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,
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 an expert either
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 Jesus”, 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 destroyed”? ”
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:
“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,
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.
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?
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.”
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.”
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?”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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?