Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Curse of the Law
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 31 of 45 (693562)
03-17-2013 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by purpledawn
03-17-2013 3:49 PM


Re: Abolished - Inoperative
Paul was Torah Observant
I read the article. Some comment is below.
quote:
What Paul did not teach was the man-made laws of the Rabbi’s of his day.
He did not teach people to offer animal sacrifices outside of the Temple, in fact, he offered animal sacrifices himself at the Temple 30 years after Yeshua (Acts 21.17-26).
Paul may have been an apostle of Christ. But he was human like Peter. And he had to GROW into maturity like any other normal Christian.
Paul was strongly persuaded by James to revert back to Judiastic ritual in order to appease the thousands of Jewish followers of Jesus believers not clear about the transition from the old covenent to the new.
James and some others said to Paul " ... You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. And they have been informed concerning you that you are teaching all the Jews throughout the nations apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs.
What then is to be done? THEREFORE DO THIS THAT WE TELL YOU: ..." (My Emphasis Acts 21:17-23)
Paul had a reputation that he was an apostate from Moses. To neutralize the negative rumors they leaned upon him to act like a law keeping total devotee of Moses. Paul capitulated to their advice.
The interpretation I find most reasonable is that the entire facade blew up in Paul's face. The scheme totally backfired. And I believe Paul learned a big lesson as a result. What God had shown him by revelation was not to be adjusted upon the well meaning advice of James and other men in Jerusalem.
So the reasoning that Acts 21:17-23 proves Paul faithfully practicing Mosaic law keeping out of his own voluntary piety is only superficially accurate. In truth he was taking some bad advice which God did not honor nor allow to misrepresent the truth of the gospel.
This was trying to put new wine into old wineskins as Jesus taught Luke 5:36-39
"And He also spoke a parable to them: No one tears a parch from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise, he will tear the new garment, and also the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the new wine will burst the wineskins, and it will be poured out and the wineskins will be ruined; But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins."
I submit that this was an ill advized scheme from James to pour the new wine of the new covenant into old wineskins of the Mosiac law.
Paul went along with it. He was human. He could make mistakes.
The footnote of the Recovery Version New Testament says concerning this incident:
quote:
" The mixing of Judaic practices with God's New Testament economy was not only erroneous in relation to God's dispensation but also abominable in the eyes of God. This gross mixture was terminated by Him a mere ten years or so later with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the center of Judiasm, through Titus and his Roman army. This rescued and absolutely separated the church from the devastation of Judaism.
God might have tolerated Paul's carrying out of a private vow in 18:18, but He would not allow Paul, a vessel chosen by Him not only for the completing of His New Testament revelation (Col. 1:25) but also for the carrying out of His New Testament economy (Eph. 3:2,7-8), to participate in the Nazarite vow, a strict Judaic practice. In going to Jerusalem, Paul's intention might have been to clear up the Judaic influence on the church there ..., but God knew that the church there was incurable. Hence, in His sovereignty God allowed Paul to be arrested by the Jews and imprisoned by the Romans that he might write his last eight Epistles ... which completed the divine revelation (Col. 1:25) and gave the church a clearer and deeper view concerning God's New Testament economy (Eph. 3:3-4). Thus, God left the Judaism-influenced church in Jerusalem to remain as it was until the devastating mixture was terminated with the destruction of Jerusalem. For Paul to write his last eight Epistles to complete God's New Testament revelation was far more important and necessary than for him to accomplish some outward works for the church."
In the incident in Acts 21, I do see some process of Paul growing spiritually and in realization and also some human weakness.
But I also see God's sovereignty and the positive outcome of the lesson that Paul learned and his subsequent clarity in understanding of the New Testament economy.
We should also remember the prophecy of Jesus Christ towards the religionists who opposed Him in the name of Moses -
" Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation producing its fruit ... And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking concerning them." (Matt. 21:43,45) .
The nation is the "one new man" of the Christian church.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2013 3:49 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2013 10:32 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 45 (693573)
03-18-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jaywill
03-17-2013 11:45 PM


Re: Abolished - Inoperative
quote:
Paul was strongly persuaded by James to revert back to Judiastic ritual in order to appease the thousands of Jewish followers of Jesus believers not clear about the transition from the old covenent to the new.
Unfortunately that understanding puts Paul in a bad light.
It paints Paul as a hypocrite, which is worse since he confronted Peter about being a hypocrite.
If the account is accurate, Paul complies to show that he is not teaching Jews to turn away from Torah. There is no record of Paul disagreeing in his own writings or that he performed the acts under duress or that they "leaned" on him.
As I showed earlier, Paul had no problem having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) since he was Jewish.
Paul had no problem cutting off his hair due to a vow he had taken. (Acts 18:18)
As you keep pointing out, there are no laws prohibiting Christian Jews from observing Torah. So when Paul is Torah observant, that isn't a mistake to be rectified or grown out of unless he is doing so for justification before God and I don't see that he is.
Paul's authentic writings do not present the rituals as abominable in God's eyes.
quote:
I submit that this was an ill advized scheme from James to pour the new wine of the new covenant into old wineskins of the Mosiac law.
Many people do, but that isn't what that parable is addressing. It addresses why Jesus' disciples (pupils) didn't fast when the disciples of John and the Pharisees did. Also Jesus said they would fast after he was taken away. (Luke 5:33-39) Notice the next line after what you quoted really messes up your theory.
Luke 5:39
And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for the says "the old is better."
Gentiles aren't part of this equation. IMO, we need to look at the parable from a Jewish perspective.
Identifying the Garments and Wineskins in Luke
In rabbinic literature, wine is often used as a metaphor for the teachings of Torah, with students of Torah pictured as wine containers. ...
Taking into account (i) and (ii), Lancaster suggests that the garments and wineskins in the parable represent individual disciples rather than any religious system or movement. He offers the following paraphrase of Luke 5:36-39:
``No one takes a lesson meant for a new student and tries to teach it to an old (already educated) student. If he does, he will fail to teach the new student, and the lesson meant for the new student will be rejected by the old student.
``No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students. If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. No. Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, `The old teaching is better''' ([5, p. 19]).
I think Acts still shows that Paul was Torah observant and not contrary to what he was teaching the Gentiles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2013 11:45 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2013 12:52 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 33 of 45 (693583)
03-18-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
03-18-2013 10:32 AM


Re: Abolished - Inoperative
Unfortunately that understanding puts Paul in a bad light.
It paints Paul as a hypocrite, which is worse since he confronted Peter about being a hypocrite.
It puts him in the light of being human. Our eyes should be on the Perfect One Jesus.
It puts Paul in not much worse light then the Scripture put Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or Peter or John and James. They too were men of God but human and prone to human error.
I have mentioned Paul quite a lot in these threads. But we Christians do not worship Paul. We worship the Son of God as the perfect Man.
If the account is accurate, Paul complies to show that he is not teaching Jews to turn away from Torah. There is no record of Paul disagreeing in his own writings or that he performed the acts under duress or that they "leaned" on him.
I think he thought it was a good idea.
Abraham thought it was a good idea to try to have a son through Hagar the servant rather than Sarah his wife. It caused some trouble. We still regard Abraham and Sarah as exemplary patriarchs of God.
As for Paul learning from the blow up ? I think the epistles he wrote speak for themselves in that regard. I have no problem of "authentic" verses "forgeries" in that department.
As I showed earlier, Paul had no problem having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) since he was Jewish.
And as I said before, Paul did not establish anti- Moses laws. The flexibility of the Apostle Paul seems to elude you.
In the case with Titus, he was firm.
In the case of Timothy, he evidently did what he thought expedient for the furtherance of his gospel preaching in that area.
Paul had no problem cutting off his hair due to a vow he had taken. (Acts 18:18)
The footnote mentioned that he did have that private vow.
I think hunting for absolutism can be misleading.
Afterall, Life is a matter always of growth, development, and maturation.
The weight of teaching of Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, and other epistles evidence his overall thought.
As you keep pointing out, there are no laws prohibiting Christian Jews from observing Torah. So when Paul is Torah observant, that isn't a mistake to be rectified or grown out of unless he is doing so for justification before God and I don't see that he is.
I keep pointing it out because some people seem to have a myopic view of the matter.
Paul wrote "be renewed in the spirit of your mind". Should we assume that he himself did not go through any process of renewing ?
In the course of his on transformation we see him do different things.
Paul's authentic writings do not present the rituals as abominable in God's eyes.
I don't follow the "authentic" verses "forgeries" scheme you follow.
And even in the Old Testament we are given some heads up that God at times was sick of the rituals when they were a facade to righteous living.
It is not absolutely new that a servant of God exposed also the emptiness of religious rituals. And that even though they had been commanded by God.
On one hand Paul was not that radical. In some of the OT prophets you see God's disgust with empty ritual.
See Isaiah 66:
"But to this kind of man will I look, to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word.
He who kills an ox is like him who slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dog's neck;
He who offers a meal offering is like him who offers the blood of swine;
He who burns incense is like him who blesses an idol.
As surely as they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations; Just as surely Iwill choose twhat will trat them ill ..." (Isa. 66:2b-4a)
God did not have to wait for the apostle Paul to speak His displeasure with some hypocritical ritual right out of the Mosiac law.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I submit that this was an ill advized scheme from James to pour the new wine of the new covenant into old wineskins of the Mosiac law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people do, but that isn't what that parable is addressing. It addresses why Jesus' disciples (pupils) didn't fast when the disciples of John and the Pharisees did.
But because Jesus and His followers represented the new wine and the disciples of John the Baptist the old, the parallel is appropriate latter as well.
I was not interpreting the parable. I was applying the truth of the parable.
James was a very spiritual man. But he still had one foot in the Old Testament law keeping.
I think it is significant that God used Paul to author some 13 of the 27 New Testament books and James just 1.
Historically it is crucial to see the transition. And James is important to that. He was the flesh brother of Jesus. It is very typical, and we would have done the same thing probably, to assume that the brother of Jesus should be elevated to take the new community on.
This is quite understandable that the brother of Jesus was highly regarded as to his opinion. Paul was clearer about the nature of the new covenant revelation.
But on the way, he also came under the enfluence of this highly regarded Christian leader - James. It actually is all very realistic as Luke the author of Acts tells us.
The candidness, the frankness of the account of Acts suggests to me the truthfulness of it.
Also Jesus said they would fast after he was taken away. (Luke 5:33-39) Notice the next line after what you quoted really messes up your theory.
Again, I was applying the principle of the parable more than interpreting it.
In the case of verse 39, which you say messes up the application, I would regard the parallel to be that huge numbers of Jewish followers of Jesus failed to fully come forth into the new covenant way.
Indeed to them the old wine was good enough. The important things is was it good enough for God's purpose ? No, it was not.
Luke 5:39
And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for the says "the old is better."
And by application we can see why Paul was getting a bad reputation. And we can see that even the followers of Jesus by the thousands were still stuck in the old way.
It is all very realistic. The transition from the old covenant into the new covenant was not easy for them.
Take the example of God's instruction for them to go into all the world to preach the gospel. They would have probably remained forever in Jerusalem in disobedience unless God had allowed persecution to rise up and scatter them.
Being scattered by sever persecution, they had no choice but to spread the Gospel where they went.
So the distance between what believers are satisfied with and what God wants is often seen in the Bible. Many times the people of God were happy to remain just where they were. Their need was met. But was God's need met ?
So the multitudes under James in Jerusalem were happy to have a mixture of the old covenant and the new. To a much lesser extent Paul was still wanting to utilize a private vow.
So then. They were all in transition. And one of them, Paul, has authored some 13 or so books of the 27 books of the New Testament.
Gentiles aren't part of this equation. IMO, we need to look at the parable from a Jewish perspective.
Identifying the Garments and Wineskins in Luke
In rabbinic literature, wine is often used as a metaphor for the teachings of Torah, with students of Torah pictured as wine containers. ...
Taking into account (i) and (ii), Lancaster suggests that the garments and wineskins in the parable represent individual disciples rather than any religious system or movement. He offers the following paraphrase of Luke 5:36-39:
``No one takes a lesson meant for a new student and tries to teach it to an old (already educated) student. If he does, he will fail to teach the new student, and the lesson meant for the new student will be rejected by the old student.
``No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students. If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. No. Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, `The old teaching is better''' ([5, p. 19]).
I think Acts still shows that Paul was Torah observant and not contrary to what he was teaching the Gentiles.
To the degree that he was practicing a private vow from the Levitical instructions and was persuaded by James to act like a Torah observer, I agree.
The same man wrote that Christ on the cross abolished the law of commandments in ordinances in order to create in Himself one new man so making peace.
I don't think someone else came up with that. I believe the apostle Paul spoke that and that by revelation from God.
In Romans he teaches that the disciples must utilize the Spirit to put to death the practices of the body. This is effective. And the just requirement of the law for daily righteous living is fulfilled in those believers, provided that they learn to walk by the Spirit indwelling their human spirit.
Paul realized that this realm needed to be STRENGTHENED. That this realm should be made strong, consistent through practice, was what he taught in Ephesians. IE. the believers must log more time in the realm of union with Christ in their innerman -
"That He would grant you ... to be strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man ..." (Eph. 3:16)
They should not visit that realm. They should not occasionally be in that sphere. They should be strengthened to live continuously in the realm. Abiding in Christ where His death and resurrection could practically be applied to their soul.
This was truly the new wine. And the wine skin was the normal new covenant church which Paul labored to establish in city after city.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2013 10:32 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2013 2:34 PM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 34 of 45 (693593)
03-18-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jaywill
03-18-2013 12:52 PM


Full Circle
quote:
The same man wrote that Christ on the cross abolished the law of commandments in ordinances in order to create in Himself one new man so making peace.
Well we come full circle back to the beginning and you've gone off script. Thanks for the jaunt.
quote:
It puts Paul in not much worse light then the Scripture put Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or Peter or John and James. They too were men of God but human and prone to human error.
There's a difference between the author's presenting the error's of their heros and someone today interpreting the writing that makes the hero look in error.
quote:
And as I said before, Paul did not establish anti- Moses laws. The flexibility of the Apostle Paul seems to elude you.
You say that, but you function as though there are.
quote:
In the case with Titus, he was firm.
In the case of Timothy, he evidently did what he thought expedient for the furtherance of his gospel preaching in that area.
One was a Jew and one was Greek.
quote:
I keep pointing it out because some people seem to have a myopic view of the matter.
Paul wrote "be renewed in the spirit of your mind". Should we assume that he himself did not go through any process of renewing ?
Not myopic. but more balanced with reality.
quote:
I have mentioned Paul quite a lot in these threads. But we Christians do not worship Paul. We worship the Son of God as the perfect Man.
That's why it surprises me that there is opposition to the idea that some of the books are not authentic or that Paul was Torah observant. Shouldn't make any difference in the current religion.
There's too much effort to keep Paul in line with current dogma and tradition, than an effort to view him in his time.
Jews have rules about behavior and Christians have rules about how or what to believe.
Faith is in God; not in the books, the authors, or the rules. Just God.
Enjoyed the dialogue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2013 12:52 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 03-19-2013 10:27 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 35 of 45 (693787)
03-19-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by purpledawn
03-18-2013 2:34 PM


Re: Full Circle
Not myopic. but more balanced with reality.
So we speak of reality now.
Is Christ risen from the dead part of your reality ?
Is Christ being God incarnate, died, and resurrected from the dead reality ?
A Yes or a No will let me know where you stand in your take on what is "reality".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have mentioned Paul quite a lot in these threads. But we Christians do not worship Paul. We worship the Son of God as the perfect Man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why it surprises me that there is opposition to the idea that some of the books are not authentic or that Paul was Torah observant.
There is opposition from me because your preference list seems to be elaborately tailored to present some very dubious views what the apostles present.
At best you had a little tempest in a teapot trying to erect a large theological invention based pretty much solely on your suspicion of two verses - Ephesians 2:14,15.
The gymnatistic you present on these two verses to try to insist the mind behind them is different from the mind behind Romans, First Corinthians, and Galatians is not convincing to this Bible reader.
In my case it has had an opposite effect. It leads me to believe that certainly the Spirit was speaking through Paul in all of the 13 some epistles attributed to him.
Shouldn't make any difference in the current religion.
The matter of "current religion" aside for the moment. The ideas in the writing itself you present are not convincing to me.
If we wanted to discuss levels and depths of apostasy or abnormality of much of the Christiandom of today, I have no problem in a realistic evaluation.
I might add that "current religion" ALSO consists of people attempting (like in older days) to preach "another Jesus". For example "another Jesus" in which, somehow, whether He rose or not is to be evaded rather than proclaimed.
If Christ is not risen there is no "one new man".
If Christ is not risen there is no Body of Christ and no "abiding" in the true vine.
If Christ is not God incarnate, died for our redemption, and resurrected there is no church. Some teachers seem to be constantly hijacking the New Testament to present their "dead and gone" unavailable Jesus of their Humanism.
There's too much effort to keep Paul in line with current dogma and tradition, than an effort to view him in his time.
Paul's pioneering vision at its root, is not easy. It is quite challenging. It is quite faithful to the teaching of the Lord who sent him to be an apostle.
If anyone thinks Romans, or Galatians, or First Corinthians is somehow an easy route, I question whether they have really comprehended what is there.
Some people's book of Romans ends somewhere around chapter 5.
Some other people notice this and blame Paul for the deficiency.
I think you are something like this. Personally, I think you look at Christiandom, notice that much mainstream Christianity seems to only have five chapters of the book of Romans. And your solution to the problem is perhaps to complain that Paul didn't write Ephesians!
I am not sure how it works for you. But in some way you seem to think chopping books away from the apostle Paul as forgeries is some kind of remedy for believers.
Me, I say we do not need to take Ephesians less seriously. We need to take Ephesians more seriously. Your way of suspicioning Christians that Ephesians is forgery and apochryphal sows the seeds of no confidence in an important book in the canon.
Of course that is no accident. You need to do that to establish "another Jesus". I think that is what has been going on with you since I met you years ago on this board.
I have heard you deny being "made alive" and pretty much cast doubts upon being born of the Spirit (born anew). It is only natural that accompanying these errors would be an attempt to believe large portions of the New Testament should be treated as apochryphal.
Jews have rules about behavior and Christians have rules about how or what to believe.
And you have presented rules about what to call "authentic" and what to dismiss as forgeries.
It is funny how it really takes one to know one.
Faith is in God; not in the books, the authors, or the rules. Just God.
Sounds good. But I don't accept the decoded underlying intent of "Just take as much of the New Testament as is handy to establish another Jesus. And don't trust the rest."
And haven't you heard Psalm 56:10 - "In God whose word I praise, In Jehovah whose word I praise ..." ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2013 2:34 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2013 9:16 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 36 of 45 (693817)
03-20-2013 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by jaywill
03-19-2013 10:27 PM


Paul Is The Topic
quote:
So we speak of reality now.
Is Christ risen from the dead part of your reality ?
Is Christ being God incarnate, died, and resurrected from the dead reality ?
A Yes or a No will let me know where you stand in your take on what is "reality".
The debate is about Paul and what he wrote, not my belief system. This is the Bible Study forum and the debate is engaging in Biblical Criticism.
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings."[1] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey.
quote:
There is opposition from me because your preference list seems to be elaborately tailored to present some very dubious views what the apostles present.
The texts deemed authentic were not done so by me. The Bible Scholars I have referenced in this thread are Christians. The articles I have referenced are from Christians.
quote:
The gymnatistic you present on these two verses to try to insist the mind behind them is different from the mind behind Romans, First Corinthians, and Galatians is not convincing to this Bible reader.
The religion is different, IMO. That's fine if it doesn't convince you. This is a debate forum. I present an argument and you present a counter argument. You should be able to present a counter argument that doesn't include implying that your opposition's belief isn't good enough or correct. My references have been from within Christianity.
quote:
If Christ is not God incarnate, died for our redemption, and resurrected there is no church. Some teachers seem to be constantly hijacking the New Testament to present their "dead and gone" unavailable Jesus of their Humanism.
My arguments did not say that Christ was not God incarnate or that he didn't die for our redemption. My whole point has been that Paul taught that Christ died to redeem us from the curse of the law. That is redemption. He did not teach that Christ died to bring down the law, walls, or make it easier for Gentiles to join the club. I'm speaking of the purpose of Christ's death.
And reading the history of Christianity (Kenneth Scott Latourette) and the history of the Jews (Paul Johnson) also shows me that Christ's death did not bring down the barriers. Both books were written by Christians.
A History of Christianity (Page 19)
It [Christianity] was not just another Jewish sect. It was a new and fresh faith. An understanding of Judaism is essential to a full knowledge of Christianity. But Judaism does not explain Christianity. Even a complete knowledge of Judaism would by no means ensure a knowledge of Christianity. Indeed, it might make difficult a rel understanding of Christianity. Christianity was built on Jewish foundations, yet it was radically different. In this difference lies the secret of Christianity and of it phenomenal history.
I have not argued that Ephesians is worthless or that it should be ignored. On the contrary, it shows us the progression of the religion. My point is that it probably wasn't a progression that was around in Paul's time. Bible scholars are split on its authenticity.
quote:
Sounds good. But I don't accept the decoded underlying intent of "Just take as much of the New Testament as is handy to establish another Jesus. And don't trust the rest."
I haven't argued not to trust the rest. The writings of the Bible are the foundation of Christianity.
quote:
I have heard you deny being "made alive" and pretty much cast doubts upon being born of the Spirit (born anew). It is only natural that accompanying these errors would be an attempt to believe large portions of the New Testament should be treated as apochryphal.
No you haven't. You've made an assumption because I won't answer your questions that don't deal with the topic. You're questioning your opponents belief system instead of addressing the arguments made. The implication being that if one believed correctly they wouldn't question your argument or current dogma. You're falling into the same trap Paul taught against, except that Christians do it concerning thoughts.
If you had enough faith...
If you truly believed...
That's the way cults and bad preachers suck people in, doubt. I prefer to understand the Bible warts and all.
It only takes faith in God. Whether one's faith is weak or strong, it is still faith and it counts according to Paul.
Stop making assumptions about my belief system and just stick to the arguments being made, which we've come full circle so there isn't really anything else to say. I don't really want to waste time repeating myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jaywill, posted 03-19-2013 10:27 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 03-21-2013 1:10 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 37 of 45 (694038)
03-21-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by purpledawn
03-20-2013 9:16 AM


Re: Paul Is The Topic
The debate is about Paul and what he wrote, not my belief system.
Then why do you write about what you believe about this or that matter touching Paul ?
Unless you are infallible just about everything you have expressed concerns what you believe.
It is only not about what you believe when you are are asked certain questions to see if you really understand what the New Testament is saying before you go off informing everyone as to what it means.
I have not read the rest of your post yet. But this much does not surprise me. Just when I thought I have been way too hard on you, I have to honestly say your evasion appears as cowardice.
Are you trying to hide something ?
Do you think your opinions may be better received if you conceal certain rather crucial aspects of the NT teaching ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 03-20-2013 9:16 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 03-21-2013 7:51 PM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 45 (694091)
03-21-2013 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jaywill
03-21-2013 1:10 PM


Re: Paul Is The Topic
quote:
Then why do you write about what you believe about this or that matter touching Paul ?
It is an opinion. This is a debate board.
quote:
I have not read the rest of your post yet. But this much does not surprise me. Just when I thought I have been way too hard on you, I have to honestly say your evasion appears as cowardice.
Then I suggest that you refrain from debating with me if you want passive prose and personal testimony.
There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
quote:
Do you think your opinions may be better received if you conceal certain rather crucial aspects of the NT teaching ?
It has nothing to do with how my opinions are received. It is up to my opposition to make a counter argument to the arguments I present, not get personal. I don't care to deal with the sales tactics. They pull threads off topic. Just like you're doing now.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 03-21-2013 1:10 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2013 5:55 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 39 of 45 (694115)
03-22-2013 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
03-21-2013 7:51 PM


Re: Paul Is The Topic
It is an opinion. This is a debate board.
False dichotomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 03-21-2013 7:51 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2013 8:47 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 40 of 45 (694226)
03-23-2013 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jaywill
03-22-2013 5:55 AM


Re: Paul Is The Topic
quote:
False dichotomy.
That only applies to arguments. You said I'm presenting my belief and I corrected you by telling you I'm presenting my opinions.
False Dichotomy
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
ABE: Now back to the topic, which is not about me.
Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2013 5:55 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 03-24-2013 9:20 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 45 (694358)
03-24-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by purpledawn
03-23-2013 8:47 AM


Re: Paul Is The Topic
That only applies to arguments. You said I'm presenting my belief and I corrected you by telling you I'm presenting my opinion
Another false dichotomy in this argument.
Look up the definition of opinion, including ...
quote:
1.) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Opinion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2013 8:47 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2013 10:01 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 42 of 45 (694359)
03-24-2013 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jaywill
03-24-2013 9:20 AM


Re: Paul Is The Topic
Get back to the topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 03-24-2013 9:20 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 03-24-2013 2:21 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 45 (694391)
03-24-2013 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by purpledawn
03-24-2013 10:01 AM


Is It About Jesus ?
Now back to the topic, which is not about me.
Right. Its not about YOU and its not about ME.
Is it about Jesus Christ ?
You want to talk about Paul's phrase in his epistle to the Galatian churches "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse on our behalf ..."
So its not about you and its not about me.
It is something about Jesus.
No ? ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2013 10:01 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2013 3:42 PM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 44 of 45 (694408)
03-24-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
03-24-2013 2:21 PM


Re: Is It About Jesus ?
No, the topic is about what Paul taught in his epistles that are considered authentic and undisputed. See Message 1.
OP writes:
In the epistles considered to be authentically Pauline, did Paul teach that Christ's death abolished the Mosaic or Jewish laws? Did he present that Christ's purpose was to reconcile Jews and Gentiles as it seems to claim in Ephesians?
Please do not repeat earlier arguments. Move forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 03-24-2013 2:21 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 03-24-2013 10:21 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 45 of 45 (694451)
03-24-2013 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
03-24-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Is It About Jesus ?
Please do not repeat earlier arguments. Move forward.
I may repeat earlier arguments if I feel that to do so will benefit those who may be fooled by your phony selective objectivity.
IE. not your belief but your opinion instead is being put forth.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2013 3:42 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024