not be deceived by the copies and translations of scriptures that you have never read as they were wrote in original text. who ever claims they have is a liar
robert
Rom 1.4 says that Jesus was “DECLARED” [and not BECAME] Son of God. He already was Son of God by his being generated through that same “spirit of holiness” [Mat; Luke; cp. Ps 2.7].
“Declared to be” can not describe that you already were prior, only can describe from that declaration forward.
you cant twist this
Xavier,
You were quoting Douglas Edwards (a staunch defender of the virgin conception), but what he has to say here can hardly amount to a thoughtful defense of the VC. Arguments like these are weak and void of any real substance:
Â
“scholars are victims of their own abstract” and employ “superficial methods”,
“compare one passage with another (but with little else), to adjust this and alter that”,
treat their documents like a jugsaw puzzle that has gone wrong,Â
THEY OPERATE LARGELY IN THE VOID, work (as it were) on a plane of surface
This is all about scholars 🙂 The only thing he says here that touches the subject is this:
The Epistles, for example, are now recognized for what, in the main, they are–OCCASIONAL WRITINGS, CONCERNED TO DEAL WITH EXIGENCIES AND CONTROVERSIES OF THE MOMENT RATHER THAN TO PROVIDE AN EXHAUSTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
In other words, its just that the epistle writers never got to discuss the VC, and just dealt with issues relevant back then in their communities. The last bit is true of course, and we should not forget that we, today, glean all kinds of thelogical ideas (like the ones we use in anti-trinitarian debates) out of these “occasional writings”.. Yet, we cannot glean anything like that when it comes to VC. Kind of strange. Paul mentions Jesus was born of a woman but not from a virgin woman.Â
Anyway, the main problem are not the epistles, but the writings that do deal  expressly with a history of Jesus. Mark and John never mention anything about any Virginal Conception, though they were very interested in presenting the miracles that proved Jesus was the Messiah. They have no interest in any VC. Is VC really such a small matter, that they decide not to present it? Such an extraordinary miracle that fullfils an Isaian profecy and so proves again he is the son of God, the Messiah?Â
THIS is the main problem affecting the VC, and a big embarassment to VC defenders. No wonder Edwards avoids – at least in the quote you mentioned- any talk of Mark and John, and cleverly presents the epistles as just “for example”, as if he can say the same for all other literary forms (gospels, etc). Out of all writers of the NT, only two speak of the VC. Scholars recognize early Christian hymns and formulae in some writings (like Rom 1:3-4, Phil 2:6-11) that have Jesus at their center, but none of them mention, even in passing, the VC. Again, is the Virginal Conception such a small matter? I don’t think so.
The Trinitarians say that because the Unitarians disagree with their doctrines and interpretation of scripture that they are not real Christians. The right wing conservative Christians say that because the left wing Christians want to put Jesus’ teachings about God wanting compassion and not sacrifice into practice with in government policies that they are not real Christians since the left wing Christians disagree with them on political ideology. Many Roman Catholics say that anyone that disagrees with their doctrines and interpretation of scripture are not real Christians.
It is obviously common for Christians to say that anyone that disagrees with their particular doctrines and interpretation of scripture are not real Christians. It is just as obvious that this behavior itself is UNCHRISTIAN. It would be like saying that Rae is not a real Christian because he doesn’t share are views on the Resurection. I think it is obvious to everyone that Rae is indeed a Christian.
Both Jesus and Peter said we must be humble and reverent when defending our faith. Insulting someone and saying they are not a real Christian just because they disagree with our doctrines or interpretation of scripture goes against what Jesus and Peter taught. At least from my perspective anywaze…
Robert/John E.
I have always had my doubts concerning the virginal conception because it was only found in Luke. After reading your arguments above I would have to say that I agree that there is a lot of doubt concerning this matter. I would have to say that I am leaning strongly toward your opinions on this matter. One day we will all get to meet Jesus and get ALL our questions answered. (I know I have a lot of questions.)
Until then we can only attempt to get revelations from our own individual studying of the scriptures and through our experiences we have when sharing those revelations with others.
How can we base our faith on a book that has been represented as the original writing of Matthew when there existed an original in hebrew that doesnt match its greek forgery.
How much of the trinity doctrine influenced the greek Matthew?
How much of the original hebrew did they use?
since it resembles Mark is it just a trinitarian version of Mark?
did the early church fathers lie?
was there an trinitarian agenda when the Nt canon was adopted? YES
Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, c. 120 AD)
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1, c. 180 AD)
“Among the four gospels… I have learned by tradition that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” (Origin (c. 185-254 AD), Commentary on Matthew, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4)
Maybe it isn’t made a huge deal of because whether true or not it was impossible to prove, since obviously there were no witnesses to the conception. That is why our salvation depends on faith in the resurrection. There were hundreds of witnesses to that. Whether you think he became the son of God at that point or was simply declared or shown to be the son of God, the bottom line is still, do we believe God raised him from the dead?
it would be very important amongst all writers of the NT if it were true. it would of been the ultimate proof to a jew if Isaiah 7 was actually a future prophecy. Luke is just a mistranslation of unmarried woman or maybe a corruption
“do we believe God raised him from the dead?”
absolutely!!!!!
Joseph ben Mattathias (nicknamed Josephus), is by far the most famous Jewish historian, intellect and writer of the 1st Century who wrote, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations.” Josephus is a champion of the Greek Christian world, he is considered to be a secret Christian by many Christian theologians, Josephus wrote in Hebrew not in Greek. Josephus says “I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness”,
Are we to believe the apostles and the writers of the NT forsaked there own language to write their testamony in a language that according to Josephus that was not common amongst the Jews even at his time.
this doesnt mean none of it was writen in Greek, it just shows it is an improbability it was all writen first in greek.
the question is why was the originals copied to greek than became lost in history?
was there contradictions that needed to be protected?
was there things added to support false doctrines?
how can we tell whats true if there was corruption?
Answer is by using the same scriptures that Jesus used. if something conflicts the OT find out why.
The NT didnt come to replace the OT , it came to bear witness to it as did the Life of Jesus
Robert, I see in your #81 post you say Jesus is the son of Joseph.
It’s important that we understand that Jesus is God’s son and that he has no human father that begat him. He was begotton of God and not of any male human though he was born of Mary his mother.
Do you understand that Joseph had no contribution gentically to the formation of Jesus in the womb of Mary?
“It’s important that we understand that Jesus is God’s son and that he has no human father that begat him. He was begotton of God and not of any male human though he was born of Mary his mother.”
No Ray
it is important to those who believe in fables. Jesus was the biological son of Joseph Just as the bible states. there was no virgin conception.
JESUS became the SON OF GOD at his Resurrection by means of the Begotten of the Dead to become Gods first born.
Mary was just a young woman used by God to bare a son to the Davidic line which was thru JOSEPH. THis was the Biological blood needed for him to be the messiah.
Robert, where is it in the Bible that you think you see that Joseph
is Jesus’ father? Is it in Matthew 1?
Lu 1:27 …to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David;
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lu 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) Notice the parenthetical emphasis!!
Lu 18:38 And he cried, saying, “Yeshua, you Son of David, have mercy on me.”
Lu 18:39 And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, “you Son of David, have mercy on me”.
Ac 2:29 “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that Elohim had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh (this phrase -according to the flesh- is not in the older text), he would raise up Messiah to sit on his throne;
Ac 13:23 Of this man’s seed has God according to his promise raised unto Israel a deliverer, Yeshua:
2 Samuel 7:12 And when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, which shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom
John 7:42 Hasn’t the scripture said, That the Mashiach comes of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Yeshua the Mashiach our Lord, which was made of the seed of David;
2Ti 2:8 Remember that Yeshua the Mashiach of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Re 5:5 And one of the elders says unto me, “Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. [The Root of David means that David’s Roots go back into Abraham. Meaning, the promises were to Abraham and “The Seed” – Messiah himself. Abraham, in a vision, saw Yeshua “The Seed”, who would come and by whom all nations would be blessed. Therefore, David was not the ultimate source of Yeshua, but the opposite was true – Yeshua is the Source or Root of David. So, that is why Yeshua is both The Root and Offspring of David. He, by Elohim’s pre-determination, was David’s Master as well as his literal Biological Son.]
Re 22:16 “I, Yeshua, have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the assemblies. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright and morning star”.
Robert, where is it in the Bible that you think you see that Joseph
is Jesus’ father? Is it in Matthew 1?
No ray
I believe the real Gospel of Matthew had no birth narrative or geneology.
Robert, do you believe Jesus is the biological son of Joseph and also the Christ?
Ray
Jesus became the anoited( messiah)( christ) at his baptism.
being the biological son of Joseph doesnt change that nor does it change him becoming the first born of GOD AT HIS RESURRECTION
please dont start asking me rediculas questions
I believe the Root of David (Christ) sustained David, and that Christ
is also the offspring of David because the only earthly parent he can claim as being one that produced him from their loins was Mary
his mother who was of David, even though his assumed father (as a step father) was Joseph who also was of David by lineage.
Isn’t there also a sense in which David did some “offspringing” of the Christ by his prophesies concerning him? I see in my dictionary
that one of the uses of the word “off-spring” is speaking of a product, outcome, or result.
Christ would have came regardless, but isn’t there a sense in which he is a product of David’s prophesies?
Isn’t Christ a result of Isaiah’s prophecy about a virgin bringing forth a child?
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give yoiu a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
It’s been said that God does nothing until the first reveals it to his prophets. This prophecy of Isaiah speaks of a woman who had never known a man, bringing forth a child. It’s a prophecy about Jesus and his being conceived by the Holy Spirit and being born of Mary.
Isn’t Christ a result of Isaiah’s prophecy about a virgin bringing forth a child?
Ray there is no such prophecy about a virgin birth, you read from a corrupted translation. the orginal hebrew OT says young woman.
this is one of the proofs Matthew’s birth narrative is a lie and wasnt written by Matthew
Robert, if Joseph was Jesus’ father, how could it be that he sustained and could bear David as being his Root, and what of
Psalm 2?
Ray
I hope you don’t mind me interjecting into the conversation. It’s just I don’t agree with you that the root of David (Christ) sustained David. I believe David was a man who’s heart was close to Gods. He kept forgiving his enemies and not persecuting or punishing them. Hence he was following Jesus’ teachings about loving your enemies long before Jesus taught these things.
I personally believe that Jesus did not exist before his birth just like David didn’t exist before his birth. I know that your going to quote the beginning of the book of John about the word becoming flesh. But I don’t believe the book of John is an authentic scripture so you can see why I believe this.
From the books I study there is no evidence that Jesus existed before his birth and therefore Roberts theory regarding the Virginal Conception make a lot of sense to me. But I can understand how you could find it hard to make sense of it.
The reason David did the things Jesus taught is because he learned them from him who was in the world though the world did not see him. It was Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God who was with David, even in him by the spirit. He’s often seen in his prophesies. He sustained David. He was his help, his Lord. He was
his Lord who was always subject to God.
Psalm 110:1
The Lord said unto my Lord….
As David learned of God through his word, he found communion with Christ.
Ray
Jesus thru Joseph was the son of David according to the flesh, the bood of David was passed down through sons of his sons to Joseph and than to his son Jesus making Jesus the root and offspring of David. This was the promise from God to David by which we know in the prophecies concerning the Messiah.
By believing in the virgin conception you remove this promise to David by God making God a liar.
(Acts 13:23) Of this man’s [David’s] seed has God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus.
(1John 4:2) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from God.â€
there is nothing in the scriptures or the NT that bares witness to Mary being of the tribe of Judah or a decendent of David. the only thing that gives us a hint of her lineage is that her cousin was a daughter of Aaron making Mary mostly likely the same.
Jesus was born to human parents with the same sinful nature we all have but thru faith in God was obidient to not sin. this is the miracle because no man had ever done that and never since that we know of. He done that without any help for 30 years of his life till the word became flesh within his own heart and mind at his baptism, after giving him the power to even resist being tempted by satan himself. he continue his spotless life to his death to be the lamb for the sins of the world not just a nation. He was raised from the dead to be the first beggotten of God, offer as the first fruit of the first fruits. he became our high priest to mediate for us by offering his blood to God. because he is the first to be born of God by the begotten of the dead his birthright is to rule over his brethern. he now sits at the right hand of God till God makes his enemies his footstool and when that is complete than he will reign in the earthly kingdom of his God with all his brethern who loved Gods ways as much as he does by walking in the example he left in his testamony.
If your belif requires Jesus being God son at birth than you missed the whole meaning of his existance
Ray
You could possibly be right. All I’m saying is that there are always more than one way to interpret scripture. (That’s why we have more than 2 thousand different Christian denominations). From my understanding of human behavior everyone (including me) takes whatever scripture we might read and tries to make sense of it by comparing it to the beliefs we already have.
That’s why a Trinitarian can read a certain scripture and be convinced that it supports his point of view where a Unitarian can read the same scripture and think that it does not. The basic beliefs (or preconceptions) that we all have influence how we interpret scripture. This is why we have so many different interpretations of the same scriptures.
Personally I think that instead of kicking people out of your church and telling them (more or less) to go and start their own church whenever they disagree with the church leaders about the interpretation of scriptures. That we should let them remain within the church and defend and debate (respectfully of course) their opinions with the other members of the church.
In the time of Jesus and the Apostles the temple and the synagogues were more than just houses of prayer. It was where various Jewish sects (who all interpreted their scripture differently from each other) would gather together and respectfully debate their differences.
Jesus was the master of these debates and the bible says that it got to the point that no one would even dare to challenge him.
We certainly see Jesus involved with people in understanding things rather than having nothing to say and telling people to leave because apparently they don’t agree with their group.
It’s a dysfuntional system that doesn’t allow people to question things and try to understand things.
Both John and Jesus had disciples of their own. Two denominations? But we don’t see any schisms between them do we, though some people asked why one group did this or that.
John wasn’t in comptetion with Jesus either was he? He wasn’t out to gain the greatest following. Neither Jesus nor John used people
for worldly gain of any kind.
Ray
I agree with everything you said especially the very last part where you said, “John wasn’t in competition with Jesus either was he? He wasn’t out to gain the greatest following. Neither Jesus nor John used people for worldly gain of any kind.”
Like Jesus said people that do acts of kindness or goodness for worldly gain or praise have already received their reward.
Jesus thru Joseph was the son of David according to the flesh, the bood of David was passed down through sons of his sons to Joseph and than to his son Jesus making Jesus the root and offspring of David. This was the promise from God to David by which we know in the prophecies concerning the Messiah.
By believing in the virgin conception you remove this promise to David by God making God a liar.
(Acts 13:23) Of this man’s [David’s] seed has God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus.
(1John 4:2) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from God.â€
there is nothing in the scriptures or the NT that bares witness to Mary being of the tribe of Judah or a decendent of David. the only thing that gives us a hint of her lineage is that her cousin was a daughter of Aaron making Mary mostly likely the same.
Jesus was born to human parents with the same sinful nature we all have but thru faith in God was obidient to not sin. this is the miracle because no man had ever done that and never since that we know of. He done that without any help for 30 years of his life till the word became flesh within his own heart and mind at his baptism, after giving him the power to even resist being tempted by satan himself. he continue his spotless life to his death to be the lamb for the sins of the world not just a nation. He was raised from the dead to be the first beggotten of God, offer as the first fruit of the first fruits. he became our high priest to mediate for us by offering his blood to God. because he is the first to be born of God by the begotten of the dead his birthright is to rule over his brethern. he now sits at the right hand of God till God makes his enemies his footstool and when that is complete than he will reign in the earthly kingdom of his God with all his brethern who loved Gods ways as much as he does by walking in the example he left in his testamony.
If your belif requires Jesus being God son at birth than you missed the whole meaning of his existance
Robert
I think it is a greater miracle, that Jesus who was completely human with all the same temptations that we have was able to live 30 years of his life without committing a sin in the eyes of God, than the miracle of a virgin birth. Like I said your theory makes a lot of sense to me but I don’t think we could ever get Ray to agree with us since his basic beliefs (or preconceptions) are different than ours.
Thomas
Although I would like for Ray to see through his preconceptions, i have come to the understanding that he has too much influencing him to do that but he represents the average christian that comes here.
If just one of those would be influenced to research the bible and things surrounding the writtings( instead of following the traditional preconceptions) from the discussions that i have with Ray than its worth every minute of time invested.
Robert, if Jesus were a biological son of Mary’s husband Joseph, he would not have been the Messiah that sustained David and caused him to bear much fruit. It was Jesus who was in heaven and through the spirit of wisdom taught David many things pertaining to heaven. He taught him of his own coming to Israel and sustainded David through many trials of faith and sufferings in his days on this earth. David learned about Christ through these
humbling experiences. David was often broken and found a fellowship of Christ in his suffering condition. It was there that the Lord strengthened him, God doing this marvelous work of grace through him who David did not yet see in the days of his flesh, but
did receive information about by the spirit of God where Jesus also was found by him, though David did not know him by that name for he had not yet come to be known by it as the time of his coming in that manner was not yet.
Jesus is very much the son of David. The only connection he had biologically, a DNA connection, was through Mary who is a decendent of David.
Isn’t there a sence in which all the prophets who prophesied of Christ’s coming gave birth to him? When they received a revelation
about him and brought it forth and spoke it, it being a word from the Lord God, and receiving a connection to this world by that which was revealed, caused something new to be born into this world.
I’ve often heard it said that God doesn’t do anything until it first comes through an intercessor of some sort, and when he is about to do something, he first reveals it to his prophets.
If David had left no seed to continue after him, or if it had not continued to the time when Christ should come, how could he have been of the seed of David? According to the scriptures, his seed did continue and it did produce the Christ along with the help of the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus being born of God and Mary did not have the effects of sin upon his soul at the time of his birth as the rest of mankind. He had not been so stained by sin. Sin by Adam did not pass upon him
through his conception or birth. He therefore could be our redeemer
if he resisted sin unto death, even the death of the cross, a thing which he did, which also was unto us through the grace and the justifying redemption of God.
Jesus had the help of God in doing this, a thing he had to do by faith, his good words and works testifying to it, or we would not be saved by him. God would have had to find another way for our salvation, or we would have died in our sins and had no substitute
that would be recognized before his throne of justice and judgment which could cover for us and be the payment which would
include us in God’s plan of salvation, even in his Son Jesus who was prepared for us and for our habitation unto himself. Jesus did not fail in his mission by God and therefore can be our redeemer who have put our trust in him by the word of God which we have received.
It seems to me that Jesus was first begotten of God by the spirit
( See Luke 1:31, for this conception of God was the seed promised that
proceeded forth of the Father himself.) before he was born of the flesh. This however does not qualify as being first begotten of the dead, for God is not of the dead but of eternal life. When he was raised from the dead Jesus became the first begotten from the grave, for he was the first to be bodily raised from the grave to inherit eternity in his new bodily condition, a thing we earnestly wait for and hope to receive because of him who gave himself for us.
Ray
Jesus was the ultimate Christ but he wasnt the only Christ. David Himself was a Christ as were all the prophets of God.
A Christ is someone annoited with the Word of God.
Whats makes the Man Jesus so special is He received the Word Of God without Measure at His baptism when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in His FLESH.
The Word Of God has existed with God from the beginning and has rested on many but It actually dwelt in Jesus.
Everything Jesus was about existed from the begining but Jesus Didnt exist till he was born as a Human the same way we were
Robert, have you never read John 1 or Micah 5:2?
Micah 5 verse 2 does not prophesied the advent of Jesus for the follwing reason;
1.”Bethlehem Ephratah” in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah. see 1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50, 4:4.
2. Micah 5:2 does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a miltary leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, Jsus never did.
5:6 And they shall wste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.
If you were a Bearen you would know this is speaking of King Ahaz’s son, King Hezekiah as is Isaiah 7-9 and was fulfilled during that time.
Matthew 2 :5 is another added prophesy by translators that has no basis within the OT.
John1 is speaking of God’s power that Came to dwell in Jesus at His baptism.
It doesnt even speak of Jesus’ birth or any pre-existance, It speaks about the Promise of the New covenant where God’s Law would be written in our Hearts and Minds as opposed to the Old Covenant way of it being written in Stone. Jesus was the first to receive this special writting of the Law, others receive this when they receive the Holy Spirit
A brief response to Doubting Thomas (somewhere near the top of the page)
You wrote: ” You must agree that Paul’s writings contradict the rest of the bible and are the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Paul said we are no longer bound by the law and that to attain salvation you just need to believe certain doctrines that he laid out and you will somehow magically obtain salvation through grace and that your actions are not important. This not only completely contradicts everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught it also contradicts everything Moses and the prophets taught.
… Jesus repeatedly said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. ”
It might help if you were more acquainted with the Jewish Holy Days … i.e. Leviticus 23. For example, Jesus was the fulfillment of both the Passover, and the wave sheaf offering, and whose coming do you think the Feast of Trumpets foreshadows?
1 Corinthians 15:52 KJV
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
There is also an issue of “What is the Law?” You seemed to be thinking that “the law” always means “the Law of Moses.” Besides this, is can also mean the first five books of the Bible, or the entire bible, but it also can mean God’s laws, which are namely summarized by “Love God” and “Love thy neighbor.”
What does the law say about the Christ?
John 5:39 KJV
(39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, not to destroy them.
Concerning that Old Covenant – it’s been broken for a long time, already. Would it help if you could see where God prophesied the breaking of the covenant with Israel and Judah?
Zechariah 11:10-14 KJV
(10) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
(11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
(12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
(13) And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
(14) Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
I would have quoted Hebrews, but since you’ve expressed a distrust of Paul, I could quote Matthew, Mark, or Luke:
Matthew 26:28 KJV
(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The blood of a new testament makes the old obsolete. Regardless, they killed the one with whom they had instituted that old covenant – that tends to void the contract when one of the parties is murdered by the other.
I highly recommend some research as to the significance of the Old Testament festivals: they really do help to understand the New Testament, for example:
John 7:37 KJV
(37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Revelation 22:1 KJV
(1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Andrew Patrick
The council of Jerusalem clearly stated that the Gentiles must follow the law of Noah. This is repeated again later on in Acts when James and the church elders sent letters to the Gentiles that Paul had converted to instruct them they must follow the law of Noah. To refresh your memory I suggest you read Acts Chapter 21 versus 17-25.
The one history book I read said that Paul rejected the decision at the council of Jerusalem and believed that it was a mere compromise made by men and not a decision of the Holy Spirit even though Acts clearly states that everyone agreed that the decision made was a clear decision of the Holy Spirit.
I have been told that this thing about Paul rejecting the decision at the council of Jerusalem is not biblical and I must admit that I have no idea where this historian got this information from. But it is clear from Paul’s writings that he believed the law (including the law of Noah) did not apply to his followers.
Thomas,
Where do you find the “Law of Noah” in the Bible? Acts 21:17-25 mentions keeping themselves from “things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” But where is that ever called the Law of Noah?
Have you read Anthony Buzzard’s book on The Law, The Sabbath, and New Covenant Christianity? I recommend it. You can read it on line here:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/sabbathbook.pdf
Mark C.
I read this in one of the books I have read (I think it was How Jesus became a Christian by Barrie Wilson). I will try to read as much of Antony’s book as I can. But I usually can’t read more than about 10-15 minutes on my computer without it bothering my eyes so it may take me a while…
I have a lot of respect for Anthony. He appears to be a man that has spent his life studying the scriptures where I myself have only been a Christian for the last 15 or 20 years.
I realize I can learn a lot from all the people on this site. I especially am impressed with the level of respect people show to each other on this site even when they don’t agree on things….
Robert/Mark C.
One of my favorite Christian expressions is, “God cannot steer a parked car.” That’s why I try to keep an open mind about new ideas and ways of interpreting scripture. With an open mind I can let God steer me toward any new ideas or steer me away from any new ideas. I have spent quite a few days now praying and thinking about everything both in my life and what I have heard on this website.
I have spent several days reading old threads that Mark posted and have tried to keep an open mind on what was said. A part of me wants to believe exactly what Robert believes so that I will no longer be alone in my beliefs. Another part of me wants to believe what Mark C. believes so that I can be part of the majority and share their view. There is a comfort that comes with belonging to the majority.
Unfortunately the same old red flags keep coming up not allowing me to agree with either one of you. Jesus said that if two or more of you gather in my name I will be there among you (guiding you). Peter and the Apostles would always get together with others that were strong in the spirit when making decisions. Certainly God (and Jesus) were able to guide them through the power of the Holy Spirit to appoint or not appoint any person as an Apostle.
That is why it makes no sense to me that Paul had to appoint himself an Apostle. If God had wanted him to be an Apostle surely he could have guided the other Apostles to appoint a 13th. Apostle. There is not only no mention in the bible of this happening but Paul in his own words at the beginning of Galations says, “I was not appointed an Apostle by mere men but by God himself.”
Then there is the fact that the very cornerstone (or foundation) of the Jewish faith was the law. I am expected to believe that this drastic reversal regarding the law happened and no one outside of Paul’s writings mentions anything about this. The synoptics were written long after Paul’s letters and yet they don’t even hint at there being any change in regards to the law.
The synoptics actually have Jesus saying repeatedly that he did not come to abolish the law and even more specifically saying he did not come to change one stroke of letter of the law and that anyone who taught anyone to not follow the least of these laws will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
I’ve been told by people here that this only applied to the Jews and others until the resurection and that after that everything was then fulfilled and the we can safely throw the laws in the trash heap of history.
Why would Jesus repeatedly say these things over and over again not just in one book but in all of three synoptics if he knew it wasn’t true and that right after his resurection we would all be free from the law?
Why would the writers of the synoptics which were written decades after the resurection bother to write these statements of Jesus over and over again when at the time of their writing apparently the law didn’t even apply anymore?
Why didn’t they explain that even though Jesus repeatedly said these things about the law that the law didn’t apply anymore?
Why in the story told in Acts Chapter 21 versus 17-25 did they say to Paul, “You see brother how many thousands there are among the Jews of those that have believed (in Jesus) and they are all zealous for the law.”? (This happened decades after the resurection.)
In the same story above they accuse Paul of teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. The council of Jerusalem was clear that only the Gentiles were exempt from the law of circumcision (not the Jews or Christian Jews).
The council of Jerusalem occured long after the resurection when supposedly everything was fulfilled and the law no longer applied to us. In the above story in Acts they force Paul to undergo the ritual of purification so that everyone will know that there is nothing to the things which have been told about Paul and to show that he himself also walk orderly keeping the law.
Again I repeat this was decades after the resurection when supposely everything was fulfilled and the law no longer applied.
Paul said all foods were clean to anyone with a clean heart but the story above and the council of Jerusalem both say that the Gentiles (and the Jews) should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.
It would make my life a lot simpler if I agreed with the majority and wasn’t a minority of one. But God guided me to my beliefs through my studies and I cannot turn my back on what he revealed to me.
I guess I’m just going to have to agree to disagree with all of you.
(I know that sounds rather arrogant but I have no control over what God reveals to me and I can’t in good conscience ignore what I believe to be revelations from God.)
Thomas
I have no problem with your reasoning because that is what you see at this present time. this however doesnt separate you from my belief. the fact is its the same belief that has brought about the red flags on Paul which i had at one time myself
I can not believe the interpretations of what Paul wrote but have with lots of research found that the interpretations are far from being the truth therefore they are not contradicting The Law of God which even Paul says are Holy and Just and also says we establish it.
the fact is we should be able to base our faith on the OT if we understand that Jesus only came to make changes in the Law For Righteousness which is The Sacraficial elements contained in the Law. Jesus was the end of the Law for righteousness because he became it Himself as the Lamb, High Priest and The First Fruit. The other change was the Temple who as High Priest is the head of became the Body of Christ.
these are the only changes or may i say additions to God’s law Known as the 10 Commandments which the Mosaic was only based on for Israel. But now the blessing goes forth to all humanity using Jesus as for what the Law for Righteousness was giving for to Israel. this couldnt stay the same if the blessing was to go out to all nor could the temple be in a place where all couldnt acess it.
I myself think even the blessing within Mosaic law is perfect, but the curse which is humans judging and executing i think is now done within the judgement of the coming Kingdom which Jesus will be our King while God enjoys HIS SABBATH again.
Thomas you are not alone in the basics of what you believe, just a few things which are not as important as what we are alike in.
Robert
You said, “The fact is we should be able to base our faith on the OT”
That is my biggest weakness I have only read the OT a few times and must admit I have a hard time making much sense out of it. My friend Tim gave me this book called Introduction to the Old Testament by Roland Kenneth Harrison and told me if I read it I would find it a lot easier to understand the OT.
But the book is 1278 pages long and to be quite honest I never seem to have the time to even start reading it. Maybe I should make the time to try and understand the OT better. Like I said my knowledge of the OT is very limited.
You also said, “You are not alone in the basics of what you believe, just a few things which are not as important as what we are alike in.”
Thanks again for the encouragement. It does seem that out of all the people here on this site your beliefs are the closest to mine.
I noticed something in the book I’m reading by Anthony Buzzard. In the chapter Christians and the Law (Torah) by Charles Hunting he says something about that there are some people who reject Paul and accept Jesus which he claims is an impossible thing to do.
This encouraged me to believe that maybe there are many others out there that share my view on Paul. Thanks again for supporting me through my struggles and with all of my doubts….
Dear Doubting Thomas,
I have a couple answers to questions you posed:
Thomas asked:
Peter called Paul “our beloved brother” and recognized Paul’s writings as scripture, and said that they were wisdom that had been given unto him.
2Pe 3:15-16 KJV
(15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Thomas asked:
Why would Jesus repeatedly say these things over and over again not just in one book but in all of three synoptics if he knew it wasn’t true and that right after his resurection we would all be free from the law?
Jesus spoke to this woman, and contrasted the current day when people were required to go up to Jerusalem to worship, with a coming hour, when they would be freed from this.
Joh 4:21-24 KJV
(21) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
(22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
(23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
So, here is at least one example where he did speak of this. The Law of Moses is bound together. You cannot keep the whole law without the circumcision, the temple, the priesthood, clean and unclean meats, the sacrifices, the ten commandments … everything.
Jas 2:10 KJV
(10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
That’s from James, the brother of Jesus [not Paul speaking.]
Here’s another instance where Christ spoke of this future day.
Mat 12:6-7 KJV
(6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
(7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Christ was greater than the temple, and the temple was where people came to worship God – in fact, it was everything about how they came to worship God, and embodied their laws and traditions. (Jesus was quoting Hosea 6:6).
Joh 2:19-21 KJV
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.
Remember when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, and said that the time was coming to worship God in spirit and in truth, and that they would no longer need to go to the temple in Jerusalem?
Welcome to the new temple.
Mar 14:24 KJV
(24) And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Heb 8:13 KJV
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Welcome to the New Testament.
Take care,
-Andrew
Thomas
I really think you would really enjoy the OT, but without learning some history about the time it would be hard to understand. Knowing who the Prophets are addressing and what they are addressing is almost a must. most people dont know even when a prophet lived or that Israel was once 11 kingdoms with one King as it was at the time of David. they also dont know that God split them into 2 kingdoms with their own kings and that Juduh was only 2 tribes of Israel plus sharing 1 tribe between them and the Northern Kingdom which retained the name Israel.
Most dont realize that at Jesus’s time it wasnt Israel it was Judah. The nation of Israel was scattered amongst the gentiles when the Northern kingdom fell to Assyria in 722BC and are still separate from Judah.
Oh well i could go on all day but wont.
If you need any help when you do read it i would be happy to help if i can.
once your able to understand it you will want to read it over and over again. Last january i read it completely 6 times, some was just trying to understand using outside source for when, what nations were being addressed the others was because it fascinated me on how perfect Gods Plan was.
then i moved on to the NT
Thomas and Robert, I think you guys may find the following thread very interesting on the topic of Paul…
Reconciling with the apostle Paul
Sorry, bad link, try this…
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=122023807409&topic=14535
Ty Joseph
btw Thomas
Joseph is a brother in the belief we share
Andrew Patrick
I agree with most biblical scholars that we cannot know who wrote 2nd. Peter. It is the only letter in the bible not addressed to anyone specifically. There is only one type of letter that I am aware of that is not addressed to any specific person and that is a reference letter.
2nd. Peter says things like Paul is our brother in scripture and Paul is a great guy and Paul’s letters are good and you should read Paul’s letters. I think it was obviously written by the followers of Paul maybe even Paul himself to try to convince people that just before Peter died in Rome he was convinced by Paul to drastically reverse his teaching on the law and other matters.
This clearly contradicts what James and the Church elders said to Paul in Acts Chapter 21 versus 17-25.
Welcome to the world of Doubting Thomas….
Joseph
Thanks for the link. It gave me a lot to think and pray about.
Robert
I was wondering if you could explain the difference in beliefs between a Messianic Jew and a Socinian (Unitarian). I have seen some TV programs produced by the Messianic Jews and have found them quite interesting but am really very limited in my knowledge on their views.
It’s important to understand that there are no contradictions between the writings of Paul and James. They both agree but say
the same thing in different ways, just as each vessel of God is diverse but may hold the same wine.
If you don’t like to drink from one, you may drink from the other. They do not contradict.
If we say they contradict we let others know there is a weakness in our understanding of one or the other or both.
” So, coming from a Pharisaic background of ultra Torah observance (not one but two torahs btw)”
Joseph
I am pretty sure of what this means but could you explain the difference between the 2
Thomas,
The main differences between Unitarians and Messianics are:
– Messianics generally hold the Torah and OT law as the Law that Messiah was in favor of not changing.
– Messianics observe Hebrew traditions, holidays, attire, and feasts, such as – sukkot, hannukah, passover seder, dietary kosher laws, ect. Although, there may be slight differences between communities.
– Being a Messianic does not necessarily mean you are born a Jew. It could mean you want to celebrate the ways that Messiah Jesus would have celebrated with his Jewish family.
– Many Messianics still believe the Trinity doctrine (Jews for Jesus, ect.) In fact, there is a Messianic congregation here in BeerSheva, and the majority upholds the Trinity doctrine in their faith. There are also congregations in and around Jerusalem that are Messianic and don’t believe in the Trinity doctrine. For more on this lookup one of the most outspoken Messianics living in Israel, Uri Marcus, a friend of mine living in Jerusalem.
Generalizing, a Messianic can also be called a Unitarian, such as myself.
– Joseph
Robert,
Not sure, but guessing the quote is talking about the Oral and the Written Law as two Torahs?
Ty Joseph
Btw it came from Erik
Can you tell me the differences
Thomas
here is a link for understanding acts 15
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/acts15.html
Dear Doubting Thomas,
It sounds like you’ve said that you don’t believe whole books of the Bible. 2 Peter says it is written by Simon Peter, that is, Peter.
So, you’ve reasoned that because Peter supports Paul, that it couldn’t have been Peter. I guess you might as well not believe any of the Bible.
Ray wrote:
Ray is correct on this: Paul and James do not contradict. But I should probably just give up any attempt at scripture-based persuasion, if I’m hearing arguments that Peter didn’t write Peter.
To Doubting Thomas: have you ever tried seeing what would happen if you took the scriptures at face value, and followed them to their logical conclusion? It might not be such a good thing to brag about being “Doubting” and unbelieving:
Rev 21:8 KJV
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Fearful and unbelieving tops the list.
Luk 19:20-22 KJV
(20) And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
(21) For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
(22) And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
1Jn 4:18 KJV
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
What do you actually trust? I actually mean that as an honest question. You don’t trust the Bible to mean what it says, because you’re saying it’s just a bunch of propaganda played by people with political agendas.
Can you answer that, please?
-Andrew
Andrew Patrick
You said, “It might not be such a good thing to brag about being doubting and unbelieving.”
I believe Jesus is the Christ the teacher sent by God to teach us what God wants and expects from us. Jesus said we only have one teacher the Christ and that we are all brothers in Christ. I believe Jesus is the final authority and whenever anyone contradicts something Jesus said (including Paul) I reject what the other person says as being errant.
You also said, “What do you actually trust?”
Religious experts all say that when Jesus says something that contradicts Paul you must dismiss what Jesus said because Paul’s is the latest (up to date) revelation. I choose to trust Jesus….
Robert (msg. 235)
That was an excellent link. It was very informative and very easy to read and understand. I am now starting to understand better why it is you believe what you believe…
Thomas
It help my understanding too, i thought what the gentiles was being commanded was also Noah laws which are contained in the oral laws for gentiles. this reason makes more sense for me and is supported by others NTwriters in verses like this
“For this reason, if food is a cause of trouble to my brother, I will give up taking meat for ever, so that I may not be a cause of trouble to my brother.”
the Apostles was just bridging a gap between jew and gentile so they both could learn in the same place without making them a jew
Robert
Your quote reminds me of something I read about that for all practical purposes Jews of the diaspora (in the time of Jesus) had to become vegetarians because it was virtually impossible to buy meat that had not been sacrificed to one God or another.
Today it is easy for us Gentiles to buy meat that has not been sacrificed to Idols but in Jesus’ time this food restriction was not an easy thing for the followers of Jesus (especially those not in around Jerusalem) to follow.
My son is coming over and I will be busy for the rest of today and most of tommorow. I will come back online Sunday evening sometime.
Thomas, in #237 you say that religious experts all say….
Please read that again. I have never heard any man say what you have said that religious experts all say.
The aposle Paul as a leader chosen by Christ to shepherd his Church was often under attack, sometimes by his own. There were
some either from within or without that said that he was saying “Let us do evil that good may come.” (see Romans 3:8)
Remember the instruction and admonition of Andrew above. Not only is it the fearful and unbelieving that will be thrown into the lake of fire, but also all liars.
That’s why Paul said of those that slandered him because of the gospel he preached, their “damnation is just.”
They were on their way to hell. I hope they turned around.
If you ever notice something you say that isn’t right, you may correct it on this blog. It is allowed for those whose repentance God has not taken away. (the man in the iron cage who was shown to Christian at the house of the interpreter in The Pilgrim’s Progress.)
Repenting of our sins is on the way God has chosen for Pilgrims who are on their way to Zion. It was shown to them before they got very far along on the path of life. Even so, I believe it is still
the way to go, no matter how far along we have traveled.
Dear Doubting Thomas,
Four quick questions, below:
Doubting Thomas wrote:
1) How do you know what Jesus said?
2) How do you know what Paul said?
3) Where do you see anyone contradicting Jesus?
Re: when I had asked, “What do you actually trust?â€
I met some guys like that: they would twist specific words of Paul to say what they wanted them to say, but when you showed them that their interpretation created contradiction within scripture, their response was “That was for the JEWS.”
Pay no attention to those guys. They are just more nonsense.
4) Why not believe both the words of Jesus and Paul? Wouldn’t that seem to be the correct solution?
-Andrew
Andrew,
I think you need to go back to post 225, click on the link and read the thread.
I can’t speak for Thomas or Robert, but I believe they take the same approach as I do. Meaning, reading the letters of Paul just as they are, letters. And then, holding them up to the Scriptures (Tanach) that they (Apostles) considered their Holy Bible.
I like to simplify my understanding to what Christ specifically stated, is the words of Messiah not enough to hinge our salvation upon? Let me ask another way, let’s say that we never had Paul’s letters, could we still gain salvation from what is left?
PS. Please don’t misrepresent me as a extremist in my position as I do take Paul for an Apostle, and I do find truth in his letters, understanding the context and demographics of his ministry into diaspora.
questions from Andrew
1) How do you know what Jesus said?
We cant with 100%certainty but have to take it on faith because its the best we got. Translations are very unreliable as we see in the many versions of the english bibles. copies also are not without fault by looking at the 5000+ manuscripts of the Nt. we can however weigh them against the plan of God which is found within the Prophets and The law
2) How do you know what Paul said?
same thing as above
3) Where do you see anyone contradicting Jesus?
He is finding less of them and its not becuse of the way you do it because your way go against the plan of God
4) Why not believe both the words of Jesus and Paul? Wouldn’t that seem to be the correct solution?
I think this is something he would love to be able to do, but wants to do it right
Andrew wrote
“I met some guys like that: they would twist specific words of Paul to say what they wanted them to say, but when you showed them that their interpretation created contradiction within scripture, their response was “That was for the JEWS.†”
while part of this is right it doesnt apply to all of it
Andrew wrote
“Pay no attention to those guys. They are just more nonsense.”
Then that would mean he should ignore you
Thomas
sorry i answered questions for you but i felt they were also addressed to my beliefs too
Joseph
Very well put
We might not always be in 100% agreement but we are very close in many areas.
The article, Should Gentiles Follow Torah? that Robert linked to, said the following:
Christians don’t ignore this verse, they just have a different understanding of it. His explanation does not fit with the context of chapter 15. The problem that elicited the council in Jerusalem is given in verses 1 and 5:
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
At the council Peter rose up and referred to when it was first revealed that Gentiles should partake of salvation as well as the Jews.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Notice that – He put no difference between the Gentiles and the Jews. And this is not just talking about whether the Law is necessary for salvation. It also says “purifying their hearts by faith” in light of them having the Holy Spirit.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
What did Peter consider “a yoke around the neck?” The mandatory circumcision and keeping of the Law (v. 5). Neither their fathers nor them were able to bear it – nobody ever kept the Law perfectly except Jesus.
Then James stood up and pointed out how the inclusion of the Gentiles was foreshadowed in the prophets. He concluded with:
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
If he meant, “We don’t need to teach them the whole Law because they’ll learn it every week in the synagogue,” it would go against the whole point that was being made in the chapter. As Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary, “We see from the words ‘purifying their hearts by faith,’ and the address of St. Peter, that justification by faith, and sanctification by the Holy Ghost, cannot be separated; and that both are the gift of God.”
The argument of the believing Pharisees was not just about what they should do immediately. It was about whether they should command the Gentiles to keep the Law of Moses. In response the point was emphasized that the Law was a yoke that nobody could keep, and that faith rather than the Law was the key. To then turn around and say, “We’ll just command them to keep the basics, and teach them the rest of the Law gradually” would fly in the face of everything that had just been said.
James said to command the Gentiles to observe the four basic things that they weren’t in the habit of observing, because there has been those who teach the Law in the synagogues every Sabbath. Most commentaries agree that the command to keep the “four laws” (which are basics that even predated the Law) was for the purpose of not grieving the Jews. Matthew Henry continued:
The wording of the letter in Acts 15 also corroborates this.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
There is no hint that the Gentiles would be expected to keep the Law in time, after they learned it. Nor is there any hint of that idea anywhere in the New Testament.
Regarding the supposed contradiction between Jesus and Paul, I agree that there are those who consider the words of Jesus to be of less importance than Paul’s, especially among dispensationalists, and I disagree with that position. But it must be remembered that several of the things Jesus said in the Gospels were addressed to those who lived at that time, before Jesus had completed his sacrificial work. But he did say that there was more they couldn’t understand at that time, but would be revealed when the Holy Spirit was given.
John 16:
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The full understanding of what Christ’s death accomplished, as well as the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, was revealed through the apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit. And even a cursory reading of epistles like II Corinthians, and Galatians, not to mention Hebrews (which may or may not have been written by Paul) shows that it was more than just situational specifics that can’t be applied elsewhere. What Jesus revealed to his church through Paul by way of the Holy Spirit was the further understanding that he couldn’t tell them before. If we neglect the epistles of Paul we are ignoring the words of our Lord.
Mark
that was a very weak attempt to harmonize the testamony of Jesus to your belief. Jesus taught what he taught because the words of the Old coventant was not the change of the New Covenant it was the promise the old covenant was based on. It when form being part of Israel to being a part of the kingdom of God in which several changes were needed for this promise to go out to all the earth. there had to be a sacrafice, High priest and a temple accessable to all. these were the only changes needed so all could partake of the PROMISE. this changes were made to a part of the Law that provided for Righteousness. the reason we need faith is because these are not physical things we can see. so without faith in the LAMB ,HIGH PRIEST AND THE TEMPLE no one can now be Righteous therfore can not receive the sin covering needed for our salvation.
your type of belief is why so many cant use Paul as an Apostle because your interpretation goes against JESUS AND GODS PLAN.
If the Law was a burden than why did so many become righteous thru it? David who we all know sinned,Paul himself and Many Many Others.
I am sorry but i see the whole Word of God testifying against you here and that a shame because i see that you are a very good man who could do great things in the name of the whole truth(GOD)
Robert,
There is a lot more to the New Covenant than just the sacrifice, high priest, and temple. The Israelites could not keep the Old Covenant, that’s why God promised a new one. The prophecies of the New Covenant refer to God pouring out His Spirit and putting His Word in His people’s hearts so they could do His will. The terms of the New Covenant were ratified with Jesus’ blood, and it is now to be preached to the world. We also get to have a foretaste of it with the Holy Spirit we have been given.
I handled this in The New Covenant on my website.
The difference is walking by the spirit and not by the letter of the Law. Jesus hinted at it and Paul wrote about it in detail. The commandments we are to follow are the commandments of Jesus, our Lord. I went over this in New Covenant Commandments, which I linked to earlier in this thread.
II Cor. 3:
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God–ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [new covenant]; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
They didn’t.
Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Gal. 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
As with Abraham, righteousness came by faith.
Rom. 4:
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Gal. 3:
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
The purpose of the Law was to set Israel apart, and to provide a temporary measure until the Messiah came.
Gal. 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
There is no longer the separation between Jew and Gentile, which was the ordinance of the Law.
Eph. 2:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
I don’t expect you to believe me or be convinced, since we’ve gone over this endlessly before. But I thought I’d post these references for the sake of Thomas and anybody else reading this that has questions about these matters.
Dear Joseph,
Did this “Thief on the Cross” have any scriptures?
Luk 23:42-43 KJV
(42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
(43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
But are these not also the words of the Messiah?
Luk 4:4 KJV
(4) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
I think we are expected to be responsible with everything we are given. If all you had was the book of James, you’d be responsible for what you did with that.
But I think I can differ on one point: Peter did consider Paul’s epistles to be scripture:
2Pe 3:16 KJV
(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Paul was given certain signs to testify his authenticity, including his blinding, the healing of his eyes, his immunity to snakebite, and even prophecy:
Act 27:31-34 KJV
(31) Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.
(32) Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off.
(33) And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.
(34) Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
Regardless, does it actually matter if the early apostles realized that they were writing scripture? Did John the Baptist say he was that Elias?
Joh 1:21-23 KJV
(21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
(22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
(23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
Yet Jesus said he was that Elias.
Mat 17:12 KJV
(12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Are we still willing to credit John the Baptist as a prophet of God? In other words, what if Peter and Paul didn’t think of themselves as writing scripture? That won’t prove anything.
John (the New Testament writer) certainly was a prophet, because we have his book of Revelation, and I believe he is certainly authenticated by the signs and prophecies within that book.
I do believe that the entire New Testament is inspired scripture, on the same level as the Old Testament, but I’m not sure how to demonstrate in a way that this audience would acknowledge.
So, to counter by the means of a question, if anyone here doubts the authenticity of 1 Corinthians (an example) as divinely inspired scripture, equal in authority to the book of Genesis, how would you prove that Old Testament books are inspired?
See, the evidence of authenticity for the Old Testament comes from the words of the New Testament (2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 5:18, 2 Peter 1:21)….
So: prove that Ecclesiastes is inspired scripture. Then demonstrate the same for Song of Solomon, and Ruth. These are all from the writings, not the law or the prophets, so there’s no fulfilled prophecy to prove their legitimacy. Why should these be in the Canon?
For the record, I do have absolute confidence in all 66 Canonical books, and I’m putting this question out there to prove a point.
A comment concerning Robert’s reply:
They claimed that Matthew 5:22 didn’t apply to them, because “those words were uttered to Old Testament Jews” and that “the gospels were written before the death of Christ” (so obviously, everything Christ said has no application for Christians.)
Likewise, when they didn’t like something written in one New Testament book, their answer was that it was not “written by Paul” – and they’d even go so far as to question that Paul wrote Hebrews.
Do you still want to side with them? Trust me, those guys were nonsense.
What I will say to counteract that nonsense, is that there is no contradiction between Jesus, John, Paul, James, and Peter. Take everything they say and listen, and don’t throw anything away.
However, I am not going to guess what you think is a conflict. I know that some Baptists claim that James and Paul disagree, so they discard James. They obviously don’t understand the nature of faith and works, and they’d do well to read William Tyndale.
Take care,
-Andrew
“The prophecies of the New Covenant refer to God pouring out His Spirit and putting His Word in His people’s hearts so they could do His will. ”
Mark
First thing is you just misrepresented the actual meaning of this.
Paul is quoting Jeremiah who actually uses the word Torah which is translated as the word Law. Jeremiah isnt even refering to the Prophets and could not be refering to Commandments of Jesus . there was only the Torah and Paul statement has to be defined by Jeremiah not the reverse. Your use of the word “Word” is a deliberate deception on your part because it breaks down your whole agruement.
I have read all the things on QUOTE “YOUR WEBSITE” QUOTE” THAT YOU ADRESSED” but fail to see the whole truth anywhere within it. I see explainations which make no sense within the Plan of God
Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Hebrews 8
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put [3] my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest
Hebrews 10
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Mark wrote
There is no longer the separation between Jew and Gentile, which was the ordinance of the Law.
Actually there was never a seperation between jew and gentile within the law, just a commandment to not learn the ways.
Any gentile was allowed access to God if they also chose His WAYS as we see in Isaiah 56.
So that makes your statement false too
I wrote
If the Law was a burden than why did so many become righteous thru it?
Mark wrote
They didn’t.
Mark all these verses again call your statement false
Luke 1
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Joshua 22:2 And said unto them, Ye have kept all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I commanded you:
Judges 2:17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
1 Kings 11:34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:
2 Kings 18:6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.
Psalm 119:55 I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law.
something most people dont understand is JESUS is the new procedure
“Keeping the Law” in Old Testament Israel did not mean a person never did wrong. It meant that if wrong was done that person followed the procedure for forgiveness that was written in the Law. A person who did that was a Law-keeper. He KEPT the Law.
Mark wrote
I don’t expect you to believe me or be convinced, since we’ve gone over this endlessly before
Congrats Mark
Your were finally right
Mark wrote
I don’t expect you to believe me or be convinced, since we’ve gone over this endlessly before
Congrats Mark
Your were finally right
Sorry Mark
This was a very uncalled for statement
I honestly don’t know what your point is in this paragraph. What did I misrepresent the meaning of? (And BTW, just because you didn’t understand my point is no reason to accuse me of deliberate deception.)
Is God’s Law not His Word? The verse even says “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.” It’s more than just the ordinances of the Law. It also says, “They shall all know me.” What He will put in their hearts is His word, His will, His ways. Other prophecies regarding the New Covenant refer to His Spirit, a new heart, His fear in their hearts, and also, “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth.”
As for my original statement, all you have to do is read the OT prophecies about the New Covenant. The passage you quoted from Jeremiah is only one of them. (The New Covenant article has all the Scripture references.)
What do you think Paul meant in Eph. 2:13-18 (quoted in my last comment)?
The Law separated Gentiles from Jews. If a Gentile wanted access to God, he had to become a proselyte, which involved being circumcised and keeping the Law. (Verse 6 of Isaiah 56 says that.)
What do you think Paul meant when he said that by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16)?
The OT verses you quoted just refer to people obeying the Law; they don’t mention righteousness. The two NT verses you quoted refer to being blameless, in the context of the Law. But what Paul explained in his epistles was that there was more to it. God provided a sacrifice system that foreshadowed Jesus’ sacrifice. But that’s not all there is to it either.
The sacrifices, replaced by Jesus’ sacrifice, was what God provided for when people sinned. But God’s ultimate desire is for people to walk in righteousness and not sin in the first place. That requires walking by the spirit, because the Law cannot change a person’s heart (as it says in Hebrews 8 ). This is the whole point of the New Covenant, which Paul lays out in detail in his epistles. For more detail, see my article on Righteousness.
“The Law separated Gentiles from Jews. If a Gentile wanted access to God, he had to become a proselyte, which involved being circumcised and keeping the Law. (Verse 6 of Isaiah 56 says that.)”
Mark
this speaks not of becoming a Israeliteas we see in this verse
8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.
“The OT verses you quoted just refer to people obeying the Law; they don’t mention righteousness. The two NT verses you quoted refer to being blameless, in the context of the Law.”
Mark
Wow how you change meanings is beyond me
sorry but you cant change this or ignore it
6 And they were both righteous before God,
This just shows how they achieved it
, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
You see the failures in the Law pertaining to individuals when its being spoke as a nation failures. there were many who kept the law and were righteous before God in the Old covenant, But when the New came they had to accept there were no more laws for righteousness because Jesus became those laws spiritually. Now If you sin there is no way other than Jesus to become righteous which takes faith because it is things we can not see with our own eyes
Sorry explainations are not needed for things that are so clear a child could see…
you have become so dependent on your explanations you cant see the truth can be as clear as glass
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
John 7:22
Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
As we see from the above verses circumcision was never a part of the laws God gave to Moses . It was giving to be a sign that you are from the seed of Abraham or belong to that seed.
You can see why the Apostles would not burden a grown gentile to be circumcised for salvation because it never was an issue of salvation it was just a sign of nationality which the gentiles needed not to be.
The oral laws(also called the law of Moses) were only for Nationality to be a jew.
None of this was important for salvation as we see in this verse
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
But the keeping of the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
That’s not what Paul wrote.
As for your quotations referring to keeping “the commandments of God,” that refers to more than the Law. That was dealt with in New Covenant Commandments.
“As for your quotations referring to keeping “the commandments of God,†that refers to more than the Law. That was dealt with in New Covenant Commandments. ”
You love to claim “YOU DEALT WITH” when in fact it is only your explainations of what you say and others like you say those things say.
I dont see any of your explainations on this subject supported by the truth which is so clear a child could see.
We all know that the word “commandment” doesnt always mean Gods. there are many commandments by many of people even Jesus but GODS COMMANDMENTS ARE ONLY HIS, Not Moses’, Not Jesus’, Not Paul’s, Not anyone’s Other Than GOD.
Mark
You are not the authority that you think you are, But you are very knowledgable in many areas.
Of course God’s commandments are only His and no one else’s. But He has more commandments than just the Law. Just because the NT refers to obeying God’s commandments does not automatically mean the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandments. For one thing, He commands everyone to repent (Acts 17:30). I never claimed to be an “authority” but I demonstrated this from Scripture in New Covenant Commandments. You of course disagreed, but the Scriptures are there for anyone that wants to read it.
“Just because the NT refers to obeying God’s commandments does not automatically mean the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandments.”
Of course it doesnt , God has given many commandments from Adam to Jesus and if they can be done than why would not they apply.
Now what God clearly has changed cant be done, but there must be a necessity for God to change or it is replaced by something better. If God’s laws was to change completely he wouldnt be writting them in our heart in the New covenant. these are not just words they are his LAW written in our hearts. Yes the Law are Words but words are not the Law. if that was the case then Jeremiah and Paul would of used word instead of Law.Not everything spoken for God is the Law but everything Spoken by God Is His Holy Law.
I have to disagree with you because i cant find anywhere in the Bible that agrees with your explainations and there are to many clear verses( that you ignore or try to explain away) that show your view as false.
the same exact problem we are all having with Andrew
Ray (msg. 241)
You said, “I have never heard it said what you say all religious experts say.”
You are of course right in pointing out that I am in no position to say I know what all religious experts say. I was just generalizing.
Whenever I point out for example what Jesus says repeatedly about that he didn’t come to abolish the law or that he didn’t come to change one stroke of one letter of the law or that anyone who teaches someone not to follow even the least of these laws will be called least in the kingdom of heaven other people (who I assume are repeating what religious say) say that everything was fulfilled with the resurection and that the law no longer applies.
When I ask, How they know this? They reply, We know this from the writings of Paul. When I ask, How can Paul’s writings say the opposite of what Jesus said? They reply, Paul’s writings are the latest (up to date) revelations. I assume they are getting these ideas from religious experts.
When you don’t trust the writings of Paul like I do you want proof that the law no longer applies not just a theory that with the resurection everything was fulfilled and the law no longer apply.
How does anybody know that when Jesus said until everything is fulfilled that he was referring to his resurection? This is nothing more than a theory, a very widely accepted theory, but a theory non the less. As it is only a theory we are free to accept or reject it as we wish.
Andrew Patrick (msg. 242)
You said, “(1) How do you know what Jesus said?”
When I returned to God (after being a staunch atheist for almost 20 years) I decided to forget everything that I was ever taught about Jesus and just read the bible with a completely open mind with no preconceptions and let it lead me to my beliefs instead of trusting someone else (religious experts, etc…) to lead me to what I should believe.
After a year or so I became very frustrated because of all the red flags that kept popping up in my studies. I had almost come to the conclusion that there was no way to know with any accuracy what Jesus actually said, taught and did. I didn’t want to believe this so I prayed earnestly to God (as a last resort of course) to help me to understand what Jesus actually said, taught and did.
That’s when I changed the course of my studies and went to the public library and started reading history books about Christianity. These books guided me to look at the bible in a certain way.
The most important thing I read (that helped guide me) was that there was a huge outcry of protest when the book of John was first written at the end of the 1st. century and another huge outcry of protest when it was included in the final edition (passed down to us today) in the year 1000A.D.
This is when I first started comparing the book of John to the synoptics and quickly realized that not only does almost nothing in the book of John match the synoptics but that the book of John constantly contradicts (in my opinion anywaze) what is written in the synoptics.
The final straw was when I looked in my concordance at when the book of John was supposedly talking about the same subject as the synoptics and found in every single instance the book of John was saying something completely different (often the opposite) of what the synoptics were saying.
I then realized from looking at my concordance that about 75% of the book of John matched perfectly with the letters of Paul where only about 2 or 3% of the synoptics matched with the letters of Paul. This led me to compare what Paul was saying with what Jesus, Peter and James were saying. Again I realized Paul was saying something completely different often the exact opposite of what Jesus, Peter and James were saying.
I once read how Luther (who loved Paul’s writings and thought they should replace the synoptics as the central core of the bible) wanted to throw the writings of James out of the bible because his teaching that =”faith without works was dead”= contradicted Paul.
In my opinion Luther had the right idea about throwing something out of the bible but instead of throwing the writings of James out he should of thought of throwing the writings of Paul out. Of course this is just my opinion.
If you remove the writings of Paul and John from the bible you get a very clear Unitarian view of Jesus and God with no ambiguities about Jesus being referred to as God. You are left with a very clear simple message that a child could easily understand.
This clear unambiguous message with no contradictions is proof to me that I can trust what Jesus said, did and taught in the remaining books and letters of the bible.
You also asked, “(2) How do you know what Paul said?”
I’m assuming that is a rhetorical question since I do not read or study the writings of Paul.
You also asked, “(3) Where do you see anyone contradicting Jesus?”
I believe I explained that above if I didn’t then ask me again and I will elaborate more.
You also asked, “(4) Why not believe both what Paul and Jesus said?”
Like I said there are too many red flags (contradictions) between them for me to accept both. In my message (219) above I think I explain this in detail. If you want me to elaborate on anything I’ve said feel free to ask.
Thomas asked
How does anybody know that when Jesus said until everything is fulfilled that he was referring to his resurection?
Actually it cant be talking about his resurection. It has to be talking about the Promise to Abraham. Now i am not sure if thats the beginning of the Kingdom or at the end of the Kingdom but know it will be well defined when it comes to this fullness(fulfillment) of this Promise during the Kingdom.
Since Jesus was the shadow caster of the sacraficial system actually not one stroke of one letter of the law has changed
If I may, I suggest that you see if you can find that history book again, or if you can’t, look at some others, either in the library or online. It’s possible that the book you read had their facts wrong, or perhaps that you misunderstood or are not remembering it correctly.
Everything I’ve read about the formation of the NT canon indicates that the four Gospels and Paul’s church epistles were accepted and not in question by the late second century. Other books were disputed until the official establishment of the canon after 1000, but not the Gospels or Paul’s epistles.
Mark,
When Paul refers to a specific number of commandments, who was he speaking to? Where was he?
Thanks Mark
Rereading that first history book I found at the library was what I felt God was telling me about a week or so ago when I was praying about this. I hope I am not making people angry with my beliefs.
I know from experience that when you challenge someones core beliefs one of the first natural impulses is to feel anger.
What passage of Scripture are you referring to?
Thomas,
I’m not angry. You have the right to believe whatever you want. I’m just concerned that you’re jumping to conclusions that are not soundly based.
You mentioned comment 219, and when I looked at it, I realized I hadn’t seen it. I missed it somehow. So here are some comments in response to it.
Paul didn’t say he appointed himself an apostle. You quoted it yourself – he was appointed by God Himself. He said that several times, and referred to the signs and miracles that designate apostles. He was also accepted by the Twelve Apostles, as Andrew pointed out.
As Andrew also pointed out, Jesus spoke of a coming change. In addition to the verses he mentioned, there are the teachings about walking by the spirit rather than the letter of the law. That is the biggest difference in the New Covenant.
Actually, he didn’t say it repeatedly. He said it once, in Matthew 5:17-18, and a similar statement (“it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail”) in Luke 16:17. But he also said that the Law could be summed up in two laws: Love God and love your neighbor. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:40). Paul agreed with this when he said that love fulfills the Law (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 14). James also referred to it as the Royal Law (James 2:8). In addition, Jesus specifically stated that the Law was only for a period of time, after which the Kingdom of God would be preached:
Matt. 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Luke 16:16-17 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
The nature of the Kingdom of God was illustrated in Jesus’ sermon on the mount. He was painting a picture of what Kingdom living was supposed to look like. He spoke of a higher standard, which is only possible by walking by the spirit (which Paul also agrees with). It rises above the letter of the law and makes love the criterion. (See Kingdom Living.)
You see, we don’t say that after the resurrection we can “throw the laws in the trash heap of history.” We say that walking in love by the spirit fulfills the Law because it rises above it, yet it sometimes goes against the letter of the Law. One of the weaknesses of the Law was that it couldn’t cover every single possible circumstance. Walking in love by the spirit enables us to rise above minute details of the rules and regs in the Law. Another weakness of the Law is that it couldn’t change people’s hearts. But with the spirit indwelling us, we experience a change that the Law could never do. That’s why Paul said the Law was a burden – not because there was anything wrong with the Law, but because as imperfect, sinful humans we couldn’t keep it. Now that the ultimate sacrifice has been made, we can strive for God’s goal of walking in righteousness and not sinning in the first place. We won’t fully achieve that in this life, but in the Kingdom we will be perfected.
The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was not as long after the resurrection, and they agreed not to burden the Gentiles with the Law of Moses. The time when Jerusalem leaders persuaded Paul to undergo the ritual was much later (Acts 21). The fact that some Jewish believers were still zealous for the Law doesn’t mean that this was God’s will. The reason Paul had to write what he wrote in his epistles was that there were still many who were zealous for the Law. But Paul was concerned about keeping peace between the Jewish and Gentile believers, so he did the ritual. There’s nothing wrong with doing something in the Law as long as you don’t think it is the source of your righteousness, and as long as you don’t teach others that they are obliged to do the same.
As I posted previously, the “four laws” that the Jerusalem Council commanded of the Gentiles were things that the Gentiles were not in the habit of observing, and which would be particularly offensive to the Jews who kept the Law. “All things are lawful but not all things are expedient” (I Cor. 10:23).
Many who believe that Christians must still follow the Law say that only the Gentiles were not expected to keep it, but the Jews still were. They say this partly because Paul’s epistles are mainly addressed to Gentile churches. But the fact is, they are addressed to churches, and no distinction is made. In fact, Ephesians 2 points out that there is no longer the separation between Jews and Gentiles. And more importantly, while the church epistles are addressed largely to Gentile churches, the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to Jews, and gives detailed explanations of why the New Covenant has superseded the Old.
As I’ve said before, if it is a true revelation from God that Paul’s and John’s writings are not Scripture, then you should be able to see that more clearly the more you look at them. But if you don’t even read them, you can never really be sure. I showed you how several of the supposed contradictions are actually not contradictory, and I think you’ll find that they are all like that. Before you make up your mind to disagree about this, why not take some time to look closely at it? If you’re right, you’ll be more convinced. And if you’re wrong, you’ll realize it and find the truth. Either way you can’t go wrong, but if you just refuse to read them, you can’t go right.
“walking by the spirit rather than the letter of the law. That is the biggest difference in the New Covenant.”
Wow you can state this but have no idea what it means?
Does the Law being spiritually wriiten in our heart mean anything to you.
Since i have been around this blog I have seen nobody claim righteousness comes from doing the Law.
They say the law bring us to righteousness by exposing sin, without the knowledge of what sin is then someone could claim righteousness on their own without needing the sin sacrafice therefore making Jesus’ death in vain. God gave us descriptions of sin so we could know what he considered sin. what God considered sin will always be the same.
Now what really bugs most of you is that when someone points out the when someone claims to be saved and does not walk in the spirit of the law they are not actually saved.
God never changes the things he hates or loves.
the fact is those who Love GOD DO GODS COMMANDMENTS.
AND GODS COMMANDMENTS DEFINE WHAT HE LOVES AND HATES.
The only changes was to how we could achieve righteousness after we were convicted by the LAW.
I showed you proof there was people righteous before God under the Old Covenant because Jesus would come to fulfill it But after Jesus’s Death ,Burial,Resurection and Acension that way is now Thru Jesus only.
Btw Just when was the Law YOUR schoolmaster
are you 2000+ years old
was before Jesus, WAS YOU.
If someone thinks they are saved why should they make an effort to be really saved.
And dont tell me it requires no effort because of grace, because Jesus says
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Yes I do. Do you?
Of course it does. That’s what I’ve been talking about – the Law spiritually written in the heart which goes beyond the letter of the Law. But it’s not talking about the ten commandments. As I referred to in a previous comment, the other prophecies about the New Covenant refer to His Spirit, a new heart, His fear in their hearts, and also, “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth.†It is His word, His will, His ways. It will be our nature so that we don’t need ordinances or laws. And we can experience a foretaste of that now, as the Holy Spirit works in us. That’s what Paul is talking about when he refers to the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. (See the Scriptures I quoted in comment #248.)
That’s correct. And since all men sin, the Law shows us that we can’t be righteous without God’s grace.
Rom. 3:
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
I’ve never seen anyone here say that. If someone claims to be saved and doesn’t walk according to the words of Jesus, one may wonder if they are actually saved, but we have no business making that judgment.
But again you are assuming that “doing God’s commandments” is doing the commandments given on Mt. Sinai. But God’s commandments to the church are the words of the Lord Jesus, not the words from Mt. Sinai, as Paul describes in detail in Galatians. Now the words of Jesus cover some of the the same things that the ten commandments did, such as murder, adultery, lying, etc. But we obey them because of Jesus’ command to love, not because of the ten commandments. And there are other things that Jesus said which differ from the ten. Jesus is the ultimate prophet which was foretold through Moses in Deut. 18, saying that he would speak God’s words and whoever doesn’t hearken to those words, it will be required of him. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
You keep saying that, but as I pointed out, there is more to the New Covenant than that. And I showed it from the Scriptures.
And I showed you that they were righteous by their faith, and then they kept the Law as part of their unique relationship with God. It was a result of their righteousness, not the cause of it.
No, obviously Paul was referring to those that had been under the Law.
Gal. 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I don’t know what you mean by that, since I’ve never seen anybody here say that.
We don’t say that it requires no effort. But our actions are a result of God’s work in us, not the thing that earns our salvation. I know you believe that too. The only difference, if I understand you correctly, is that you believe the ten commandments are what we must do in demonstration of our love for God, whereas I believe that it is the words of Jesus that we follow to demonstrate our love for God. Am I understanding you correctly? That seemed to be the crux of the argument on the New Covenant Commandments thread, as I remember.
Dear Doubting Thomas,
Thank you for being very honest and coming out and telling the reasons behind your reasons. I’d like to respond on a couple points, and ask a couple more questions as I go along:
1) I am not sure of the integrity of that history book you said you were reading. Could we put that book back into the “doubtful” category?
2) I don’t think that John contradicts anything else, though I do believe that his writings were meant to specifically emphasize the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, more than any other writer (not counting David and Isaiah.)
3) You say that you compared John and Paul, and then compared those against Jesus, Peter, and James, and found they disagreed.
Yet you just said that you thought that 2 Peter wasn’t written by Peter, and supported this because I’d demonstrated that he recognized Paul as a brother, and called his writings scripture.
So, at that time, did you only compare Paul to 1st Peter, and discard 2nd Peter? Or did you only discard 2nd Peter after you noticed that it endorsed Paul? You’re running out of “Peter” to compare Paul to, it seems.
4) Martin Luther, Works, and Grace.
Doubting Thomas wrote:
I disagree with Martin Luther in this regard.
If you read William Tyndale (in his letters to Sir Thomas More) he has no trouble with either James or Paul. True faith produces works, but a “faith” that doesn’t produce works wasn’t really faith at all, it was an illusion, in other words, you were only fooling yourself.
In other words, I’m saying Martin Luther didn’t understand works and faith, and I’m saying that Paul and James did, even though they speak of it in different words to different audiences.
5) This quote is interesting…
Doubting Thomas wrote:
a) Don’t forget to remove the book of 2nd Peter
b) You just removed almost the entire New Testament.
c) From the little that was left, I could still show ambiguities
d) But a child would be unfamiliar with the Old Testament scriptures that I would need to provide proofs from those ambiguities…
However, I think I would rather work to show you that the entire Bible can be trusted, as a whole, including all 66 canonical books.
6) You said that you did not read or study the writings of Paul, but then you said that there were too many “red flags” between Jesus and Paul for you to believe them both. But how can you properly compare them if you don’t study them both?
Would you be willing to enter back into “doubting” on this again, please?
Conclusion:
* The Bible really needs to be tested as a whole, not piecemeal. Please consider that if God is providing a Bible, he would provide a whole Bible, not a mixed vial of wine and poison.
* Please consider that God would have method, motive, and opportunity to provide a whole Bible, and to preserve his scriptures.
* Please be willing to look again at “faith” and “works” – Paul and James do not contradict. Tyndale was correct on this, not Luther.
* Please also be willing to look again at the concept of “law” – the unchangeable law is “Love God and Love Thy Neighbor” and anything else under these is a subset built for specific times, peoples, or circumstance and for various durations, and never can be interpreted to overrule “Love God and Love Thy Neighbor.”
* Please try to think of some specific questions that you would need to see answered satisfactorily that would help with any of the above points. You can email them to me if you like, if they seem personal.
-Andrew
Beautifully put! Thank you. 🙂
“No, obviously Paul was referring to those that had been under the Law.”
that was the LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.(SACRAFICIAL STSTEM)
“And I showed you that they were righteous by their faith, and then they kept the Law as part of their unique relationship with God. It was a result of their righteousness, not the cause of it.”
that doesnt fit anything
there is only one way for them to be righteous at that time, and that was to have taken part in the LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.(SACRAFICIAL STSTEM) unless you are claiming they were sinless
Btw Just when was the Law YOUR schoolmaster
are you 2000+ years old
was before Jesus, WAS YOU.
“No, obviously Paul was referring to those that had been under the Law.”
Before Jesus there was a the LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.(SACRAFICIAL STSTEM) that taught people they could be righteous the only problem was they sought it out for their own reasons not faith because it didnt require them to stop sinning because they knew they could take part in it again.
After Jesus it only can be sought by faith and its a ONE TIME covering because Jesus only Died once..
This was what the schoolmaster taught.
Paul and others stress on this
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ†(John 1:17)
Does this state they are against eachother?
Does Paul state they are?
NO
Dealing with Acts you know as well as i do this isnt about the Law it about the gentile not needing to become a jew or an Israelite to recieved God. while Laws were an issue they were only Laws based on Gods Laws. Circumcision came 400 years before the Law as a sign of Nationality and the Law just continues this. During the time of Jesus the Oral laws were the laws of the land which was a requirement to be a jew. The oral law was what convicted Jesus and what Jesus fought against.
If you will look you will not find anything he was acussed of within the Mosaic law but will find everything within the Oral laws of Moses as the jews called it. Paul knew this very well and by revelation knew they were not Gods laws as he was taught they were.
within the oral law was attachments to food laws, how a person is to respect the Sabbath, Holy Days, New moons, and had added many feast they were not ordained by GOD.
If you didnt follow the oral law than you were not a jew and could not take part in the promise to Abraham(blessing)(Salvation) and this was being forced on the gentiles.
there was no need for a gentile to become a jew.
the issue of Gods laws were addressed every Sabbath when they were read in every christian church along with the rest of the OT.
Most people dont even know that within the oral law it was unlawfull to even speak the name of God. Jesus was acussed of this and convicted and then Hung ON a Tree For it.
Speaking Gods name was considered making oneself equal to God By the oral law called the Law of Moses by the 2nd temple Jews
I guess the biggest misunderstanding of most people is not seeing there is 2 resurections coming.
one for those who want to be a part of Gods promise to Abraham
and one for those who by nature do the the things written in the law without receiving the law. These are saved by GRACE alone and are found in the Book Of Life after Abrahams receiving Gods Promise.
there will be few chosen to enter the Kingdom promised to Abraham which Jesus the promised Seed will be our King while God enjoys His Sabbath.
I didn’t say they were against each other. I just said that the Law was for a limited period of time, until Jesus Christ came to establish the New Covenant. It was a temporary solution until the better thing came along.
You keep talking about the Law for righteousness as if it was something different from the rest of the Law, and the “oral law” as opposed to the Mosaic law. The Bible makes no such distinction. The Law was considered to be one whole standard. I know the ten commandments were kept in the ark, but that doesn’t mean it was a separate law. Paul does not make that distinction but refers to the Law as a whole in contrast to faith in Galatians. Also, the entire administration of the Law is contrasted with the administration of the spirit in II Corinthians.
II Cor. 3:
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
Again
you fail to see the Law for Righteousness, you lump salvation with condemnation.
there are 2 different aspects.
the part that condemns
the part that saves
Only the part that saves is the Law for Righteousness which Jesus was the ONE who it was the shadow of.
the part that condemned was what showed what the Law for Righteousness was for.
Our we binding to the Law that condemns, NO it is our schoolmaster that brings us to Jesus as our Law for Righteousness.
The differences between the Old and the New is Jesus Fulfilled the Law For Righteousness by His Death,Burial,Resurection and Acension
many times you quote this verse but cut it short after Law so you can claim it was the end of the law but it states it was for something out of the Law, Not the whole Law.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
There was a Law that saves and a Law that condemned and both are contained within the whole law.
Jesus the appointed Christ was only the end of the one stated because he became IT unless you also claim he became the Law that condemns which is nowhere stated.
Paul works very hard to seperate them showing the purpose for both.
“You keep talking about the Law for righteousness as if it was something different from the rest of the Law, and the “oral law†as opposed to the Mosaic law. The Bible makes no such distinction.”
Oh it does but you WONT let yourself see it.
“You keep talking about the Law for righteousness as if it was something different from the rest of the Law, and the “oral law†as opposed to the Mosaic law. The Bible makes no such distinction.â€
Mark
what law was Jesus convicted by, was it the written law that defines sin or the oral law that was mens interpretations of the written law.
if you say there no difference than Jesus wasnt SINLESS
Andrew Patrick (msg. 269)
You said, “I don’t think John contradicts anything else.”
How do you explain that if you look in your concordance at every time John talks about the same subject as the synoptics John says something completely different often the exact opposite of what the synoptics are saying?
You also said, “though I do believe that his writings were meant to specifically emphasize the deity of our lord Jesus Christ, more than any other writer.”
Mark in his recent post mentions that there are only two places where Jesus is actually referred to as God and they are Heb 1:8-9 and John 20:27-28. I remember reading Anthony Buzzard somewhere saying that the biggest obstacle to convincing Trinitarians is there misunderstanding (or misinterpretation) of the writings of Paul and John.
If you eliminate the writings of Paul and John the remaining books and letters don’t even give the slightest hint that Jesus is God. If the followers of Jesus believed Jesus really was God this would have been an important belief to pass down to the readers of the synoptics and 1st. Peter and James and Acts.
Yet like I said there is not a hint of this outside the writings of Paul and John. Why would not such an important belief be mentioned or even hinted at in all three synoptics, 1st. Peter, James or Acts?
You said, “Yet you said that 2nd. Peter wasn’t written by Peter.”
I said I agree with the majority of biblical scholars that say we cannot know who wrote 2nd. Peter. If you want to know why these biblical scholars say this you will have to consult with them. I am not a biblical scholar all I said was that I agree with them.
Dear Doubting Thomas,
You asked:
If you could show me an example where John says “the complete opposite” I could answer. Your question presumes that I see at least one contradiction.
Also, I don’t use a paper-bound concordance – but I have something far more powerful, which can find any combination of words in mere seconds. I highly suggest “E-sword” which is not only free, but superior to the bible software they sell for high dollar.
You also asked:
Yet like I said there is not a hint of this outside the writings of Paul and John. Why would not such an important belief be mentioned or even hinted at in all three synoptics, 1st. Peter, James or Acts?
It is more than hinted at. I made someone on this forum very upset when I demonstrated that “Jesus is the LORD of Hosts†from Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, showing exactly what Psalms of David to which he was referring or “hinting at.â€
You asked:
If the followers of Jesus believed Jesus really was God this would have been an important belief to pass down to the readers of the synoptics and 1st. Peter and James and Acts.
If James had written his book for the purpose of emphasizing the divinity of Christ, he would probably be on your list of excluded authors beside John and Paul.
If one eliminates all over 3/4ths of the New Testament, we can still see the Divinity of Christ, but of of course it won’t be as clear, or as varied, or as numerous.
However, since the method of exclusion was chosen to eliminate all these clear sections, there’s little point in providing proofs on these grounds, because willing unbelief trumps everything.
Nevertheless, let me show an example of how this is certainly hinted at even with those artificial restraints.
Mat 28:19 KJV
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Now, search the entire book of Acts, to find out the name of “the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost†(Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5).
Act 2:38 KJV
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:16 KJV
(16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 10:48 KJV
(48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Act 19:5 KJV
(5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
There’s not a single biblical instance of the apostles using this as a Trinity formula, and Acts records that they baptized in one name, not two, and not three. They seemed to understand that this name of “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost†was “Jesus Christ.â€
I think that’s a pretty good hint, and it’s simple enough where it doesn’t require Old Testament scripture knowledge to recognize.
Take care,
-Andrew
Mark C.
Just to let you know I’m not ignoring your post (msg. 266) I am just thinking and praying about what you have said. There is a lot that you are saying that makes a lot of sense of to me. For example it is better to use your heart than a specific law to guide us because some things aren’t clear cut.
Robert is making a lot of good points too. I’ve been reading both sides of your debate and I must say I agree with many of the things Robert says as well. There is a lot of things for me to think and pray about.
I have decided starting tommorow I’m going to dedicate some time every night to reading that history book I got from the Public Library. It may take me a while because I still haven’t finished Anthony’s book yet. I’m almost near the end of it now though.
Andrew Patrick
I think you are pulling at straws. Jesus clearly said when you baptize someone you should say you are baptizing them in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit. He didn’t say you should baptize them in the name of Jesus as you claim.
These references you make to being baptized in the name of Jesus was to differentiate the baptism of Jesus from the baptism of John. It does not even hint in the slightest that the name of the father the son and the holy spirit are all Jesus.
You said you successfully debated someone else on this site about the Sermon on the Mount. If you could tell me the thread and msg. numbers I will be glad to read over this achievment of yours.
Andrew wrote:
Thomas wrote:
First of all, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is not necessarily a baptismal formula. G. R. Beasley-Murray, in his book Baptism in the New Testament, writes:
The Jews knew of the Father, and were aware of the workings of the holy spirit, but the identification of Jesus as the Son of God was now crucial to their baptism. Gentiles, on the other hand, may or may not have known God as a Father, or His holy spirit working in the world, and would need to be introduced into that knowledge as well as that of Christ. This would be a reasonable description of the Commission to preach and teach to “all nations.†All three, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (which is also called the spirit of Christ) are instrumental in the entire plan of salvation.
However, we see throughout the Book of Acts that the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. This is because, according to Luke 24:47, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.†Remission of sins is received through repentance, including the outward symbol of baptism, according to Acts 2:38. If the disciples of Jesus were preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and then commanding the proper response to believing that Gospel, namely, to repent and be baptized, surely they must have been following the instructions of their Lord.
Still, as Thomas pointed out, “It does not even hint in the slightest that the name of the father the son and the holy spirit are all Jesus.”
I have a suggestion. Since it is most likely that neither side will convince the other with regard to the Unitarian/Oneness debate, how about agreeing to disagree, and instead focus on the relationship between John & Paul, and the Synoptics? At least Thomas has shown a willingness to consider what we say regarding the subject.
Andrew Patrick
I agree with Mark. I don’t believe will ever agree on the Unitarian/Oneness debate and I am quite willing to agree to disagree.
Dear Doubting Thomas,
You wrote:
Your challenge was to provide an instance of a “hint” from the bible, after you forbade me to use the books of John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
But Matthew and Acts somehow survived the cut, and I was supposed to be allowed to use those.
That’s clearly a “hint” – Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (says Matthew) and every recorded instance of baptism (says Acts) says they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thomas wrote:
Acts says they baptized in the name of Jesus.
Act 19:4-5 KJV
(4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
That’s what the words say, Thomas. If I’m no longer allowed to use Acts, what am I allowed to use?
Is it down to Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude? Robert doesn’t accept Matthew and Luke because they confirm the Virgin Birth. What shall I do if another person here also rejects Mark? There are only so many words in James and Jude.
Thomas said:
Where did I mention anything about the Sermon on the Mount? That’s one of the areas I haven’t used in this forum yet, but thanks for reminding me: the Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew, one of the Bible books that isn’t on your “banned” list.
So, from the Sermon on the Mount, I will demonstrate that Christ gives a pretty substantial clue that he is our God, the LORD of the Old Testament, when he says what he shall say even to some of those that prophesied in his name.
See also Jeremiah 11:21, 14:14, 26:9, 26:20, 29:21, and Zechariah 13:3. All together, all seven of those instances agree that prophets prophesy in the name of the LORD, not another prophet, nor an angel.
Here’s more evidence of the significance of “prophesying”:
That’s at least 10 Old Testament proofs that prophets prophecy in the name of the LORD, and I am not aware of a single counter-example where the prophets spoke in the name of another. No one else. Now, take notice of the words of Jesus, spoken to a Hebrew audience:
Jesus said:
That seems like another “hint” to me, even when I’m not allowed to use the book of Acts.
Yet I think you misunderstood me. Although I have “debated” someone from this site before, and I did use the Sermon on the Mount as a part of that discussion, it’s not recorded on this site.
However, I did just refer to a demonstration from Peter’s speech in Acts 2, which demonstrated that when they said “Jesus is Lord” they meant “Jesus is the LORD of Hosts.” I’m not sure where it is now: it might be on the “Response to “Jesus Only” Critique thread.
Act 2:38 KJV
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That’s the speech right there, where Peter spoke, and 3000 of the Jews were baptized in one day, and it wasn’t because Peter was preaching that Jesus was simply “a man.”
If you can explain to me why Peter would say that David has not ascended to heaven, and that his sepulcher was still with us to this day, then I’ll show you further. Otherwise, you’re not going to understand Peter’s speech that was directed to a Jewish audience.
Take care,
-Andrew
P.S. Thanks for pointing out the Sermon on the Mount.
“Robert doesn’t accept Matthew and Luke because they confirm the Virgin Birth.”
Andrew
dont start making false statements.
I only have serious reservations of authorship of a few verses in Luke and have early church fathers testimony that Matthew was written in hebrew and started with John the baptist and had no birth narrative or geneology.
so please dont start lying about me
A Brief Response for Mark and Thomas:
Mark wrote:
That’s strange: if it doesn’t even hint at that in the slightest, then how come that argument is credited with the birth of the Oneness Pentacostal movement?
Before I even knew it’s history, though, that certainly “hinted” me towards studying this particular subject, and I was also told that it was an effective argument by someone I had discussed this with before (he used to be Unitarian.) Also, I think that got a pastor friend of mine thinking, who is now no longer Trinitarian,
So it’s hard for me to think that it doesn’t even hint at this… not in the slightest… seeing that it’s had such an effect that I’ve seen both personally and historically. It makes me think that you’re not evaluating arguments very objectively.
Mark wrote:
I would actually prefer if we stayed on topic. However, if you check the thread, it seems that Thomas wanted to discuss “Oneness”
I wrote, post 269:
Thomas just now wrote:
I also think that any doctrinal subject should wait until we can come to an agreement on the authenticity of the traditional 66 canonical books.
So, Thomas, you don’t have to respond to post 283, if you are stating that you agree to disagree.
Take care,
-Andrew
Dear Robert,
You just wrote:
I didn’t make any false statements. I said you don’t accept Matthew and Luke because they confirm the Virgin Birth. For the purposes of biblical proofs, a book has to be 100% accepted, or it is “not accepted.”
Since you seem to be implying that I am “lying about you” please allow me to share some of the reasons why I got that impression:
Robert wrote, in post 199:
Robert wrote, in post 206
And in response to my request for clarification,
Robert affirmed, in post 210
You also said in post 214
And in post 220 you said:
Back when this started in posts 121, you said:
You said that the argument against the Virgin Birth was stronger than “yours oneness theory” and supported your argument by saying that Matthew was edited by pagans to insert “Jesus is God” and that Luke never said that Mary conceived as a virgin.
I wasn’t being mean-spirited when I said that you didn’t accept Matthew or Luke, I was just being truthful.
Mat 1:23-25 KJV
(23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(24) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
(25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Luk 1:31,34 KJV
(31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
(34) Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
See, I’m not trying to persuade you otherwise anymore on this. I just have come to accept that you don’t accept Matthew and Luke as being authentic, and that I cannot use these as proofs when talking to you.
There was more that I didn’t repost, but all those posts above were yours, and can be verified by visiting the original thread. Also, Mark and I both confirmed that you were really saying that you didn’t believe the Virgin Birth, just to make sure we weren’t misunderstanding you.
Take care,
-Andrew
Acts 15:24
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
To subvert a soul is to overthow it, destroy it, to turn it aside. So it’s possible to do that to people’s souls by saying “Ye must be circumcised and keep the law.”
So which is the bad part of those two, circumcision or keeping the law? Neither of those two are bad. One profits nothing (circumcision) and the other is good (the law).
One was a sign (circumcision) and the other was given because sin abounded. The law is good and makes sin easily seen. The law is like an active broom that enters a dusty room. The dust was always there, but wasn’t known as much as it was until the active broom entered and began to sweep. Then the dust arose in the air. By actively sweeping a dusty room it might begin to choke the people in the room by all the active sweeping.
There is nothing wrong with the broom. The broom is not a bad thing though it can show us how very dusty a room can be.
What’s the difference between law and grace? Grace is like sprinkling water over the dust so that the broom can easily clean the room without all the raising of dust.
Once the room is swept clean does one still need the broom?
That’s a good question isn’t it? I don’t think we should throw the broom away should we? We might need it, but we also should remember grace.
Our sins are cleaned by the sprinking of blood which is of the new covenant. The blood of Christ was shed and given for us for such cleansing work. The law can never take away sins. Only the blood of Christ can do that.
If the law could have taken away sins, would God have sent Jesus to shed his blood?
Some might not be willing to accept Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about Jesus, but among born again Christians that number is very few.
Which is easier to accept, that Psalm 22:8 is only a prophecy about David, or that it also tells us what Jesus went through?
I wonder if there are any born again Christians that do not accept
Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about Jesus. So few it seems to me that the number may be zero.
“I didn’t make any false statements. I said you don’t accept Matthew and Luke because they confirm the Virgin Birth. For the purposes of biblical proofs, a book has to be 100% accepted, or it is “not accepted.†”
yes you did
Andrew
I can use any book for my profit without basing my faith on it,
there has been many opportunities for any of the books of the NT to have been corrupted. this dont mean we throw them out.
We have the OT which is translated fairly well to check things in NT and have some written histories that can help. i would never take just one written history because they have had the chance to be corrupted too.
and then there is the God Given common sense that we can use.
this is something you need to check into and btw its free.
so please clarify when using me as an example to make sure its the truth.
Andrew Patrick
Again you are grasping at straws. You claim that because Jesus is the judge on judgment day that this proves he is God. The one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
When I said that if the followers of Jesus believed he was God this would have been a very important belief that should be at least hinted at in one of the three synoptics, 1st. Peter, James or Acts.
The only reference in the above books and letters you could find to prove that Jesus is God is that Acts said they baptized in the name of Jesus. Even though (I think) it is clear they are simply differentiating between to the two most common types of baptism that existed at the time, the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John.
Even if they did baptize in the name of Jesus this again does not even hint at Jesus being God. Only someone with a preconception that Jesus and God are one would even think anything like this. An open minded person who didn’t know (like you do) that Jesus and God are one could not come up with this Jesus and God are one thing from the references from Acts that you give.
The only reason I am agreeing to disagree with you is because I know from past experience of talking to you that all you ever do is talk in circles and give long winded obfuscations to very short and simple questions or statements.
To be quite honest I get very frustrated talking to a person like you and then my emotions start to effect my behavior. That is why I stopped talking to you before earlier…..
post 275 I asked
Mark
what law was Jesus convicted by, was it the written law that defines sin or the oral law that was mens interpretations of the written law.
if you say there no difference than Jesus wasnt SINLESS
I will answer
Under Mishnah Tractate 7.5, blasphemy consists only of uttering the name of God,
http://books.google.com/books?id=0MzO2GD62JUC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&ots=OpoBFMihVw&dq=Mishnah+Tractate+7.5&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html
I recommend everyone to read the talmud to see the Jewish laws Jesus was accused of breaking.
But do it with a trash can beside you if you have a weak stomach
Ray (msg. 287)
That was beautifully written it’s refreshing to hear someone speak from their heart. I really enjoy reading your posts.
Mark C.
I have the day of work today and I was able to finish Anthony Buzzard’s online book about the Law the Sabbath and Christianity. I respect his positions and see he has good reasons to believe what it is he believes.
But because almost all the proofs he offers in regards to the Law and the Sabbath not applying anymore come from the writings of Paul I am not convinced that they no longer apply.
If the very cornerstone (or foundation) of the Jewish faith was drastically changed so that they don’t apply anymore certainly there would be some hint of this in the three synoptics, 1st. Peter, James or Acts. Like I pointed out above in my msg. 219 the synoptics were written decades after the resurection when the law (including the 4th. commandment/Sabbath) supposedly didn’t apply anymore.
If Peter and the Apostles had rejected the law (10 commandments) and no longer honored the Sabbath as a holy day of rest they and their followers would not have been welcomed in the temple and the synogoges and The Way as the early Christians were called would not have been accepted as a Jewish sect for nearly 70 years after Pentecost.
Not only is this drastic reversal on the Law and the Sabbath not found in the books and letters that I study it is also not mentioned by any of the Jewish historians that wrote in detail about the Christians and their beliefs. I think that this proves that the 10 Commandments and the observance of the Sabbath were widely accepted and followed by the early Christians.
Just before they stoned Stephen to death they say that many false accusations were made against him and list the accusations. Why even among these false allegations is there not even one charge that Stephen wasn’t following the Law or not observing the Sabbath.
Why in Acts Chapter 21:20 they say to Paul, “You see brother how many thousands there are among the Jews of those that have believed (in Jesus) and they are all zealous for the law.” This was decades after the law supposedly (according to Paul) didn’t apply anymore.
I believe they are chastising Paul for teaching that the Law no longer applies especially since right after this they force Paul to undergo the rite of purification saying they are doing this so “all will know that there is nothing to the things which have been told about you (Paul) but that you yourself also walk orderly keeping the Law.”
Why would James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church tell Paul that he must prove that he himself walks orderly keeping the Law if the Law no longer applied. I think it is obvious that only Paul and his followers believed that the Law no longer applied. Like I said there is no mention of this outside of Paul’s writings.
In two out of the three history books I’ve read they said that there was a lot of historical evidence that the followers of Paul referred to the other Christians as heretics and that the other Christians in return referred to the the followers of Paul as heretics.
Why were they referring to each other as heretics?
Mark C.
In your post (268) you said to Robert, “The only difference, if I understand you correctly, is that you believe that the 10 commandments is the demonstration of what we must do to show our love for God, whereas I believe it is the words of Jesus that we must follow to demonstrate our love for God.”
I believe that we must follow the 10 commandments and the words of Jesus to demonstrate our love for God. Like I said I can’t believe that the 10 commandments that God wrote with his own finger into the stone tablets was abolished or replaced and not one other writer other than Paul mentions this.
But I do agree with you that we as Gentiles are not bound by the other laws of Moses. Just the 10 commandments, Noah’s Law and the commandments of Jesus. (That’s the way I see it anywaze…)
First of all, I need to clarify again that it isn’t that they “don’t apply” so much as that the true heart of the Law is fulfilled by love and walking by the spirit, so that we don’t need to be under the letter of the Law.
Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you truly love God with all your heart, you will naturally want to do what pleases Him, and you won’t need the minute details of the Law to do so.
He said the second great commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. If you are truly loving your neighbor you will not want to sin against him. The true heart behind the Law was to love God and love your neighbor. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40).
So it was hinted at outside of Paul. In addition, Andrew and I both showed other examples.
In comment 222, Andrew pointed out that Peter called Paul “our beloved brother†and recognized Paul’s writings as scripture, and said that they were wisdom that had been given unto him.
He also pointed out that Jesus contrasted the current day when people were required to go up to Jerusalem to worship, with a coming hour, when they would be freed from this (John 4:21-24)
He also pointed out Jesus’ references to a change in the Temple, in Matt. 12:6-7 and John 2:19-21.
We both referred to the miracles which demonstrated Paul’s apostleship. And everything you read about Paul in Acts shows that he was walking with God. If he had been mistaken or deceived, would he be presented that way in Acts?
We both referred to Jesus’ reference to the New Covenant, which, if you read my article about it, is more than just a change in the sacrifices.
We both referred to James 2:10, which points out that the Law is a whole, and not separated.
James also refers to the Royal Law – Love your neighbor as yourself. If you fulfill that you’ll automatically be keeping the heart of the Law of Moses. Jesus and Paul both said that love is the fulfilling of the Law. Jesus’ teachings in the sermon on the mount was all about a new way of living that went beyond the letter of the Law.
In addition, if you read the New Covenant Commandments thread, I showed from the Scriptures that the ten commandments, including the Sabbath, were given only to Israel. Anthony covered that in his book, too. And Jesus said that the Law was up till John the Baptist, and after that the Kingdom of God was preached.
Also, the book of Hebrews gives detailed explanations of how the New Covenant supersedes the Old. There is some dispute as to whether it was written by Paul or not, but if you take it at face value, it makes perfect sense.
So there are plenty of references to this idea outside of Paul, but it was given to Paul to expound on it in the greatest detail. More importantly, there is nothing outside of Paul that contradicts it.
There is.
Acts 6:
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
I responded to that before. It took the Jewish Christians a long time to accept the idea of the Law being replaced. Those that were still zealous for the Law were not accepting what Paul was teaching. That’s not surprising since even today many people have a hard time grasping the concept of love being above the law and spiritual living making laws unnecessary. Even James seems to have had some difficulty fully accepting it at least at this point, because in Paul’s description of his rebuke of Peter, he said that Peter ate with the Gentiles until “certain came from James” at which point Peter withdrew.
There was certainly some differences of opinion at that time, which was why God inspired Paul to write the things he did. Remember, Jesus had said there was more he had to teach the disciples but they couldn’t bear it, but when the Holy Spirit came, it would lead them into all truth. Where is the “all truth” that Jesus couldn’t teach them, if not in Paul’s writing?
In order to answer that, I’d have to have more specific references. As I said, there was some division over the Law issue, but I don’t know that it got to the point where followers of Paul and Peter separated and called each other heretics. If they did, it was not in keeping with what Paul and Peter themselves taught. The Twelve Apostles gave Paul the right hand of fellowship, and acknowledged that he would bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, while they would preach to the Jews.
If the Jews were still required to keep the Law and the Gentiles weren’t, there would be a separation. But Paul said (by revelation) that there was One Body, neither Jew nor Gentile, and the wall of separation was torn down. The Law always had the effect of separating the Jews from the rest of the world, and in its time that was a good thing. But now that the universal sacrifice of Jesus has been made, and the Gospel is to be preached to the whole world, the scope of God’s working is beyond just Israel. God’s will is for there to be no separation, but all one body, with one spirit.
Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 14:12
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Thomas
I know you dont use revelations but Mark does.
these verses shows Both as being separate from eachother
Mark
You use this verse like it supports you claim.
ALL the Law hang on the 2 which is 100% true
the first 4 hang off of Love GOD
Last 6 hang off of Love your brother
Doesnt say part.
why would Anything that God ever considered loving Him change or stop especially something HE SPOKE AND WROTE PERSONALLY
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets†(Matthew 22:40).
I have shown you many times that the law of Moses was not always the written and for sure the custom which Moses delivered is not Mosaic law.
Jews claim Moses spoke oral laws but it is not supported by the Books of Moses or Joshua, there is not a reference to not even one existing till after the Jews came back from captivity within the OT.
Surely you should know about the oral laws that Jesus himself spoke against. You couldnt pick a single grain, you couldnt even save a man from drowning, pick up your bedding, speak the name of God, eat with a gentile or touch a gentile because they had no soul like an animal and was unclean.circumcision that was never a salvation issue but was a sign of nationality
these are some of the things that Jesus, Peter, Paul, James and others were dealing with not the Written laws of Moses or the 10 commandments.
there are many here that i know know this but still try to deny it.
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
As I have said repeatedly, what God considers loving Him has not changed. But what He desires is obedience to the commandments that are addressed to us.
You have shown many times that you believe that, but you haven’t proven it from the Scriptures. Anyone reading the New Covenant Commandments thread can see how you misunderstood the plain teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures, and blew off my rebuttals of your arguments.
Jesus referred to more than the “oral laws” when he raised the standard for “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Matt. 5). His teachings were not just repeating the Ten Commandments, nor were they setting up new rules for us to follow. If he did, then nobody could be righteous. Who has never even thought evil about someone? Jesus said that was as bad as murder. What man has never had a lustful thought about a woman? Jesus said that was as bad as adultery. He was showing us that we can’t be righteous by our own ability. (See my article on Righteousness as well as the others in the Kingdom Living section.)
Paul does not mention the oral laws and makes no such distinction when he contrasts walking by the spirit with walking by the letter of the Law, or when he speaks of the allegory of Abraham’s two children representing the two covenants – one leading to bondage and the other to freedom.
Neither does James when he speaks of the royal law or law of liberty (love your neighbor as yourself) as being the fulfilling of the Law (which Jesus and Paul both taught as well).
If they deny it, how do you “know” that they know it? Just because you don’t understand how they could disagree with you is no reason to accuse them of being dishonest.
“You have shown many times that you believe that, but you haven’t proven it from the Scriptures. Anyone reading the New Covenant Commandments thread can see how you misunderstood the plain teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures, and blew off my rebuttals of your arguments.”
Mark
I shown and PROVED over and over again what you claim as being Moses Written Law is in Fact the Oral Law of the Jews which BY THE JEWS WAS ALSO CALLED THE LAW OF MOSES.
I shown you verses where what was being addressed wasnt even a part of the written law. sometimes you also need to look outside the bible to understand what is being addressed.
Jesus Broke the Law of the Jews but Never broke any Law that was commanded by God or giving to Moses for Israel.
the fact that you havent done the proper research of the subject of the laws during 2nd temple judaism means you probably shouldnt be writting about it.
You couldnt even tell by what law Jesus was convicted by the JEWS. you dont even have an idea that when Jesus pick grain to eat or when He healed on the Sabbath he was in fact breaking the law of the 2nd temple jews. He knew that the jews had no right to take away or add to God Given Laws and Knew that Sin was only defined by GODS LAWS. Jesus only confirmed the Law and defined a few by what he felt.
You actually go about to define other writers by your lack of knowledge of this subject which paints the wrong picture of what being addressed.
I can not let someone make claims like these without showing them how wrong they are, so as long as you write about it ,i’ll be here.
My hope is someday you will see the errors of your claims
“Anyone reading the New Covenant Commandments thread can see how you misunderstood the plain teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures,”
Mark
this is a false statement
I wasnt the only one showing you your errors. so dont paint that picture
The readers can make their own conclusions.
13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Mark
Did you overlook that this was FALSE WITNESS
Some of my post #87 was from The Pilgrim’s Progress. (the part about the law, dust, broom, and the sprinkling of water.) In the book the man sweeping represented the law and there was a young maid that sprinkled the room so it could be swept and she
was representative of grace.
It’s really a good book to read. If anyone likes stories and things that represent things I think they will like it.
The Lord Jesus broke many “boxes” that men had built and kept the righteousness of the law by the spirit of God, being justified thereby. No man ever could account sin to him by using the law or any other means, for he always did the Father’s will, which is intersting because so many others had confidence in the law and were always in violation of it.
Here’s something to think about:
What is the law without the spirit of wisdom? So often men fail to walk in the fear of God, while they try to walk by law, custom, code,
or some other standard. The wisdom that comes from God is above all. The wisdom James talks about (in the book of James) is perfect
and without any fault.
While men failed at the law, it seems to me men fail just as much, if not more at failing to walk in the wisdom of God. It is a very high thing. I suppose walking in something so spiritual and high, or attempting to, will require a lot of falling or stumbling, and so we need God’s grace and mercy to get up again. There could be no getting up again without it.
We need the word of God for our instruction. Failing to go to the word is not walking in wisdom. It’s contrary to wisdom. We need everything of God. We need him very badly. We will always need Jesus and his atonement, the everlasting gospel.
Did you overlook that I quoted that passage in answer to Thomas’s question:
Just wanted you to clarify it was a false accusation which makes your claims weak.
yes i knew what you were addressing.
them stating the charges were false proves Stephen taught the law
Ray
You said, “I suppose walking in something so spiritual and high, or attempting to, will require a lot of falling or stumbling, and so we need God’s grace and mercy to get up again. There could be no getting up again without it.”
I completely agree…
You also said, “We need the word of God for our instruction. Failing to go to the word is not walking in wisdom. It’s contrary to wisdom. We need everything of God. We need him very badly. We will always need Jesus and his atonement, the everlasting gospel.”
I think you demonstrate a lot of God’s wisdom in many of your postings. I believe everyone here is trying to look to the word for wisdom and guidance. When you think about it our differences are minor compared to the beliefs that we share. We will always need Jesus and his atonement and his wisdom the everlasting gospel.
Mark C.
I still don’t understand why in the accusations against Stephen there is no mention of him violating the Law regarding the Sabbath. They were constantly accusing Jesus of violating the Sabbath Laws even though the things he was doing were very minor violations.
If Stephen was not observing the Sabbath at all (Major Violation), Why is this not listed as one of the charges against him?
If Peter and the Apostles taught their followers not to observe the Sabbath.
Why is there no mention of a hostile reaction by the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Saducees, etc..)?
Why is their no mention of this by Jewish historians?
Why is there no mention of this outside of Paul’s writings?
I’m sorry but there are just so many red flags for me. But I will continue to think and pray about what you said. (BTW – I did go to the link and read the article)
I will be off work again tomorrow so I will have lots of time to think and pray and also read a lot of that history book I was telling you about.
I want to thank everyone here on this website for not just dismissing me as a heretic and not talking to me anymore.
Sometimes I wonder why it is that men get along about as well as
Hagar and Sarah.
Thomas,
The Sabbath could possibly be included in the phrase “alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” Some commentators say that the false accusations were not blatantly false so as to be unprovable (otherwise Stephen could easily deny them), but rather a twisting or perverting of what he taught.
But other commentators say that Stephen probably didn’t even say anything like what they accused him of. Most likely the Law was not even an issue at this point. Remember, this is early on in the growth of the Church. At this point (Acts 6) they hadn’t even been shown that Gentiles would be included in the church. The understanding that Jesus had instituted a new and better covenant which replaced the Old was not yet understood – it was revealed and understood gradually:
God showed Peter the vision of unclean animals, and the other things that taught the Jewish believers that Gentiles were included; then the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and Paul’s journeys, during which he wrote some of his epistles; then the incident with James in Acts 21, eventually leading to Paul’s arrest and imprisonment, where he wrote other of his epistles.
There was. Acts 6:12 says that those who were arguing with Stephen “stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council.” He was stoned for it. That’s pretty hostile.
There’s not that much written about the Christian movement at all by the Jewish historians, as far as I know.
Besides Acts, I also mentioned Hebrews. There is also the Gospel and Epistles of John, but you don’t accept them. I also mentioned the implications of what James wrote too.
You show a willingness to consider what we say, and I appreciate that. Some come on here just wanting to pontificate their beliefs, with no intention of discussing or considering. Those are the ones that tend to get ignored or “dismissed” although we don’t ban anyone unless they are actively hostile or disruptive.
Dear Doubting Thomas,
You wrote in post 291:
If you are “agreeing to disagree” then how come you are using personal attacks on your exit?
-Andrew
when Jesus mentioned he was the Son of God did he use Gods name (YHWH).
177. What constitutes Blasphemy?
5 The blasphemer is not (found) guilty until he pronounces the Name (YHWH).
Rabbi Joshua ben Karcha said:
On the say (of trial) they examined the witnesses with a substitute name:
— (e.g.) “May ‘Jose’ smite Jose!”
The trial did not end in a death sentence on the strength of the substitute,
but they sent every witness outside
and examined the main one among them, telling him:
–“Say exactly what you heard!”
(When) he said (it), the judges rose to their feet and tore (their garments)—
and did not mend (them).
And the second said:
–“I too (heard) what he (did)!”
And the third said:
–“I too (heard) what he (did)!”
— Mishna, Sanhedrin 7.5
If he did then this would be his fate
4b –“All who were stoned were (then) hanged.”
These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus).
But the sages said:
–“No one is hanged except the blasphemer and idol worshippers.”
–“They hanged a man facing the people and a woman facing the tree.”
These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus).
But the sages said:
–“The man was hanged but the woman was not.”
Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.4
Andrew Patrick
In the “Oneness to Unitarian” thread I made a very simple statement regarding Moses’ prophecy about the coming Messiah. You answered this very simple statement with a long winded obfuscation that I couldn’t even make any sense out of. To me none of it had any revelence to anything that I said.
It appears to me that you think if you can talk in circles for long enough that this constitutes a proper response to what is a very simple statement. Like I said, this frustrates me bringing out emotions that I don’t like and ultimately starts to affect my behavior.
I was just trying to let you know how I feel. I believe in honest dialogue. If we are not going to have honest dialogue then there is really no point in continuing our conservation.
Ray
You said, “I sometimes wonder why men get along about as well as Hagar and Sarah.”
I believe the answer to that is human pride. Everyone (including me) comes to study the scriptures with basic beliefs (or preconceptions). When we feel our basic beliefs are being challenged one of the first natural instincts to arise is anger.
From my understanding this is just human nature…
Mark C.
I’ve been rereading you message (266) and thinking and praying about it because you do make a lot of good points there. I can tell from your writings that you are writing from your heart and I really respect that.
Both you and Andrew make statements about that Jesus said that there were some revelations that the Apostles couldn’t bear to hear but that these things would be revealed later after they had received the Holy Spirit. Suggesting that Jesus was foretelling the arrival of Paul. This of course is only found in the book of John (who I believe was a follower of Paul) and who’s writings I do not study.
But you do mention proofs from the books that I do study. Your quote of Matt 11:13 “For all the prophets and the law prophesised until John.” Is the one that has me thinking and praying the most. I had always know that it said, for all the prophets prophesised until John, but I had never really noticed that the words “and the law” were included in this scripture before.
Your other quote from the books that I do study was Luke 16:16-17 “The Law and prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one title of the law to fail.”
I had always paid attention to the last part and didn’t really notice the first part that says, The Law and prophets were until John. It appears to me that the first sentence contradicts the last sentence. These two quotes have me thinking and praying the most.
Robert
I am just wondering how you reconcile Matt 11:13 and Luke 16:16-17.
The last sentence says that not one tittle of the law would fail. Saying that the Law was until John and then the kingdom of God is preached isn’t suggesting the Law failed. It was perfect for its time, for its intended purpose. But as we’ve talked about, the Law of Moses was only given to Israel, and for a specific time and purpose. The New Covenant fulfills and thus replaces the Old, while the promises to Abraham over-arch both the Old and New – they are both subsets of the bigger picture, the Abrahamic promises.
Matthew 11
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Luke16
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
In Luke
Considering this isnt speaking of the law in past tense as being gone (would of read ” than one tittle of the law to have failed “.) and the next verse is teaching the law then this is not speaking of the Law ending
In Mathew
the key word is the law prophesied until John.
when John baptised Jesus and Jesus received the Holy spirit which was the Word becoming Flesh all the Prophecies in the Law and the Prophets of the Messiah coming were no longer prophecies , they were realities..
After the reality of Jesus than there would be no need for the law and the prophets to prophesied about him coming.
the Kingdom of God was after jesus being Prophesied
Thomas
If you need another witness whether the other verses are saying the law is no longer then understand these verse were spoken after John.
Only law at this time was Gods law and the written law of Moses
Mark will try to tell you from this verse that when Jesus Died the law ended which contradicts him trying to tell you it ended at John. Go figure?
Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Thomas, I think also about jealousy because there was a matter of inheritance or blessing on the sons of Abraham. There was the matter of the first born.
Jesus said that the law prophesied. (see Matthew 11:13)
Pride is a part of the enemy that works against us and so is jealousy. As those things are a part of human nature, God sent his Son to deliver us from those things.
Since the law prophesied we should be able to hear the spirit of prophecy that comes from it. It’s the spirit that quickens us, that makes us more than just mere men. A man without the spirit of God
is not the same as a man who is born from above, or born again as it’s also called.
Birth begins a new life doesn’t it? We have to be born into the house of God don’t we? But this birth isn’t by the flesh, for flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of heaven. (I Cor 15:50)
This brings us back to Hagar and Sarah. The first son was of Hagar
and the second was the one born by promise.
Paul said in I Cor 15 that the first man is of the earth, and the second man is the heavenly. (see verses 47-50) The first man is Adam and the second man is the Lord Jesus who is from heaven.
It seems to me that those that are earthly do not understand the things of the spirit. I know it to be so from Paul’s gospel writings and also from the gospel of Jesus from the 4 gospel writings.
So will a man who is not born of the spirit of God be able to hear the law prophesy? Unless a man has ears to hear the things of God how shall he hear? Unless God give a man ears to hear how shall he hear? Isn’t it that new words belong to new ears?
Maybe this is what we should talk about: How does the law prophesy? What does it say in the prophetic voice?
Sorry Mark but I have to agree with Robert his quote from Mathew 5 clinched it.
Hello doubting Thomas,
I have a few comments about Matthew 13:11. The word “until” doesn’t necessarily mean that after John the Law and Prophets no longer prophesize. Jerome brought this out many years ago:
If someone believes that the law prophesied only until the time of John, (then it was fulfilled) then you would have to also say that the prophets only prophesied until John also. So the prophets would have been fulfilled too. If one believes this, what justification do you have for taking Isaiah chapter 2 as a future event? After all the prophets only prophesied until John’s time, not beyond. Wolfgang is the only one I’ve seen on this website who would interpret this verse consistently in this regard.
Ray
I agree with you about jealousy. One thing that I’ve always wondered about is that if we are children of God does that mean we have similar emotions as God. The bible talks about God being a jealous God and that he is slow to anger and that he is the God of love. So he must at least share those three emotions with us.
I believe we have other emotions that he does not share like insecurity, fear etc…
Just wondering what you think?
Karl
I just read Isaiah 2 and I see what you mean. I’ve never read any of Wolfgang’s posts. Thanks for talking to me…
Karl
actually the law also prophesied Jesus by the Sacraficial system written within the law.
these prophecies were becoming reality when John spoke of Jesus as the Lamb of God and spoke of the harvest in Luke 3:17
17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
John was to bear witness of these Prophecies becoming reality along with the Word becoming Flesh IN the Man Jesus when the Holy spirit made a dwelling in Jesus at his baptism as promised by prophets that Gods laws would be written in our hearts within the New covenant giving full access to Gods laws without needing to be taught by men. a purer way to know God by his Word.
this verse doesnt mean all prophecies that the Law and prophets prophesied were fulfilled just the ones that spoke of the Messiah bringing us a better promise and a better way to become righteous before God.
Yes Isaiah 2 certainly testifies the Law will last till the Kingdom and beyond.
If i had a dime for every verse that states the same i would be rich with dimes
Thomas, about emotions, I just read about how Paul was jealous
over the Church at Corinth with a godly jealousy, that he might present them to the Lord as being perfect, without blemish.
It seems that there are emotions that men have that are at least somewhat as God, for we were made in his image.
Many of our emotions are corrupt. We can be led into corruption if we let emotions carry us away from God. Sin can come in whenever we are led away from God. There are so many things that are of the flesh.
I wanted to look up the word “prophesied” to see if I was missing something. The word “prophesy” was in the dictionary but there was no separate definition for the word “prophesied”, just that it was the past tense of prophesy.
I did find a use of the word that means “to teach, or to preach”.
So was it that the law “taught or preached” until John?
It seems to me that the word could be used that way.
I thought about a teacher or preacher.
What if there was an “old school” kind of teacher? Now suppose this teacher taught for many years on the same subject, but then something new came along and he didn’t keep up with the changes. Maybe it was computers and how they are used in business. Maybe he taught at a time when no one used computers in business or accounting, and so what he taught, no longer “preached”.
I believe the law still speaks with a prophetic voice and that we can still hear what it has to say, for Paul said to the Church at Galatia, “You who know the law, do you not hear the law…” and then he began to show them how it preached spiritual things in a prophetic voice, about Hagar and Sarah and how they were representative of the two covenants.
I do believe there is a sense in which the law no longer preaches
as it did because of the new covenant. There are things in it that passed away. The law held many things that are true in life and they don’t go away even though through the need to make a new
covenant, many things in the old no longer apply.
Suppose there is a city that had an old law, something like “It’s illegal to hit somebody on the street with a bull whip as one rides through town in his multi-team wagon, or that it’s illegal to shoot
his pistol into the air during celebrations.”
Then let’s suppose the city does away with those laws, saying they are old and no longer apply. Suppose they wanted to get rid of their large supply of books that hold obsolete laws, so they do away with them. Times have changed and nobody does any of that anymore.
Would that mean that a man can ride through town in the back of a pick up truck and throw things at people as he goes by, just because the old laws about bull whips and driving through town have passed away?
What if in this town the man was arested even though the old laws were no more and so he thought it was OK for him to do that kind of thing? He still can be charged by the law by some other law
that was newer but still governed over such behavior, and the judge could still remind him of what the town used to be like and why such things were made illegal, and the judge could enforce the new law that he had been in violation of.
The old law might have been that the man would have been put
in stocks, chained up in the street, or tied to some stakes driven in the ground or something. Under the new law, he might have to pay a fine or do some kind of community service.
Sometimes we might hear a man telling us we have to do this or that, and we might say to him, “That just doesn’t preach anymore.”
for the times and seasons have changed.
What used to go with keeping a leger with pen and ink might not be heard anymore but the keeping of accounts by computer may still be heard.
Robert, please don’t try to put words in my mouth.
I would not say that the law “ended” when Jesus died. If you have read any of my posts you know that I have constantly rebutted that whenever people suggest that I am saying it. Jesus did not destroy the law, he fulfilled it, as that verse said. So since he fulfilled it, who are we supposed to follow – Moses or Jesus?
As I have said over and over, the New Covenant supersedes the Old because it’s about walking by the spirit rather than the letter of the Law. You don’t seem to get the distinction there. God is interested in the heart of the Law, not the letter. You have even said you agree with that. Your argument is still based on the supposed distinction between the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments which you say are God’s Law to everyone. This is the crux of the argument.
As for Isaiah 2, just because it says, “out of Zion shall go forth the law” doesn’t mean that the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandments will be in effect in the future Kingdom. As I have said before, the term “the Law” is not limited to what was given on Mt. Sinai. The verse specifically says, “he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” The Law as given on Mt. Sinai was only one set of rules for Israel. Since Jesus, walking in God’s ways, paths, and commandments is defined by Jesus’ teachings, not Moses’.
“Robert, please don’t try to put words in my mouth.”
Ok i will correct this to you haved tried to tell ME that, as i remember.
Mark
we have agreed to disagree on this subject but when you try to teach others then i must reply.
I can not see what you see or understand your explainations on things when everything else that is clear witnesses against it.
” As I have said before, the term “the Law†is not limited to what was given on Mt. Sinai.”
Mark
Someone who has just looked over the bible knows that, that why we need to research to see what it is being spoke of.
we also know commandments just dont mean 10 commandments.
we are not 1st graders
I just cant expain everything away I see because of my belief, there is way too much clear things that dont allow me to do that , that I CAN NOT IGNORE
I have never tried to tell anybody that the law “ended” when Jesus died. I have repeatedly said that it was “fulfilled.”
The evidence and all the arguments are there in the “New Covenant Commandments” thread. Let the readers draw their own conclusions.
But you (and others) continue to quote verses that refer to “the Law” and “the commandments of God” as if it was understood that it meant the Law given on Mt. Sinai. That’s why I keep saying this.
But you (and others) continue to quote verses that refer to “the Law†and “the commandments of God†as if it was understood that it meant the Law given on Mt. Sinai. That’s why I keep saying this
thats because they DO.
That’s why WE keep saying IT
Robert,
You get indignant like this every time I point out the flaw in your “proof texts.” All you do is quote verses that mention “the Law” or “the commandments of God” with no evidence that they mean what you claim they mean. Now when I ask why you keep using them, you say “because they are.” What “research” proves this?
Dear Doubting Thomas,
If I spoke with very few words, I’d be accused of making unbacked statements.
If I give backing for statements, I’m accused of not having enough backing, and the jackals move in.
If I give overwhelming backing, you’re unable to follow and accuse me of “obfuscation.”
I will speak plainly: I think that you do not understand, because you will not understand, meaning that you do not want to understand. If you wanted to understand, you would be able to understand.
Those are few words. I will use few words if you prefer. Please try to understand.
Doubting Thomas wrote:
Until Jesus arrived, all they had was the written Law and the Prophets.
The word “law” there does not mean “the law of Moses” – the phrase “the law and the prophets” means “the scriptures.”
The words of Jesus were equal to scripture. His words were the new scripture. He preached the kingdom of God to all – he was the fulfillment of those scriptures.
Yes, one jot and one tittle can refer to the literal jots and tittles of the scriptures (and I believe this is a true interpretation) but it also means that “the scriptures can be broken.”
I’ve said this before, but you didn’t like that answer, so you rejected it. Think it over again. Few words. I’m not going to bother with proofs or further explanations when all I get is mocking.
If you want further explanation or proof, ask, don’t mock.
-Andrew
Mark
I chose to agree to disagree because i had presented proofs over and over again but you just ignored it.
I think we should let other people who read our discussions decide now and answer their questions if they ask.
Dear Andrew Patrick,
you said,
Please do not accuse Doubting Thomas in such a personal way. Answer his arguments, and demonstrate what you will, but please be careful not to accuse people who disagree with you. Please review our censorship policy, especially #2 under “What Is Considered Inappropriate” and Mark’s “How To Disagree Respectfully and Fruitfully.” I have already received another complaint about your tone. Please be respectful and focus on the arguments not the person.
thank you
I didn’t ignore your proofs, I presented counter arguments to them.
I’m in favor of that, with one exception. Can you answer my question about what “research” tells you that the references to the Law and the commandments of God that you quote are referring to the Law given on Mt. Sinai?
“I’m in favor of that, with one exception. Can you answer my question about what “research†tells you that the references to the Law and the commandments of God that you quote are referring to the Law given on Mt. Sinai?”
Yes
And i will when you can provide me with the research that they are not.
First thing is you need to learn that there are many things that are a part of Mosaic law but are seperate like statutes, ordinances, or the law and commandments and each and everyone of them can be called the law separatly. same with commandments because all was commanded.
while Gods 10 commandments ( royal law) were included within Mosaic law for Israel they were also separate. while the Mosaic law can refer to the 10 commandments ,that is because Moses based the Mosaic law on the 10 commandments as God Commanded him to.
he was also order to keep them separate in a very special way and also gave him Statutes and Ordinances where a man could become righteous before God after he sinned against God
as where the Mosaic law had Statutes and Ordinances to provide for a citizen to rejoin his nation after he sinned against it.
while Mosaic law is not binding upon salvation and never was, Gods law(10 commandments) are binding upon all that call God their Father for salvation or to receive God’s Grace.
Now the Statutes and Ordinances that provided for salvation in the old Covenant where all fulfilled By Jesus. HE BECAME THEM!!!
This is the better promise and where your misunderstanding starts and the ten folds when you cant see that there are 3 sets of laws for Jews during Jesus life and after.
The oral law which provided for to be a Jew
The Mosaic law which provided for to be an Israelite.
Gods law(Royal law) His 10 Commandments which always since they were giving provided for to be a Child of God
Jesus wasnt a law giver , He was a Gods law follower.
He broke the Oral laws(also called the law of Moses by the Jews) of the Jews but you just think the jews misunderstoud the law when they were authorities of there own law and knew when someone broke them. Jesus knew that they werent God Given and went about showing them this.
the apostles also dealt with this issue when Judaizing Jews who tried to enforced their law on the gentile converts who were coming to Gods laws. while the Mosaic laws were still binding on an Israelite for nationality, they were not binding upon gentile converts but were considered a godly way of life.
till you can separate Gods law from Mosaic law and the oral law we will never see eye to eye on this.
But there are many more to come that will see ,so get used to it
Nice dodge.
I agree. And I demonstrated in “New Covenant Commandments” that such a separation is not Biblical, including rebuttals of your proofs.
Thomas,
I have a few thoughts on the references to the Law and Prophets being until John. First of all, let’s consider the context of Matthew 11.
Matthew 11:
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Jesus is talking about John the Baptist, and said that all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. John was to be the forerunner and the messenger who prepares the way before the Messiah. When Messiah comes he would announce the Kingdom of God, which is what happened. And the whole point of the announcement of the Kingdom is that something new was starting. The Kingdom is primarily future, but Jesus also spoke of the Mysteries of the Kingdom, referring to how the children of the Kingdom would be in the world for a time until the eventual establishment of the Kingdom.
I should also point out that to “prophesy” is not limited to foretelling. It is often used in reference to simply declaring something by inspiration. Strong’s defines the word for prophesy as, “to prophesy, i.e. speak (or sing) by inspiration (in prediction or simple discourse).” The Law and the Prophets foretold of the coming Messiah but they also told of the children of Israel and the Law that was addressed to them.
Now Karl mentioned that “until” doesn’t necessarily mean that after John the Law and Prophets no longer prophesy. First of all, the Law and Prophets didn’t literally prophesy anymore after Malachi, the last OT prophet. So it’s not talking about whether they still prophesied but what their prophecy was applicable to. Second, as far as “until” is concerned, it’s true that it doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing described as “until” would end at that point, as Jerome pointed out. When we look to God “until He have mercy on us” it doesn’t mean that we stop looking to Him after that.
However, sometimes it does mean that. Jerome’s other example, from I Cor. 15:25, actually says so.
I Cor. 15:
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Jesus must reign until his enemies are subdued, and then in the end he gives the Kingdom over to God.
In any case, “until” could mean that or not, depending on the context. In Matthew, “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” could be seen either way, but in Luke it specifically says that “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached.” This is certainly indicative of something new beginning.
Robert said that it “isnt speaking of the law in past tense as being gone (would of read â€than one tittle of the law to have failed“).” Verse 17 isn’t in the past tense, because it’s using the infinitive – “It’s easier for heaven and earth TO PASS than one tittle of the law TO FAIL.” However, the previous sentence IS in the past tense – “The law and the prophets WERE until John.”
He also said that the next verse is teaching the law, so it’s not speaking of the Law ending. But the next verse isn’t teaching the Law in the sense of reiterating it or confirming it. Jesus is redefining something in it – i.e., divorce – as he does in many passages, especially the Sermon on the Mount.
His teachings about loving and pleasing God from the heart and not just obeying the letter (including Matthew 5) are the new standard that Jesus was teaching. It is the standard of the Kingdom, where true righteousness of the heart, motivated by love and empowered by the Spirit, will prevail. That’s why he says that the Law and the Prophets were until John, and since then the Kingdom is preached. This shows a definite change in focus, which he refers to in several places, and which the rest of the NT elaborated on after Jesus’ sacrifice was completed.
You mentioned that Matthew 5 clinched it for you. But what is that chapter really saying?
Matt. 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
As I have said many times in this debate, we don’t say that the Law is “thrown away” but it is fulfilled and thus makes the letter of the Law unnecessary. Jesus says, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” But he had just given the qualification in verse 18, “Till all be fulfilled.” How is it fulfilled? Yes, part of it is when Jesus died and rose again, but that’s not all of it. Jesus, James, and Paul all pointed out that love is the fulfilling of the law.
Jesus said, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The scribes and Pharisees were sticklers for every minute detail of the Law, but missed the true heart. How would one’s righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? Not by observing the letter, but by having a genuine heart of love.
To clarify this, Jesus went on to teach examples of how this standard differed from the letter of the Law. He didn’t just correct the misinterpretations and misuse of the Law, as Robert has said. The first two examples were directly from the Ten Commandments:
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill….
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery…
But Jesus took it even further. Whoever is angry with his brother is as guilty as a murderer, and whoever looks on a woman with lust is as guilty as an adulterer. This is not teaching that he is confirming the Law. It is showing that the righteousness of God is beyond our ability, and so we need a new nature. In the same Sermon on the Mount, he later talks about bewaring of false prophets, because “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” You know them by their fruit, because that can’t be faked; it depends on their nature, which is determined by the seed. People can obey the letter of the Law and still not be doing God’s will if they aren’t walking in love. (Remember the men that were condemning the woman caught in adultery? The Law did say she should be stoned, but Jesus showed mercy and compassion above the letter of the Law.)
After the passage about knowing them by their fruit is when Jesus makes the statement, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” They can do all kinds of good works, but if they aren’t walking in love, they aren’t doing God’s will. That’s why the wise man that built his house on a rock (in the next few verses) is the one that “…heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them.” Notice it doesn’t just say “Whoever keeps the Law” but “Whoever hears and does these sayings of mine..”
The words of Jesus are the standard that we are supposed to adhere to. Moses spoke of the Prophet to come, saying that God would put His words in that prophet’s mouth, and whoever will not hearken unto God’s words which he shall speak, God will require it of him. That’s why Jesus was always talking about heeding his words. They are spirit and they are life. It is the words of Jesus that are the key to eternal life.
Between this and the contrast between the Old and New Covenants in Hebrews, as well as the testimony in support of Paul from Acts and Peter, it is not accurate to say there is no hint of the change from the Law outside of Paul’s writings. And as I pointed out, where is the “all truth†that Jesus couldn’t teach the disciples while on earth, if not in Paul’s writing?
There is a lot about this subject that is hard to understand. People seem to view things in light of “doing the right thing” but God looks at the heart. That’s why God inspired Paul to write the epistles. If you don’t read them, you have no way of knowing why what he says does not contradict what Jesus said. And if the Twelve Apostles accepted him as a genuine apostle, what reason do you have for rejecting him other than thinking he contradicts Jesus?
I’m glad you’re giving this serious thought, and I pray God will enlighten you as you look into His Word.
Andrew Patrick (msg. 332)
You said, “If you want further explanation of proof ask don’t mock.”
I’m sorry if what I said came across as mocking that was not my intention. I was just trying to be honest about my feelings. Whenever I debate with you these feelings that I don’t like keep coming up and I tried to explain to you why I was feeling this way.
I don’t get these feelings when I’m debating with other people.
That’s why I said that I agree with Mark that it would probably be better if we agree to disagree.
“Nice dodge”
Nice pop shot
Mark
why should i go through presenting you with research that i have presented over and over again when you just ignore it or try explaining it away with none sense like what you just wrote.
Sorry but GOD Gave ME A BRAIN.
You have no proofs whatsoever other than Your opinion of what somethings says.
Sorry I will take God’s Word over your opinion
.
Mark
I didnt cause Thomas to believe what he does. He got his belief the same way i did , by reading the bible. He never said that he never read Pauls writtings , he just said they contadicted other writers. Funny thing is they did for me too till i understoud what was being addressed and who was being addressed. I am sure that after reading Paul he read some articles about Paul and the Law which explained things but still didnt match the rest of the writers.
trying to find the truth is very hard when 1 out of a 1000 writers hold to the traditional view like we find when looking for the truth about Jesus not being God.
Thomas seems to have an uncommon amount of common sense which i will take everyday over any scholar
Mark C.
Thanks for your last message. You cover a lot of ground there and I will need some time to try to digest it all. There is a lot for me to think and pray about. I appreciate the time you are taking to try and explain these scriptures to me.
I’m finding this verse interesting from Matthew.
Matthew 11:13
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
(two witnesses?)
It’s almost like saying, “Everything in the scriptures spoke of things
in a prophetic voice, that is, until this man John came along.”
At the top of my Bible page on this section of scripture it says, “Christ’s testimony concerning John Baptist.”
If it would have said instead, “The importance of the law and how it shall never cease.” I think it would have been out of the context of this section of scripture.
John had his following of disciples and Jesus had his. Both of them baptized and preached repentance and the kingdom of heaven. Sometimes I’ve been reading thinking that I am reading what Jesus
is saying and it turned out that what I was reading is what John the Baptist was saying. They sound so much alike.
John never knew what it was like to be without the holy spirit did he? He had the holy spirit from his mother’s womb.
I’ve had the holy spirit for at least thirty years, and I think I have
grown a bit under it’s keeping. It takes some time. Some people may grow spritually very quickly and some may take some time.
Each of us are different. Each of us are unique to God.
So anyway my interest is in how the law speaks in the prophetic, about how it proclaims things pertaining to the gospel. I’m interested in how things are represented by the things in the law.
Whenever God does anything, whatever it is that he does, it may open up to us some of the scriptures. He did that with Abraham.
He may have done that with Hanukkah.
There might be something about whatever God does that may indicate something concerning the kingdom of heaven. No matter what it is that God does, there may be something in it for our understanding the things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven.
We might see some things more clearly as we gain understanding of what he has done in the past as well as what he is doing today.
I would like to look at the law from this perspective, asking the question “Does this speak in some way of things pertaining to heaven? and If so, how?”
After telling us about John’s importance to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said that even the least of those in the kingdom are greater than he. I thought about that once and while I did, I considered that there were those who are in the kingdom of heaven that are greater than John, with the least being the greatest, for sometimes the last are first in God’s eyes. I also considered that there are those in God’s kingdom which is in heaven, the kingdom we look for that will come to this earth.
After this section about John, Jesus shows us the condition of the people at that time. This reminds me of how Paul told of our natural condition at the beginning of his letter to Rome which is one of the best teachings of the gospel that we have.
Then Jesus comforts the people telling them that his yoke is easy and his burden is light, and that in him there is rest.
Many there are that will heap burdens on people, many of these burdens from the law, but Jesus said that his burden is light and that in him there is rest. I don’t think it’s a tossing and turning kind of rest either. I think it’s a peaceful kind of rest, a rest that a soul
enjoys. I think there’s a joy in that rest as well as his peace.
Then the Pharisees came to heap something on him and his disciples if they could in the next chapter, but the Lord withstood
their means. I wonder how his disciples would have been burdened
by this if he had not been there to stand between them and the Pharisees, who then went out to see how they could destroy him.
They didn’t come to bless did they? They came with something of the law but they didn’t come to perfect them did they? They didn’t come to lead anyone into the kingdom did they? The Lord didn’t need them to lead him into anything did he? No, Jesus didn’t follow them. They were murderers and sought to kill him.
“Jesus, James, and Paul all pointed out that love is the fulfilling of the law.”
So Did Moses,Joshua, David, and ALL THE PROPHETS
——————————————————
“The scribes and Pharisees were sticklers for every minute detail of the Law, but missed the true heart.”
YES This true but Mark knows what Laws they push on the gentiles.
Part of it was Mosaic law which makes you an Israelite.
most of it was the oral law which for several centuries before Jesus was the LAW OF THE LAND.
While the 10 commandments were also followed by them there was hunderds of attachments to them by men
————————————————————-
“People can obey the letter of the Law and still not be doing God’s will if they aren’t walking in love. (Remember the men that were condemning the woman caught in adultery? The Law did say she should be stoned, but Jesus showed mercy and compassion above the letter of the Law.)”
Stoning someone was an ordinance out of the law, Ordinances are things that must be done if someone breaks the law and since we are now to be judge out of the law when the kingdom is established we no longer enforce this ordinances.
this is another change along with sacraficial statutes for the blessing to go out to all the world. Jesus was just setting an example as he did so many times.
Heres Moses pointing out that love fulfills the law
Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
Heres David
Psalm 105:8
He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
Heres Daniel
Daniel 9:4
And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
AND HERE IS GOD
Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto them that love me, and keep my commandments to a thousand generations
Mark C. (msg. 338)
I hope you don’t mind if I break your message down and ask you questions as they come up.
The first thing I notice that puzzles me (and I realize this is a bit of topic) is your quote, “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.”
This has always been a scripture that shatters my image of the Kingdom of Heaven. I just don’t understand how there could be violence in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I still don’t understand, How we can know for sure what Jesus meant when he said until everything is fulfilled?
I’m trying to compare the rest of your message to Robert’s posts.
Mark C.
You quote, Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (ESV)
AFTER he talks about fulfilling the law his first words are, “For truly I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
To me it is significant that he says, “For truly I say to you (emphasizing what follows) until heaven and earth pass away.” This would seem to indicate the permanence of it. Then he ends with, “until all is accomplished.” Which would indicate that all his enemies are put under his feet and the prophecy from Issiah 2 is fulfilled, etc…
This is the way I read it anywaze…
You also quote, “Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven.”
It would seem to me that if God wrote the 10 Commandments with his own finger into the tablets of stone then they must constitute his will. Like I said before, if Peter and the Apostles and their followers didn’t honor the Sabbath and keep the 10 Commandments I don’t think they would have been welcome to teach in the temple and the synogogues. And “The Way” as these early Christians were called wouldn’t have been accepted as a Jewish sect for almost 70 years after Pentecost.
I am going to guess at this one but i think the kingdom of heaven being spoke of here is Heaven. I dont think that John would ever be called least in the future Kingdom Of God but in heaven all are greater.
the violence spoke of here is satan and his angels at war with Heaven after they realized that the Messiah had been born to Israel(the woman with a crown of twelve stars:). the war in heaven was during the time of Jesus’s baptism and his resurection.
pretty sure on this though
all the prophets and the law did fortell the coming of the messiah, but after that had come they fortold the future Kingdom of God.
part of what was fortold until John was the Messiah but the kingdom of God which was also was fortold before John was now the only thing left that hasnt come yet and that fortelling was now being given more detail by the Prophet Jesus
Matthew 11
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Revelation 12
12And there appeared a great wonder [1] in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder [2] in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Dear Robert,
you said:
Calling Mark’s reasoned explanations nonsense is not appropriate. Using sarcasm like “Sorry but GOD Gave ME A BRAIN” is also inappropriate for this blog (and to Christian discourse in general). Please review our censorship policy and look over those things labeled “Inappropriate Behavior.” Mark is not here to ruin your day, attack you, or persecute you. Please be respectful.
Luke 16
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Mark
This is probably the strongest witness againt your claim
what point was JESUS making Here.
Cant wait for this one
Dear Robert,
you said:
Sarcastic remarks like this are not in line with how the Scriptures teach us to communicate with one another. I know you probably did not have time to read my last comment before making this last one, but I exhort you to please be respectful and loving towards your brother in Christ.
Sorry Mark
The none sense thing was uncalled for but your “Nice dodge†comment was offending to me because i in no way dodged, i just turn the table.
Sean i will do my best.
Sorry to anyone else that was offended by my statement
Sean
I really cant wait, how is that Sarcastic
sorry your wrong on this one
Robert,
I’m sorry if you were offended by my “Nice dodge” comment. I meant no offense. It was you who first said that anyone who has just looked over the bible knows that “the Law†is not limited to what was given on Mt. Sinai. You specifically stated, “That’s why we need to research to see what it is being spoke of,” and I agree. But you keep quoting verses that refer to the Law and the Commandments of God, assuming they refer to the Mt. Sinai law, and giving no evidence for that conclusion. Even when I pressed you as to why, you came back with, “Because they are.” So I don’t think it was unreasonable to ask what research tells you that.
What is the point of “turning the table” in this instance? You’re the one that made the claim, so responding the way you did seems like either a dodge or just being argumentative, neither of which is profitable.
You said, “Why should I go through presenting you with research that i have presented over and over again when you just ignore it or try explaining it away…?” The thing is, you have not presented over and over anything that demonstrates that the verses you quoted must mean the Law given on Mt. Sinai. In addition, the evidence you have presented was to prove that there is a difference between the 10 Commandments and the Law of Moses, which I did not ignore but offered rebuttals from Scripture.
We have agreed to disagree on that point, but since you still quote verses with “Law” and “Commandment” in them, I ask what research you use to conclude that they refer to what was given on Mt. Sinai. Specifically, the following verses:
Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
…..
BTW, in comment #345, you said, “Heres Moses pointing out that love fulfills the law.” Yet only one of the verses you quoted (Deut. 7:9) even had the word “love” in it. And it said that God “keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him.” It didn’t say that love was the fulfilling of the Law, as Jesus, James, and Paul said.
And finally,
I hate to disappoint you, but I really don’t see how this passage is “the strongest witness” against my claim.
The rich man was asking Abraham to send Lazarus to his family to warn them about the punishment that awaited them. Abraham said, “they have the law and the prophets, let them hear them.” The point Jesus was making was that even if a man were to come back from the dead, some of them still wouldn’t believe, just as they didn’t believe Moses and the prophets. Jesus told this story to point out unbelief of the Law and prophets. This has nothing to do with whether there was a change in the covenant.
PS – Thomas, I’ll get to your answers as soon as I can.
Mark C. (msg. 338)
I was just rereading you message and I wanted to thank you for your statement at the end where you said, “I pray that God will enlighten you as you look into his word.”
I pray for same thing….
BTW, in comment #345, you said, “Heres Moses pointing out that love fulfills the law.†Yet only one of the verses you quoted (Deut. 7:9) even had the word “love†in it. And it said that God “keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him.†It didn’t say that love was the fulfilling of the Law, as Jesus, James, and Paul said.
Love has always fufilled the Law, Cant you see that.
the whole 10 commandments are love in it purest form
Love is what fulfills the promise to Abraham.
Mark
I can not see how you see what you do and never will.
so we must agree to disagree.
Yes you no me well enough to know that nice dodge would offend me, whether it was done on purpose you only know, it if you did it is already forgiven and you have 489 more to go today
Thomas
what do you think about these verses in Deuteronomy 29
Do you see 2 separate covenants here
Exodus 20 is the one at Horeb 40 years earlier than the one being given here.
Deuteronomy 5 helps you understand the first one was at Horeb. and the rest of Deuteronomy 29 shows you the second one being made and accepted.
Deuteronomy 5 :22 shows that God added no more to the first
and 27 shows it was accepted and verse 31 shows
Moses recieved the rest at Horeb but it didnt come till after the first was agreed upon.
The first one might of been a covenant to be a child of God
The second was no doubt to be a citizen of Israel
What your thoughts?
Deuteronomy 29
These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. 2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land;
Dear Sean,
You wrote:
Proverbs 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.
There was someone specific that was threatening such action, yet his own words were hostile and insulting. He seemed to think that he had this as a weapon to wield. One person said my beliefs were “heresy.” I have been accused of lies, obfuscation, etc, etc, etc. I’ve seen quite a few “cheap shots” flying about, and the general tone has become rather aggressive at times. How many of these recent posts have you been reading?
Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
If I have offended someone, please have them come talk to me, or follow the scriptural precedent and talk to me privately. But as long as this person remains “anonymous” I’m a little skeptical, thinking that this “complaint” is simply a “threat made good” of a specific person that has been especially “spirited” in “tone” – and yes, it does seem that this person made good on his threat to launch an accusation…
Sean wrote:
When I said that I believed that Thomas did not want to understand, I was replying to the specific post 312 from Doubting Thomas. This was not inappropriate, and entirely within the bounds of our current discussion:
1) Thomas had just made an appeal for direct honesty, and especially that it was important to say how one felt. This is the context of that reply::
When you appeal to someone for honesty, and emphasize that it is important to relate feelings, you may get an honest response. I didn’t get the impression that Thomas took any offense. He told me how he was feeling, I told him how I was feeling. As far as I know, neither of us have taken any offense.
2) Thomas had just made an appeal for succinctness, and as such, he specifically did not want a lengthy response. If I had only one issue to make, and one argument to prove, it is that wanting to understand is what makes the difference.
I could cite quite a few scriptures demonstrating this, if you like. “knock, and it shall be given unto you….” and “if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God…”
Now, I freely admit there are some things that I do not want to understand. For example, if someone were to tell me that I did not want to understand “Eternal Conscious Torment” – they’d be correct. I really don’t want to understand that.
In the context of any subject we need to consider if the subject is one that we can allow ourselves to want to understand. If there’s one thing I’ve learned recently in the last month, it to never underestimate the importance of whether someone wants to understand.
3) However, the specific context was that Thomas said that long posts could not be understood: my reply was that I didn’t think he wanted to understand said long posts.
This is not the same as saying he would agree. For example, there are others here that understand what I mean, and this does not mean that they agree with me.
Long posts can be eloquent. Short posts, if they are to have any meaning without being obscure, must be direct. Thomas asked for short, direct posts, he shifted to the tone of feeling (rather than direct argument) and he said he wanted honesty.
I still stand by what I said: the issue is always if you want to understand. That’s was not an accusation, and neither was it a personal attack. It’s a sermon that could be fully expanded if need be, stated in two sentences, because of a request to be brief.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrfew
Not really. That’s why I personally gave up on our dialogue long ago. There is a way before each person that may seem right, but its end may lead to losing one’s salvation.
Andrew Patrick
You said, “When I said that I believe Thomas did not want to understand, I was replying to the specific post 312.”
My post in 312 was talking about our conversation in the “Oneness to Unitarian” thread.
I said, that Moses said, “Someone like me will arise from among you.” Later on I said that this someone (or Messiah) will be like me (Moses). Implying that the Messiah must be human like Moses was.
You realized you could not debate the logic of my argument and went off on a tangent saying that it was inappropriate to identify pronouns. I can not understand how anyone could not know who the above mentioned pronouns are referring to.
Like I said it seemed to me like you were just trying to obfuscate the obvious by changing the subject to a discussion of the appropriateness of identifying pronouns. You completely ignore what is obvious to everyone else.
When I’m speaking with someone that thinks obfuscation is a proper response to a simple statement this makes me frustrated and brings out emotions in me I do not like. I am always praying for the peace of God in my life. Talking to someone like you destroys that inner peace that I feel.
Like Jaco said it is futile to debate with a parrot. The parrot can not understand anything that you say and will just keep repeating the same things over and over again.
Thomas!
you said:
Please avoid name-calling. This is a Christian discussion forum! We are to treat each other with respect, especially when others are frustrating. We are to be kind and tenderhearted (Eph. 4.32).
Please review these Scriptures:
Psa 34.12-13 [NASB]
12 Who is the man who desires life And loves length of days that he may see good? 13 Keep your tongue from evil And your lips from speaking deceit.
Ecc 10.12-14 [NRSV]
12 Words spoken by the wise bring them favor, but the lips of fools consume them. 13 The words of their mouths begin in foolishness, and their talk ends in wicked madness; 14 yet fools talk on and on. No one knows what is to happen, and who can tell anyone what the future holds?
Eph 4.29, 32 [NASB]
29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear…32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
Eph 5.2-4 [NASB]
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
Col 3:8 [NASB]
But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
Col 4:6 [NASB]
Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
2Tim 2.23-26 [NASB]
23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
Jam 1.26 [NASB]
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
Robert
I just finished reading Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy Chapters 5 thru 29. It has been quite a while since I read the Old Testament. It does seem to be clear that the 10 commandments from Exodus 20 is a separate (distinct) covenant than the one from Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 29:1 “These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, BESIDES the covenant that he made with them at Horeb.” (ESV)
I capitalized besides (above) to show Moses is emphasizing that the two covenants are distinct and separate. That’s the way I read it anywaze…
Andrew Patrick
I would like to apologize for the parrot remark. Like Sean pointed out it was unchristian and uncalled for.
Sean
I believe it was Aristotle that said that wit was just educated insolence. The next time I get the urge to make a witty comment I will bite my tongue.
Thomas,
I think we can all learn from your example of humility. Being able to receive correction is a virtue almost totally extinct in Christianity today. May God bless you as you seek his truth in love.
“It does seem to be clear that the 10 commandments from Exodus 20 is a separate (distinct) covenant than the one from Deuteronomy.”
It does to me too
When you read the one God spoke personally in Exodus 20 do you get the idea that Gods promise to have mercy on them that love him and that do his commandment as an everlasting promise
When you read the one Moses spoke to Israel in Deuteronomy 29 do you get the idea that it is very conditional on observance of all the laws Moses spoke to them.
8 And we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half tribe of Manasseh. 9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.
in these verses do you understand what they were receiving for obidience to the laws Moses spoke. was it salvation or inheritance of Land?
this should help your understanding of Paul and Others when refering to covenants, Gods commandments, Gods law, Law of Moses and if you throw in the oral laws of the jews which are also spoken of as law of Moses which they were never than you can understand what laws or comandments are being spoke of.
Paul and the others were teaching that the oral laws to be a jew were not important for salvation and that the written Laws of Moses were not important for salvation but the Law of God which God himself spoke and wrote was always important for salvation.
Paul never speaks against the oral law for anyone who wanted to be a jew and Paul never spoke against the written Laws of Moses for anyone who wanted to be an Israelite.
And paul Never SPOKE AGAINST GODS LAW FOR PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO BE A CHILD OF GOD.He only put them in order of importance which most had backwards.
Other than this he spoke of changes that were necessary to include all that wanted to be a child of God and wanted to be included in the inheritance of Abraham which was always more than the land of Israel ,the greater promise spoken of.
Thomas wrote:
That the covenant at Moab (Deut. 29) is “beside” the one at Horeb (Ex. 20 & Deut. 5) is not in question. What is in question is Robert’s interpretation.
There is nothing in the Scriptures that indicates this.
If you read both Deut. 5 and Ex. 20 in context, you see that God gave the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel (Ex. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6-21). They saw the fire and smoke and heard the voice and the sound of the trumpet, and they were frightened. So they said to Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (Ex. 20:19). So Moses went closer to God, and God gave him further commands to give to the Israelites, starting with the rest of Ex. 20, and then in chapter 21:1 it says, “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them,” and he goes on for the next three chapters. Then in chapter 24, “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD…” and they ratify the covenant with the blood from the offerings. “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words” (Ex. 24:8). Robert insists that the Ten Commandments are a separate Law from the rest of what Moses wrote for the children of Israel. But you can see from these chapters this is not the case.
After the ratifying of the covenant, Moses is called up to the mountain again. “And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.” Are the tables of stone a different law, or a different covenant from the law? If this verse means they were each separate things, then the tables of stone is not the same as the commandments. It is common in Hebrew to use several synonymous words to refer to the same thing. In fact, throughout the Old Testament the words law, statutes, ordinances, and commandments are used interchangeably to refer to the Law.
Later Moses smashes the tables when he finds the Israelites worshiping the golden calf. So God has him hew out two more, and He wrote the Ten Commandments on them again, and these are the tables that were put into the Ark of the covenant. Since they were written with the finger of God, they got this special treatment, while the book of the Law was kept on the side of it. But nowhere does it say that they were two different covenants. There was so much in the Law that it could not all fit on the tables of stone, but the Ten Commandments are the basis or foundation of the Law, not a separate Law.
In Deut. 4:44-45, it says, “This is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel. These are the testimonies, and the ordinances, and the judgments, which Moses spoke to the sons of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.” In 5:1, “And Moses called all Israel, and said to them, Hear, Israel, the ordinances and judgments, all that I speak in your ears this day, and ye shall learn them, and observe to do them. The Lord your God made a covenant with you in Choreb. The Lord did not make this covenant with your fathers, but with you: ye are all here alive this day.” And he goes onto relate what had happened at Choreb forty years ago, including the Ten Commandments. So the covenant, including the Ten Commandments, was not made with anyone before the children of Israel in Choreb, contrary to what many Sabbath-keepers say.
In Deut. 5:22, it says, “These words the Lord spoke to all the assembly of you in the mountain out of the midst of the fire––there was darkness, blackness, storm, a loud voice––and he added no more, and he wrote them on two tables of stone, and he gave them to me.” Robert (and others) say that this means there was no more to this law than the Ten Commandments, and that the other things Moses wrote were ordinances that only applied to Israel. So when Jesus replaced the Old Covenant with the New it only replaced the ordinances, not the Ten Commandments.
However, verse 22 is rendered in other versions as follows:
BBE – These words the Lord said to all of you together on the mountain, out of the heart of the fire, out of the cloud and the dark, with a great voice: and he said no more; he put them in writing on the two stones of the law and gave them to me.
JPS – These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, and it went on no more. And He wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them unto me.
So the phrase “he added no more” just means the voice didn’t say anything more at that time. We know that to be true because we read in Exodus that God added further laws through Moses because the people couldn’t bear to hear God’s voice. And we read that ALL the ordinances and judgments, including the Ten Commandments, were written in the book that Moses read to the people, and then sprinkled them and the altar with blood to ratify the covenant.
Moses then charged the people, in Deut 5, “Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you,” and beginning in chapter 6 he enumerates them: “Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it.” In the chapters following, Moses reiterates the Law to this new generation of Israelites (40 years after the original covenant).
The whole book of Deuteronomy is Moses addressing the new generation of Israelites after 40 years in the wilderness. He relates the account of the first covenant and enumerates the various laws and ordinances, giving more detail in many cases. One detail that is added is the inclusion of the strangers in their midst (29:14-15). Any outsiders who wanted to be with them had to submit to the same Laws, but Gentiles outside of Israel did not.
He then concludes in ch. 29, saying that these are the words of the covenant, besides the one in Choreb (Horeb). Notice, he doesn’t say it was a different Law, but a different covenant, and not in place of the former one, but “beside” it. They renewed the covenant vow, but Moses still said, “If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law…” (Deut. 30:10). The “book of the Law” includes Exodus as well as Deuteronomy (and also Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers – it’s all the Book of the Law that Moses wrote). There is nothing that indicates that the first covenant was only the Ten Comandments, or that it was addressed to all mankind, rather than to Israel.
Wow! I didn’t expect to go on this long. Sorry about that. I hope it helps you to understand this stuff.
The first one in Exodus said nothing about salvation either. Before He appeared on the mountain and gave the Ten Commandments, God told Moses to say to Israel:
Exodus 19:
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.
5Â Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6Â And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
The whole point of the Sabbath was not salvation for mankind in general either. It was a sign of the special relationship Israel had with God.
Exodus 31:
16Â Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17Â It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Paul never made such a distinction, because there is none, as I just explained to Thomas. The only distinction he made is between the Old Covenant (the Law of Moses) and the New Covenant (established by Jesus).
Sorry Mark
the 10 commandments were the words of the First covenant at Horeb that was agreed upon before any other thing was spoken to Moses. The second was 40 years later when it was agreed upon.
The scriptures are clear and need no explainatin
Robert
You asked, “When you read the one God spoke personally in Exodus 20 do you get the idea that God’s promise to have mercy on them that love him and that do his commandments as an everlasting promise?”
Yes it would appear that way. Especially since he wrote it with his own finger not once, but twice into the stone tablets. Writing something into stone would seem to imply an everlasting promise compared to the other laws that were not written in stone.
You also asked, “When you read the one that Moses spoke to Israel in Deuteronomy 29 do you get the idea that it was very conditional on observance of all the laws that Moses spoke to them?”
Yes it does imply this. At least in my opinion anywaze…
In the verses you quoted it was the inheritance of land that was promised for obedience to the 2nd. covenant. It actually said if they broke this second covenant the land would be taken away from them and that they would all be scattered and persecuted throughout the world decreasing their numbers so that they would no longer number as many as the stars.
Thanks for helping me to understand these Old Testament writings. After I’m finished with this history book I’m reading I’m going to read that book “Introduction to the Old Testament” by Roland Kenneth Harrison. I’ve always liked reading history so I should at least try to understand the oldest history book in the world the Old Testament.
I’m going out with my friend Tim for the evening. I will be back online Saturday morning sometime.
The rest of Exodus 20, and then chapters 21-23 record the other ordinances that God spoke to Moses at that time. THEN in chapter 24, Moses wrote ALL THE WORDS in the book, and offered sacrifices, sprinkling the blood on the altar. He then read it to the people, and sprinkled them with the blood to ratify the covenant. Verse 7 says, “And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.”
And the one 40 years later was a renewal of the covenant, with the next generation of Israel. It began with a reiteration of the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5) and then the other ordinances in Deuteronomy added more detail, but it was ALL “his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law.”
I agree.
It might seem to imply it, but there’s nothing that says they are more permanent than the rest of the Law. Jesus never made such a distinction. He quoted from laws both in and out of the Ten Commandments in Matt. 19:18-19 and Mark 10:19, without giving any distinction.
The two tables of stone, in fact, are called “tables of testimony.” Exod. 31:18 – “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” They were a testimony or a witness that the Law was from God. That was their purpose, not to be an everlasting Law to all people at all times.
That’s why Paul writes in II Corinthians 3:
2Â Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3Â Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God–ward:
5Â Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Â Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7Â But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8Â How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
Notice, Paul is not contrasting the Laws of God with ordinances of men here. He is contrasting the Law written in stone with the law written on the heart, the ministration of the spirit with the ministration of the letter.
BTW, the verse about having “mercy on them that love him and that do his commandments as an everlasting covenant” (Deut. 7:9) should be read in context. It was talking about not mixing with the heathens that would be in the land, and then it says:
Deut. 7:
6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.
12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:
13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
And it goes on from there talking about the blessing which the nation of Israel will enjoy if they keep the covenant. There is nothing about a general law for all mankind here.
Yes, the covenant in Moab speaks of their being in the land as conditional on them obeying the laws. But the first covenant in Horeb, including the Ten Commandments, was also for Israel to be a unique nation (Ex. 19:4-6; Deut. 7:6ff, above). Nothing is said about salvation, or about a general law of righteousness for everyone. Also, it specifically says the Sabbath was for a sign of Israel’s unique relationship with God (Ex. 31:16-17), and was not given to their fathers or anyone else (Deut. 5:3).
Mark
It is cut and dry that they were 2 covenants made, one unconditional and one conditional.
the first didnt even need to be agreed upon BUT IT WAS and was AGREED UPON before any other commandments went out from God.
God promises are always set in stone, but this one was really set in stone
Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto them that love me, and keep my commandments to a thousand generations
Do you see the word IF anywhere in this PROMISE.
How many times is the word IF used in what Moses spoke.
As i said Its cut and dry, clear as day that there was covenants made.
trying to explain away something that is so clear is very unprofitable and a waste of time.
“Thanks for helping me to understand these Old Testament writings. ”
Thomas
Your very welcome
BTW, the verse about having “mercy on them that love him and that do his commandments as an everlasting covenant†(Deut. 7:9) should be read in context. It was talking about not mixing with the heathens that would be in the land, and then it says:
Mark actually its the corrected translation of that in Exodus 20 and speaks nothing of what you say.
Moses can repeat anything he wanted but that doesnt make him the one who gave it, Same with Jesus.
All you belief is based on is the using of the 10 commandments in the 2nd covenant which was giving to only Israel.
But the first covenant was a promise to ALL that LOVE GOD , Israel or not. and states Just how to love God
I LOVE GOD SO IT WAS FOR ME.
I need to stop right there. If it didn’t need to be agreed upon, then it wasn’t a covenant. That’s what “covenant” means – an agreement. But that’s a minor point. 🙂
I showed you specific references that prove that there was more to the first covenant at Horeb than just the 10 Commandments.
Not in that verse, but since it says He shows mercy unto “them that love me and keep my commandments,” it implies a condition. But also, I showed you the reference in Ex. 19:5 – “Now therefore, IF ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine…” (this was addressed to “the Children of Israel,” vs. 3 & 6.) This was leading up to God speaking to them at Mt. Sinai. And you seem to be ignoring the clear testimony of ch. 21-24. He wrote ALL the words of the LORD, read it to them, and sprinkled the blood on them and the altar, and they said “ALL that the LORD has said we will do.” THAT was the first covenant at Horeb (Sinai).
I’m not questioning that there were two covenants made (I assume that’s what you meant to write?) What I’m questioning is that the first one was only the Ten Commandments, and was addressed to mankind in general, rather than the children of Israel specifically.
I’m not trying to explain it away. I’m trying to get you to see that what you are saying is not what the Bible says.
What “corrected” translation are you referring to? The version of that quote in Ex. 20 says the same thing. I don’t deny that God shows mercy unto thousands of them that love Him and keep His commandments. But once again, what commandments are we talking about? He shows mercy to those who keep the commandments that are addressed to them. As I demonstrated, chapter 20 is in the context of what God spoke to the children of Israel, which includes the ten commandments and a number of other ordinances, ALL of which were written, ratified, and agreed to in chapter 24.
He didn’t originate it, but he delivered it to the people of Israel. That’s why it’s called the Law of Moses.
I never said the 10 commandments were in the second covenant. I said that they were in the first, but so were a number of other ordinances. And then the second covenant (at Moab) included a reiteration of the law, and expanded on the first (including the 10 commandments), and BOTH were written in “The Book of the Law.”
It does not say that the 10 commandments were for “all that love God.” All it says is that God shows mercy to all that love him and keep his commandments, but the commandments in that whole context were addressed to Israel. However, Jesus said, “If you love me keep my commandments.”
“It does not say that the 10 commandments were for “all that love God.†All it says was that God shows mercy to all that love him and keep his commandments, but the commandments in that whole context were addressed to Israel. However, Jesus said, “If you love me keep my commandments.†”
Mark
them that love God are ALL that love God
“If you love me keep my commandments.†”
And of course we should if we love Jesus
This is the respect he earned
IT DOESNT SAY TO LOVE HIS ALONE
“I’m not trying to explain it away. I’m trying to get you to see that what you are saying is not what the Bible says.”
Mark
You can not help me see something that doesnt exist.
I cant crawl into your mind or imagination
I gave you the specific references. What more can I say?
Here’s another one. Moses recounts the original covenant in Horeb (Sinai) to the next generation of Israel.
Deuteronomy 5:
1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
5 (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying,
6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
[Notice that this statement is describing God’s nature, in the midst of the command to not worship idols. It does not say that these commandments are for everyone, as the rest of the chapter makes clear.]
11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
[Notice, again, that the Sabbath is specifically for Israel to remember what God did for them. It was for a sign of Israel’s unique relationship with God (Ex. 31:16-17)]
16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
17 Thou shalt not kill.
18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
19 Neither shalt thou steal.
20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
[Notice He’s speaking about “them” – i.e. the children of Israel – and He says that it being well with them was dependent on keeping the commandments. They were neither “unconditional” nor “for all people.”]
30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
[Once again, there is no distinction between the commandments and the statutes and the judgments. This came right after the Ten Commandments, and includes all the statutes and judgments. ]
32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.
[Again, the commandments that God commanded them were the condition that it might be well with them in the land.]
Paul told the Church at Galatia, “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” (Galatians 5:14,15.)
Those that are born of the spirit are not under the law, yet neither are they above it, for if they sin they can be judged by it.
Let’s treat those who are not under the law as those that are not under it. Let’s remember the two covenants. (see Galatians 4:24)
If I sin, please remind me of the law that I have violated.
Mark C. (msg. 367)
I can see how you believe what you believe from what you wrote and the quotes you give. My friend Tim and I were just discussing this last night.
He was telling me how he used to interpret the prophecies in Revelations a certain way and how this interpretation seemed to be clear from the scriptures. Then someone convinced him to look at the prophecies in a different way and then after that the new way seemed to be clear from the scriptures.
It would appear that the way we look at the scriptures (and the preconceptions we have) directly effect our interpretation. I’ve always believed that because God took the time and effort to write the 10 Commandments in stone with his own finger that this signified that they were different and separate (a special revelation if you will).
This preconception of mine might be effecting my interpretation but it seems to me I have to agree with Robert. It’s going to take me most of the day to read thru all these other posts and try to digest them. I will respond to the rest once I’m finished.
Hello Mark,
1) Yes they were addressed to Israel, but we are now a part of Israel if we are in Christ. So does it make much sense to keep insisting on a strict dichotomy between us and them since we are all one in Christ and have been grafted into Israel?
2) The entire Old Testament was written for Israel and the epistle of James was addressed to Israel. Can we apply any part of them to our lives?
They were addressed to national Israel, for that time. Paul makes a distinction between national Israel and spiritual Israel, between physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart, between the letter of the law and the spiritual fulfillment of it.
From the context, it is clear that James was addressing Israelites who were believers in Jesus. And we can certainly apply parts of the OT to our lives, provided we understand what commandments are addressed to us – i.e., the commandments of Jesus.
God made one body in Christ of Jew and Gentile, and so we are grafted in (those of us who are not Jews) because of the grace of
God given to us by the work of Christ.
God did this, not to put all people under the law, but to put all people into Christ who has redeemed us from the law, as many as will come to God by him.
I believe it’s OK to use the law to correct people who are in sin when it’s used lawfuly. This can be done by those who are spiritual.
It will not be done effectively by those who are not born again. If we are born again we will seek those things which are above, the same things that the law prophesied of.
The law prophesied of the cross of Christ, his priesthood, and his judgments. It told of God’s mercy as well as his severity. These things we need to remember.
Thomas
As we work through the issues you have with Paul i would also like to work through some issues you have with John paralleling Paul.
John and Peter were unlearned and probably couldnt read or write by the statements they were unlearned and ignorant and thet couldnt but speak the things the things they saw and heard.
It is widely held the Mark’s gospel is actually from Peter, Mark was probably a scribe who wrote it for Peter. Now John also was unlearned so he also would need assistance with writting, could it be that Paul was the one that helped write what John had witnessed and Paul help him with the wording and writting. maybe even Paul was influiencial in this writting.
Maybe others helped him too.
.
this is just something that might be possible but have no evidence of it.
Acts 4
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus
20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
Robert
That is something I had not thought of before. That gives me one more thing to think and pray about. I had planned on spending most of today reading that history book I was telling you about but I find myself reading and rereading the above posts. There is a lot for me to think and pray about.
What makes you think Paul’s words apply to you or me?
Exactly, Israelites who believed in Jesus, not gentiles who believed in Jesus. So, again, not us.
But Jesus commandments aren’t in the OT. So we can only apply parts of the OT that Jesus (and Paul I guess) specifically reiterate? Thus there is no need for the OT.
Mark C.
I have given this a lot of thought and I must agree with Robert and Karl. I believe the 10 commandments are a special revelation distinct and separate from all the rest. The first three commandments had to do with our relationship with God and the last seven had to do with our behavior here on earth. The fourth commandment is listed first as the most important of our behaviors here on earth and it’s also the longest of the commandments which I think is significant because God took the time and effort to write these commandments with his own finger.
Like I said in an earlier message because Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, then I think that as long as we keep one day a week a holy day of rest then this is also okay.
Personally I choose to keep the Sabbath as a holy day of rest. I don’t mean to be argumentitive that’s just the way I see it…
Robert
Like I said in an earlier message, I believe that God cannot steer a parked car. Therefore I always try to keep an open mind (as best I can). I am still thinking and praying about what you said about John’s writings…
What makes you think they don’t?
James presents his message from the point of view of believers with a Jewish background, as Paul’s epistles are mainly addressed to believers with a Gentile background. But since we have the same spirit as they did, much of what James wrote can be applied to us as well.
Just because the commandments aren’t addressed to us doesn’t mean there is no need for the Old Testament. It is the OT that defines the foundation of the Kingdom of God and the Gospel which Jesus preached. We need it to understand what Jesus and the other NT writers were talking about.
I showed you what the Bible said was the purpose of God writing the commandments with His finger (Exod. 31:18 – “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.†They were a testimony or a witness that the Law was from God.
If it was meant to be separate from the rest of the Law, why was it not ratified separately? I know Robert insists it was, but reading Exod. 20-24 in context, you can see that the other ordinances were given to Moses, and he wrote them in the book along with the Ten commandments, and AFTERWARD the people agreed to and ratified “ALL THE WORDS that God had spoken.”
Throughout the Old Testament, various words are used to describe the Law – besides law, it is called God’s precepts, testimonies, ordinances, judgments, statutes, etc. All of those words are used interchangeably to refer to the Law, and NOWHERE is a distinction ever made between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law.
In addition, if the 10 Commandments were a separate Law from the rest of what Moses wrote, why did Jesus quote from laws both in and out of the Ten Commandments and make NO DISTINCTION? And for that matter, he said “My words shall not pass away.” He didn’t say the Law or the Ten Commandments would never pass away.
We can do better than that. We can keep EVERY day holy.
There is nothing wrong with setting a day aside for God. The only problem is teaching that a specific day is required.
“Robert
Like I said in an earlier message, I believe that God cannot steer a parked car. Therefore I always try to keep an open mind (as best I can). I am still thinking and praying about what you said about John’s writings… ”
Thomas
your open mind will steer you cause your not parked.
Your proving everything as true or false using the bible, not just following what i say. you shouldnt ever take a mans word unless it matches Gods word
you have also help me in many ways so thank you
Dear Thomas,
You wrote:
I would see no reason to disagree with that statement: it agrees perfectly with “God was manifest in the flesh.” Are you sure that you didn’t misinterpret something else I said, in response to something else?
That would be a different thread then.
Thomas wrote:
When you ask a question has been used as a “trick question” in the past, it’s not unreasonable to expect either a lengthier response, scriptural demonstrations, or an analogy to demonstrate the feasibility of the answer. You may even be answered with a question.
That’s not obfuscation, that’s guarding against the wave of attacks that’s sure to follow: not necessarily from you, but …
I would like to apologize for the parrot remark.
No offense taken.
If I have actually been “parroting” someone else, please point this out to me, and show me why, but it would be a lot less confusing if the comment stays in the original thread.
Take care,
-Andrew
They are addressed to Christians living in Rome or Galatia in the 1st century, far removed from out setting. (By the way, I’m not saying I believe that they don’t apply to us, I just want to hear your reasons.)
So not all of James? Just the parts that agree with Paul?
The Torah has the same spirit as Paul and James also, since the same God inspired all three right? Yet, two are applied and one ignored.
But the OT shadows like circumcision are re-interpreted in a purely spiritual manner by Paul, so why should the kingdom but understood in a fleshly OT manner?
In light of the NT, OT definitions are meaningless. It wasn’t written to us anyways, right? It was written to national Israel who did not grasp its spiritual significance.
Hello Doubting Thomas, you wrote:
I’m sorry if I haven’t been too clear. I don’t think the 10 commandments were a distinct revelation from the Torah. Rather, I believe that they are a summary of the Torah, or perhaps the most important parts of the Torah. I do agree with Mark that the 10 commandments (just like the Torah) was given specifically to Israel. However, I think that the Torah may have relevance to us because we are grafted into Israel. Mark agrees that we were grafted in, but denies any relevance for Torah on the modern Christian.
Karl
the points you made were valid and i think thats what Thomas is reference to you, but then again your position was vague and Thomas had not known your postion as i did and other who have read other post of yours.
anyway no harm was done
Karl
Thank-you for clarifying your position.
How does Moses speaking of a prophet “like me” (Moses) and “from the midst of thee,” and “from among your brethren” agree with your claim that “God was manifest in the flesh”?
Mark C. (msg. 391)
It seems to me that there were only 10 commandments that God spoke with his own voice from the mountain for all the people to hear. Then afterward it was only these same 10 commandments that he chose to write into the stone tablets.
This demonstrates (to me anywaze) that these particular commandments are distinct and separate from the rest of the law that was ratified at Horeb. Even if you don’t agree with me you must agree that they are certainly the most important of God’s laws.
Romans is addressed “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” We are also “beloved of God, called to be saints,” so the only difference is “all that be in Rome.” But there is nothing specific to being in Rome in the epistle. It speaks in broad enough terms that can be applied to any believers.
I Corinthians is addressed “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:” I think that last part speaks for itself.
II Corinthians is addressed “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia.” Again, there is nothing in it that cannot be applied to the rest of the Church.
Galatians is addressed “unto the churches of Galatia.” But since the other epistles were intended to be circulated, why assume this one was not? And more importantly, it deals with issues that can certainly be relevant to any other church that has similar issues.
Ephesians is addressed “to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.” Like I Corinthians, the last part speaks for itself.
Philippians is addressed “to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”
Colossians is addressed “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse.”
I Thessalonians is addressed “unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
II Thessalonians is addressed “unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
In all these cases, I think it can be seen from the nature and content of the message that they are not limited specifically to just the local church and cannot be applied to any other church that has similar issues. If they were, why would God have had them circulated and preserved and included in the canon of the NT? (Assuming you believe God had His hand on those things.)
Perhaps “much of” was not the best choice of words. To be honest, since I haven’t memorized the entire epistle, I couldn’t say with 100% certainty that there is nothing in James that contradicts Paul, but as far as I am aware there is not. And you can tell from the wording in James that he is addressing Christian brethren, but some of his wording is more geared to things that Jews would understand (as is Hebrews), while Paul’s are worded in ways that Gentiles can understand. But the doctrine and principles in Paul or James do not contradict each other or the words of Jesus.
No. The Holy Spirit that was given to the Church is more closely aligned with the risen Christ, and is the means by which Christ indwells us. And the “seed” with which we are born again is in common among Christians, but was not in the Old Testament.
Not ignored. We learn the foundations of God’s plan from it, and many other things. We just recognize that the commandments of the Law were addressed to Israel, not to all mankind.
Because the NT specifically tells us of the changes in circumcision, and the sacrifices, and the Temple, and how they are spiritually re-interpreted. But there is no such instruction that the Kingdom is now redefined. On the contrary, there are many references in the NT that indicate the real hope of a kingdom on earth as Jesus taught it.
OT definitions are far from meaningless. They are the foundation on which the gospel that Jesus preached is built. It was written to all Israel at the time; some grasped the significance and some didn’t. But many of the prophecies still came to pass when Messiah came along, and the others are still to come.
To Doubting Thomas, you wrote:
I don’t deny that it has relevance. It is relevant, just not in the sense that we are expected to keep the letter of the Mosaic Law. We are grafted into Israel in the sense of being God’s people and partaking of the promises to Abraham. But the Mosaic Law was a temporary measure until Messiah came.
“Because the NT specifically tells us of the changes in circumcision.”
Mark
where do you see there was a change in circumcision, this was a fleshy sign that you were the seed of Abraham. Gentile were never giving such a sign unless they wanted to be an Israelite
circumcision of the heart was a spiritual sign you were a child of God and is throught out the OT and was for all not just Israel
But what about the points I made in comment 391?
*Exod. 31:18 tells us why God gave the stone tables – to be a testimony or a witness that the Law was from God.
*If it was meant to be separate from the rest of the Law, why was it not ratified separately?
* NOWHERE in the OT is a distinction ever made between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law.
* Why did Jesus quote from laws both in and out of the Ten Commandments and make NO DISTINCTION?
* Jesus said “My words shall not pass away.†He didn’t say the Law or the Ten Commandments would never pass away.
I agree the 10 commandments are the most important, or perhaps a better term would be, they are the most basic. But the specifics of them were never meant to be universal. I showed you the verses that said the Sabbath was meant for a sign of Israel’s unique relationship with God. And what about graven images?
“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth.”
Are we to never make any images today? Are all artists sinners then?
There is certainly value to several of the commandments, such as having no false Gods, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, honoring our parents, and not killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, or coveting. But if we observe the two great commandments – Love God and Love your neighbor – we will do those and more, but out of love rather than out of necessity.
Are we to never make any images today? Are all artists sinners then?
Do they put Gods name on it or worship it as a god, if so THEN YES
” But if we observe the two great commandments”
The two great commandments was a summary of all 10 Commandments not a change
I didn’t say Gentiles were given that sign. Paul refers to the fact that circumcision of the heart was what mattered and not physical circumcision.
I don’t see where circumcision of the heart in the OT was a spiritual sign you were a child of God, nor it being for all not just Israel. The phrase only occurs three times in the OT, and two of them are commands to Israel to do so and not be stiff-necked. The third is also to Israel, saying “the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart.”
Since circumcision of the heart is a figurative term that refers to literal circumcision, it wouldn’t make any sense to speak of circumcising the heart to people that didn’t practice physical circumcision.
But that’s not what the original commandment said. Deut. 5:8 – “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth.”
The next verse goes on to say, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them…” But verse 8 doesn’t say that they could make images that weren’t for worshiping. It says don’t make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing. Today, we still are not to make images that are for idolatrous purposes, but we are free from the letter of the law that says don’t make any images.
Yes, and if we obey them, we will automatically fulfill the Law, for love is the fulfilling of the Law.
So What about my question
where do you see there was a change in circumcision?
plus if you were give a summary of the 10 Commandment what would they be?
The only ones that might be interpreted as being to more than a specific congregation are 1 Cor. and Ephesians. The nature of the letters is that they are addressing specific issues to those communities, not to our communities today.
Why would God have the Nicean creed circulated and preserved over Unitarianism? Nicea must be inspired.
Let me get this straight. The there are two holy spirits, one given to Moses and another to the church? One is closer to Christ than the other?
But kingdom, Zion and Jerusalem are all changed too:
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God” Heb. 12:22.
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, (Col. 1:13) (notice the use of the past tense)
Does Paul ever indicate an earthly kingdom?
But the prophets only prophesy until John, not after. How do you extend the OT prophesies beyond the 1st cent.?
Exactly, so as far as it concerns practical living, it is irrelevant and to be ignored.
I answered both of them in the last comment.
Change of circumcision is in Paul’s epistles (1st paragraph).
Summary of the whole law (not just the 10 comm.) is Love God and Love your neighbor. That’s what Jesus said.
You answered neither
so i will ask again
this time answer the question i ask without adding to my question
“plus if you were give a summary of the 10 Commandment what would they be? ”
I will answer it and if any disagree then let me know
Love God and Love thy neighbor
If any would summarize the mosaic law?
i will answer this too and any disagree let me know.
The 10 Commandments
That because they were based on them
I disagree. They deal with issues that any church can have, and so any church that has them can benefit from how Paul dealt with them. What issues do they deal with that are not relevant to our churches today?
It wasn’t preserved in the canon of Scriptures.
Not two holy spirits, but there is definitely a difference between the holy spirit in the OT and what came after Pentecost. Plus, at least Paul said he was speaking by revelation of Jesus Christ. There is a difference between the holy spirit of the OT and the spirit whereby Christ indwells us as believers.
The short answers:
* “Heavenly Jerusalem,” like “heavenly kingdom” does not refer to its location but its source.
* The term “kingdom of God” has a few different meanings, including a reference to the period of anticipation and preparation for it. But there are many references throughout the NT which demonstrate that a literal kingdom on earth is still God’s ultimate goal.
* Paul preached the Kingdom of God throughout Acts. He also mentions our inheritance, being partakers of the promises to Abraham, and several other things that tie in.
For longer answers – Please read the section, Kingdom Come on my website.
“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached” (Luke 16:16). But that doesn’t mean that everything was fulfilled before John, or else none of the prophesies about Jesus’ death and resurrection would be included.
We can learn of God’s love and mercy, His power and majesty, His working in history, and especially the elements of the Law that foreshadowed Jesus Christ are important for us to understand what Jesus did for us. So I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant and to be ignored.
I answered them twice. I had answered them once in comment #404, and then when you said I hadn’t answered, I answered again in comment #407.
Mark C.
Just because it was a witness or a testimony that the law was from God does not mean you can infer that it is not distinct and separate from the rest of the law. It is just proof of the origin of both the 10 commandments and all the rest of the law that was revealed to Moses (at least that’s how I see it).
You said, “If it was distinct, why was it not ratified separately?”
I don’t see why two things could not be ratified at the same time.
You also said, “Nowhere in the OT is a distinction ever made between the 10 commandments and the law.”
Like I pointed out. Out of all the law there were only 10 commandments that God both spoke audibly to the people and wrote down in stone for everyone to see. All the rest was just told to Moses privately with no witness’ or proof that they came from God which shows they are not as important in God’s eyes and are distinct and separate from the 10 commandments. (At least that’s the way I see it).
You also said, “Jesus said, ‘my words shall not pass away’. He didn’t say the 10 commandments would not pass away.”
He didn’t say they would pass away either. He said that he did not come to destroy the law, or to change one stroke or letter of the law. I believe he is referring to the 10 commandments. The council of Jerusalem would seem to indicate that we as Gentiles are not to be burdened with the rest of the law. Only Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews would still be required to follow the rest of the law.
Jesus also said anyone who teaches someone not to follow the least of these laws will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Certainly he was not saying we could teach someone not to follow the 10 Commandments.
I know you will say that Jesus said, “until everything is fulfilled.” But like I asked you before, “How do we know what he meant by this statement?” To me it is open to interpretation. Robert and I interpret it differently. I’m not trying to impose my beliefs about the Sabbath on you or anyone else. I am just saying that because of my beliefs I choose to honor the Sabbath (mainly by resting from my usual work during the week and trying to be close with God).
You also said, “Are we never to make any images today? Are artists sinners then?”
I thought God was saying, “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth.” And worship it (like Idols) as if it were God.
I get this from the the first commandment that says, “You shall have no other Gods before me.” It seems to me that this second commandment is an extension of the first commandment that comes right before it because it continues at the end of the second commandment to say, “You shall not bow to them and serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, etc…”
No mark you danced around them
Robert, I answered your questions twice. Here it is again:
You: where do you see there was a change in circumcision?
Me: Change of circumcision is in Paul’s epistles
You: if you were give a summary of the 10 Commandment what would they be?
Me: Summary of the whole law (not just the 10 comm.) is Love God and Love your neighbor. That’s what Jesus said.
I am not going to play this game again. If you have anything constructive to add, fine. If not, I will simply ignore your comments.
Mark
Do not make comments attacking my actions, this is no game and has never been.
Children play games and your comment is very belittling and does break the rules here.
Dear Representative of Mark,
The Representative of Mark wrote: [post 397]
I’m wondering why it would be considered contrary. Is this the verse to which you’re referring?
1. “like unto me” = Establishing a Covenant between God and men, to lead his people out from Egypt, to write the law in their hearts
2. “from the midst of thee” = from the midst of their people
3. “of thy brethren” = of the root and branch of Jesse
Rev 22:16 KJV
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
I had never encountered anyone who used this verse as a Unitarian proof-text before. The only way I can see this being used as against “God was manifest in the flesh” is going way overboard with “like unto me” in which case why not also:
1) That Prophet should be at least 80 years old
2) That Prophet should be married
3) That Prophet should be a literal Egyptian prince turned sheep herder
4) That Prophet should sin against God and be denied entrance into the Holy Land
5) That Prophet would have to get someone else to speak for him…
So I don’t think that’s what it means by “like unto me…”
Here are some similarities between Moses and Christ:
1) Both established a Covenant to identify God’s people
2) Both were ordered to be killed in their infancy, yet escaped
3) Both grew up in Egypt (or at least spent some of their childhood there)
Moses was also the mediator between the voice of God and Israel. God manifest in the flesh is a lot less scary than God thundering from Mount Sinai… is not Jesus also called the Mediator between God and men?
For crossover evidence, see John 5:22 “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” also Acts 10:42, also 2 Ti 4:1 “…before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;”
* * *
I would like to go back to a comparison of Moses and Jesus.
Moses was born from the people of Israel, by normal means, and led Israel out of Egypt, later forming a nation out of them, and instituting a covenant with them as a people, giving them a law (a law which had not been given to their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) This covenant required the blood of bulls and goats are a continual reminder of their sins.
Jesus was born from the people of Israel, though by divine means, and leads a spiritual Israel out of spiritual Egypt, and shall form a nation out of them, and institutes a New Covenant with his own blood, as a final ultimate reminder of the ultimate forgiveness of sins. Unlike the first covenant, this is offered freely to all peoples, to the Gentiles, and to whomever thirsts.
This is not a contradiction in the scriptures, this is according to the scriptures. This is where “like unto me” becomes very important: Moses does not overrule Jesus.
Moses brought a “new law” to Israel which their fathers had not known. If Jesus was a Prophet “like unto” Moses, then he also has the power to nullify what was created through Moses.
This is where I think it is important to make sure there is not confusion about “the Law of God” and “the Law of Moses” and “the law and the prophets”
1) The Law [of God] is “love God’ and “love thy neighbor” – and this has always been the law, and will always be the law. All other commandments will always fall under these (see Matt 22:36-40) If you love God, you will obey his [other] commandments.
2) The Law [of Moses] falls underneath these two laws, including clean and unclean meats, the Sabbath days, the holy days, etc. Just because there is a law that “Thou shalt not commit adultery” does not mean that it was “lawful” to commit adultery before.
3) “the law” and “the law and the prophets” can also mean the Old Testament in written form, so there should be care to read this according to context.
I know this makes for a long post, but I’d like to counter a potential objection by showing where God prophesied that he would break his covenant with Israel:
Zec 11:10-12 KJV
(10) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
(11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
(12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
The timing of this broken covenant is meshed in with a Messianic prophecy, the thirty pieces of silver. And, as the Oneness representative, I’d point out that:
“saith the LORD” (verse 6)
“I will feed” (verse 7)
“I cut off” (verse 8)
“I will not feed you” (verse 9)
“my covenant” and “which I had made” (verse 10)
“give me my price” and “for my price” (verse 12)
It looks like they priced the LORD with those 30 pieces of silver. In fact, if you look ahead one verse, the LORD was prized at 30 pieces of silver, for certain (meaning that it was not Zechariah that was prized):
Zec 11:13-14 KJV
(13) And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
(14) Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
Beauty would be the covenant with Israel, and Bands would be the covenant with Judah.
There’s both covenants broken with the crucifixion, prophesied in the Old Testament, bundled up with the LORD being prized at 30 pieces of silver. It’s actually hard to separate these two topics.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew,
I agree with everything you said about the Law and about the similarities between Jesus and Moses. I would only add that since Moses said “…from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me…” that it seems to imply that it would be a man, not God in human form. This is also strongly implied by verse 18 of the same chapter. “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” That sounds to me like he and God would be two separate beings. But you’ll probably disagree. 🙂
Robert
I was thinking about what you said about if Paul helped John in writing the book of John that might explain why almost 75% of the book of John matches perfectly with the letters of Paul.
From what I understand Paul died shortly after Peter around 70A.D. or so. The book of John wasn’t written until the near the end of the 1st. century plus it still doesn’t explain why an eyewitness to the events he wrote about (John) would have to depend on the writings of Paul (who was not an eyewitness to these events).
I think it is clear that if Jesus had raised someone from the dead that was dead and buried for 3 days that this would have been the greatest miracle that he performed. But like I pointed out the synoptics say that Jesus only raised 3 people from the dead and they were all dead a very short time.
The book of John says Jesus raised 4 people from the dead and the 4th. Lazarus was dead and buried for 3 days. John also seems to tell a completely different story than the synoptics. Like I said other than the names of various people and a few of Jesus’ well known sayings nothing in the book of John matches with the synoptics.
If they were telling the same story you would expect parts of the story to match each other (Like the synoptics which are about 75% the same as one another). When I look in my concordance at when John is talking about the same subject as the synoptics nothing matches. The stories that John tells are different.
Because almost 75% of the book of John matches perfectly with the writings of Paul I can’t help but believe that John must have been a follower of Paul who based his book on the writings of Paul. (Like I said only about 2 or 3% of the synoptics match the letters of Paul).
I realize that my beliefs are not common but I don’t think that in itself proves me wrong…
Dear Robert,
May I please field your question? (Is it an open question?)
robert wrote:
1) prophesied in Zechariah 11:10 and Zechariah 11:14, when the LORD breaks his covenant with the people, even Judah and Israel.
2) Approved by God, who gave the gift of the Holy Ghost unto the Gentiles, in the presence of Peter and other Jews
Act 10:44-47 KJV
(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
(45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
(47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
3) Thus recognized by Peter, in the reference in Acts, above, who called for the men to be baptized, not circumcised.
4) Further emphasized and explained in the epistles of Paul, when the word “circumcision” also has a meaning of “those who were raised Jewish” … see the attached verses on “circumcision”
For your second question:
Robert wrote:
I have also answered “love God” and “love thy neighbor” but it seems to me to be a “For Dummies” version. It falls beneath “Love God and Love thy neighbor” but it doesn’t encompass it.
Robert wrote:
I tried to answer the question thoroughly. Summarizing:
1) Zechariah (prophecy)
2) the act of God (the gift of the Holy Ghost)
3) Peter (baptism, not circumcision)
4) Paul (physical circumcision profits nothing)
Take care,
-Andrew
Thomas
we have no idea when The gospel of John was wrote but its is widely held that he died around the turn of the century.
Paul still could of played a part in Johns gospel but thats just a stretch.
I am not sure why John seen things so differently but i am with you that someone was influencing his account in the gospel but i cant discount all of his writtings.
I dont have a problem with your belief because all that you base your belief on should feel comfortable to you and if it doesnt you need to find out why.
i havent spent much time with problems in Johns gospel but knew they existed.
but with Paul i have research nearly nonstop for a year and am very comfortable with my belief there.
Robert wrote:
…this is no game and has never been.
Andrew this wasnt adressed to you, it was adressing an accussation that i was playing a game and had done that before. a statement that was meant to belittle.
as for the question about the change about circumcision there was no change just a explaination by paul and others that circumcision was never a salvation issue and was never to be for a gentile who wasnt the seed of Abraham
Robert
I should clarify that I don’t believe everything Paul said was false. I’m sure there is some truth in his writings as well but because I cannot tell which parts of Paul’s writings are true I decided a long time ago that it would be better if I just didn’t study them at all.
Like I said, when I eliminate the writings of Paul and John I get a very clear message of what Jesus said, did and taught with no ambiguities or contradictions. I also get a very clear Unitarian view of God and his son Jesus the Messiah.
I only infer that that is the only stated reason for the 10 com. to be written on the stone tablets. That they are a separate law for all mankind is being inferred from the fact they were written in stone, but the Bible never explicitly says that.
A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The covenant that was ratified at Horeb was between God and the children of Israel, and included “ALL the words that God had spoken, including the 10 comm. Robert has claimed that the 10 comm. are not only a separate law, but made with all mankind and not just Israel, which is the basis for the claim that the 10 comm. are still binding. But if you read Exod. 19-20 and Deut. 5, you see that the covenant was between Israel and God, and no one else. Robert also claimed that the second covenant made at Moab, described in Deut. 29, was the only one that contained ordinances other than the 10 comm. Again, reading Exod. 19-24 and Deut. 5ff shows this to not be case.
They were told to Moses in private, but he wrote them in the book, and read it to the people, and they agreed to obey “ALL of the words that the LORD had spoken” – with no hint that the 10 comm. were meant to be separate.
And all throughout the rest of the Old Testament the Law is referred to by several terms, and nowhere is it ever hinted that the 10 comm. were separate. It was always the Law as a whole.
But as I mentioned (which you didn’t comment on), he quoted from both inside and outside of the 10 comm. and made no distinction.
Matt. 19:
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
* “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is not one of the Ten Commandments, it is from Leviticus 19:18. (We hadn’t even talked about Leviticus. That was full of ordinances, but was way before the renewed covenant at Moab in Deut. 29.)
Mark 10:
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
* “Defraud not” is also not one of the Ten Commandments. It’s from Leviticus 19:13.
Mark 7:
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
* “He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death” is from Exod. 21:17. This is among the judgments that God gave Moses after the Ten Commandments, which Moses wrote and read to the people in Exod. 24. It’s also in Leviticus 20:9. Moses is here credited with one of the Ten Commandments
and a commandment that is elsewhere in the Law, and there is NO DISTINCTION MADE. Both are called “the commandment of God” in verse 9.
Then you have division between Jews and Gentiles, rather than one body. But that’s from Paul, so you don’t accept that anyway. And Hebrews details why the Jews are also no longer under the Old Covenant because the New Covenant is better.
No, he didn’t say we could teach someone not to follow the 10 Commandments. But he said that the heart was what really mattered more than the letter. Looking on a woman with lust is as bad as adultery, and thinking evil is as bad as murder. He could not have been certifying the 10 Commandments, or else nobody could be saved. Walking by the spirit in love fulfills the Law, not trying to keep it by our own ability.
I don’t think it’s open to interpretation when Jesus, Paul and James all agree that love is the fulfilling of the Law.
Like I said, there’s nothing wrong with setting aside a day for God if you want to. The problem comes when people say we have to. God is not interested in people doing stuff because they have to – He wants our hearts.
The first commandment does say “You shall have no other Gods before me.†But this one doesn’t say “make no images for idols, but other images are OK.”
Exod. 20:
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them…
Deut. 5:
8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them…
In those days, they would be too likely to worship any graven image they made, so God told them not to make any. We have the freedom to make images as long as we don’t worship them.
Thomas
i have no problem with that because you still have sound doctrine without it .
If you need anything or want to share something i wil be around
Dear Representative of Mark,
“Man” and “human form” are synonyms.
I’m going to surprise you here and agree with you on something:
And I agree with this:
1) I agree that it certainly sounds like (to you) like two separate people
2) I agree that this is the normal reading that anyone would make, from reading this prophecy, without additional context
Also see Acts 3:22, Acts 7:37
However, if someone were to claim that this is a proof that God and this Prophet were two separate beings, I would then disagree.
A prophet is one who prophecies, meaning, one who speaks the words of the LORD, in the name of the LORD. A false prophet is one who lies in the name of the LORD.
I did a lot of searching to define “prophesy” (by scripture) and what I found that prophets always prophesied in the name of the LORD. Here, Jesus says that in the day of judgment, they will claim that they prophesied in his name.
I actually have Thomas to thank for finding this: it was his reference to the “Sermon on the Mount” that got my attention. Why would Jesus say that these people would be prophesying in his name?
I think that Jesus was speaking to the Hebrews who knew that prophets prophesied in the name of the LORD. No wonder the people were astonished, and said he taught as one having authority…
Back to our point of last agreement : I agree the prophecy from Deuteronomy certainly sounds like two people, but I reserve the right for God to be indirect when prophesying far in advance. It’s important to note the exact words used, and not make assumptions. For example:
Joh 21:22-23 KJV
(22) Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
(23) Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
That’s an example where it sounded like Jesus was saying that John would tarry until he came… but they read too much into it.
Take care,
-Andrew
Thomas,
John wrote his Gospel quite some time after the Synoptics. Since there were already three Synoptics that related many of the same things, there was no reason for John to rehash the same material. Being an eyewitness he told of things that the others didn’t deal with (except for the few things that he has in common with them). But what John wrote is additional to, not contradictory of, the Synoptics.
His particular reason for writing it is given in John 20:31 – “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” His particular emphasis is on the signs and miracles that proved Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.
The synoptics didn’t say he raised ONLY three people and no more. They couldn’t tell of everything he did – even John said “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). As for what would be the “greatest miracle” – that’s really just speculation. The Bible never says that. Some might say the Transfiguration was “bigger.” And of course the Bible tells us that the main proof that Jesus was the Messiah was the resurrection, which is in all four Gospels.
You said almost 75% of John matches perfectly with Paul. I’d be curious to know what in John you think matches Paul, especially that which also contradicts the Synoptics.
And you also say only 2 or 3% of the Synoptics matches Paul. I’d be curious to know what else you think contradicts, besides the matter of the Law.
You said, “I realize that my beliefs are not common but I don’t think that in itself proves me wrong…” Certainly not. Most of the beliefs we on this blog hold are not common. But we must always make the Scriptures our standard.
Dear Robert,
I know that the “this is not game” was not address to me. I was just taking it at face value, not as a rebuke, meaning that you were sincere, that is, serious about the discussion.
Robert wrote:
May I ask a couple questions please? I’ll start with a real easy one, which leads into the next two:
1) May Gentiles be saved, even if they were physically circumcised when they were an infant?
2) May the seed of Abraham be saved, even if they are never physically circumcised?
3) How can you tell if you’re physically of the seed of Abraham? We’ve been so scattered today, how could anyone be certain?
And one final question:
4) In the case of those of Gentile birth that were circumcised, do you consider them bound under the Law of Moses? In this case, does this only apply to males?
Short answer is OK: I’m hoping that these questions will explain how I’m thinking, but I would like to see your answers.
It seems to me that anyone that did not live under the Old Covenant would be counted as “Gentile” regardless of their physical lineage. Gentiles were uncircumcised, so therefore, if you were uncircumcised, you were Gentile.
Take care,
-Andrew
Mark C. (msg. 423)
You said, “That they are a separate law for all mankind because they were written in stone is inferred, but the bible never explicitly says that.”
That is quite correct. This is just my interpretation.
You also said, “you see the covenant was between God and Israel and no one else”
At this time it did not apply to anyone else but like Karl pointed out we were grafted on to Israel (spiritually). So you can see how someone else might interpret this differently. I’m not claiming that I could not be wrong. I’m just saying that after a lot of thought I’ve decided that for me this seems like the logical way to interpret it.
You also said, “They were told to Moses in private, but he wrote them in a book, and read it to the people, and they agreed to obey ‘All of the words that the lord had spoken.’ – with no hint that the 10 commandments were to be separate.”
For the Jewish people (or Jewish Christians) even to this day they are not separate. But the council of Jerusalem said that we Gentiles should not be burdened with the law but it was enough for us to follow the law of Noah.
It is Jesus’ statements that he didn’t come to destroy the law, or change one letter etc.. and that he said that whoever teaches anyone not to follow the least of these laws etc… that leads me to interpret this differently than you do. Like I said it is just my interpretation it doesn’t prove that you are wrong.
You also said, “But as I mentioned (which you didn’t comment on), he quoted from both inside and outside the 10 commandments and made no distinction.”
It would appear that Jesus is adding commandments such as “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and about defrauding etc… as special instructions that all Christians (Jewish and Gentile alike) are to follow. God must have wanted Jesus to specifically add these instructions for us to follow.
You also said, “He said that the heart was more important than the letter.”
I completely agree with you about the importance of listening to our hearts but would our hearts tell us it is wrong to eat blood for instance. Throughout many countries people eat blood pudding or are like the Scottish that believe Haggis (which is made from blood) is a delicacy eaten on special occasions.
We still need the 10 commandments, the law of Noah and the specific commandments that Jesus spoke of to guide us. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
You also said, “I don’t think it is open to interpretation when Jesus, Paul and James agree that love is fulfilling the law.”
Love is the fulfillment of the law. Jesus said, “Love your God with all your heart all your mind all your soul and all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
But is that what Jesus meant when he said until EVERYTHING is fulfilled. Matt 5:18 (ESV) “For truly, I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
The ESV translation actually uses the words “until all is accomplished.” Which would seem to indicate more than just the fulfillment of the law (by loving each other) is required. Love is a very important part but I think we need to have some guidance beyond just love.
That’s where the 10 commandments, Noah’s law and the specific commands of Jesus come in to guide us. (Of course all of this is just my opinion/interpretation).
Dear Doubting Thomas,
Under the Old Covenant, it was possible for a Gentile to place himself under that law, becoming a “Jew” – such was called a proselyte, putting himself under the circumcision, obeying the law of Moses, etc:
I want to ask you a question related to the proselyte. In simple terms, it was a Gentile who became a Jew.
Thomas wrote:
So, what I would like to put forth for consideration: what about conversion in the other direction? If a “Jew” left Israel either through his own will, or by being scattered and losing his heritage and traditions, no longer living under the law of Moses, wouldn’t his children be considered Gentile?
To put the question in more practical terms, how do you know that you’re not actually Jewish in descent, if you traced back far enough? Even if you know your family tree back to Adam, maybe someone else does not….
If Peter ate with the uncircumcised, going into their homes, this implies that he didn’t stop and say “Were these beans flavored with pork” or “was that cooked with lard” or “was this pan ever used to cook an unclean meat” or “Is this catfish?”
Those dietary laws were part of the law of Moses (see Leviticus 11) and as such, are representative of the entire Old Covenant law.
Did Peter consider himself under the law of Moses, if he was eating with the Gentiles? Or was he keeping a greater law, and a new commandment?
The Gentiles were no longer declared unclean, and neither did Gentile culture make the Gentiles unclean. Additionally, neither would Peter be unclean if he ate with the Gentiles (unclean meats, unclean cooking utensils, etc.)
Mar 7:13-15 KJV
(13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
(14) And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
(15) There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Take care,
-Andrew
questions from Andrew
1) May Gentiles be saved, even if they were physically circumcised when they were an infant?
doesnt matter
since circumcision was never a salvation issue
2) May the seed of Abraham be saved, even if they are never physically circumcised?
doesnt matter
since circumcision was never a salvation issue
3) How can you tell if you’re physically of the seed of Abraham? We’ve been so scattered today, how could anyone be certain?
I believe that i am the physical seed
And one final question:
4) In the case of those of Gentile birth that were circumcised, do you consider them bound under the Law of Moses? In this case, does this only apply to males?
Circumcision was a sign that you are the seed of Abraham and was giving 400 years before the conditions for being an Israelite citizen. circumcision was a condition of being an Israelite citizen in the Law of Moses and never a salvation issue
I dont feel anyone is bound by the law of Moses since there is no physical nation of Israel.
Andrew wrote
“It seems to me that anyone that did not live under the Old Covenant would be counted as “Gentile†regardless of their physical lineage. Gentiles were uncircumcised, so therefore, if you were uncircumcised, you were Gentile.”
Yes circumsion was a sign of Abraham physical seed and then a condition of citizenship. without circumcision you were forsaking both.
Circumcision was giving by God to Abraham for a certain reason for the multiplication of his people. Circumcision is a healthy thing.
I dont push the 10 commandments as a presalvation issue , but if i was to look for someone who was saved i would find them following them all and the testimony of Jesus
those who love God do God’s Commandments.
Mark C. (msg. 426)
You said, `Since there was already three synoptics that related many of the same things, there was no reason for John to rehash the same material.`
That`s what my friend Tim says as well. The synoptics say that Jesus was speaking in parables and that he didn`t open his mouth accept in parables. That`s one of the reasons why I don`t understand how the Book of John can be telling the story about the life and teachings of Jesus when it doesn`t even mention the word parable once. I`ve heard many people say to new Christians that if you want to understand Christianity just read the book of John and everything you basically need to know can be found in there.
I couldn`t disagree more.
You also said, `But what John wrote was in addition to, not contradictory of the synoptics.`
I see all kinds of contradictions. Like the synoptics say that on the day of judgment Jesus will be our judge. The book of John says that Jesus said he did not come to judge the world. The book of Acts says that Peter was the first person to bring the good news of the gospel to the Gentiles (Cornelius and his family).
The book of John says that Jesus was the first person to do this (the story of the Samaritan women at the well). I don`t understand why the Apostles would have been so shocked about Peter`s story of Cornelius and his family if Jesus had already done this before earlier. They should have known that the good news of the gospel was not meant to be just taught to the the Jews but apparently they were shocked when they found this out.
I can`t believe that all three writers of the synoptics just forgot to mention what I think is obviously the greatest miracle of all, the story of Lazurus (not sure of the spelling on that). I also think it is significant that the synoptics all agree that Jesus raised 3 people from the dead and the book of John says that he raised 4 people.
The book of John starts out by saying in the beginning was the word (before creation) and that the word became flesh in Jesus. This one verse seems to lead most of it`s readers to a Trinitarian point of view. People usually interpret this as meaning that Jesus pre-existed before his birth (at least that is what I have found from talking to people).
John`s story about the baptism of Jesus and how and when he first met the Apostles also seems to be different. Like I said when I look at my concordance whenever the Book of John is talking about the same subject as the synoptics, John seems to be telling a completely different story. In short almost nothing in the Book of John matches the synoptics. (This raises a huge red flag for me.)
If it increases your faith to read and study the writings of Paul and John than I don`t want to take that away from you or anybody else. I am just saying if I eliminate the writings of Paul and John, I get a very clear simple message of what Jesus said, taught and did with no ambiguities or apparent contradictions. There is not even the slightest hint that Jesus is God or pre-existed before his conception. This increases my faith that I can trust what I am reading to be accurate and reliable.
I don`t try to force my opinions on anyone. I just ask that people respect my right to interpret the scriptures my own way.
You also said that I said, `Almost 75% of the book of John matches the writings of Paul. I`d be curious to know what you think in John matches Paul. I`d be curious to know what else you think contradicts besides the matter of the law.`
I think I explained above what parts I think contradict. As for my comment that almost 75% of the book of John matches the writing of Paul. I get this from looking at my concordance at when the book of John is talking about the same subject as the letters of Paul and comparing it to the number of times the synoptics are talking about the same subject as the letters of Paul.
I realize that this is unscientific and that I am not a biblical scholar.
Now that I think about it, it would probably be more accurate to say that 75% of the letters of Paul seem to be reaffirmed in the writings of John rather than the other way around. I probably am not wording that right.
From looking at my concordance there are only a few times that the letters of Paul seem to be talking about the same subject as the synoptics. (I am just estimating it at 2 or 3%). There are a whole bunch of times that the book of John is talking about the same subject as the writings of Paul. Whereas there are very few times that the book of John is talking about the same subject as the synoptics.
I know this is unscientific and is just my own personal interpretation. Like I said I don`t try to force my personal opinions on anyone else. These things are just things that I believe God has revealed to me through my studies to help me increase my faith.
I find when I try to share my beliefs with other people they usually just call me a heretic and don`t want to talk to me anymore. My friend Tim and the people on this site seem to be the exception to the rule.
Thomas,
You mentioned several times that this is just your interpretation and you could be wrong. I trust you make it your goal to learn what the truth is. It is God’s desire that we be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4). Several times in Proverbs it refers to a way that seems right to a man, but is really not. God gave us His Word so we could know the truth, for “…no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (II Peter 1:20-21).
Some specific points:
We were grafted in spiritually. That is the point I am making. The New Covenant had to do with the Law being fulfilled spiritually in us, rather than trying to keep the letter of the Law.
It didn’t say it was enough for “us” to follow the law of Noah. They set those four rules in the letter to those Gentiles because they were things the Gentiles weren’t in the habit of observing and would be particularly grievous to the Jewish believers who were still zealous for the Law. If the 10 comm. were a separate law from the Mosaic Law that is still in effect after the Mosaic Law was done away with, as Robert claims, then why would the council not have enforced the 10 comm, rather than the four things from Noah’s time?
Remember the whole statement was, “I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.” How did he define this? First, he said our righteousness must be greater than that of the Pharisees, which means it must be based on love and the spirit, not wooden adherence to the letter. Then he went on to give specific examples, throughout the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
You missed my point. Jesus wasn’t just adding things that God wanted him to add. He quotes things both out of the 10 comm and the rest of the Law of Moses and makes no distinction, attributing them all to the Law of Moses. This proves that they are not separate laws.
This is an important point. No one can deny that the New Testament clearly says that the Law of Moses is no longer necessary because of what Jesus did. Even Robert agrees to this. But he (and others) claim that the Law of Moses is only the ordinances that Moses wrote, and not the Ten Commandments. But from Exodus and Deuteronomy, and from Jesus’ quotations of the Law, it can be seen that this is not the case.
I’m not talking about “listening to our hearts.” I’m talking about the ways of God being alive in our hearts, energized by the Holy Spirit, so that we walk a godly, Christlike life, without having to remember all those rules and regulations, which can never cover every possible situation anyway. And also so we can be judged by our heart even if we screw up. The letter of the law would condemn us, but the New Covenant allows us to have the righteousness of God without the Law.
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The dietary restrictions in the Law of Moses were meant for Israel at that time. There is nothing inherently “evil” about eating those things that the Law forbade. Blood sounds a little gross, but let’s consider some of the other restrictions, like pork and shellfish. Is it inherently immoral to eat them? No. They were forbidden by the Law to the Israelites. But Jesus taught that it is not what a person eats that defiles him but what comes out of his heart. Now Robert will agree that the dietary laws were part of the ordinances of Moses and were done away with, but the 10 comm. were not done away with. This is where it comes back to recognizing what was included in the Law. The Jews never made any distinction between the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
God’s will is that we have His ways and His nature in our hearts so we don’t need all these rules. We can learn from them to a point, but to consider them as laws addressed to us that are binding is to reject the New Covenant that Jesus established.
Love is the fulfillment of the Law, but not mere human love. Jesus taught the stricter standard with regard to many aspects of the Law (lust as bad as adultery, thinking evil as bad as murder, etc.). Man’s basic nature is sinful, so there had to be laws to guide him and sacrifices for when he broke them. But God wants more than that. That’s why in the OT He said he is more interested in mercy than sacrifice (which Jesus quoted two different times).
Jesus fulfilled the Law through his life and death, and by establishing the New Covenant. In that New Covenant the Law is spiritualized, and we are given commandments relative to that. Remember, Jesus said there was more than he had to tell the disciples but they couldn’t bear it yet. As I’ve said, if Paul’s epistles are not by revelation from Jesus, then where is the “all truth” that he said would be revealed when the holy spirit came? This is another important point that needs to be considered.
Mark
just because the 10 commandments were included within the Law of Moses doesnt mean that where they originated. we could included them within our civil law.
When God spoke and wrote the 10 commandments it was giving as a spiritual law and when Moses included them along with the civil law it was also spiritual and other spiritual aspects were added which Jesus would fulfill the purpose. but when Moses wrote the civil laws using the 10 commandments as a basis it was just for the nation.
the 10 commandments was an everlasting promise from God to have mercy on those that love him and those that do his commandments and that could be anyone or could be understood as spiritual Israel.
The Law of Moses pertains to physical nation of Israel and is still a good guideline for any nation
Mark C. (msg. 432)
You said, `I trust you make it your goal to know what the truth is.`
I am just like anyone else. We are ALL seeking the truth. Truth is relative to perception. Like I said earlier your perception effects how you interpret scripture. We are all (including me) effected by our preconceptions. I do try to be as open minded as possible. That`s why I usually don`t respond to your messages right away. I try to spend some time trying to digest what it is you are trying to say.
You also said, `It doesn`t say it is enough for us to follow the Law of Noah.`
Acts 16:28 `For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to Idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.`
I believe that because there is no mention of the 10 commandments that this indicates that they must already have been following them at this time.
You also said, `No one can deny that the New Testament clearly says that the law of Moses is no longer necessary because of what Jesus did. Even Robert agrees with this.`
That is because both you and Robert study the writings of Paul. I don`t understand how there could be this drastic reversal of the very foundation of the Jewish faith (the 10 commandments) and there is no trace of this outside of the writings of Paul. Why is there no mention of this in the 3 synoptics which were written long after Paul`s letters and no mention of it in 1st. Peter, James or Acts.
Acts actually says in two different places that there is a limited dietary law (Noah`s law) which continues to apply to the Gentile converts which contradicts what Paul said.
From what I understand biblical scholars just dismiss Luke as being mistaken because his account of Paul`s visit to Jerusalem and his statements about Noah`s law still applying to the Gentiles contradicts what Paul said.
All the experts will tell you that Paul is the greatest of the Apostles and if Luke contradicts him you must dismiss those parts of Luke as not being accurate. Whereas I look at it the other way around and dismiss what Paul says as being inaccurate. Like I said this is just my own personal interpretation (opinion) and I am not trying to force my views on anybody.
First of all, John does use the word “parable” once, in John 10:6. Secondly, it doesn’t say that Jesus never spoke to anyone without a parable. It says that he only spoke in parables to the “multitudes” (Matt. 13:34; Mark 4:1, 34), but when he was alone with his disciples, he expounded the parables to them, saying that it was given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom (Matt. 13:11-13; Luke 8:10). John’s purpose for writing was different. He wasn’t talking so much about what Jesus taught concerning the mysteries of the Kingdom, but focusing on the proofs that Jesus was the Son of God. That’s why he only mentions parables once.
I agree with you, though not for the same reason. I don’t think John’s Gospel is invalid, but it is more difficult, with more complicated language that is frequently misunderstood. I wouldn’t advise a new Christian to start with John, but I wouldn’t tell they should never read it either.
Interestingly enough (and I didn’t see this before I looked it up today), Jesus never says in the synoptics that he will judge. It mentions “the judgment” and “Sending forth judgment” and it mentions Jesus coming in his glory and sitting on the throne, and separating the sheep from the goats, but it doesn’t actually say he will judge, in the synoptics.
Now in John, it says:
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
John 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:15-16 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
John 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
John 12:47-48 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Jesus will execute judgment in the Day of Judgment, but it will not be His own judgment, but the judgment of the Word of God that he speaks. So there is no contradiction.
First of all, the woman at the well was a Samaritan. They were half-Jews, and considered “second class” by full Jews, but they were not as unclean as full-blooded Gentiles. Secondly, Jesus only spoke the Gospel that he was preaching to everyone else, whereas when Peter preached to the house of Cornelius, he preached the full Gospel, including remission of sins in Jesus’ name. The house of Cornelius were the first Gentiles to be born again and become part of the Church, since that was not yet available when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman.
The Synoptics didn’t “forget” to mention Lazarus. None of the four Gospels included everything that Jesus did – they couldn’t. There were various reasons for what was included or not included. Albert Barnes’ commentary on the NT has this interesting observation:
The reference he mentions is:
John 12:10-11 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.
Also, while the Synoptics record three occasions of Jesus raising someone from the dead, there is no verse that says he only did it three times.
While many people do misinterpret John’s Gospel, that isn’t John’s fault. It comes from approaching it with preconceived ideas, such as the logos being a person who pre-existed. If we read John’s Gospel without preconceived ideas, it presents Jesus as the Son of God with power given to him by God. John spells this out in the end of his Gospel:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
I assume the contradiction involving his baptism that you refer to is the fact that John says he didn’t know him until he saw the spirit descend upon him, whereas in Matthew John says, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” John did not absolutely know for certain that Jesus was the Messiah until he saw the spirit descend on him, but we can’t assume that this means he had no idea who Jesus was.
John 1:
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
So John knew who Jesus was, and that he claimed to be the Messiah, and John may have even believed it, but he absolutely knew when he saw the spirit descend on him, that this was the one who would baptize with holy spirit.
As for the apparent discrepancy about when Jesus met the disciples, I dealt with that before. In John, Andrew hears Jesus speak and goes and gets his brother Peter, saying, “We’ve found the Messiah.” In Matthew and Mark, it says that Jesus saw Peter and Andrew fishing, and said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” To be a fisher of men involves preaching the Gospel. He wouldn’t call someone he’d just met to do that. John records when they first meet, while Matthew and Luke records when he calls them to preach.
Like I’ve said, there are many things in John that aren’t in the Synptics and vice-versa, but if we look at them carefully we find that they are complementary, not contradictory. Do you have any other apparent contradictions we can discuss? I’m learning a lot by looking these up. Thanks for the stimulating discussion.
You may get a clear message without apparent contradictions, but you aren’t getting the whole Gospel. Jesus intended us to learn the deeper things that he revealed through Paul as well. He instituted the New Covenant – we don’t want to ignore that, or we’ll be rejecting the words of Jesus.
Could you give me some examples of things you feel John and Paul agree on?
I’m glad you can share your views openly and honestly so we can go to the Bible and search out the truth. Like I said, I’m learning a lot through this also.
Robert (msg. 432)
I forgot to comment on the last statement in your message.
You said, `If Paul`s epistles are not a revelation of Jesus, then where is the `all truth` that he said would be revealed when the Holy Spirit came.`
You are of course referring to what Jesus said in John. I believe John was a follower of Paul. Of course he`s going to have Jesus foretelling the arrival of Paul and his new mystic revelations. Why is this statement by Jesus not found outside of the writings of John.
(I was going to put a question mark at the end of that last question but every time I try to put a question mark I get É) I don`t even know what that letter is or what it`s used for. I find computers frustrating sometimes…. 🙂
Thomas
actually that was Marks statement
I appreciate that.
You missed the emphasis in my comment. I said that it doesn’t say for US to follow the law of Noah. They wrote the letter to those Gentiles at that time.
They couldn’t have been, because one of the things they charged them with was sexual immorality. If they were already observing the 10 comm they’d have been following the commandment against adultery.
I don’t understand why you keep saying this when Andrew and I both showed you indications of it in other books of the NT. Jesus said many things that began a change in the observation of the Law, and James and Hebrews both mention it specifically. Plus Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings as Scripture.
The charge to observe those four things were in order to keep the Gentile believers from offending the Jewish ones. The following is from the Family New Testament Notes:
It couldn’t have contradicted what Paul said, because Paul was there and agreed to the council’s decision.
Not all of the experts do this. Many of them recognize both Paul and Luke (as well as the other Gospels) to be in agreement, despite “apparent” contradictions.
I wouldn’t dismiss any book of the Bible without reading it and picking it apart in detail to be absolutely sure there were insurmountable contradictions.
I understand that. I haven’t thought you were trying to force your views on anyone. I am just exhorting you to carefully consider what Paul has written, since he claims to have written by revelation from Jesus, and Luke, Peter, and the rest of the Twelve all acknowledged him as an Apostle and one who was speaking for God. Like Gamaliel said in Acts, “If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
“They couldn’t have been, because one of the things they charged them with was sexual immorality. If they were already observing the 10 comm they’d have been following the commandment against adultery.”
sexual immorality can mean many things even homosexuality and group sex common amongst the pagan gentiles
Mark C.
You said, `John does use the word parable once in John 10:6`
I never noticed that before. But I must admit it has been years since I read John. You have given me a lot to think and pray about. I`m going to reread your message a few more times tonight and continue to ask for guidance in my prayers.
I think I will want to sleep on it before responding. I sometimes find that if I sleep on it and give it time then things seem clearer the next day.
Thanks for having patience with me and for being kind and respectful.
May the peace of God be on you and all of us…
OK, I’ll grant you that. But then, according to your view, that implies that adultery is the only form of sexual immorality that is universally prohibited by the Ten Commandments, while all other forms are not. It doesn’t seem logical that God would make such a distinction.
It still comes down to the definition of the Law. The letter said, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.” That would be very misleading if it meant we gave no commandment to keep the Law, but you do have to keep the Ten Commandments. Nobody in the Bible made such a distinction.
Mark
The 10 commandments are just about loving God and loving your neighbor
I think we can learn from the definitions in the Law of Moses but thats not what the promise is about
The 10 commandments are what the promise is about.
That would be very misleading if it meant we gave no commandment to keep the Law, but you do have to keep the Ten Commandments. Nobody in the Bible made such a distinction.
Yes they all did by teaching them to Love God and Love their Neighbor.
I’m not sure which “promise” you’re referring to, but the most frequent use of that phrase in the NT is the promise to Abraham, which is most definitely NOT about the Ten Commandments, but about righteousness by faith and not by law.
Rom. 4:
13Â For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14Â For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15Â Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16Â Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Notice it makes no mention of a a difference between the Ten Commandments and the written Law. Paul contrasts faith with “the Law” – all of it.
Love God and Love your neighbor is not in the Ten Commandments, it is in the written part of the Law which you claim is the part that’s only addressed to Israel. So how does that show the distinction?
Furthermore, speaking to Israel in Deut. 11:1, Moses said, “Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.” Notice it does not make any distinction between His commandments and His statutes, judgments, and charge. And that’s just one verse. There are many throughout the OT where these various terms are used interchangeably.
Can you provide any references that show such a distinction? (Other than the record of God giving the Law in Exodus 20-24 and Deut. 5ff that is, since I demonstrated that reading them in context shows no distinction.)
A general comment to all:
I find it so ironic that Mark implies that Doubting Thomas shares a Trinitarian bias…
In post 431, Doubting Thomas wrote:
I would like to note that I’ve found that many people who will call themselves “Trinitarian” are not actually Trinitarian. To day, I heard someone define the “Trinity” as “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – One Person.” I’m assuming Thomas is using the term as people apply it to themselves, regardless if they are truly “Trinity” or not.
In post 435, the Representative of Mark replied:
Yet this was the impression that Thomas reached from a plain reading of John, and he certainly has no preconceived bias that Jesus was a 2nd person of a Trinity.
There’s other reasons why anyone would have reason to understand that John is speaking as it sounded to Thomas:
Joh 6:62 KJV
(62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 8:57-59 KJV
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him…
I realize that both of those were from John, but it helps establish that Thomas is reading the first chapter in a normally understood sense.
You would also get a similar impression from reading the gospel of Luke:
Luk 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
To what event was Jesus referring? See Isaiah 14:12 …
I realize that this is a prophecy of John, but this also demonstrates that this event happened before the birth of Christ:
Rev 12:4 KJV
(4) And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Satan, Lucifer, and the dragon are the same (these three are one.) If Jesus beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven, and the dragon and his angels fell from heaven before Jesus was born, then doesn’t this at least hint that Jesus existed before his mortal birth?
I really shouldn’t need to point to Revelation to establish this timing issue: it is generally accepted that Satan fell from heaven a long long time ago, before Mary, before Abraham, and before Job. The statement from the gospel of Luke should be sufficient.
For the representative of Mark:
Thomas has not tried to pick John apart, nor has he tried to convert it to match his ideas. He does have his own ideas, but he has not tried to interpret John for his own purposes. This is a rare example of neutrality.
Thomas has stated that to him, it certainly appears that John supports the divinity of Christ. If he doesn’t consider the book of John as inspired scripture, he has no motive to try to interpret it in a Unitarian light.
So, I’m cashing his statement in. The book of John does say that Jesus is God.
to Doubting Thomas
I offer that just because John emphasizes the preexistence of Christ, this does not put it in conflict with the other gospel accounts (i.e. Luke 10:18).
Thank you for your patience, and your willingness to speak openly.
Take care,
-Andrew
Mark
The promise of Mercy(GRACE) within the 10 commandment ,an everlasting promise
(Other than the record of God giving the Law in Exodus 20-24 and Deut. 5ff that is, since I demonstrated that reading them in context shows no distinction.)
Mark
Are you sure YOU demonstrated or is that just your Faith in yourself because I dont see that you did.
all I see is a bunch of necessary explainations so what you believe can still exist
I implied no such thing. Thomas wrote:
He is referring to how MOST OF ITS READERS interpret it.
If you read it again, you’ll see that he didn’t say HE reached that conclusion. He said MOST READERS interpret it that way.
Once again you are interpreting “my commandments” as only the Ten Commandments. (“The 10 commandments are what the promise is about.”) It is in the context of a description of God:
Exod. 20:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
God shows mercy to them that love Him and keep His commandments. But which commandments people are supposed to obey depends on to whom the commandments are addressed.
More importantly, God’s mercy to them that love Him is not dependent on keeping His commandments.
Rom. 4:
3Â For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Â Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5Â But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
That’s not to say we don’t keep His commandments out of love and gratitude for His mercy and grace. But again, which commandments? For us, it’s the commandments of Jesus under the New Covenant.
What explanations? I gave the references to the Scriptures which speak for themselves. I even copied and pasted Deut. 5 in its entirety.
But there’s an easy enough way to prove your point. Show me any reference outside of Exodus 20-24 and Deut. 5ff that indicates that anyone in the Bible ever considered the Ten Commandments a separate law from what Moses wrote, and/or that they are addressed to all people rather than just Israel.
The people who heard God speak the 10 Commandment knew very well what Commandments God was refering to. Jesus Knew and i would guess that you do somewhere down deep in your heart.
the scriptures you quote dont support your claim, so you explain them using your belief to support it. you do that alot ,as alot of us has done at sometime.
we can form all kinds of doctrines that way
Robert,
Again I say, what explanation? All you have to do is read Exod 20-24 and Deut 5. How do they not support my claim?
My challenge still stands: Show me any reference outside of Exodus 20-24 and Deut. 5ff that indicates that anyone in the Bible ever considered the Ten Commandments a separate law from what Moses wrote, and/or that they are addressed to all people rather than just Israel.
“My challenge still stands: Show me any reference outside of Exodus 20-24 and Deut. 5ff that indicates that anyone in the Bible ever considered the Ten Commandments a separate law from what Moses wrote, and/or that they are addressed to all people rather than just Israel.”
Heres one
If they werent separate then when the second set was made God would of had him bring more sets of stone so all the others could be written by him in Stone but for some reason God didnt.
plus it was put in the ark with other spiritual things were kept.
God didnt even allow a copy of the laws of Moses to be inside the ark.. this is a very strong statement
So God is the first
Maybe you require a stronger witness.
As for the second part of your challenge it is adressed also here because what was put in to the ark was for the Abrahamic covenant which included all that believe and what was outside was for Israel’s covenant.
No matter how you try the 10 commandments were giving separate, writting separate twice and stored separate.
Just How separate do You want them.
What you see refered to is where the 10 commandments were also written on paper, Copied and included within the Law of Moses for Israel’s use so they could be blessed in the land.
There is a greater promise in the 10 commandments than physical Israel .
Deuteronomy 10
10At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. 2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. 3 And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. 4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, [1] which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me.
He wrote the same commandments on the second set of stones that were on the first, because He gave it as a testimony that the Law was from Him (Exod. 31:18).
All that proves is that there was special significance to the stone tablets that were written on with the finger of God, which I don’t dispute. What I do dispute is that it proves that the Ten Commandments were a SEPARATE LAW from the rest of the Law that Moses wrote. The stone tablets were inside the ark, but the book of the Law was kept on the side of the ark, and always referred to as the book of the Law, which includes the Ten Commandments.
Can you provide a reference for this claim? The Abrahamic covenant was before the Law, and had nothing to do with the Law, as Paul clearly tells us.
I don’t want them separate. But since you claim it was a separate Law from what Moses wrote, and addressed to all people not just Israel, you should be able to back that up with Scripture.
Before they were written, they were spoken. First the Ten Commandments in the sight of all Israel, and addressed to the people of Israel (Exod. 19:3,6,25, etc.). Then, after Israel said they couldn’t bear to hear the voice of the Lord (Ex. 20:19), God gave more laws to Moses (Exod. 20:22 – 23:33). This happened right after the Ten Commandments. Then Moses spoke God’s words to the people.
Exod 24:
3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Then he ratified the covenant in by sprinkling the blood on the altar and on the people. The covenant included all the words of the Lord..
Only after that did God give Moses the tables of stone,
Ex. 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
God still makes no distinction between the law and the commandments. We read the same thing in Deut. 5 and following. God speaks the Ten Commandments, the Jews are afraid, and then God gives Moses other Laws, and Moses writes it all down.
Deut. 5:31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
Deut. 6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
There is nothing in either record of the giving of the Law that says that the Ten Commandments were a different Law that was addressed to everyone, while the rest of the Law was addressed to Israel. Add to this the fact that Moses wrote other Laws in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and that all five books of Moses have ever since then been known as the Book of the Law, and the fact that nowhere in the rest of the Old or New Testaments is the Ten Commandments said to be a separate Law addressed to everyone, not just Israel. It’s just not there.
Can you provide Scripture that says this?
(That reference from Deut. 10 doesn’t say it.)
Notice that last part… The Lord spoke unto THEM – the people of Israel – and you can read that in Exodus too. It was to Israel. Nowhere is it ever said that they were to all people.
what was the pupose of your challenge when i did exactly what you asked then you explained them away by putting scriptures that had to be explained to fit your belief.
I met your challenge and conquered it in everyway you challenged
Dont challenge me again unless its going to be a honest one
Robert, how do you figure you met the challenge?
The first part of your post had no Scripture references, but only repeated your claim that the Ten Comm. being on tables of stone proved they are a separate Law.
The second part of your post made a further claim without Scriptural reference – “what was put in to the ark was for the Abrahamic covenant which included all that believe and what was outside was for Israel’s covenant.” There is no Scripture that says anything like that, and in fact many Scriptures that say the exact opposite – such as Paul’s writing about Abraham in Romans and Galatians.
The only Scripture you quoted at all in your post was that passage from Deut. 10 about the second tables of stone, which proves neither of the points I challenged you to prove.
Most if not all of your arguments about the Law and Commandments is built on the premise that the Ten Commandments were meant to be a separate Law for all people, separate from the rest of the Law of Moses. Can you provide any Scripture that says that?
Not only was there other nations there that might join themself to Israel there was some there considered enemies.
was the 10 commandments not spoken to them?
Did they see it as a law or promise
Exodus 32
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:
The problem is that you look upon the 10 commandments as a Law when it is only a promise.
it became a law when MOSES commanded the observance of it and wrote it in the Law
I knew better than this, thats why we agreed to disagree.
No more till i forget again
Dear Representative of Mark,
You wrote:
I figured you’d try to say something like that. Not only did I read his statement carefully, but I’m also remembering the context of his previous posts. For example,
Thomas wrote (post 276):
Thomas is admitting that the writings of Paul and John (including the gospel of John, 1st John, 2nd John, 3rd John, and Revelation) and even 2nd Peter at least “hint” that Jesus is God.
I also got the impression that it was mainly because of this Christ-theistic focus of John and Paul that Thomas rejected these authors as legitimate authors of scripture.
I may not agree with is logic, but his actions seem sincere. He isn’t trying to re-interpret the books to favor his beliefs. You and I (and pretty much everyone here) cannot honestly claim that we are reading these without a bias.
I realize that you want to persuade him, but you are trying persuade him of two things at one time:
1) That 2nd Peter, John, and Paul are authentic scripture
2) That John, and Paul don’t really say (or even hint at) that Jesus is God
It’s a little amusing, from my perspective.
I’m not going to try to convince Thomas of either of these points, unless he specifically asks me, by emailing me, etc. I’ve seen some neat stuff, but the “Unitarian” environment here wouldn’t like it, and I’m sick of the ad hominem heckling from the other thread.
Take care,
-Andrew
The only other “nations” that were there was the mixed multitude that went up with them (Ex. 12:38). After that Exodus still refers to “the children of Israel” but it could certainly include those strangers that had joined with them. But there were conditions. When the Passover was established, a stranger could only partake if he were cicumcised.
Ex. 12:42
43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
44 But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
…
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
In Exod. 19, it is still talking about “the children of Israel” and says:
1 In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Any strangers included in this group are ones that joined to Israel and agreed to abide by the ordinances that had been given so far – such as the Passover and the Sabbath. They then are included with Israel, when God speaks the Ten Commandments in chapter 20.
Ex. 20:
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
The words that God spoke audibly were addressed to those whom God had brought out of Egypt, including the children of Israel and any strangers among them that had joined to them and agreed to obey their laws. They are not to be confused with “all nations” or “Gentiles” which are not included in this first covenant.
Immediately after giving the Ten Commandments, it says:
Ex. 20:
18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
And it goes on to list many other ordinances through chapter 23, before they ratify the covenant in chapter 24. Do you see any indication that this was now addressing someone different than those to whom the Ten Commandments were addressed?
Likewise, In Deuteronomy, Moses relates the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the other laws, giving no indication that they were addressed to different groups of people. He adds more ordinances (in addition to what he had already added in Leviticus and Numbers) and then they ratify the covenant at Moab. The strangers among them are also included, provided they keep the law.
Deut 29:
10 Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,
11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;
15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:
Here is the covenant that binds the future generations of Israel, now that all of the laws have been written down in the Book of the Law. The strangers among them are included, but the nations that surround them are not.
Ex. 29:
16 (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt; and how we came through the nations which ye passed by;
17 And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them:)
18 Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;
19 And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:
20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.
They saw it as a covenant.
Ex. 24:
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
A covenant is an agreement. You keep referring to Ex. 20:6, “And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” As I said, God does show mercy to them that love Him and keep His commandments. But which commandments? You said, “The people who heard God speak the 10 Commandments knew very well what Commandments God was refering to.” That’s correct. And the people to whom those commandments were addressed were expected to obey them. But nowhere does it say that the Ten Commandments are addressed to all people.
Psalm 147:
19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.
They were shamed among their enemies. That is not talking about the strangers that were joined with them.
Again, there is no Scripture that says this. The Ten Commandments were part of the Old Covenant, addressed to Israel. If they kept the commandments and statutes God would bless them, if not they would be cursed. That’s what the Old Covenant is all about.
In contrast, the covenant God made with Abraham was not dependent on his works.
Galatians 3:
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
The New Covenant that Jesus established supersedes the Old Covenant, and ultimately fulfills the Abrahamic covenant, which overarches both Old and New.
< ------------Abrahamic Covenant--------------------------->
< -----Old Covenant--------> < ------New Covenant--------->
Mark i know about the strangers, you are forgetting I was the one to show you this. You had no idea till i pointed it out.
“They were shamed among their enemies. That is not talking about the strangers that were joined with them.’
My point exactly this was others not joined to them that saw.
the rest i will just ignore to keep the peace
I didn’t forget. I’m thankful for that learning.
They saw the shame of the Israelites. That doesn’t mean they had a part in the covenant that was made with the Israelites. The nations other than the strangers who were joined with Israel had no part in the first covenant (Psalm 147:19-20).
That’s your choice.
I don’t see why everyone continues to beat this dead horse. It is obvious in Zech. and the words of Jesus, that Jews and Gentiles will worship in the Kingdom, according to how Jesus had worshiped.
A couples examples…
Does anyone disagree that we will partake in passover in the Kingdom? If so, please explain you think not.
Does anyone disagree that we will be celebrating sukkot as stated in Zech.?
I don’t see it as a dead horse considering that Doubting Thomas is inquiring about the subject. If Robert (or anyone else) claims the Bible says something, they should be able to present Scripture to back it up.
How do you define “according to how Jesus worshiped”?
I see Sukkot (Feat of Booths/Tabernacles), but where do you see Passover in Zechariah?
Mark C. (msg. 435)
You said, “It doesn’t say that Jesus never spoke to anyone without a parable. It says that he ONLY spoke in parables to the “multitudes” (Matt 13:34 and Mark 4:1, 34) but when he was alone with his disciples, he expounded the parables to them, saying that it was given to them (only) to know the mysteries of the Kingdom (Matt. 11-13 and Luke 8:10)”
That’s what strikes me as so odd about the parable of the good shepherd in John. It seems out of character for Jesus to explain the meaning of the parable to the “multitudes”, like he does in John, whereas with all the parables in the synoptics Jesus ONLY explained these parables to his disciples and NOT to the multitudes.
There is really no point in speaking a parable to the multitudes if you are going to immediately turn around and explain to the multitudes the same parable in simple plain language right afterward. Why didn’t he just say it in simple plain language in the first place?
You also said, “First of all, the women at the well was a Samaritan. They were half-Jews, and considered “second class” by full Jews.”
Jesus repeatedly told his disciples not to go into the towns and villages of the Gentiles and the Samaritans when he sent them out to preach the good news of the gospel and the coming Kingdom. Why would Jesus break his own rule and preach the good news of the gospel and the coming Kingdom to a Samaritan women and her family?
You also said, “But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus to death; Because that by reason of him many Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.”
Indicating that the writers of the synoptics, wanted to keep the story of Lazarus a secret (in order to keep him safe), and therefore didn’t tell the story of Lazarus in their writings. If the chief priests already knew about the story of Lazarus, Who were the writers of the synoptics trying to keep this secret about Lazarus being raised from the dead from?
I’m sorry but your explanation just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
You also said, “I assume the contradiction involving his baptism that you refer to is the fact that John says he didn’t know him until he saw the spirit descend upon him, whereas in Mathew John says, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Clearly John the Baptist is shocked that Jesus came to him for baptism and that John recognized and knew who he was. I think it is obvious that John was not expecting that Jesus (the Christ/Messiah) would be doing this.
Whereas (John 1:33) “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”
In John apparently God told John the Baptist that he will be baptizing the Christ (or Messiah) and that he will know this when he sees the spirit descending and remaining on him that this same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
You also said, “Could you give me examples of things you feel John an Paul agree on.”
It will take me some time to go through my NIV study bible that I have and find all the quotations in it. Next to each chapter is a list of where you can find the same thing being talked about in other parts of the bible. I will try to make up a list this weekend when I have some time.
(msg. 438) You said, “You missed the emphasis in my comment. I said that it doesn’t say for US to follow the law of Noah. They wrote the letter to those Gentiles at that time.”
I believe that this is just an opinion open to interpretation. It doesn’t actually say that it only applies to those Gentiles at that time. You get that interpretation from your reading of Paul. (Which like you said some biblical scholars believe contradicts what is in Luke).
I don’t believe the law was completely eliminated for us Gentiles.
You also said, “I don’t understand why you keep saying this when I showed you indications of it in other books of the NT. Jesus said many things that began a change in the observation of the law, and James and Hebrews both mention it specifically. Plus Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings as scripture.”
There are explanations and then there are convincing explanations. It’s like when Robert seemed to be able to come up with reasonable explanations for all the doubts that I had. After several days of thinking and praying about it, the same red flags kept coming up, in effect they were still there. It didn’t feel right so in the end I wasn’t convinced.
You may have thought that you had convinced me but I still can’t think of anything in the 3 synoptics, 1st. Peter, James or Acts that would indicate that the law doesn’t apply anymore. Except in Acts where it says the Gentiles are not to be burdened by the full law but are only required to follow a limited (minimal) law as mentioned twice in Acts.
Yes Jesus did make some minor changes to the law in the sermon on the mount but he doesn’t indicate that the law no longer applies to us.
You keep talking about 2nd. Peter. I agree with most of the biblical scholars that say we can not know who wrote 2nd. Peter. Like I said 2nd. Peter says things like Paul is our brother in scripture, Paul’s a great guy, Paul’s writings are good, and you should read Paul’s letters.
It is the only letter in the bible not addressed to anyone specifically. I think it is obviously a reference letter meant to convince people that just before Peter died in Rome he reversed his teachings about the law and other matters.
You can see what Peter’s real teachings about the law were by looking at James and the elders of the Jerusalem church (which was founded by Peter and the Apostles and was based on their teachings) and what they said to Paul in Acts Chapter 21 verses 17-25.
Of course like I said all this is just my own personal opinion/interpretation.
Dear Thomas,
You wrote:
Where does Jesus explain the meaning of his parable where he says “I am the good shepherd?” Taken literally, it means he simply has sheep. Then when he speaks again, he says he is a “door” and others are thieves, or hirelings. and that he has other sheep.
Even today there is some controversy about what he meant in these verses… the Mormon church says that the “other sheep” were the Native Americans.
If it were clearly explained, and not in parable, why would there be controversy about what was meant? Also, his audience didn’t all understand what he meant, either, as these next verses show:
The word “parable” has a broad scope, meaning that it uses story elements, or symbolism, a riddle, etc. But if you understand his parable so clearly that it doesn’t seem like a parable, that is OK.
Take care,
-Andrew
Thomas,
The parables about the mysteries of the Kingdom were told to “the multitudes” and they didn’t understand, but he expounded them to his disciples. Those are the ones referred to in the verses that said he didn’t talk to them without a parable. However, the one about the good shepherd in John 10 is addressed to the Pharisees, according to John 9:40-41. He first said the one who doesn’t enter through the door is a robber, etc. Verse 6 says, “This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.” So he said to them again, I am the door… I am the good shepherd… I have other sheep in another fold… Verse 19 says, “There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.” So what he had said was still not fully understood by them.
In addition, there are other parables he told that didn’t need a lot of explanation., such as the blind leading the blind (Luke 6:39), the rich man’s abundance (Luke 12:16), the ninety-nine sheep (Luke 15:3), the fig tree (Luke 21:29), and others. And he taught in other situations without parables, in all four Gospels. The statement that he didn’t speak except in parables was in the specific context of the mysteries of the kingdom parables that he addressed to the multitudes.
Jesus didn’t “repeatedly” tell them not to go to the Samaritan villages, nor did he say they should NEVER go there. That was only addressed to the twelve when Jesus sent them out the first time (Matt. 10:5). Later on, in Luke, “when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him” (Luke 9:51-52). Then in the next chapter, “the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.” So the command not to go to Samaria was only for that first mission of the twelve, not for ever.
It wasn’t that they wanted to keep it secret, but they didn’t want the record of Lazarus to be closely associated with the Gospel message. The chief priests had reasoned that because of Lazarus many Jews went away and believed on Jesus (John 12:11), and for that reason they wanted to kill him. If the written record had included Lazarus by name, it would give the chief priests more reason to go after him. Besides, the miracle was well known by word of mouth in Judea, so the Synoptic writers may not have thought it necessary to record the event, whereas John wrote for a wider audience outside of Palestine, as well as being later when Lazarus was probably dead. In any case, this is just a couple of possibilities that have been suggested as to why the synoptic writers didn’t include it. But as I said before, they never said there were ONLY three instances of raising the dead, so there is no contradiction.
First of all, I have to point out an error I made in my last comment to you. I had said that John pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God, proving that he knew who he was before baptizing him. But I since realized that happened sometime AFTER the baptism, since John referred to the descent of the holy spirit in the past tense.
So, he knew for sure that Jesus was the Son of God when he saw the spirit descend on him. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t know anything about him before that. In the record in Matthew he says, “You should be baptizing me.” This doesn’t have to mean that he knew Jesus to be the Messiah at that point. John was filled with the holy spirit from his birth, so he may have known by the spirit that Jesus was his superior, or even sensed that this could be the Messiah but didn’t know for sure. He may even have known him from his family background, since his mother and Mary were cousins (although there is no indication that they had met, since Elisabeth lived in the hill country of Judea according to Luke 1:39-40).
In any case, while there are a few different possible explanations, the thing to remember is that Matthew doesn’t specifically say John knew for sure that Jesus was the Son of God at that point, and John doesn’t specifically say that he didn’t know anything about Jesus at all. So this is not an insurmountable contradiction.
OK. I’ll be looking forward to it.
Actually I get it from reading the passage in Acts itself. It said in verse 9 that God put no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles, as God purifies our hearts by faith. Peter said that to expect the Gentiles to follow the Law would be to put a burden on them “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.”
If the commands they gave to the Gentiles in the letter meant, “We’ll just teach the basics and they’ll learn the rest of the Law in time,” it would contradict the whole point that was being made in this chapter. The reason for giving the four rules was so that the Gentiles would not continue practicing things that would be offensive to the Jews. There is no indication in this passage that it was meant to be a universal law that all must follow.
Again, I’m not saying it was “eliminated.” I’m saying that the letter of the law is limited in its ability to change anyone’s heart, which is why the New Covenant is about the spirit and enabling us to walk in God’s love, which fulfills the Law.
Could you be specific about which of my explanations were not convincing?
I didn’t think I’d convinced you – I wasn’t sure what you would decide.
You said you still can’t think of anything in the 3 synoptics, 1st. Peter, James and Acts. But have you read them recently? Don’t just rely on your memory.
One thing that comes to mind right away is James’ references to the Royal Law and the Law of Liberty.
James 2:
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
In addition, he goes on to describe just how works demonstrate faith, rather than doing works in order to be justified. This fits with what Paul wrote about not being saved by works, but being saved unto good works.
And besides, in your list you neglected to mention Hebrews. Now I know many people believe it was written by Paul, but it’s not known for sure, so wouldn’t it be better to examine it at face value? It is the most comprehensive description of how the New Covenant supersedes the Old (though not the only mention of it).
And besides specific references to the Law, you also have to consider those references which present Paul as being a man of God. Acts tells of the miracles that confirmed Paul’s apostleship, and James calls Paul’s writing Scripture. And if he was speaking for God, it would be unwise to reject or ignore his message just because we misunderstand it and think it contradicts Jesus.
In addition to references in the NT, there is also the evidence in the OT that points to the Law being temporary. It was laid out in detail in New Covenant Commandments, but by way of brief review, while God rested on the seventh day at creation, there is no record of Him commanding anyone to observe it at that time. It was specifically given to Israel, first in the wilderness in Exodus 16, then in the Ten Commandments, which were part of the Old Covenant and addressed to Israel. Nehemiah 9:13-14 and 10:29-33 also indicate that the Sabbath was given to the people at Sinai, and not to the whole world at creation. And Psalm 147:19-20 tells us that God’s statutes and ordinances were not given to any other nation. Throughout the OT the words law, statutes, commandments, and ordinances are used interchangeably, and no one ever hints that the Ten Commandments are addressed to anyone but Israel.
The whole reason for the Sabbath is given in Deut. 5:15. “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.â€Â The purpose of the Sabbath was to set aside Israel as God’s unique and chosen nation, separate from the rest of the world. In addition, Exod. 31:13-17 specifically states that the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel.
Exod. 31:
13 “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
14 ‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
15 ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
16 ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’
17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.â€
It was not a commandment for the whole world. If it had been given to the world it would not have been a sign of their being sanctified (which means “set apart”).
The Sabbath is called a “perpetual covenant†and a “sign forever†according to verses 16-17. But both words, ‘forever,’ and ‘perpetual,’ are the same Hebrew word, olam. This word does not hold the same meaning of “without end†as ‘forever’ does in English. It refers to the duration of a period of time, but not necessarily for all time without end. (You can read more about that here.) Gen. 17:13 calls physical circumcision an “everlasting covenant†but New Testament Christians did not insist upon it.
The whole “theme” of the Old Testament is Israel being called out and separated as a special nation with a special relationship with God. But throughout it was hinted that Gentiles would be blessed in some way. Jesus hinted at it too, when he said that he had “other sheep” in another fold. Acts shows what a surprise it was to the Jewish believers that Gentiles would be full partakers of the promises to Abraham, and members of the same Body of Christ. Thus the Abrahamic Covenant is the overarching theme of the whole Bible, while the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are subsets.
Considering the purpose of the Law was to set Israel apart, it only makes sense that when the promises and the Gospel were extended to “all nations” that the New Covenant would supersede the Old. Even Robert agrees with this, but insists that the Ten Commandments were separate and addressed to all people. But he hasn’t been able to provide any Scriptural proof, other than the stone tablets being kept in the Ark of the Covenant. But think about it – it was the Ark of the Covenant. The Covenant was made with Israel (including the strangers among them that were joined with them) but not to “all nations.”
He made more than minor changes. He revolutionized the understanding of it, raising it to a new, spiritual level.
Not all Biblical scholars say that. Many believe we have as much testimony for 2nd Peter as we do for the other general epistles. After all, it says of itself it’s from Simon Peter.
Actually he only says it in one verse, but still to reject the epistle because it approves of Paul is backwards logic. To prove whether Paul is valid you’d need to consider all the evidence. If you automatically reject any evidence on the basis that it approves of Paul, it’s begging the question.
Actually it’s addressed “to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Paul’s letters are addressed to churches, and some of them add an address to believers in general, so this isn’t that much different.
Acts 21 doesn’t mention Peter. And Acts 15 shows that Peter considered the Law a yoke that neither them nor their fathers could bear. There’s nothing to indicate that he taught the Law but later reversed his teaching. And the one mention of Paul in 2nd Peter doesn’t mention the Law. But it does refer to Paul’s writings as Scripture.
The biggest thing to consider, I still believe, is to understand what the New Covenant was about. What was wrong with the old one? Why was a new one needed? How was the new one different? I think if you understand that, it would help you see that the Law was meant for Israel as a temporary measure. I don’t remember if I posted the link before, but my article on the New Covenant can be seen here:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/covenant.htm
Mark C.
I tried clicking on above link (http://godskingdomfirst.org/covenant.htm) and my computer says “content encoding error”.
As usual you have given me a lot to think and pray about. You asked, “Could you be more specific about which of my explanations were not convincing.”
I can’t remember exactly what they were and I find if I try to read through long strings trying to find something that this starts to bother my eyes within about 15 mins. or so. That’s why I don’t go back and read entire threads.
I don’t know if it’s just me or if it’s common to have this problem when reading long strings or articles on the computer.
Thomas
Heres a few things
http://www.freedominchrist.net/sermons/elders/bibs–elders–political%20power%20of%20the%20pharisees.htm
The Pharisees and the Synagogue
More numerous than the Sadducees and more influential among the people was the religious group known as Pharisees. They were dominant in the synagogue, which in many ways was more important than the Temple, especially in daily and weekly instruction and worship. The Temple was too remote for most Jews to visit except for the major feast days, but synagogues were close by wherever Jews lived, whether in Palestine or beyond. Ten male adult Jews constituted a quorum. The synagogue was essentially a gathering of the Jewish community for study and interpretation of the Law, though worship was becoming a prominent part of synagogue life, with prayers, chanting of psalms, the recitation of the shema‘ (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), and some type of edifying discourse. While our sources are somewhat limited for reconstructing pre-70 C.E. Pharisaism, we are probably correct in the view that the Pharisees were the dominant force in the synagogue.
The Pharisees differed from the Sadducees most significantly in accepting the oral Law as well as the written Law. The oral Law was a body of unwritten legal opinions intended to make the Law applicable to changing situations. Thus the scribes, or experts in the Law, had identified thirty-nine different kinds of work in the written Law which were prohibited on the Sabbath; in the oral Law each of these types of work was expanded to include thirty-nine sub-categories of work, resulting in some 1521 different kinds of work which were prohibited on the Sabbath. Behind all this study and labor was the overwhelming conviction that God’s will was perfectly revealed in the Law of Moses, and that this Law was applicable to every situation in life.
This readiness to expand and update ancient practices was matched by the Pharisees’ acceptance of certain doctrines such as a belief in the resurrection of the dead. Their attitude toward Rome may be described as one of opposition, though not normally one of armed resistance.
Robert
Thanks for the interesting info. I tried to click on the link you provided but it says “page not found”. I seem to be having more problems with computers lately than usual. I’m not sure if there is something wrong with my computer or not…
Thomas,
I got “Page Not Found” with Robert’s link too. But the one to my New Covenant article works on my computer. Try copying and pasting the address directly into the address bar at the top of your browser.
Wasnt your comp, maybe this on will work
http://www.freedominchrist.net/sermons/elders/bibs–elders–political%20power%20of%20the%20pharisees.htm
Your welcome
It just wont post the adress right
so try this link the follow the path
http://www.freedominchrist.net/
then click on
Sermons and Essays
then click on
Elders/Leaders
then click on
The Political Power of the Pharisees and Their Oral Traditions
Mark C. (msg. 466)
You said, “The statement that he didn’t speak in parables was in the specific context of the mysteries of the kingdom parables that he addressed to the multitudes.”
That makes sense. I didn’t realize that.
You also said, “So the command not to go to Samaria was only for the first mission of the twelve and not forever.”
Again, I didn’t realize that.
You also said, “If the commands that they give the gentiles meant “We will teach you the basics and they will learn the rest of the law in time.” that would contradict the rest of the chapter.”
I believe your confusing something Joseph said with what I said. I don’t understand why the Christian Jews (or Messianic Jews) had to follow the complete law and the Gentiles didn’t. All I know is that in Acts it twice says that there is a limited law (law of Noah) that applies to the Gentiles.
I don’t believe that this was temporary in the sense that it was just a stepping stone toward learning the whole of the law or that it somehow doesn’t continue to apply to us today. Like I said without Paul’s writings there is no indication that the law of Noah still doesn’t apply to us today. At least not that I am aware of anywaze…
You also said, “I’m saying that the letter of the law is limited in it’s ability to change anyone’s heart. Which is why the new Covenant is about the spirit and our ability to walk in God’s love, and fulfill the law.”
I agree we have the ability to walk in God’s love which is great. All I’m saying is that I think we need a little more guidance than that. Walking in love might fulfill the law but I don’t think it eliminates the guidance needed from the 10 Commandments, Noah’s law, and the specific commandments that Jesus gave us to follow.
You quote James chapter 2. I just read the whole chapter (I love how he end it with “mercy triumphs over judgment”). I guess this just demonstrates how perception can affect our interpretation of scripture, but I get the impression he is saying how the law still applies and we should be careful not to transgress even one part of the law or we will be judged by the whole of the law.
You also said, “James calls Paul’s writings scripture.”
Could you show me this. I just read the entire letter of James and Paul is not even mentioned in it.
I’m going to respond to the old Testament quotes separately, I’m still thinking about them and what the logical way to interpret them might be.
Robert
Thanks for the link. I’ll give it a try.
What if Jesus spoke in parables every time he preached in public?
That wouldn’t mean that he only spoke in parables every time he
spoke publicly.
One man may say that mercy triumphs over judgment, another might say that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.
One key I have found to understanding the gospel is to look for similarities. A good teacher will often say the same thing in different ways. Maybe that’s one reason Jesus spoke in parables.
There are other reasons too, I’m sure. If Jesus is speaking through two different men, we can expect him to sound differently, just as much as if a man were to make a sound through differing instruments.
Thomas
Noahide laws are some of oral laws that was created by 2nd temple jews and doesnt exist within the written Word. there were commands by God to Noah but they dont match the noahide laws.
The ones in Acts are just requirements not laws even though everyone of them exist in Mosaic law. these were just requirements on Gentiles so they could join in on the sabbath with the jewish converts. these were the bare minimum that was agreed on so all could learn more.
if they were the Noahide laws they would be complete.
they were the milk for the babies till they could eat meat
Noahide Laws or Noachide Code, are a set of seven moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind.[1] According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and is assured of a place in the world to come (Olam Haba), the Jewish concept of heaven.[2] Adherents are often called “B’nei Noach” (Children of Noah) or “Noahides” and may often network in Jewish synagogues.
The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are[3]
Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
Prohibition of Sexual promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and homosexual acts.
Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God’s name.
Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
Requirement to have just Laws: Set up a governing body of law (eg Courts)
some reason my last post is stuck in moderation
Sean
Just delete other one please
Thomas
Noahide laws are some of oral laws that was created by 2nd temple jews and doesnt exist within the written Word. there were commands by God to Noah but they dont match the noahide laws.
The ones in Acts are just requirements not laws even though everyone of them exist in Mosaic law. these were just requirements on Gentiles so they could join in on the sabbath with the jewish converts. these were the bare minimum that was agreed on so all could learn more.
if they were the Noahide laws they would be complete.
they were the milk for the babies till they could eat meat
Noahide Laws or Noachide Code, are a set of seven moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah as a binding set of laws for all mankind.[1] According to Judaism any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile and is assured of a place in the world to come (Olam Haba), the Jewish concept of heaven.[2] Adherents are often called “B’nei Noach†(Children of Noah) or “Noahides†and may often network in Jewish synagogues.
The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are[3]
Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
Prohibition of Sexual promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and homosexual acts.
Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God’s name.
Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
Requirement to have just Laws: Set up a governing body of law (eg Courts)
Thomas
Noahide laws are some of oral laws that was created by 2nd temple jews and doesnt exist within the written Word. there were commands by God to Noah but they dont match the noahide laws.
The ones in Acts are just requirements not laws even though everyone of them exist in Mosaic law. these were just requirements on Gentiles so they could join in on the sabbath with the jewish converts. these were the bare minimum that was agreed on so all could learn more.
if they were the Noahide laws they would be complete.
they were the milk for the babies till they could eat meat
The Seven Laws of Noah in Wikipedia shows some very distinct differences
wouldnt allow me to just copy that Wikipedia
I thought you had agreed with whoever it was that said that the four rules in Acts 15 were the basics that they expected the Gentiles to start off with, and they would learn the rest of the Law in time. Then somebody else said that the Jews were still expected to keep the Law but the Gentiles weren’t. I’m confused as to who has said what.
In any case, I think it’s clear from Acts 15 that the final decision was not to burden the Gentiles with fulfilling the Law of Moses. Whether those four things were the Law of Noah or not, I don’t know. As Robert pointed out, they were “just requirements not laws even though everyone of them exist in Mosaic law.” But since they addressed things that the Gentiles were not in the habit of observing, which would be particularly offensive to the Jewish believers, these requirements seem to be more to keep the peace than introducing laws.
I’ll have to look into the Law of Noah, as I’m not very familiar with it. What Robert said about them being 2nd Temple oral laws makes sense. The argument in Acts 15 was that neither them nor their fathers could bear the yoke of the Law, so why impose it on the Gentiles? That being the case, it wouldn’t make sense to impose an even older law on them either.
We can certainly learn things from the Law, especially those aspects that foreshadowed Jesus. And we have the written Scriptures, including the Old Testament for learning and guidance. But not for required observation of the letter of the Law. Jesus and Paul both taught that the guidance is supposed to be by the Holy Spirit.
If that were the case, nobody could be righteous, because everybody sins.
James 2:
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Notice, If you fulfill the royal law, you do well, because if you keep the whole law but offend in one point, you break the whole law. What should we do then? Speak and do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Oops. I meant Peter. Sorry.
OK. Looking forward to it.
What does God want of us? Would he rather have us work to keep the law of the old covenant or would he rather that we learn to walk by his spirit in the new covenant?
The apostle Paul knew both. I wonder if any of us have done as well as he at either working to keep the law without blame, or walking by the spirit of Christ.
I for one haven’t done as well at either of those two things as he did. Paul preferred one over the other, and committed his life to
teaching about the one and left off the other, as far as instruction
in living for God is concerned.
I believe he was instructed of the Lord Jesus concerning that way of life and that was his calling. I believe he walked worthy of that calling.
I find it interesting that the old way of his walking caused him to persecute Christ. Jesus himself called it “kicking against the pricks.”
(see Acts 9:5) Apparently the Lord had been proding him to do another kind of work than he was doing, and his way was an easier way to walk.
Paul often told us of the joy he found in walking with the Lord by the spirit. He found so much value in it that he was willing to suffer
so much persecution, distress, whippings, and such for it. I think he enjoyed that so much more than his old way under the law.
I think it pleased the Lord Jesus more too.
“That being the case, it wouldn’t make sense to impose an even older law on them either.”
You keep going back to the law as requirement for salvation. you could keep everyone of them but without God you cant be righteous no matter how perfect you are.Jesus’s perfection in the law was his but it was God that rewarded him.
the Oral laws added such a burden while also providing other things one can be righteous by. A series of credits and debts to guage our level of righteous. if they were in the credit God owed them. For as many that was hard to keep they made some very easy to keep and if they kept them they felt it canceled out their debt
Paul wasnt against how we show God LOVE.
As a parent when my children followed my ways on their own, it was pure love that i felt
“If that were the case, nobody could be righteous, because everybody sins.”
Mark
NOBODY CAN BE RIGHTEOUS WITHOUT GOD
HE DIDNT EVEN HAVE TO SAVE JESUS BUT GOD DID BECAUSE OF WHY JESUS LIVED PERFECTLY.
THE LOVE OF HIS GOD.
WHAT GOD WANTS IS OUR LOVE and the things he gave us to Follow are how WE SHOW LOVE
Mark C.
8. If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
I think James is saying if you love your neighbour as yourself you will do well, but then he follows it with a big BUT in verse 9 below.
9 But if ye have respect to persons (because of their wealth), ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend it one point, he is guilty of all.
It seems he is saying if you show special respect to people of wealth and treat the poor badly (just because they’re poor) then ye commit sin, and are convicted as a transgressor of the law. And if you break even a small law you are just as guilty as if you had broken all the laws.
That’s the way I’m reading it anywaze…
We were talking about parables earlier and my own theory of why Jesus spoke in parables is that if you can understand what the parable means it is worth a thousand words and it can be adapted to fit every possible situation. Understanding and observing (or following) what a parable says is better than hundreds of laws that could not possibly be applied faithfully in every possible situation.
You also said, “The biggest thing to consider I still believe, is to understand what the New Covenant was about. What was wrong with the old one? Why a new one was needed? How was the new one different? I think if you understand that you will understand the Law was meant for Israel as a temporary measure.”
This paragraph you wrote above has me thinking and praying the most. in Mark 14:24 “This is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many.”
I do realize a New Covenant is talked about but from my perspective what this New Covenant might be is open to interpretation. I understand from your postings that you think it means the law doesn’t apply anymore but I’m not so sure. To be honest I’m not really sure what it means…
I’m going to try and type that link you gave me on the covenant in my address bar at the top of my screen. I do not know how to cut and paste but I think that this should work.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
This is saying there is no credit for not commiting adultery than cancels the debt for murder
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
this showing you why
“he is guilty of all”
this shows we need someway to be redeemed
Robert
You said, “This shows we need someway to be redeemed.”
I know Mark says that loving God and loving our neighbour and walking in the Holy Spirit fulfills the law and redeems us. I’m just curious what this “someway to be redeemed” is and what do you think about Mark 14:24 where Jesus talks about a New Covenant.
BTW- I looked up the 7 laws of Noah on wikipedia and it was very interesting. (funny it doesn’t mention anything about abstaining from blood.)
Mark C.
I tried typing the covenant link manually into my address bar at the top of my screen and got the same thing “message encoding error” again. Maybe it has something to do with the internet servers up here in Canada eh…….. 🙂
“This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.”
Thomas this is the WAY
It is sin that brought us to this way, if you dont know sin than there is no path to this way. should we love sin because it brought us to Jesus as our sacrafice? no because sin can not bring us to Jesus only Guilt can. Guilt of not doing what God loves which are what Jesus DID.
I dont know how someone withouts rules knows right from wrong.
Mark wrote
“If that were the case, nobody could be righteous, because everybody sins.”
Here is the Biggest problem with Christianity
they think the less the laws the easier it is to be righteous.
what difference is there if there is a million laws ,if you fail at one you fail at all and if you fail at one million there is still the same sacrafice for if you fail at one.
show me one person since Jesus that hasnt failed at all of Gods commandments or Jesus’ commandments. so tell me why there would be a reason for any of Gods laws to end.
I think if the people who heard Jesus would have talked about the parables, together they could begin to follow the spirit of God.
Just talking with a neighbor about seed and how a man plants it can begin a discussion about what happens when a man sows, just as Jesus spoke about it.
The sower sows because he hopes for a harvest. His seed is valuable to him. He doesn’t sow to the wind and waste what he has. A man’s words can be as seed. A man should be careful as to what he says. A sower is careful about how he sows, and so we should take care of how we say things.
By people talking carefully about the things Jesus said in parables, they might begin to walk spiritually, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, taking notice that things created can be a reflection of the things of the kingdom.
In hearing they might hear and be turned from dead works to following the spirit of the living God.
Robert,
I was talking about the context of Acts 15. There were certain men that taught the brethren, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Then in Jerusalem after declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, some Pharisees that believed said that “it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Does this mean needful for salvation or just needful for “fellowship.” One could argue either way, I suppose,
But then Peter reminded them about how the Gentiles first heard the Gospel by his mouth, and how God “put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” So he says, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”
You said, “the Oral laws added such a burden while also providing other things one can be righteous by.” But this isn’t talking about the oral laws that rabbis added. It’s talking about the Law of Moses. That’s what the dispute in Acts 15 was about.
What pleases God is obedience. As a parent, how would you feel about your children telling each other that they had to obey rules that weren’t addressed to them? You want them to obey what you expect them to obey, right?
I agree. But what we seem to disagree on is what commandments He wants us to follow to show our love. As I’ve pointed out, the Ten Commandments were part of the Law of Moses, which was the Old Covenant, addressed to Israel. There is a whole new standard under the New Covenant.
I agree. So if we are redeemed without the Law, why would we want to put ourselves back under the Law? As Paul wrote, “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2-3)
The fact that no one can keep it is the reason.
Rom. 3:
19Â Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Â Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21Â But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Â Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23Â For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
The righteousness of God without the Law is what Jesus Christ made available.
the moment a man looks at a women with lust he just put himself under all the Law.
this was Jesus command
that make you a thief,liar, murderer,etc. you are guilty of all.
this just has to happen once.
so what difference is there if there is a million Jesus commands, you just broke them all.
what should a man do when this has happened, If he was before Jesus he would enter the old covenant with God, Loving God and bring a sacrafice to atone for his unrighteousness.
if he was after he should enter the New covenant with God and accept Jesus as his one time sacrafice. the difference in the old and the new is after the sacrafice in the old covenant there was always another if you sinned and in the new covenant after the sacrafice there is no more sacrafices but God writes His law in your heart to help you to never sin again. but we can see some that will sin and lose their salvation because they can not cause Jesus to be another sacrafice. that can be just lust that causes you to lose your salvation. better learn very well the things that can take your salvation before you crucify Jesus because for another sacrafice to come there has to be another spotless lamb and i am not talking about an animal
Thomas,
Yes, and the “but” sets in contrast what follows. In contrast to loving your neighbor as yourself, if you show favoritism, you are sinning, and therefore guilty of the whole Law.
Exactly. That is the nature of the Law – it’s all or nothing. That’s why James said in the next verse, “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”
I’m not saying it means the Law doesn’t apply. I’m saying it means that we fulfill the true heart of the Law, without the letter of the Law. The righteousness of God without the Law is what Jesus made available.
To copy:
1. Drag your mouse across the words you want to copy, to highlight them.
2. To copy, do one of the following:
Click on Edit (at the top of the browser window) and then select Copy from the dropdown menu
OR right click on the highlighted text, and from the menu that appears, select Copy
OR press Ctrl + C.
3. To paste, click on the address bar at the top of the browser window, and the address in it will be highlighted; then do one of the following:
Click on Edit (at the top of the browser window) and then select Paste from the dropdown menu
OR right click on the highlighted text, and from the menu that appears, select Paste
OR press Ctrl + V.
I don’t say that doing those things redeems us. We are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, because we cannot be redeemed by the works of the Law. Loving our neighbor and walking by the spirit is what we do as a result of being saved by grace.
Can you click on any other links?
Exactly. So like Paul said, “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?â€
For the sake of being read, this is a repost from a great article I found on the New Covenant…
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2373072738&gid=122023807409#!/notes/erik-adoniqam/exegesis-jer3131-34-and-the-new-covenant/349735615468
Many believe that the New Covenant (NC) is has already begun and is in full-swing effect these days. Is this the case?
Jeremiah says this:
Jer 31:31 Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I will make *with the house of Israel* And with *the house of Judah* a **new covenant**,
Jer 31:32 **Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers**, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them–an affirmation of Jehovah.
Jer 31:33 For this is the covenant that I make, **With the house of Israel**, after those days, An affirmation of Jehovah, I have given **My law in their inward part**, And on their heart I do write it, And **I have been to them for God, And they are to me for a people**.
Jer 31:34 And **they will not teach any more Each his neighbour, and each his brother, Saying, Know ye Jehovah, For they will all know Me**, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Jehovah; For I pardon their iniquity, And of their sin I make mention no more.
What to take note of:
a) v. 31 tells us that this is a covenant to the two kingdoms, it says nothing directly about gentiles.
b) The covenant is called חדשה meaning most typically something that is “brand new” and when functioning in the verb-piel stem it means to make “new” or “to renew”. But beings the word is functioning as an adjective here it simply means a “new” covenant.
As a side note, the Dead Sea sect (the Yahad) understood the new covenant to be something that is renewed, probably based upon exegesis.
c) V.32 tells us that this isn’t the same covenant that was made with their fathers.
d)V.33 specifically describes the covenant’s stipulations upon the people of the house of Israel aka Ephraim. These are the scattered ten tribes of the north.
e) V.33 says that ADONAI’s Torah will be inside of the people of the House of Israel.It will be written upon their hearts. Being pagan and assimilating, they were carried away to forever lose out on the Torah. And because only a select few were into proselytizing they couldn’t be a light to the nations where Ephraim has been scattered. So Yeshua and his emissaries were the men to do the job.
**Side Note**: Notice that when the text speaks about the *TORAH* it ONLY mention Ephraim. Why? Simple. Because Judah never stopped keeping Torah! Judah is still a people, and Judah still have ADONAI to them as GOD. It was Ephraim that needed all of these reparations.
f) Regarding Ephraim (The house of Israel) V.33 says “they shall be to Me as a people” and “I will be to them for GOD”. They weren’t to the Holy One as a people, nor was He their GOD. These were they which were exiled by the Assyrians and these were they which Yeshua came to restore (Matthew 10:6; 15:24; John 11:49-54). These are the seed of Ephraim that would be the “multitude of the nations” (Gen 48:19) because they were scattered and mingled into the nations. Through them Abraham’s blessing of GOD would become literally true(Gen. 22:18), and through Yeshua’s message reaching them it would become spiritually true as well (Gal. 3:16).
*g)* THIS IS PERHAPS THE MOST OBVIOUS POINT:
they will not teach any more Each his neighbour, and each his brother, Saying, Know ye Jehovah, For they will all know Me.
That clearly has not happened yet. That is only fulfilled at the time when the knowledge of GOD completely covers the earth (Rev. 14:6-7; Isa. 11:8-10) and the Torah goes forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:1-5).
The above point “G” is clearly unfulfilled at this point in time and therefore the New Covenant is not at it’s fulness. I believe that it was implemented but hasn’t reached ful fruition yet, just like the promise of GOD the Holy land to Father Abraham that hasn’t been fulfilled yet. Though both were already implement they haven’t reached fulfillment yet.
How do we know that Yeshua implemented the NC?
Mat 26:28-29
[28] For this is *My blood of the New Covenant* which concerning many is being POURED OUT for remission of sins.
[29] But I say to you, I will not at all drink of this fruit of the vine after this until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father.
Also see – Mat. 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1Co. 11:25; 2Co. 3:6; Heb. 8:8; 9:15; 12:24;
When Yeshua’s blood was poured out, the NC began. And that was the time that the atonement of Yeshua to us began.
But more is still to be fulfilled, even the passover of which Yeshua was to us still hasn’t reached complete fulfillment yet:
Luk 22:15-16
[15] And He said to them, With desire I desired to eat this Passover with you before My suffering.
[16] For I say to you that I will not eat of it UNTIL when *it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God*.
Lastly, it isn’t until the *fulness of the Gentiles (nations)** that Israel (the people of Judah) will recognize Yeshua as the Messiah (Rom. 11:25).
The fullness of the gentiles is called a mystery by Paul. It wasn’t just a phrase that he made up either. So what is it? It is the regathering of Ephraim from all of the nations by the belief of One GOD again. The term “fullness of the Gentiles” IS THE EXACT SAME PHRASE THAT IS USED BY JACOB WHEN HE BLESSES EPHRAIM and says to Joseph:
[Gen. 48:19] howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become **the fullness of the nations (Gentiles)**.’
So when Ephraim who is not a people per se and his Gentile neighbors, returns to the Torah and/or GOD this will provoke Israel (the house of Judah) to jealousy (Rom. 10-11).
“, “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”
Again you equating the law to recieve salvation, no one is claiming that here.
“having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?â€
after the spirit you understand it wasnt you that gave yourself the spirit it was a gift for loving God.
this is just explaining how you received the spirit and not speaking about doing or not doing the law after
Good point Robert, I think this is where the main difference is coming from. Just because one is pro-Torah does not mean one lacks the faith to gain salvation by the grace of God. If one has faith they’ll keep God’s commandments. It doesn’t have to be a either/or, it can be both/and.
In other words, faith is the first step to knowing truth in Spirit that God is the One God of the Universe and Jesus is his Messiah unto us. Without faith there would be nothing righteous we could do toward God. It is our faith that drives us to keep his commandments.
The question that each of us need to ask ourselves is, do we have faith and love God enough to keep all of his commandments whether we may fall short?
First, that’s what the context of Acts 15 was.
Second, the point in Galatians is that since you weren’t saved by works, why put yourself under the law again?
The whole epistle of Galatians is about whether or not they should be under the law after being saved. Here’s just a sample:
1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8 ¶ Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
[The Galatians were Gentiles before they were saved, and served “them which by nature are no gods.” But now they are being told that they should obey the Law. Therefore, the “weak and beggarly elements” that they desired to be in bondage to, refers to more than Gentile practices. It refers to bondage to the law, which is as weak and beggarly (poor) as any works of the flesh.]
4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Joseph,
Thanks; Good article!
A couple of points… While the promise of the New Covenant was to Jews and not Gentiles, the Gentiles were later included, as the New Testament tells us.
The other prophecies about the New Covenant involve God pouring out his spirit upon people in the last days. Besides Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant is also mentioned in Jeremiah 32:37-42 and Isaiah 59:21. The following passages also refer to God pouring out His spirit in the last days, although the word “covenant” is not specifically used:
Isaiah 32:15; 44:3
Ezekiel 36:25-27
Ezekiel 39:26-29
Joel 2:28-31
The promise to pour out God’s spirit is connected in Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 39 with the future time when Israel would be restored to their land. Likewise Joel associates it with the signs in the heavens and the Day of the Lord.
Although the New Covenant is not completely fulfilled, the holy spirit is said to be an earnest, or a down payment on our future inheritance.
Eph 1:13-14
II Cor. 1:21-22
II Cor. 5:5
Hebrews 6:4-5 says that those who are enlightened “have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world [aion, age] to come.”
BTW, Thomas, if you still can’t get to the New Covenant article on my website, it was posted in two parts here on this blog.
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/11/the-new-covenant-part-1/
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/10/12/the-new-covenant-part-2/
If those links don’t work, go to “Who We Are” at the top of this page, and then click on Mark Clarke on that page. It will take you to a list of all the posts I’ve written, and you can go to The New Covenant, Parts 1 and 2.
Doubting Thomas,
I noticed that you mentioned you were from Canada, here’s a link to a dear brother I have recently got to know. He is a Scottish man who who moved to Vancouver 6 years ago. Check him out, and tell me what you think. His latest series is ” Will you be disqualified” is stunning.
http://www.thegrovebiblefellowship.com/listen_disqualified.html
http://www.thegrovebiblefellowship.com/listen_entering.html
God Bless
“The whole epistle of Galatians is about whether or not they should be under the law after being saved.”
No Mark
its about wether you are under the law after you receive the Holy spirit.
Receiving the holy spirit doesnt equate to being saved.
once you receive the Holy spirit it guides you through the law to help you obey but this dont mean you cant ignore the spirit after you receive it and lose the possibilty to be saved.
who should you follow man or the Holy spirit.
But you receive the Holy spirit after you just agree to love Gods ways even before you have the chance to follow them.
You just dont understand, its about loving God and following Gods commandments no about being a Jew.
God will have mercy on those that love Him and love his commandments enough to follow them.
this is a promise which can not be broken, Jesus just plays a part of how God will show Mercy.
Lads, forgive my ignorance in this topic, this debate is virgin territory for me, but read the following passage in Ephesians 2 and then I will give my two cents worth.
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision†by the so-called “Circumcision,†which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 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, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
If my understanding is correct, in the Old Testament, the children of Israel were given the Law as a way of life, its what separated them from the gentiles. But even though the law was given, it was never intended to be used as a means of justification which is why the sacrificial system was provided as a means of having one’s sins covered after the law was enevitably broken. Whenever someone broke the law, that person by faith offered the appropriate sacrifice and God passed over the transgression. If we still have to keep the law today then there is no fundamental difference in the old economy and the new ecomony except that now we have a better sacrifice and a single and never changing Highpriest.
But as Paul states in Ephesians, it was the law that kept the gentiles outside of the promises, so if the law was still intact today then the gentiles would still be outside of the promises.
So what I would take out of Pauls words here is that because Christ abolished the law then Jews as Jews and gentiles as gentiles would now have joint access to the promises through faith in Jesus Christ. If the law was not removed then I see no fundamental difference in the old and new ecomonies, but Paul said that there is a difference, and that difference was the abloishing of the law, which brought the gentiles into the Abrahamic Promises by faith. Sean kept the Feast of Hannukkah with his family, Sean has the liberty in Christ to do this, no problem there. But he was right to state that this was not mandatory and that people were free not to.
By the way, Sean Finnegan is an Irish name, any Irish ancestry. Im just curious coz Im from Belfast.
God Bless
Allen
The only thing that kept the gentiles from entering the old covenant was to be able to enter the temple to have acess to the high priest to present a sacrafice. this was the
Law of commandments contained in ordinances, do you notice the word CONTAINED, this shows this was only a part of Ordinances. this part is what Jesus fulfiled becoming our High Priest and our Sacrafice. The 10 commandments have nothing in them that couldnt be done by a gentile but the atonement laws was in the mosaic law in the ordinances which was only available to Israel and those that join themselfs to Israel. since Jesus the atonement is available to all mankind as a one time sin covering because if you sin after then there remains no more atonement for your sins. This is where the Holy spirit fulfills the written laws by putting them within us.
there is so many things that prove that Gods laws are still in effect .
Righteousness before God is still attained by atonement as it was also in the Old covenant and never was attained by Works of the Law.
Salvation is for those who maintain their Righteousness till the end and this is where the 10 commandments enter.
Just showing above the word “Contained” proves there is separation within the Law of Moses showing the claim they are inseparatable as false
Joseph
what name is that article under or date created
Mark C.
Those two links covenant part 1 and part 2 worked perfectly.
Thank-you….
Robert
When I read new covenant part 2 I noticed your response and it’s reference to http://www.Sabbath-day.net/ and I clicked on it.
It was fascinating. It explains exactly what I believe and why I believe it. Because I had just finished reading Mark’s two posts I could only get about half way through it and my eyes started bothering me. I’m going to go back to it tommorow and finish reading the rest of it.
Allen/Joseph
Thanks for the links. I will try to look at them tommorow after work.
Ray (msg. 487)
That was beautifully written. Like I said I love reading your postings…
Joseph
Have you ever looked into these verses as to regard of the punishment of the northern kingdom
Ezekiel 4:1-6
Leviticus 26: 14-46
Mark C. (msg. 490)
You said, “Exactly that is the nature of the law it’s all or nothing. That’s why James said in the next verse, “And so speak ye, and so do, as they that shalt be judged by the law of liberty.”
That’s a good point. Robert what do you make of this next verse in James Chapter 2.
robert,
Like I said in my previous post, this is virgin territory for me, what laws are you saying that are still in operation today.
Thomas
actually you have to use the whole statement By James to get the context of it.
First thing is the Royal law is the God spoken law, we know this by the reference to the scripture. the OT was the only thing considered scripture at this time because there was no other.
we also know Thou shalt love thy neighbour is what the last 6 commandments refer to.God never promise mercy for a few of the commandments it was all.
then James uses 2 of the 10 to make that point.
The 10 commandment are the law of liberty, those who follow them recieve mercy those who dont just go on being what they were. there is no punishment within the 10 commandments only a reward. the last verse means the one who transgresses the law will not receive the mercy promised to those who follow the law. this isnt speaking of mosaic law where there are punishments.
all of James testifies to this
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment
Allen
Gods spoken Laws for mercy
“Exactly. That is the nature of the Law – it’s all or nothing. That’s why James said in the next verse, “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.†”
Mark are you saying that according to the Law of Liberty we should do nothing
Doubting Thomas,
I was reading your post about how little of what was taught in the Synoptics was taught in Pauls letters. Are you kidding me bro. The teaching in Pauls writings that weave thier way back into the teachings of Christ in the Synoptics are stunning, especially the parables. Definately check out those two links I gave you. You will be challenged by what you listen to. For example, the description that Paul gave in 1 Corinthians 12: 14-23 of the body being made of different human body parts like the eye, the hand and the foot is grounded in the words of Jesus describing the different members of the body of believers as human body parts in Mark 9:42-49 and Matt 5:29-30. Pauls letters are full of concepts that trace back to the words of Christ and the Old Testament.
God bless
Allen
The description of the “Lord’s supper” that appears in all three Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, is particularly emphatic.
Xavier,
Here is a link to a dear brothers audios that i have gotten to know recently. Check them out and see what you think bro.
http://www.thegrovebiblefellowship.com/listen_disqualified.html
Xavier.
This is a great series too
http://www.thegrovebiblefellowship.com/listen_entering.html
God bless
Joseph (msg. 492)
I clicked on the link and it what came up was a discussion group but no-one seemed to be talking about the new covenant. I went back and looked at the link and I noticed the last part of it was a different color than the first part of the link. I’m assuming I was looking in the wrong place.
Xavier,
Pauls paradigm for the first resurrection was clearly taught in these verses Dan 12:2, John 5:25, Acts 24:14-15. Every parable The Lord ever taught in the Synoptics agrees with this. The Faithful enter the Kingom, the unfaithful go to outer darkness. Thats why Paul in the Acts passage sought to keep a clear conscience before God and man, he knew from the words of Christ in the synoptics that there was two possible outcomes for Christians at the Bema.
Allen,
Welcome, and thank you for your input. Your take on Ephesians in comment #498 is spot on! It was the Law that separated the Gentiles, and that separation has been done away with.
Well, I disagree that receiving the Holy Spirit doesn’t equal being saved. But that would be going off on another tangent. So I’ll say this. Even if that were the case, the Holy Spirit is not about guiding us through the Law to help you obey. If it were, why would Paul contrast the Law and the Spirit so often in his epistles?
Rom. 3:
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom. 4:
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom. 5:
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
[Is this talking only of what’s required for salvation? Paul goes on in chapter 6.]
Rom. 6:
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom. 7:
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rom. 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
II Cor. 3:
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
Gal. 3:
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Who said anything about ignoring the spirit? We walk by the spirit and not by the law.
But the Old Covenant WAS about being a Jew. That’s why the New covenant is better – it’s available to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
And as for following God’s commandments, once again – WHICH commandments? You get offended when I point out that not all references in the Bible to God’s commandments are referring to the Ten, but you still use it that way. We now love God and follow His commandments to the Church – the words of Jesus.
You keep quoting that verse, but you’re missing the context. It is a description of God’s faithfulness to reward according to people’s obedience. And incidentally, I notice you don’t quote the previous verse nearly as often:
Ex. 20:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The “promise” is not only to show mercy to them that love Him and keep His commandments, but also to visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children of them that hate him. It’s all conditional on whether they keep His commandments. The promise to Abraham, on the other hand, was about faith and not works. You should be glad this “promise” is not addressed to us!
And once again we have to ask, “which commandments?” The context is the Ten Commandments, which are quite clearly addressed to Israel. Nowhere in this context or anywhere in the Old Testament is there any indication that the Ten Commandments were addressed to “the nations” or anybody outside of Israel. (And we dealt before with the fact that the strangers among them that joined themselves to Israel are also included in the Old Covenant, and are not to be confused with the Gentile nations.)
In Galatians, Paul talks about the allegory of the law vs. faith. Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman, and one by the freewoman.
Gal. 4:
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Notice, the bondwoman represents the covenant from Mt. Sinai, while the freewoman represents Jerusalem which is above. He gives no indication that part of what was given on Mt. Sinai was addressed to everyone while the rest was the covenant with Israel. The Ten commandments and the rest of the Laws in Exodus 20-24 were all from Mt. Sinai, all given to Israel, and all the Old Covenant. And Paul is contrasting it with the freedom we have in Christ. I don’t know how it could be any clearer.
“Just a part”? He instituted the New Covenant which is God’s mercy for the whole world. And he paid for it with his life! “Just a part”???
Can you provide Scriptural documentation for this statement? The Gentiles were separate from Israel in every way, unless one converted and submitted to all the law of Israel. That’s what Gentile means.
Yes there is nothing that “couldn’t” be done by a Gentile. But they were not expected to do them, because it was not addressed to them.
Psalm 147:
19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.
Righteousness is attained by faith. Atonement is the process of reconciliation after an offense. The atonement was accomplished by Jesus, so that we can have the righteousness of God without the law, by faith.
How do they maintain their righteousness – by works or by faith?
How does “contained” prove a separation? If something is contained in a bigger thing, it is part of it, not a separate thing. And you have yet to show any Scripture that indicates that the Ten Commandments were addressed to all nations rather than to Israel.
All the Law is God-spoken. If you mean that it refers to the Ten Commandments, that’s not what James says. He identifies the Royal Law as “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” First of all, this is not in the Ten Commandments, and second, Jesus and Paul also teach that if you love God and love your neighbor, it fulfills the Law.
In the “promise” you keep quoting, it doesn’t say that those who don’t keep the commandments “just go on being what they were” nor does it say there is no punishment. It says that God visits the iniquity of the fathers on their children. It’s conditional, and has nothing to do with liberty.
No, of course not. The law of Moses is “all or nothing.” You can’t keep just part of it. If you keep every point of it and miss on just one, you break the whole law. That’s the curse of the Law. But we are to speak and do as those that are judged by the law of liberty, which is to love God and love your neighbor, rather than trying to keep fleshly rules and regulations.
Thomas wrote:
I won’t go into the whole article, as many of the points I have already responded to. But I do need to point out one discrepancy that jumped out at me right away.
What I am amazed at is that the author even quoted Exodus 31, and yet missed the point that the Sabbath was meant to be a sign of the unique relationship God had with Israel. After quoting the verses that clearly say so, he comments, “The Sabbath is a special SIGN that defines that we are God’s children and He is our God that sanctifies us and makes us Holy. ” But that is not what those verses said. They said it was a sign that defined ISRAEL as God’s people and that He was their God that sanctified THEM. That’s what it says. It does not say it is a sign for US.
“But the Old Covenant WAS about being a Jew. That’s why the New covenant is better – it’s available to everyone, Jew or Gentile.”
No the Old Covenant was about the New Covenant
your confusion the Mosaic covenant
“iniquity of the fathers”
How Does what the fathers did involve me
““Just a partâ€? He instituted the New Covenant which is God’s mercy for the whole world. And he paid for it with his life! “Just a partâ€???”
YES JUST A PART
God Instituted the New Covenant
Jesus Just paid his human life for it, a small task if you have faith in your God and was highly reward.
thats right it is Gods mercy
“Righteousness is attained by faith. Atonement is the process of reconciliation after an offense. The atonement was accomplished by Jesus, so that we can have the righteousness of God without the law, by faith.”
Righteousness is Gods Judgement Not Yours
“How does “contained†prove a separation? If something is contained in a bigger thing, it is part of it, not a separate thing. And you have yet to show any Scripture that indicates that the Ten Commandments were addressed to all nations rather than to Israel.”
This shows that they Law that was fulfil was just a part contained in the whole Law. doesnt say the rest was fulfilled
“And you have yet to show any Scripture that indicates that the Ten Commandments were addressed to all nations rather than to Israel.”
Yes i most certainly did, you didnt say i had to prove it in your mind
Robert,
The readers can decide whether you proved anything from the Scriptures.
Mark, how does one know that beastiality is a sin?
Mark C.
It took me quite a while but I used my good old NIV study bible and found all the verses where the book of John talks about the same subject as 2 or more of the synoptics.
When Jesus feeds the 5,000 in Mathew 14:13-21, Mark 6:30-44 and Luke 9:10-17 they all agree that Jesus taught the people all day and when evening came he THEN performed the miracle of feeding the 5,000 with 5 loaves and two fish.
In John 6:5 it says, “When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Phillip, ‘Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?’ He asked this only to test him.”
Then Jesus immediately performs the miracle of feeding the 5000 before he even begins to teach them anything. As a matter of fact there is no mention that he teaches them anything at all but it says he immediately withdrew to a mountain by himself.
When Jesus walks on the water in Mathew and Mark there is no mention of when Jesus gets into the boat that they suddenly arrive at their destination only John 6:21 says the boat immediately reached the shore where they were heading.
When a woman anoints Jesus with perfume in Mathew 26:8-9 it says, “when the disciples saw this, THEY were indignant. ‘Why this waste?’ THEY asked.”
In Mark 14:4-5 it says, “Some of them present were saying indignantly to one another, ‘Why this waste of perfume?….’ And THEY rebuked her harshly.”
In John 12:4-5 it says, “But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ‘Why wasn’t this money given to the poor? It was worth a years wages.’ He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.”
As you can see the basic story about who was objecting is different. Plus I can’t imagine that a prophet like Jesus who spoke with God every morning in his prayers would put a thief in charge of giving money to the poor.
In John 12:12-19 Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey. This was after the woman anointed him with perfume in Bethany. According to Mathew 21:1-11 and Mark 11:1-4 and Luke 19:28-44 Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey before the woman anoints Jesus with perfume in Bethany.
In Mathew 26:14-16 and in Mark 14:10-11 and Luke 22:1-6 Judas goes to the chief priests and agrees to betray Jesus BEFORE the Last Supper.
In John 13:26-27 at the Last Supper Jesus says, ” ‘It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.’ Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Simon took the bread, Satan entered into him. ‘What you are about to do, do quickly.’ Jesus told him.”
So according to John, Judas betrays Jesus AFTER the Last Supper. The other thing I noticed for the first time was that the story of the washing of the feet is only told in John.
When Jesus is betrayed and arrested in Mathew 26:48-49 and Mark 14:44-45 and Luke 22:47-48 they ALL say that Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. But in John 18:4-9 it says, Judas the traitor stood among the detachment of soldiers and officials from the chief priests and Pharisees and does not even approach near Jesus.
I think it is obvious that in John that Jesus is not betrayed with a kiss.
In Mathew 26:58 it says, “But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest.”
In Mark 14:54-55 it says, “Peter followed at a distance, right into the court yard of the high priest.”
In Luke 22:54-55 it says, “Peter followed at a distance. But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them.”
However in John 18:15-16 it says, “Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priests courtyard, but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.”
In Mathew 27:11-14 it says, “and the governor asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ ‘Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied. When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave NO ANSWER. Then Pilate asked him, ‘Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?’ But Jesus made NO REPLY, NOT EVEN to a single charge – to the great amazement of the governor.”
In Mark 15:2-5 it says, ” ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ asked Pilate. ‘Yes it is as you say.’ Jesus replied. The chief priests accused him of many things. So again pilate asked him, ‘Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.’ But Jesus still made NO REPLY, and Pilate was amazed.”
In Luke 23:9 “He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him NO ANSWER.”
Contrast this with JOHN 18:31-37 “Pilate said, ‘Take him yourself and judge him by your law.’ ‘But we have no right to execute anyone,’ the Jews objected….(later)….’Are you king of the Jews?’ ‘Is that your own idea,’ Jesus asked, ‘or did others talk to you about me?’
‘Am I a Jew’ Pilate replied, ‘It was your people and chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?’ Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.’ ‘You are a king then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me’ ”
John 19:16 goes on to have Pilate say, “….’You take him and crucify him’….”
Was Pilate amazed by the silence of Jesus to the charges against him or did this long conversation with Jesus occur. The other thing that I don’t understand is that in John this entire conversation with Jesus happened inside, out of sight and out of earshot of anyone else so how would John even know that this conversation took place.
The other thing that raises a huge red flag for me is that the Jews were not legally allowed to execute anyone let alone crucify anyone. Only the Romans had the authority to crucify someone.
In Mathew 27:55 it says, “Many women were there, watching from a distance.”
In Mark 15:40 it says, “Some women were watching from a distance.”
In Luke 24:49 it says, “But all those who knew him…..stood at a distance, watching these things.”
Contrast this with John 19:25-27 “NEAR the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on this disciple took her into his home.”
According to John they were standing so close to the cross that Jesus was able to carry on a conversation with them.
In Mathew 28:5-7 and Mark 16-6 and Luke 24:1-12 angels appear to the woman when they first arrive at the tomb on the first day of the week telling them what happened to Jesus and why he is not in his tomb.
In John 20:1-2 (Mary Magdalene doesn’t know why Jesus is not in his tomb)”so she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we DO NOT KNOW where they have put him!”
Except for a few variations between the synoptics (like in Luke above that talks about 2 angels instead of one angel) the basic story in the synoptics always matches when they are telling the same story.
In almost every instance that 2 or more of the synoptics are telling the same story as John the basic story of John is different. Like I pointed out earlier for Jesus’ baptism or how and when he first met the disciples or where in the book of John, John the baptist himself says that he is not Elijah, etc…
In my opinion the book of John is telling a completely different story. Because of this I don’t trust what is written in John and I don’t study John.
I don’t expect you to agree with me that John isn’t even worth studying but I hope you can at least agree with me that the book of John is not as accurate as the synoptics are.
Allen (msg. 513)
This weekend I will sit down with my good old NIV study bible and see if I can show you and the others what it is I am talking about.
“Well, I disagree that receiving the Holy Spirit doesn’t equal being saved. But that would be going off on another tangent. ”
Do you believe you must be baptised to be saved
Thomas wrote:
When I read new covenant part 2 I noticed your response and it’s reference to http://www.Sabbath-day.net/ and I clicked on it.
It was fascinating. It explains exactly what I believe and why I believe it.
Thomas
I also found it very informative and very biblical
thanks for reminding me of it
“The other thing that raises a huge red flag for me is that the Jews were not legally allowed to execute anyone let alone crucify anyone. Only the Romans had the authority to crucify someone.”
Thomas
when the romans occupied a nation they allowed them to govern themselves but still mantained final say on their decision. this we can see at the time of Jesus which the jews having their own legal system. Executions required permision from the romans. that was the only reason they went to the romans. Jesus was already convicted and sentence by the Jews under jewish law before Pilate. Pilate then released Jesus to the jews to be executed in the manner of jewish tradition.His hands were bound to a peice of wood sitting on his shoulders as all prisoners were during transport. being so weak from the massive beatings he received he couldnt carry it so somelse carried it to the execution site where it was laid on the ground with Jesus laying arm streched out and was retied then nailed to it. after that the hung him by it on a tree.
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Acts 10:39
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Acts 13:29
And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
By by this law
Deuteronomy 21:22
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Robert
You said, “When the Romans occupied a nation they allowed them to govern themselves but still maintained final say on their decision. This we can see at the time of Jesus with the Jews having their own legal system. Executions required permission from the Romans. That was the only reason they went to the Romans. Jesus was already convicted and sentenced by the Jews under Jewish law before Pilate Jesus was then released to the Jews to be executed in the manner of Jewish tradition.”
I didn’t realize that Jewish tradition included crucifixtion. I see by your quotes from Deuteronomy that I was mistaken. But wasn’t it the Roman soldiers that carried out the crucifixtion of Jesus?
Thomas
does this sound like the romans executed Jesus
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: SEE YE TO IT. 25 Then answered ALL the people(JEWS), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Peter,Luke and Paul say the Jews done it
Robert
That is quite clear. I must admit that you have eliminated that red flag…
In Mathew 27:55 it says, “Many women were there, watching from a distance.â€
In Mark 15:40 it says, “Some women were watching from a distance.â€
In Luke 24:49 it says, “But all those who knew him…..stood at a distance, watching these things.â€
John 19:25-27 “NEAR the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.
Thomas out of these 4 Lukes is the one not in harmony.
Many doesnt mean all.
some doesnt mean all.
Have you and a freind ever had a different account of something that happened to both of you together.
this men were working of memory of what they saw and heard.
John certainly look at things a little different than Peter and Matthew and whoever Luke got his account from
Robert
All that knew him….stood at a distance, watching these things.
This could be interpreted as All (that were there) that knew him…
At least I think it could anywaze. But like you said we don’t know if Luke got his account from people that were actually eye witness’ to the events that he wrote about…
Thomas
I think you may have missed the point but not sure
John’ is not contradicted by matt and mark, all 3 of these contradict lukes.
Robert
The 3 synoptics say that the people that knew him stood at distance. John says, “Near the cross of Jesus stood…” They were so close that Jesus could talk to them.
Robert (msg. 533)
You said, “John certainly looked at things a little different than….”
From my point of view it is more than just that. It seems to me that the basic stories being told in John are different and do not match, thus I believe they are not reliable.
Of course this is just my own opinion/interpretation. I’m sure not everyone will be able to see it the way I see it. I just wanted Mark to know why it is I don’t read or study the book of John…
I’m not even sure what you mean by that. The Old was about the New? How could they be contrasted then in Paul’s epistles?
Where does it say that the Old Covenant is different from the Mosaic Covenant? Paul says there are only two covenants – the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, and the one representing Jerusalem which is above, which brings freedom. And on Mt. Sinai, Moses clearly stated that ALL the words of the LORD were written in the Book of the Law, and were the words of the Covenant with Israel.
Let’s read this again.
Ex. 20:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
In the midst of His commandment not to make graven images or worship them, God makes the statement that He is a jealous God. And He refers to two things that He does:
1) Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of them that hate Him.
2) Showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Him and keep His commandments.
Note, the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation. Those that hate God will have their iniquity visited upon their children, while those that love him and keep His commandments will have God’s mercy upon them.
If you want to insist that this is addressed to all people, you have to take the bad with the good. But I still maintain that this is part of the covenant that God made with Israel, not addressed to all people.
I didn’t say it was my judgment. But Paul clearly tells us that the righteousness of God is by faith, without the Law.
I’m not talking about proving it in my mind, but if you insist that the Ten Commandments are a separate promise addressed to all people, rather than part of the Covenant with Israel, you should be able to prove it from the Scriptures. You’ve only offered three “proofs” –
1) The verse that says he shows mercy unto them that love Him and keep His commandments, which you keep quoting out of context. First of all, there is both mercy and iniquity in those two verses; and second, while God shows mercy to them that love Him by keeping His commandments, it doesn’t say “by keeping THESE commandments.” God has given commandments to different groups of people, and the ones in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, are specifically addressed to Israel, not to all people. I showed specific Scriptures that say exactly that, which you chose to ignore.
2) The assumption that because the Ten Comm are written in stone and the tables were kept in the Ark that it means they are addressed to all that believe. But as I pointed out to Thomas, it was the Ark of the Covenant. And that Covenant was made with Israel, not with all people.
3) The claim that since there were other people besides those who were natural born Israelites included among the people to whom the Ten Commandments were addressed, that they were addressed to “all people.” But the strangers among Israel who joined with them were expected to keep the Law, and were included among Israel, but were not the same as the “nations” or the “Gentiles.” Look up the words “strangers” and “Gentiles” if you don’t believe me.
Other than these points, I asked if you could show any other scriptures that showed that the Ten Commandments were separate from the Law of Moses and addressed to all people, or that anyone in the Old Testament considered them so. You repeated the stone tablet response, and made the claim that “what was put in to the ark was for the Abrahamic covenant which included all that believe.” You offered no Scriptural proof for that last statement, and when I asked you if you could provide any, you claimed you had “met the challenge and conquered it in every way,” and then told me not to challenge you again “unless its going to be a honest one.” But if you make a statement like that, which contradicts other Scriptures about the Abrahamic Covenant, it is not dishonest to expect you to back it up with Scripture.
Not only have you not provided Scriptures that prove your point, but when I provided many, you offered no rebuttal except to say that they don’t prove my point and I had to explain things away. But I quoted them word for word, and even directly pasted many of them into my comments. Have you no evidence that they don’t prove my point?
If you don’t want to discuss it, that’s your choice. As I said, the readers can decide whether you proved anything from the Scriptures.
Thomas,
Here’s the first part of my responses to your observed contradictions.
The way it’s written, it doesn’t say that it was at a different time of day. The main difference is that it skips over the teaching. Remember, John’s Gospel focuses on the miracles, with less emphasis on his teaching. When a person is summarizing a series of events and focusing on certain ones, he may skip over others that aren’t relevant to the point being made. John’s mention of Jesus’ question to Philip to test him is added info that the synoptics don’t mention, while the teaching is added info in the synoptics that John doesn’t mention. The records are complementary, not contradictory.
Matthew says, ” And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.” Mark says, “And when they had passed over, they came into the land of Gennesaret, and drew to the shore.” Neither one says how quickly they arrived, but John says, “immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.” Again, it adds a detail that is not in the synoptics, but it doesn’t contradict anything there.
Matthew and Mark are giving an overview. Some of the disciples were idignant and said, “Why the waste?” John quotes the specific words of Judas, but doesn’t say he was the only one who said it or who was indignant. He quotes Judas specifically, giving the reason why he said it, which was most likely not the motivation of the others who said it. So the basic story is not different – Matthew and Mark tell us that more than one disciple was indignant, while John focuses on one of them, namely Judas.
I also can’t imagine Jesus, with the close walk he had with God, selecting Judas to be an apostle in the first place. But Jesus only knew what God revealed to him. For various reasons, God did not warn Jesus against trusting Judas.
Remember that not all the events in the Gospels are necessarily in chronological order. Some of them are grouped in other ways for other purposes. I’ve even heard teachings that there was more than one entry into the city on a donkey, although I’m not sure about that.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to Judas going to the chief priests and making the deal to betray Jesus. In John, when Jesus says, “what you do, do quickly,” he is referring to the actual betrayal. Judas left at that point, and then in chapter 18, it says:
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
As for the washing of the feet, that doesn’t contradict anything in the synoptics.
Each Gospel has slightly different details.
Matthew says that Judas had given the chief priests a sign, that it was whoever he kissed, and after Judas kissed him, Jesus said, “Friend, wherefore art thou come?” Then it says they came and took Jesus.
Mark says almost the same thing, but omits Jesus asking Judas, “Friend, wherefore art thou come?”
Luke says that Judas “drew near unto Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” This seems to imply that Judas did not actually kiss him. It also doesn’t mention that Judas had given the chief priests the sign, nor Jesus’ asking why Judas had come.
John says that Judas came with officers from the chief priests, and Jesus asked them, “Whom do you seek?” It doesn’t mention the kiss or the other questions.
Many skeptics who doubt not only John but all of the Gospels, have tried to say that these are all so contradictory as to be irreconcilable. But there is no reason to think that the exact events were not some combination of the testimonies of all four Gospel writers, each of them focusing on slightly different details.
The alleged contradictions you see between John and the Synoptics are not new. People have seen them and examined them for hundreds of years. There are a number of alleged contradictions between the other Gospels as well, not to mention alleged contradictions in other parts of the Bible. But every one of them can be explained, some even have more than one possible explanation. But it is never wise to just assume that one writer or one book is in error. Here is an interesting article dealing with the subject:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Alleged-Contradictions-in-the-G.pdf
It’s getting late; I’ll continue with more this weekend.
Thomas
I understand
Was just showing what i saw on that contradiction. the rest i see between all gospels i dont find them at odds with eachother just seen differently or remembered differently
“If you don’t want to discuss it, that’s your choice. As I said, the readers can decide whether you proved anything from the Scriptures.”
Mark
I may not have totally proved my belief but certainly have disproved alot of yours. I do not see where you get your explaintions for the verses you quote because the ones you quote strengthen my position.
you will never see past your own explaintions to see the truth in those verses ,so there is no reason to try.
Mark C.
Thanks for the Contradictions link. As usual you have given me a lot to think about…
Mark C.
The Contradictions link talks about the frame of mind of the person who is deliberately looking for contradictions. I must admit that I am guilty of deliberately looking for contradictions.
When I read that there was a huge outcry of protest when the Book of John was first written and then another huge outcry of protest when it was included in the final cannon in the year 1000AD. I immediately started looking for contradictions between John and the synoptics to see if I could try to understand why so many people were protesting.
Like I said in an earlier message your perspective does effect how you read and interpret the scriptures….
Mark, thank you for the contradition link. As I read it I began to see
how it is that I found within myself a strong desire at times to wish
that all things said (that I had seen written in the scriptures) were said in such a way that was by my choosing as if I could be the customer at a restaurant and order everything my way while God chose his way and the certain instruments of his choosing.
Again, I say, what explanations? I quoted the Scriptures word for word and for the most part they speak for themselves. All one has to do is read Exodus 19-24 in context to see that the Ten commandments and the other ordinances that God spoke were “ALL the words of the Lord, and all were written in the book of the Covenant, and agreed on by the children of Israel. All one has to do is read about the “strangers” that joined with Israel to see that they are not the same as “the nations” and “the Gentiles.” All one has to do is look at how the words law, commandments, judgments, statutes, ordinances, etc. are used interchangeably to see that there was never any distinction between the 10 comm and the Law of Moses. All one has to do is read Exod 20:5-6 to see that there is both judgment and mercy there. All one has to do is look at the title of the first part of the Bible to see that it was all about the Old Testament, which means Old Covenant. All one has to do is read Jesus’ words where he quotes from both the 10 comm and other laws of Moses, with no hint that the 10 comm was a different law or promise. All one has to do is read Paul’s comments about Abraham and about the Law to see that he contrasts the Old Covenant with the New. In all these points your response has been to either ignore or simply state that what I said was wrong. What Scripture have you presented that disproves what I said?
Not only have you not disproved my points, you have not presented any Scripture that proves yours. You cannot show me any verse that proves that the Ten Commandments were addressed to anyone but Israel. You cannot show me any verse that says the stone tablets in the Ark of the Covenant were for the Abrahamic Covenant. You cannot show me any verse that says the Mosaic Covenant was different from the Old Covenant.
How do you know what I would see if you don’t even try? Or at the very least, you could present Scriptures that prove your point for the sake of those reading this blog. But you keep making unsubstantiated claims with no Scriptural proof. Yet you claim you’ve proved your point and disproved mine. As I’ve said, the readers can decide whether you proved anything or not.
Mark i presented many verses to prove but most of all work off of the verses you provide your own context with your own explainations.
everytime i present verses you explain them away using your belief. I do not see where your explainations are logical or biblical.
like i said
you will never see past your own explaintions to see the truth in those verses ,so there is no reason to try.
left off anymore at end of last statement
dead horses have deaf ears
God communicated Christ through all the law and the prophets. The time then came when God sent him to us another way.
Robert
Remember when you were debating Ray about whether we go directly to heaven when we die or if have to wait until the end times and the day of judgment. It wasn’t that Ray wasn’t listening to you it was just that his basic beliefs or preconceptions were different than yours.
It is very difficult to get someone to change one of their basic beliefs or preconceptions that go to the very core of what they believe. Everyone including me have basic core beliefs or preconceptions.
My personal experience in my life (especially my childhood) has taught me not to trust so called experts or professionals. My friend Tim thinks that this one of my main problems and that I should try to work on overcoming this mistrust. But God gave me these experiences in my life for a reason and I don’t think it is such a bad thing to be a Doubting Thomas.
At least from my perspective anywaze…
Thomas
Your very wise in what you will base your faith on and is one of the things i admire about your quest for the truth. If you cant see what others say you should always prove before you take their explainations. It is beyond me how people can explain away very clear verses to keep their belief but understandable by some of the teachings of the bible that it was already happening during the apostles time.
I have read and looked at everything Mark has wrote on this subject and a few others subject and can not prove them true using the bible and outside sources when neeeded
I dont have any problem towards Mark personally but have problem with what he tries to teach.
Perhaps for the benefit of the others reading this blog you could post references to comment numbers where you present evidence from Scripture. And once again you say I’m explaining away your evidence, or providing “my own context” or “my own explanations,” but for the most part all I have done was refer to or quote Scripture word for word that says the exact opposite of what you claim, yet you offer no rebuttal except to say it doesn’t prove my point.
For this to be a profitable exchange you need to be more specific. If you like, I could also put in references to comment numbers where I presented evidence.
Mark
as you said the readers can decide. we have been over this in many threads with many others presenting verses that you just ignore or explain away . Mark its your belief that provides the context for the verses you present. as i said i spend more time trying to show you your error in using that context.
there is no way we are going to see eye to eye on this and even the person i was a little over a year ago i wouldnt see eye to eye.I was lead by misconceptions and deception till I read the bible with an open mind to prove what i base my faith on. 46 years i was deceived and never had a clue.
That is exactly the kind of claim I am referring to. You keep saying that over and over. Can you name one verse that I’ve ignored? And if pointing out that you quoted it out of context is “explaining it away” then I did that, but the context is not based on my belief, rather my belief is based on the context, which can be seen by simply reading it.
You seem to spend more time telling me I’m wrong than you do in presenting Scripture that proves it. I’ve lost count of how many times you have made sweeping statements, to which I replied, “can you provide Scriptural evidence of that?” (And more often than not, you didn’t respond.)
Perhaps. Maybe even probably. But for the sake of Thomas and others who read this, wouldn’t it present your case better if you could quote Scripture to directly deal with points I make that you disagree with? And before you reply that you’ve done so, just give me a comment number where you think you proved your point, where I have ignored or explained away your evidence.
Then you should be able to demonstrate from the Scriptures what convinced you. And you should be able to pinpoint the flaws in my logic if I am wrong.
Mark
For the last time most of my discussions have been over your context of verses.there is no other verses that are more relevent than the one you are providing the context for. just because you copy and paste verses after verses doesnt prove you use verses to prove your point when None of the logically or biblically mean what you say they mean. i read them word for word and can not find your belief in them. when there is verses that set the context of verses you present i post them but you then say they dont mean what is clearly written in them. No i dont throw out verses left and right but they need to actually be relevent to subject at hand. Dont worry if you presented your case better than i did the readers will see it.
Now can we agree to disagree before things get out of hand
“Well, I disagree that receiving the Holy Spirit doesn’t equal being saved. But that would be going off on another tangent. â€
Now on to a different subject.
Mark
Do you believe you must be baptised to be saved
Mark C.
I spent most of the day with my old NIV study bible (which I must admit had some dust on it) and tried to prove the point I was making but ended up coming to the opposite conclusion. I never noticed before how much Mathew talks about the same subjects as Paul. It is not just John that talks about a lot of the same subjects as Paul.
I want to thank you for making me actually go and look instead of just relying on my memory…
Robert, if someone told you that he that believes and drives a Chevy would be saved, would you believe one must drive a Chevy to be saved?
Some people drive Chevys because that’s what they own and it serves the purpose in getting them to where they need to go.
Robert, do you believe a man could have lived without being baptized in water, receive Christ and live?
If he’s received Christ and the gift of the holy spirit but was not baptized in water, can he receive eternal life?
Thomas,
Hallelujah! I’m glad I could help.
If he’s received Christ and the gift of the holy spirit but was not baptized in water, can he receive eternal life?
Ray
Anyone can received eternal life, the question is has he?
Mark C.
I just want to clarify that I still have my doubts about the writings of Paul and John but like I said that is my nature…..
Robert
I’ve heard some people say baptism is just a symbol whereas my friend Tim thinks it is much more that and is absolutely necessary. To be quite honest I don’t know that much about it…
Thomas
It is the washing away of past sins, You shouldnt do it till you agree to obey God (accept the new covenant)(sames as the 10 commandment covenant) cause this is a one time washing. Good news is unless you fully understand it and was baptised in the name of the lamb it was just a sham.
If you understood it then You can not sacrafice Jesus again and then your current and future sins count toward judgement but the gift of the holy spirit usually comes before or with it which will lead you in Gods ways to help you not sin. if you endure till your last breath than you will receive salvation upon your resurection from the dead and if you dont then your name will be blotted out of the book of those who will be saved and added to the book of dead
I believe baptism is somewhere in between the two. It’s more than just a symbol, but I couldn’t say it is “necessary” in the sense that you can’t be saved without it. The question is, since Jesus commanded it, why would anyone not want to, if it’s available?
Robert
What happens to non Christian who have God’s law written on their hearts but because they don’t know anything about baptism have never been baptized???
My hope is God will have grace on them.
Brain wrote a very good article here on it here this month, while i dont agree totally with him on everything i find it very biblical in most parts
Thomas
its 2 parts called Gods call to salvation
Robert
I thought I had read all the articles since I first came on this site at Christmas but I don’t remember an article on baptism. What was the name of it???
Robert
That’s funny according to my computer screen you sent me the answer to my question 1 minute before I posted it…
It is not about baptism its about Gods calling , it answer the question of those who didnt know. But if they have Gods laws in their heart than they should know of how to accept Jesus as their sacrafice for past sins
Robert
I just read those two articles and the most recent one by Ron S. I have often wondered if I should get re-baptized unfortunately I don’t belong to any formal church. This group here is the closest thing I have to a formal church…
This group here is the closest thing I have to a formal church…
Me too
I worry about someone who doesnt believe the truth baptising me so have been looking for someone who has the same belief but havent found such a person or a group. if i could lump several groups together i would have a group that matches my belief . Matthew that post here sometimes would be as close as i could get.
Btw there is some very good articles and audio at his site
http://ministersnewcovenant.org/
But he puts a little more importance on the law than i do
I was a part of an organization that didn’t baptize anyone to my knowledge. It didn’t have church buildings all over the nation though it did have meetings in the homes of it’s people.
It was a relatively new organization at the time. Many of the people had come from other church background. Maybe they thought most of them had been baptized, or that it was more trouble to do so than the value of it. I don’t know.
Maybe it would have been better for that organization to baptize.
Maybe that was one of the things it didn’t do that it should have done.
I believe baptism to be important. It’s one way of remembering the importance of dying to self. It can be a public statement of the acceptance of dying to self in order to follow Christ, and of the connection of daily dying with him as he directs us, or of having died with him, of accepting, thinking seriously about the meaning of the cross, and making a public witness to it.
It can be something that strengthens all of us in the gospel message. It can be a way for people to connect with Christ, all those who have been baptized, and the scriptures that speak of it.
The last baptism I saw was in a lake. The man was told by the pastor doing the baptism (as we were all told) about why we do so and the importance of it. I remember him saying that whatever
we leave when we go under, we should simply leave it there.
The man came up out of the water and used some unclean language describing how cold the water was. It was cold.
So I wondered how important some people’s baptisms were. I suppose it depends on each of us.
The man came up out of the water and used some unclean language describing how cold the water was. It was cold.
Ray
You didnt pass judgement on that man, he may of not thought in his heart the words were unclean. this contadicts your excuse for worshiping the cross which i feel is uclean pagan symbol considering Jesus was hung on a real tree not a cross
Robert
Thanks for the link I listened to the sermon on “Do you believe in the Father and the Son?” I have never seen a lunar sabbath calender before. I knew the Jewish Holidays were based on the lunar calender just like Easter but I didn’t realize that the Sabbath had anything to do with the lunar calender…
Yes
I really like Matthew but i feel whats in the Mosaic law is a great way to understand our God but not doing it should not be considered not loving God but i could see where it would please God. The 10 commandments are how we should show we love him and agreeing to obey them is how both old and new covenants were and are entered into. the 10 commandments are the words of both and mosaic law was conditions for old and following Jesus is the condition of the new
Robert, I don’t know if Jesus was hung on a real tree or a cross, but he was crucified on some type of one, the other , or perhaps both.
I watched a program on TV about how the Romans used to crucify.
They had upright posts of wood standing which had a tennon at the top which is a type of joint cut into it, to which a mortice, which was the counterpart of the joint was cut into the beam which the condemned man carried on his way to the site.
He was then nailed to the beam while he lay on the ground, and I suppose whatever else they wanted to fix to the beam could also be fastened at such a time if they wanted. Then the man was lifted up and the mortice which was cut into the center of the beam was set into the mortice of the post. The man then hung there having been crucified (having the nails driven through his hands) on the ground, and then they nailed his feet to the post. This “tree” or “cross” resembled the letter “T”.
It was the customary way of the Romans according to the program.
They also showed how they found a heel bone that had a rusty nail in it, but I am sure it did not belong to the body of Jesus, unless understood in a spiritual sense, for I remember how one of the thieves who once reviled him repented and rebuked the other
who was also crucified with Jesus.
I don’t know for sure what the “tree” or “cross” really looked like that Jesus died on, but found the program interesting. I certainly think it’s possible that Jesus was put to death on the kind of apparatus that was shown on the program.
I consider the cross to be a symbol of the gospel message to many Christians, though it may also be a symbol of the ways of pagan man which Jesus overcame.
Each man has to decide for himself what the cross represents.
I can not make that decision for a man. God has not given me such authority. It’s not my responsibility to decide for him what it means, only to direct him to it for his salvation when he needs it, for by it God has given a means to forgive us and cleanse us of our sins if we will receive it.
Ray
You said, “Each man has to decide for himself what the cross represents.”
Like I said, “There is a lot of God’s wisdom in many of your posts.”
Ray ,Thomas
here is a good article on the mistranslation of the greek word to cross and why the word for tree couldnt be mistranslated
http://church-of-yehovah.org/cructree.html
Robert
Thanks a lot for the article. I’ve learned a lot of new things talking with you…
Thomas
your welcome
Its very hard to figure out what is tradition and what is truth, but all the evidence is out there somewhere in history where a tradition started
I’m sorry but that is not true. Entering the New Covenant is about believing the Gospel and accepting Jesus’ sacrifice, confessing him as lord. Paul frequently pointed out the difference between the Old Covenant and the New, and especially the difference between works and faith. Entering into the New Covenant is not an agreement to obey the Ten Commandments which were addressed to Israel, but an agreement to live according to the Kingdom standards.
Since we agree to disagree, you don’t need to respond, but I felt that needed to be said, in the interest of offering another viewpoint.
“Since we agree to disagree, you don’t need to respond, but I felt that needed to be said, in the interest of offering another viewpoint. ”
Mark
Fair enough
I believe we should look at other views to see how the human mind works within different people on a common subject. this can help us figure how traditions start
That was an interesting article about the word “tree”. I noticed that in it their was a reference to what Jesus said about “..if they do this in a green tree, what will they do in the dry.”
Jesus who is the word of God used the word “tree” in different ways. I don’t know if he was crucified on a living tree as the article states or not, but found it interesting.
I don’t believe it to be impossible that Jesus was nailed through the hands. I’ve often heard that were he nailed through the hands
the flesh would have torn and it would be possible to fall free.
That I don’t believe to be necessarily so, for it would depend on how one would be nailed through the hands.
This is a bible study one might be able to do at home. Please try it and let me know what you found out. Here’s how I did it:
I went to the hardware store and bought a few 16D Duplex nails.
These nails have a double head. They are often used for building scaffolding for one head can be driven flush with the wood being held and there is still a head left above the surface of the wood so that it can be pulled when the temporary scaffolding is to be taken down.
Then I found some assortment of washers. I found the largest fender washer I could. A fender washer is a large diameter washer
with a small hole in the middle. I found an even larger diameter washer than the fender washer because what I wanted to do was to put the duplex headed nail through the washers, and then place the nail as close to the palm of my hand as I could between the four fingers of my left hand, so I could pound the nail with the hammer which would be held in my right hand.
I would do this on a 2″x4″ exposed stud in my garage. I would pound this as deeply as I could stand the pain in hopes to see if
by letting the weight of my body hang, if my hand would “tear off”.
This I did, and my hand certainly did not tear off as I let my weight begin to fall. However, the pain I felt was great as my body weight
came to bear upon the fastening of my hand in that manner.
I pulled the double headed nail and set myself free, finding a much better understanding of what Jesus did for me because of the pain
I felt.
This was nothing compared to what he endured for me.
If you must try this at home, I suggest that you have someone with you, but if not, be careful you do not drop the hammer which you intend to use to pull yourself free.
Ray
the wrist was considered the same as the hand becuse there is no word for wrist in ancient greek
Ray
I think your faith must be stronger than mine. I’d be too squeamish to ever even think of trying an experiment like that…
Robert
My friend Tim and I were talking about baptism and he sent me the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_Name_doctrine#Jesus.27_Name_baptism
I don’t know how reliable wikipedia is though….
Thomas
couldnt get that link to work but looked at baptism in this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
Jesus spoke of the cross as something to be carried, (not as a litteral planted living tree) in Mark 10:21.
Mark 10:21
……..take up the cross, and follow me.
So it must have been known that a cross is something that one can carry. It doesn’t have to be a standing tree.
In Mark 10 we also see that the cross is singular. He didn’t say to the man “…take up your cross..” here in the KJV.
It seems to me that the cross can be thought of as one thing though it be many burdens upon many people. I say this because I saw it written in an article that since the scripture says that the Jews besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away,(because that sabbath drew near) off the cross, and since it is “the cross” singular, that this indicates a single tree to which the three were crucified.
John 19:31
…that the bodies should not remain on the cross…
It’s interesting to hear that there is no greek word for wrist and yet some people will insist that Jesus was nailed through the wrists instead of the hands.
It seems to me that if a man was nailed through the hands with a framing gun, if there were a piece of 3/4″ plywood square (about 4″ square) upon his palms, that he would not fall free from the nails tearing through his hands.
It’s common sense that a man can be nailed through the hands and not fall off from the nails tearing the flesh away from the hands.
Now if a man was nailed with some small finish nails which have a small head then he may be able to get free by his hands pulling through the head of the nail. This does not mean that a man could not be held by nailing through the hands.
A man can hang by one hand through gripping onto something and his fingers do not tear away. Some people don’t seem to realize this.
It seems to me that if some people saw a man hanging because he was nailed through the hands, they still would not believe it, but some would.
“It’s interesting to hear that there is no greek word for wrist and yet some people will insist that Jesus was nailed through the wrists instead of the hands.”
Ray
what they are saying is the same word in greek also refered to wrist, there was not a separate word for wrist. so there is a possibilty that Jesus was nailed thru the wrist which would support body weight without an outside board to clamp on bones. but this is not very important.
Robert
Thanks for the link. It was extremely long though. It took me too sittings (I had to take a break) and I still only got through about half of it. But I read enough to answer all the questions I had.
It’s really some