Nailed to the Cross: The Law is Gone!!!
Pastor Dave
Jesus said the that until heaven and earth pass and
*ALL* was fulfilled, which I believe happened already,
being symbolic statements of the Temple system
(history bears this out), not one dot, nor one stroke
of the Law would pass. So either this has happened,
or *ALL* of the Law still stands and is in full force!
Now some will try to separate off the Ten Commandments
and claim that we must follow them, but the fact is, that
the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, which
is why they are repeated in Deuteronomy, where the Law
is summed up.
Some will try to separate "moral laws" from "ritual laws",
but again, there is no separation and God made no such
separation!
Some will try to claim that it is the punishments that are
no longer valid, but that is like saying that now God says
that it's okay to break laws that are still in effect and that
God has given us a license to sin, since if the Law is still
in effect, then it is still sin to violate any one of them!
The Law says to be circumcised and that would mean:
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the WHOLE LAW." - Gal 5:3
And since that is the case...
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty OF ALL." - Jam 2:10
The fact is, that God has never once said (nor can anyone
support their claim with Scripture) that it is okay to claim
that we must keep part of the Law and not the rest.
Where did God *EVER* state *THAT* attitude in Scripture?!
So we either keep the whole Law, which also means
performing animal sacrifices, since it is the Law that
that must be done when one sins and it means not
eating pork, etc., or you must decide that the Law
is no longer in effect. It's that simple.
And sure, I know you don't want to hear this and I know
that your Futurist mind is racing to find ways to deny this
simple truth. But the bottom line is that the Law is what
it is and says what it says and nowhere does it say that
it's okay to ignore what you don't want to do and Jesus
did not say, "Now that I am here, only certain parts
will apply.".
The truth is, if you want to say that the Law is still here,
because you believe that Hos statement in Mat 5:17-18
is literally about "heaven and earth" literally, physically
passing, then you are bound to do the whole Law!
And no, you don't get to say that it's just for Jews,
because then you are saying that:
1) The passage that says, "There is neither Jew,
nor Gentile... in Christ" is false.
2) There is a separate path to God for Jews,
under the Law, but Jesus said that NO ONE
comes to the Father, except through Him,
which would make Him a liar, if you are right
(John 14:6).
So let's look at this and see where it leads us shall we? :)
Statement: The Gentile churches were given two rules
and two rules only. �Neither of them was
obeying the Mosaic Law.
Objection: No, that is not right!
Response:
Yes, it is right!
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from
things strangled, and from blood." - Acts 15:19-20
Objection: The Law is still in place. Look at the
following passage:
"Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn,
and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
Response:
The Law was nailed to the cross with Christ. In fact,
the Bible says that very thing, very specifically. Yet
each time this is mentioned, it is snipped and ignored.
Now why would anyone who says that they put God's
word first do that?
Nigh = Jews
Far off = Gentiles
Middle wall of partition/Enmity = Mosaic Law
Ephesians 13-17
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.
Now what does it say?
1) The Law is the enmity and the middle wall
of partition that divided Jews and Gentiles.
2) The enmity was the Law.
3) The Law was slain, by Christ, on the cross.
The following was written to Gentiles. But remember,
they were taught Jewish concepts, by Jews, from the
Old Testament, which is the Scriptures that both Christ
and the Apostles taught and preached from (as an
example, see Acts 17:10-12). The "Scriptures" that
is being discussed there, is the Old Testament Scriptures.
Handwriting of ordinances = Mosaic Law
Principalities and powers = Mosaic Economy
Colossians 2:12-15
12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also
ye are risen with him through the faith of the
operation of God, who hath raised him from
the dead.
13) And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened
together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses;
14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15) And having spoiled principalities and powers,
he made a show of them openly, triumphing over
them in it.
Now what does it say?
1) It is by faith that they were saved, not works
of the Law.
2) The Law was nailed to the cross with Christ.
3) It was the very system some are trying to
keep people under, that He triumphed over.
"The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin
is the law." - 1 Corinthians 15:56
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made
me free from the law of sin and death." - Romans 8:2
Galatians 4:21-31
21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,
do ye not hear the law?
22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,
the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born
after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by
promise.
24) Which things are an allegory: for these are
the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai,
which engendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
25) For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and
answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in
bondage with her children.
26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which
is the mother of us all.
27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that
bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that
travailest not; for the desolate hath many more
children than she which hath a husband.
28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the
children of promise.
29) But as then he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,
even so it is now.
30) Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast
out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of
the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son
of the freewoman.
31) So then, brethren, we are not children of
the bondwoman, but of the free.
Christians are not children of the bondwoman.
So you can go to the Old Testament all you want
and try to make it trump the New Testament and
contradict it, but it won't work and you do it at
your own peril!
We have the Law being abolished, nailed to the cross,
cast out as the bondwoman, powerless to save anyone
and yet, through all of this Scripture, some won't
believe it.
And whether you believe it or not, the Ten Commandments
are part of the Law and the above passages even mention
"Sinai". So don't hand me that, "The Ten Commandments
are separate" idea, because it just doesn't work!
Some want to pick the laws that they like and claim that
if people don't place themselves under those laws and
also say that's what saves them or condemns them,
that they are not Christians!
But in reality, they, who claim this Law which is dead
to be alive, refuse to follow all of it and that makes
them hypocrites and a liars!
But you see, you Futurists cannot resolve this issue
and argue amongst yourselves, not because either
one of you is right, but because you do not understand
the simple fact that Jesus did return within the same
generation as He said He would and the destruction
of the Mosaic Economy, which included the Temple
being torn down stone by stone, as Jesus said,
in 70 AD, that the Law is gone and simply does not
apply any more, period!
If you think it does, then how will you be saved,
considering that Christ came to provide direct
access to the Father through Him...
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom
also we have access by faith into this grace wherein
we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
- Romans 5:1-2
"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that
is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,
let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an
high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come
boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain
mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
- Hebrews 4:14-16
The Law however, does not allow for this (notice the
talk about Jesus as our high priest, which is a term
from the Mosaic age and now we have Jesus, who
is our one, true High Priest and through whom we
have access.
The Dispensationalist belief that the Jews will have
their third temple and can still get to God through
the Law, is in error, according to what Jesus stood
there and said TO JEWS. And people tend to forget
that He said the following TO JEWS:
And no, you can't just toss that one part and still be
a Dispensationalist, especially since the whole "third
temple" thing and the Jews still getting to God through
the Law is a key part of Dispensationalism! And how
could that be true anyway, given that if that worked,
then Christ wouldn't have been needed?! We cannot
say that man cannot possibly follow the Law and then
claim that all of the sudden, now they can!
The belief system of Dispensationalism itself is erroneous!
So what is Dispensationalism? Garbage, since it directlly
comtradicts the Bible and does so in a way that says that
there is another way aside from Christ!
And what do you do with garbage? Toss it! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The face is the mirror of the mind and eyes without speaking
confess the secrets of the heart." -Saint Jerome
duke
>
>Jesus said the that until heaven and earth pass and
>*ALL* was fulfilled, which I believe happened already,
>being symbolic statements of the Temple system
Youi must be Jewish.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Snow
Are you “Under the Law”? Without the law, you are LAWLESS and
preaching you are not under it means you preach lawlessness.
Mat 7:23 “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart
from Me, you who work lawlessness!’
Of the many false teachings of Christianity put forward by its
inventor Apostle Paul in the beast canon is that you are not under the
law. The classic misdirection is to say it is the “Law of Moses” but
a quick examination of the Torah shows otherwise:
Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed
[1]My voice and guarded My Charge:
[2]My commands, [3]My laws,
[4]and My Torot1.” Footnote: 1Torot - plural of Torah, teaching
Notice that Yahweh in Genesis calls them “My Commands” this is
repeated again in Duet 11:1.
The next misdirection is to state that “the law” wasn’t given until
Moses. The Sabbath was made on day 7 of the creation:
Gen 2:3 And Elohim blessed the seventh day and set it apart, because
on it He rested from all His work which Elohim in creating had made.
The Sabbath is part of creation that is given to man as it moves on
the earth. Israel was expected to keep the Sabbath even before Mt.
Sinai.
Exo 16:29 “See, because Yahweh *has given you the Sabbath*, therefore
He is giving you bread for two days on the sixth day. Let each one
stay in his place, do not let anyone go out of his place on the
seventh day.”
This is why Yehoshua said he was “master of the Sabbath”. The Sabbath
command as a day of rest means that your focus is on doing what is
right in the site of the Almighty. That the 10 Commandments was since
the beginning and only re-issued to the slaves of Israel is easily
established:
1Jn 2:7 Beloved, I write no fresh command to you, but an old command
which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the Word
which you heard from the beginning.
2Jn 1:6 And this is the love, that we walk according to His commands.
This is the command, that as you have heard from the beginning, you
should walk in it.
Sin and Transgression of the 10 commands are easily established in
Genesis:
Gen 4:7 “If you do well, is there not acceptance? And if you do not do
well, sin1 is crouching at the door. And its desire is for you, but
you should master it.” Footnote: 1Sin (transgression of the law) was
already then known, as we also read in 39:9.
Even in Genesis 4 we see the punishment of Cain committing murder of
his brother, Yahweh has compassion. The fact that Christians believe
Yahweh is without compassion is the result of blind Pharisees like
Paul and the book of Hebrews but the truth is that compassion is the
law:
Deu 4:31 “For Yahweh your Elohim is a compassionate Ěl, He does not
forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers
which He swore to them.
Yahweh does not destroy you, sin destroys you.
Deu 11:16 ‘Guard yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn
aside and serve other mighty ones and bow down to them.
The Torah is not a curse as Paul says and he misquotes purposely the
Torah. Do NOT serve Paul, he is a liar and the truth is not in him,
you are being tested according to Deu 11 1-7. The curse is if you do
NOT obey the Commands.
Deu 11:26 ‘See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse:
Deu 11:27 the blessing, when you obey the *commands of Yahweh* your
Elohim which I command you today;
Deu 11:28 and the curse, if you do not obey the commands of Yahweh
your Elohim, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to
go after other mighty ones which you have not known.
Notice it reads the Commands. The typical Christian misdirection is
to say you are cursed, “under the law” and they lump in priest
ordinance and ever right ruling given to Israel but the word says *the
commands of Yahweh* of which 10 are the covenant.
Simply put:
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of works of Torah are under the curse, for
it has been written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all
that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.”
This is NOT WRITTEN. Paul has lied and added words to the Torah and
in doing so, broken the ordinance:
Deu 4:2 “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take
away from it, so as to guard the commands of יהוה [Yahweh] your Elohim
which I am commanding you.
The final lie of Paul is the statement:
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it
to his cross;
The Messiah refuted this claim personally:
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.
Paul had no authority to make such a claim. Heaven and earth are
still hear and many prophecies have not been fulfilled. Still, those
who worship Paul will make claims to the contrary of the Messiah…
because they believe a lie, they want you to believe a lie because
they have NO LOVE.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Do you love Paul or the Messiah?
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
2Co 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being
crafty, I caught you with guile.
Paul wanted to destroy the Church of Yahweh by his own admission.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which (I destroyed), I make
myself a transgressor.
We must first ask our self, “What have we destroyed by listening to
Paul?”
Pro 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and
reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
We are destroying the lamp that leads us, the light within it and the
way to our own life.
Rev 18:23 “And the light of a lamp shall not shine in you any more at
all. And the voice of bridegroom [Yehoshua] and bride [Yahweh] shall
not be heard in you any more at all. For your merchants were the great
ones of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were led
astray.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines
of Jesus."
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the Untied States
Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood.
Daniel Burnham
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation,
nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other
time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that
we seek.
Barack Obama
http://e-sword-users.org/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who
helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against
it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<snowp...@eck.net.au> spake thusly:
That's a lie, but you know that already and trying to avoid
what I said and then preach your doctrine, is not a valid
proof that what I posted is in error, especially since you
avoid what it says and begin your response with a false
premise that one must either be a legalist, or they are
preaching license. The proper word is "liberty".
Now go along and avoid that pork and perform those
animal sacrifices for sin.
Oh, wait, that's right. You like to pretend there were
only ten laws, so you can hypocritically preach law
and then not perform them.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled."
- Farmer's Advice
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> Jesus said the that until heaven and earth pass and
> *ALL* was fulfilled, which I believe happened already,
> being symbolic statements of the Temple system
> (history bears this out), not one dot, nor one stroke
> of the Law would pass. So either this has happened,
> or *ALL* of the Law still stands and is in full force!
Yes, absolutely. Jesus was actually saying this was yet to take place, but
he indicated it would be accomplished *by himself.* So this does mean that
it has already taken place. Yes, the Law has already been fulfilled in the
works of Jesus, in particular when he died on the cross.
What this amounted to was the fulfillment of all sin in the death of the Son
of God, and the fulfillment of all hope in the resurrection of the same. The
purpose of the Law was directed at Israel, but the *fulfillment* of the Law
was intended to bring hope not just to Israel, but also to the whole world.
> Now some will try to separate off the Ten Commandments
> and claim that we must follow them, but the fact is, that
> the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, which
> is why they are repeated in Deuteronomy, where the Law
> is summed up.
I couldn't agree more. The principles of the Law were fulfilled in the life
of Jesus, whose spirituality provides man with all he needs for
righteousness and for eternal life. We do not follow the Ten Commandments as
a subset of the Law, but rather, find their complete fulfillment in obeying
the commandments of Christ. And Christ's commandments basically are followed
when we choose to live by the spirituality of Jesus, exemplified in Jesus'
earthly example.
> And sure, I know you don't want to hear this and I know
> that your Futurist mind is racing to find ways to deny this
> simple truth. But the bottom line is that the Law is what
> it is and says what it says and nowhere does it say that
> it's okay to ignore what you don't want to do and Jesus
> did not say, "Now that I am here, only certain parts
> will apply.".
> The truth is, if you want to say that the Law is still here,
> because you believe that Hos statement in Mat 5:17-18
> is literally about "heaven and earth" literally, physically
> passing, then you are bound to do the whole Law!
> And no, you don't get to say that it's just for Jews,
> because then you are saying that:
The passage of the literal heavens and the earth have *nothing whatsoever*
to do with the fulfillment of the Law. All Jesus said was that the
fulfillment of the Law had to take place *before* the heavens and the earth
are annihilated. Since the Law has already been fulfilled in the death of
Jesus, it is true that the Law was fulfilled before the annihilation of the
heavens and the earth.
You're not making much sense here. It has nothing to do with what futurists
believe, or with whether the heavens and the earth are literal realities. It
has everything to do with the *fulfillment of the Law* in the death of
Jesus, which had to be *before* the heavens and the earth could be
annihilated. But I believe these are literal realities.
Let me take this one step farther. Jesus is sort of stating an oath, such
as, "I swear that if my people are not somehow saved in history, everything
else will be destroyed as well." Or, "unless every word of God promised
Israel is fulfilled, neither will anything else under all creation obtain a
fulfillment."
Matthew 5: 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not
an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Pastor Dave"
>
> > Jesus said the that until heaven and earth pass and
> > *ALL* was fulfilled, which I believe happened already,
> > being symbolic statements of the Temple system
> > (history bears this out), not one dot, nor one stroke
> > of the Law would pass. So either this has happened,
> > or *ALL* of the Law still stands and is in full force!
>
> Yes, absolutely. Jesus was actually saying this was yet to take place, but
> he indicated it would be accomplished *by himself.* So this does mean that
> it has already taken place. Yes, the Law has already been fulfilled in the
> works of Jesus, in particular when he died on the cross.
No, he said when heaven and earth pass (not happened yet),
and "when *all* is accomplished" (not happened yet).
>
> What this amounted to was the fulfillment of all sin in the death of the Son
> of God, and the fulfillment of all hope in the resurrection of the same.
People are still sinning and dying, so you can't say that
fulfillment of all sin in the death has taken place.
> The
> purpose of the Law was directed at Israel, but the *fulfillment* of the Law
> was intended to bring hope not just to Israel, but also to the whole world.
We still have to fulfill the law.
...
> I couldn't agree more. The principles of the Law were fulfilled in the life
> of Jesus, whose spirituality provides man with all he needs for
> righteousness and for eternal life. We do not follow the Ten Commandments as
> a subset of the Law, but rather, find their complete fulfillment in obeying
> the commandments of Christ. And Christ's commandments basically are followed
> when we choose to live by the spirituality of Jesus, exemplified in Jesus'
> earthly example.
This you say despite Jesus having taught by the spirituality
that the Law was to be followed?
...
>
> The passage of the literal heavens and the earth have *nothing whatsoever*
> to do with the fulfillment of the Law. All Jesus said was that the
> fulfillment of the Law had to take place *before* the heavens and the earth
> are annihilated.
"Before" in the sense of "after", yes.
> Since the Law has already been fulfilled in the death of
> Jesus, it is true that the Law was fulfilled before the annihilation of the
> heavens and the earth.
It's supposed to be the other way around, unless
you're using a new meaning of "before" that means "after".
...
>
> Let me take this one step farther. Jesus is sort of stating an oath, such
> as, "I swear that if my people are not somehow saved in history, everything
> else will be destroyed as well." Or, "unless every word of God promised
> Israel is fulfilled, neither will anything else under all creation obtain a
> fulfillment."
Maybe Paul's statements about homosexuality don't really
mean that there's anything wrong with homosexuality
but it's really meant to be a kind of oath.
(That seems to be the only moral dictum
in the NT that conservative Christians
seem to claim is really there.)
--
Rob Strom
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave
>
>> Jesus said the that until heaven and earth pass and
>> *ALL* was fulfilled, which I believe happened already,
>> being symbolic statements of the Temple system
>> (history bears this out), not one dot, nor one stroke
>> of the Law would pass. So either this has happened,
>> or *ALL* of the Law still stands and is in full force!
>
> Yes, absolutely. Jesus was actually saying this was yet
> to take place, but he indicated it would be accomplished
> *by himself.* So this does mean that it has already taken
> place. Yes, the Law has already been fulfilled in the works
> of Jesus, in particular when he died on the cross.
>
> What this amounted to was the fulfillment of all sin in the
> death of the Son of God, and the fulfillment of all hope in
> the resurrection of the same.
All could only be fulfilled by the destruction of that system,
as the writer of Hebrews indicated.
"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." - Hebrews 8:13
Note that according to the writer of Hebrews,
all had not yet been fulfilled, so this is not
about the cross.
> The purpose of the Law was directed at Israel,
> but the *fulfillment* of the Law was intended
> to bring hope not just to Israel, but also to the
> whole world.
Trying to end it all at the cross does not line up
with Scripture.
>> Now some will try to separate off the Ten Commandments
>> and claim that we must follow them, but the fact is, that
>> the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, which
>> is why they are repeated in Deuteronomy, where the Law
>> is summed up.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
Yes, you could. :)
> The principles of the Law were fulfilled in the life of Jesus,
> whose spirituality provides man with all he needs for
> righteousness and for eternal life. We do not follow
> the Ten Commandments as a subset of the Law, but rather,
> find their complete fulfillment in obeying the commandments
> of Christ. And Christ's commandments basically are followed
> when we choose to live by the spirituality of Jesus, exemplified
> in Jesus' earthly example.
This has nothing to do with what I said.
>> And sure, I know you don't want to hear this and I know
>> that your Futurist mind is racing to find ways to deny this
>> simple truth. But the bottom line is that the Law is what
>> it is and says what it says and nowhere does it say that
>> it's okay to ignore what you don't want to do and Jesus
>> did not say, "Now that I am here, only certain parts
>> will apply.".
>>
>> The truth is, if you want to say that the Law is still here,
>> because you believe that Hos statement in Mat 5:17-18
>> is literally about "heaven and earth" literally, physically
>> passing, then you are bound to do the whole Law!
>> And no, you don't get to say that it's just for Jews,
>> because then you are saying that:
>
> The passage of the literal heavens and the earth
It is physically literal according to you. And your method
is to think that saying that makes it true. And when asked
to prove it, you claim that you already did. And when asked
where, you refuse to show me. Instead, you merely again
repeat your claim.
> have *nothing whatsoever* to do with the fulfillment
> of the Law. All Jesus said was that the fulfillment of
> the Law had to take place *before* the heavens and
> the earth are annihilated.
That is not what Scripture says. That is what you say.
> Since the Law has already been fulfilled in the death
> of Jesus, it is true that the Law was fulfilled before
> the annihilation of the heavens and the earth.
I am not interested in your word twisting. Scripture
says what it says and it does not say what you claim.
> You're not making much sense here.
I made perfect sense, which is why my statements
were backed up by Scripture, while all you have
offered, is you repeating your claims and when
asked to show where Scripture says what you claim,
you snip the questions and the passages I quote
and then try to pretend that you get to claim that
you proved your case from the Bible, but can't
show me where you did that.
> It has nothing to do with what futurists believe,
This is your next lie, in which you will now try to
spend your time claiming it isn't about Futurist
beliefs, because you will spend your time trying
to divert attention away from the fact that it is,
by trying to imply it's just about what the Bible
says about it, when in reality, it is nothing more
than you and your assumption that the Futurist
doctrine is correct and then trying to pretend
that I am somehow some crazy heretic who is
just intent on arguing against the Bible, when
in reality, it is your doctrine, which once again,
you cannot support from Scripture, that you are
once again claiming is true and then when asked
to prove that it is, you again try to dodge the bullet.
Sorry, but your latest tactic of "It isn't about the
Futurist doctrine" won't work, when that is indeed
what it is specifically about, since it is the Futurist
doctrine that says that these things haven't
happened yet and that is the very definition
of what it means to be a Futurist.
But once again, you insult my intelligence, as well
as that of everyone else, when you take an approach
that is so lame, that you try to claim that Futurism
("it hasn't happened yet") is not Futurism and when
you try to once again claim that whatever you want
to assume is true is what the Bible says, all the while
rejecting the thing that you claim to do, which is to
"interpret Scripture by Scripture", since you reject
that very idea, when I show you THE SAME EXACT
WORDS that Jesus said, in fulfilled prophecies of the
Old Testament (which proves they were symbolism)
and yet, you won't take Jesus' words the same way!
You have nothing and you are a hypocrite and you
are wasting your time when you try to convince me
that you are not talking about a/your Futurist view! (:
> or with whether the heavens and the earth are
> literal realities. It has everything to do with the
> *fulfillment of the Law* in the death of Jesus,
> which had to be *before* the heavens and the
> earth could be annihilated. But I believe these
> are literal realities.
And you are a fool for doing so, since you know different!
As I already proved to you, Jesus said in Luke 21:20-22,
that when Jerusalem was desolated, that "ALL THINGS
WRITTEN WERE FULFILLED", period! And this was in
His second discourse about His return, no matter how
much you lie and say it wasn't! He did not say, "just
the law part, folks". He said "ALL THINGS WRITTEN"!
The truth is, you refuse to accept what He said, because
it interferes with your doctrine, plain and simple!
> Let me take this one step farther.
No thanks. I'm not interested in your Scripture twisting.
O proceed to you what the phrase "heaven and earth"
meant and that OT prophecies used those words in
many passages and it was always symbolic when it
spoke of things like this and you simply don't care,
because you and living as a physical human being
is more important to you than anything else and if
you can't have that, then you want no part of it!
All you care about is you and none of your snippage
will alleviate your responsibility from that fact and
you will one day have to explain to Jesus why, in
the face of all of the evidence you were provided,
that you decided not to believe Him! (:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Most Christians testify to the truth that their
own lives were a hell until they placed their lives
in the hands of the Creator. Heaven for them is
being in the presence of that Creator and now their
lives are filled with a love and peace that was not
there before. They feel they have found a door out
of the Hell they were in and a responsibility to
show others where that door is. This often comes
across to the non-believer as "looking down" on
them, but as a wise man once said... 'We're just
beggars showing others where the bread is'.
- Eric Fisher
Ed Form
> No, he said when heaven and earth pass (not happened yet),
> and "when all is accomplished" (not happened yet).
Show us where the word 'and' occurs, Rob. You misquote this text
constantly; it does not concatenate the conditions. The first condition
was an assurance that the Law would remain active with no possibility of
removal until a specific, second condition was met. The correct reading is
that God established the Law to produce an end result and nothing could
possibly prevent that end result from occurring.
Mt 5:18
For, indeed, I say to you,
heaven and earth shall sooner perish,
than one iota, or on tittle of the law shall perish,
without attaining its end.
The argument that remains to be settled is not whether the Law has passed
away, because it has, and no matter what rationalisation you advance to
support your opposite claim, AD70 stands between you and plausibility. The
only remaining argument is whether or not the fulfilment of all things has
passed; the Christian claim that the death and resurrection of Christ was
the end result intended may be moot, but your alternative was made
incredible by the events of AD70.
Ed Form
Rob Strom
> On 01/01/2010 01:18:02, Rob Strom wote...
>
> > No, he said when heaven and earth pass (not happened yet),
> > and "when all is accomplished" (not happened yet).
>
> Show us where the word 'and' occurs, Rob. You misquote this text
> constantly; it does not concatenate the conditions.
Considering what you have done to the text below, my changes
are de minimis.
You don't need the word 'and' to be there.
Because logic says that from the two premises (1) 'X until Y', (2) 'X
until Z',
you can *prove* 'X until Y and Z'.
> The first condition
> was an assurance that the Law would remain active with no possibility of
> removal until a specific, second condition was met. The correct reading is
> that God established the Law to produce an end result and nothing could
> possibly prevent that end result from occurring.
You're making stuff up.
>
> Mt 5:18
> For, indeed, I say to you,
> heaven and earth shall sooner perish,
You're doing like Randy.
"X until Y" means X stops *later or equal*, not *sooner*.
The correct rendition is,
"For, indeed, I say to you, heaven and earth shall later or equal
perish..."
> than one iota, or on tittle of the law shall perish,
> without attaining its end.
>
And you have also done like Randy here, replacing
"until *all* is accomplished" with "until the *law* attains its end".
The fully correct rendition is,
"For, indeed I say to you, heaven and earth shall
later or equal perish, than one iota or one tittle
of the law shall perish, without everything being attained."
Mathematically,
(for all t) ( (for all t' where NOW <= t' <= t)(H&E exists at t') ->
(for all t' where NOW <=t' <= t)(something is
unattained -> the Law exists))
> The argument that remains to be settled is not whether the Law has passed
> away, because it has, and no matter what rationalisation you advance to
> support your opposite claim, AD70 stands between you and plausibility. The
> only remaining argument is whether or not the fulfilment of all things has
> passed; the Christian claim that the death and resurrection of Christ was
> the end result intended may be moot, but your alternative was made
> incredible by the events of AD70.
By the same logic, the AD1453 stands between you and plausibility.
--
Rob Strom
Ed Form
> On Jan 1, 6:26 am, "Ed Form" <ed.f...@theformsonline.com> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2010 01:18:02, Rob Strom wote...
>>
>> > No, he said when heaven and earth pass (not happened yet),
>> > and "when all is accomplished" (not happened yet).
>>
>> Show us where the word 'and' occurs, Rob. You misquote this text
>> constantly; it does not concatenate the conditions.
>
> Considering what you have done to the text below, my changes
> are de minimis.
Not so! You completely, and determinedly, ignore the fact that Jesus
actually said that heaven and earth would pass away...
Mt 24:35, Mr 13:31 and Lu 21:33 all say...
Heaven and earth shall pass away:
but my words shall not pass away.
So, in Jesus' view the Law had a finite term anyway.
> You don't need the word 'and' to be there.
Then don't add it - it's dishonest.
> Because logic says that from the two premises
> (1) 'X until Y', (2) 'X until Z',
> you can *prove* 'X until Y and Z'.
I'm not sure whether you have actually fooled yourself with this glaringly
incorrect logic. This is not such a construct; the sentence says 'x for
all y except if z'.
>> The first condition was an assurance that the Law would
>> remain active with no possibility of removal until a specific,
>> second condition was met. The correct reading is that God
>> established the Law to produce an end result and nothing
>> could possibly prevent that end result from occurring.
>
> You're making stuff up.
Me a dozens of other commentators.
>> Mt 5:18
>> For, indeed, I say to you,
>> heaven and earth shall sooner perish,
>
> You're doing like Randy.
>
> "X until Y" means X stops *later or equal*, not *sooner*.
Except that a second condition is listed without your concatenating 'and'.
The two conditions are in parallel and by definition either of them can
trigger the end result. This is a battery in series with a pair of
switches in parallel followed by a series light bulb and a return wire to
the other side of the battery. Either switch turns on the bulb.
> The correct rendition is,
> "For, indeed, I say to you, heaven and earth shall later or equal
> perish..."
Go take some logic lessons, Rob.
>> than one iota, or on tittle of the law shall perish,
>> without attaining its end.
>>
>
> And you have also done like Randy here, replacing
> "until *all* is accomplished" with "until the *law* attains its end".
Not guilty, I'm afraid. It's a quotation of the Living Oracles version.
> The fully correct rendition is,
> "For, indeed I say to you, heaven and earth shall
> later or equal perish, than one iota or one tittle
> of the law shall perish, without everything being attained."
>
>
> Mathematically,
>
> (for all t) ( (for all t' where NOW <= t' <= t)(H&E exists at t') ->
> (for all t' where NOW <=t' <= t)(something is
> unattained -> the Law exists))
Cobblers - an error that even a ten-year old would not make. Your bigotry
has overcome your ability to reason here, I'm afraid.
>> The argument that remains to be settled is not whether the Law has passed
>> away, because it has, and no matter what rationalisation you advance to
>> support your opposite claim, AD70 stands between you and plausibility. The
>> only remaining argument is whether or not the fulfilment of all things has
>> passed; the Christian claim that the death and resurrection of Christ was
>> the end result intended may be moot, but your alternative was made
>> incredible by the events of AD70.
>
> By the same logic, the AD1453 stands between you and plausibility.
The fall of Constantinople has nothing to do with the case, and it
certainly doesn't affect the validity of Christian teaching. Neither Rome,
nor Constantinople, nor for that matter the Romanov system, the refuge of
Eastern Orthodoxy after the loss of its capital on the Bosphorus, have
anything at all to do with the validity of the teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth, including the fact that he is the fulfilment of the Law and the
Prophets.
Ed Form
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
> On 01/01/2010 18:21:18, Rob Strom wote...
>
>> On Jan 1, 6:26 am, "Ed Form" wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/01/2010 01:18:02, Rob Strom wote...
>>>
>>>> No, he said when heaven and earth pass
>>>> (not happened yet) and "when all is
>>>> accomplished" (not happened yet).
>>>
>>> Show us where the word 'and' occurs, Rob.
>>> You misquote this text constantly; it does not
>>> concatenate the conditions.
>>
>> Considering what you have done to the text below,
>> my changes are de minimis.
>
> Not so! You completely, and determinedly, ignore
> the fact that Jesus actually said that heaven and
> earth would pass away...
>
> Mt 24:35, Mr 13:31 and Lu 21:33 all say...
> Heaven and earth shall pass away:
> but my words shall not pass away.
>
> So, in Jesus' view the Law had a finite term anyway.
That is correct. But what I feel you're missing here,
even though you are, without realizing it, saying it,
is that He meant it about the Law. It was not about
the physical heaven and earth passing away, but
rather, a reference to the Mosaic Temple system.
Matthew 5:17-18
17) Do not think that I came to destroy the Law
or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but
to fulfill.
18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and
earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no
means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
That simply means that when "heaven and earth
pass away" that the law is done with, since what
is fulfilled, is no longer necessary. For example,
one does not keep adding water to a glass that
is already full, does one?
No, of course not. No more than we look for
the Messiah, once the prophecy of His birth
is fulfilled. Or do you keep looking for that? :)
The question here is; "What did Jesus mean by
the statement, "heaven and earth"? Especially
since it is a symbolic term that referred to the
Temple, which is where it was considered that
"heaven and earth met". And in the Temple,
it is an ABSOLUTE FACT that you had:
1) A Heaven peculiar (unique) to God.
2) The land (the Jewish Court).
3) The sea (the Gentile Court).
And this dates all the way back to the days of Moses!
In fact, Josephus gives us a convincing record of this:
"However, this proportion of the measures of the
tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system
of the world: for that third part thereof which was
within the four pillars, to which the priests were not
admitted, is, as it were, a Heaven peculiar to God..."
- Josephus, Antiquities, Book 3, Chap 6, Paragraph 4,
Section 123)
Note, within the Temple was, "a Heaven peculiar
(unique) to God".
"When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into
three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests
as a place accessible to the common, he denoted
the land and the sea, these being of general access
to all; but he set apart the third division for God,
because heaven is inaccessible to men" - Josephus,
Antiquities, Book 3, Chap 7, Paragraph 7, Section 181)
Note two things here...
1) It was divided as "land and sea". The "sea",
in Jewish thinking, noted the Gentile nations.
Now when you read in Revelation about the
beast rising up out of the sea, you can now
understand that it is saying that the beast
would rise up out of the Gentile nations and
obviously, the Roman Empire, was Gentile.
2) He said that the third division was for God
and that it was because, "Heaven is inaccessible
to men". The Temple was considered to be
where Heaven and Earth met. So when it says
that heaven and earth would burn up, that the
elements would melt, it was talking about the
removal of the old system, which had as its center,
the Temple.
And it was this new covenant that they were awaiting:
"In that He says; A NEW COVENANT, He has made
the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete
and growing old is ready to vanish away." - Heb 8:13
Jesus also told us that when Jerusalem was desolated,
that "all things written" would be "fulfilled" in His
discourse about His second coming, which is found
in both Matthew 24 and the parallel account in Luke,
which also shows us that it was not about some world
wide destruction, but about Jerusalem and Judea.
Luke 21:20-22
20) And when ye shall see JERUSALEM compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation THEREOF
is nigh.
21) Then let them which are IN JUDEA flee to the
mountains; and let them which are in the midst
of it depart out; and let not them that are in the
countries enter thereinto.
22) For THESE be the days of vengeance, that
ALL THINGS which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
And interestingly enough, history shows us that when
the Romans went to march on Jerusalem, they came
up through Judea first, so that when they got to
Jerusalem, the Jewish armies could not come up
behind them and attack. In fact, that is how they
captured Josephus.
Now you can spout out your doctrine, but that's
all it will be: your doctrine. It will not coincide
with what Jesus said.
You can also spout out this verse and that verse,
thinking that quoting them makes them mean
whatever your doctrine says they do and that
anyone who reads them, automatically sees
what you do in them. But they won't say exactly
that, but rather, will require your interpretation,
while what I quoted needs no interpretation,
as they are straightforward. And all you'll be
doing in the end, instead of dealing with what's
been quoted above, is pitting one verse against
another, as if to say; "That can't be true, because
hey, look at this!". And all that accomplishes,
is you arguing against Scripture, which is proved,
again, by you not dealing with what's been quoted
and instead, trying to spout out your doctrine by
avoiding the passages that have been quoted,
citing others which require your interpretation,
while, once again, the ones that I quoted are
straightforward and read how they read.
Isn't it interesting that Futurists always claim to
"know their Bibles" and to be "getting their doctrine
from the Bible", when in reality, they have to tell us
what something "really means", avoiding what the
ACTUAL WORDS found there are, just as they do
so famously with Matthew 24:34, telling us what
Jesus "really meant", or trying to find another
definition for the word "generation", even though
the very same translations they use were done by
Futurists and the word there is still "generation"
and even though they accept that translation
for that very same word combination in every
other instance in the NT. (:
My motto is; "Just believe Jesus, or find a new religion.".
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Judge your success by what you had to give up
in order to get it." - Dalai Lama
Ed Form
>> So, in Jesus' view the Law had a finite term anyway.
>
> That is correct. But what I feel you're missing here,
> even though you are, without realizing it, saying it,
> is that He meant it about the Law. It was not about
> the physical heaven and earth passing away, but
> rather, a reference to the Mosaic Temple system.
Actually the Lord's meaning was the end of the commonwealth of Israel: the
heavens - its rulers, and the earth - its common people, in toto, its
entire constitution, including the Law by which it was governed, would
cease to exist. The reason I didn't say this when replying to Rob was not
that I didn't know it, but that it wasn't relevant.
As to your demented idea that this was the end of the Israelite nation and
their relationship with God, which the rest of your post waffles on about,
I've already said enough on that score. There is a nation of Israel again;
it was set up in a Jubilee year; its wars with the surrounding nations
have accurately fulfilled many of the endtimes prophecies - Zechariah 14
and 1948 is surely obvious enough even for a blind man like you to see.
Keep watching for the next episodes - will you believe when the
Palestinians suffer a crushing disaster at Bozrah? Will you believe when
Damascus ceases to exist - a prophecy that has never been fulfilled;
Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth? Or will it
take the descent of the northern hordes towards Jerusalem after the Jews
obtain peace and prosperity in a land that no longer has Palestinian foes?
Prophecy is being fulfilled by, in and around the nation of Israel, every
day, before our eyes. Wake up you silly man and smell the coffee.
Ed Form
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
> On 02/01/2010 18:09:47, Pastor Dave wote...
>
>>> So, in Jesus' view the Law had a finite term anyway.
>>
>> That is correct. But what I feel you're missing here,
>> even though you are, without realizing it, saying it,
>> is that He meant it about the Law. It was not about
>> the physical heaven and earth passing away, but
>> rather, a reference to the Mosaic Temple system.
>
> Actually the Lord's meaning was the end of the
> commonwealth of Israel: the heavens - its rulers,
> and the earth - its common people, in toto,
> its entire constitution, including the Law by which
> it was governed, would cease to exist. The reason
> I didn't say this when replying to Rob was not
> that I didn't know it, but that it wasn't relevant.
>
> As to your demented idea that this was the end
> of the Israelite nation and their relationship with
> God, which the rest of your post waffles on about,
> I've already said enough on that score. There is
> a nation of Israel again;
Which is irrelevant. As I said, you can spout out
your doctrine, but it won't match up with what
Jesus said, while what I said does, which is why
I am able to quote Him saying it. All you can do,
is snip the relevant Scriptures and historical facts
and once again repeat your doctrine and try to
pit Scripture against Scripture and that, without
even demonstrating it to be the case.
> it was set up in a Jubilee year; its wars with
> the surrounding nations have accurately
> fulfilled many of the endtimes prophecies
> - Zechariah 14 and 1948 is surely obvious
> enough even for a blind man like you to see.
Typical Futurist. You think that Zech 14 is about
Israel becoming a nation again, when in fact,
it says the opposite. But since you just accept
whatever you're told by whatever Futurist
sources you read instead of actually reading
the Bible, you don't know that. Look carefully.
How does it start out? With their desolation:
Zech 14:1-2
1) Behold, the day of the Lord is coming
and your spoil will be divided in your midst.
2) For I will gather all the nations to battle
against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken,
the houses rifled and the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity, but
the remnant of the people shall not be
cut off from the city.
Note: The city is taken.
Note: The houses rifled (the spoil taken).
Note: The women raped.
Note: Half the city taken into captivity
(now read the following and
realize that it is not about
some invented "rapture").
Matthew 24:40-41
40) Then shall two be in the field; the one
shall be taken, and the other left.
41) Two women shall be grinding at the mill;
The one shall be taken, and the other left.
Now in reading Zech 14:1-2 above, you can see
that it is not about a victory for Israel, but defeat.
The Jews do not win. They lose! And as it says,
"then He turns and fights". It happens after
they are defeated and it is a fact that the fall
of the Roman Empire began in 70 AD. You
really need to read the history, instead of just
making up whatever you want and just believing
what some Futurist writes, who is like you, just
parroting what others have said and then trying
to take credit for the doctrine.
Now read it together with what Jesus said in Luke:
Zech 14:1-2
1) Behold, the day of the Lord is coming
and your spoil will be divided in your midst.
2) For I will gather all the nations to battle
against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken,
the houses rifled and the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity, but
the remnant of the people shall not be
cut off from the city.
Luke 21:20-22
20) And when ye shall see JERUSALEM compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation THEREOF
is nigh.
21) Then let them which are IN JUDEA flee to the
mountains; and let them which are in the midst
of it depart out; and let not them that are in the
countries enter thereinto.
22) For THESE be the days of vengeance, that
ALL THINGS which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Note that Jesus said that when this happened it
meant that ALL THINGS WRITTEN WERE FULFILLED!!!
You cannot build a doctrine by ignoring the Scriptures
that don't line up with what you wish to make true.
You snip all of these Scriptures and historical facts,
because you can't stand seeing them and don't
want them to be true, because to you, if the Bible
isn't all about you and your generation, then to you,
it is a useless waste of paper and ink. Face it, you
see no use for the Bible, if it isn't about you today!
The truth is, that it is about faith in God:
Romans 3:28-29
28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
29) Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not
also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.
And Jesus did not come to redeem a strip of dirt!
National Israel is not "the chosen people of God".
The church is, whether Jew or Gentile.
Galatians 3:27-29
27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.
28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
slave nor free, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's
seed and heirs according to the promise.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision
avails anything, but a new creation." - Galatians 6:15
Now who does it say are the people of God here?
1 Peter 2:7-10
7) Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious;
but to those who are disobedient, The stone
which the builders rejected Has become the
chief cornerstone
8) and A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
They stumble, being disobedient to the word,
to which they also were appointed.
9) But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, His own special people, that you may
proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of
darkness into His marvelous light;
10) Who once were not a people but are now the
people of God, who had not obtained mercy but
now have obtained mercy.
Sounds to me like it is about believers. and believers
are members of the church, not people who happen
to be born on a certain strip of dirt and Paul makes
that very, very clear!
Galatians 4:22-26
22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one
by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born according
to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24) which things are symbolic. For these are the two
covenants: The one from Mount Sinai which gives birth
to bondage, which is Hagar;
25) For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds
to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children;
26) But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother
of us all.
Note: The Jerusalem above, not on the ground.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an
innumerable company of angels." - Hebrews 12:22
Nothing you can say or do will change the facts
and I suggest you start reading the Scriptures
carefully, instead of ignoring them, because
they don't suit your doctrine.
I also suggest that you stop claiming to filter
your doctrine through Scripture, when in fact,
you do the opposite.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Why is it that our memory is good enough to retain the
least triviality that happens to us, and yet not good
enough to recollect how often we have told it to the
same person?" - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
JC
new commandments, a "better testiment". Eccentually the new testiment
teaches a higher order of righteousness with wrath left to the father in
Heaven, while christians Luke 3:14 "Do violence to no man" You trust in
the Lord instead of military might. This also is stated in the old
testiment "A country who trust in her military might, down she goes"
ALL SCRIPTURE PROFFITABLE
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and
[is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the
Holy Ghost.
NEW REPLACES OLD TESTIMENT
Hbr 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come,
[and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto
perfect.
Hbr 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O
God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Hbr 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of A BETTER
TESTIMENT.
Hbr 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hbr 8:13 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.
Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believeth.
bear
That is a very interesting claim Dave. Do you not say, "The last days
were in the first century"? Now why do you not show everyone just
where Jesus made such a statement?
>All you can do,
>is snip the relevant Scriptures and historical facts
>and once again repeat your doctrine and try to
>pit Scripture against Scripture and that, without
>even demonstrating it to be the case.
>
Not only does Dave snip what others write, when he cannot provide
answers when questioned, he kill files them so he can pretend there
were no questions. One can hardly blame him though, after all, he has
admitted to not knowing the answers.
And, unlike his unsubstantiated claims, here is a quote of his proving
what I say.
"It wouldn't matter even if I couldn't answer that. It doesn't mean
it didn't happen yet. It only means that Dave doesn't know the
answer!"
Not only does Dave not know, he has been unable to find an answer in
more than two years of trying, and it is such a simple question.
Bear
Ed Form
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:46:42 GMT, "Ed Form"
> <ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
>
>> Actually the Lord's meaning was the end of the
>> commonwealth of Israel: the heavens - its rulers,
>> and the earth - its common people, in toto,
>> its entire constitution, including the Law by which
>> it was governed, would cease to exist. The reason
>> I didn't say this when replying to Rob was not
>> that I didn't know it, but that it wasn't relevant.
>>
>> As to your demented idea that this was the end
>> of the Israelite nation and their relationship with
>> God, which the rest of your post waffles on about,
>> I've already said enough on that score. There is
>> a nation of Israel again;
>
> Which is irrelevant. As I said, you can spout out
> your doctrine, but it won't match up with what
> Jesus said, while what I said does, which is why
> I am able to quote Him saying it. All you can do,
> is snip the relevant Scriptures and historical facts
> and once again repeat your doctrine and try to
> pit Scripture against Scripture and that, without
> even demonstrating it to be the case.
So your various quotations from Josephus amount to the Lord Jesus saying
what you claim? It's Josephus, a renegade Jew, who said it, not Jesus.
In their use as metaphor in Scripture, the phrase 'the heavens and the
earth' refers to governmental constitutions of human society. Consider for
example...
Isaiah 34:1...
Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people:
let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all
things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD
is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies:
he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to
the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their
stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains
shall be melted with their blood. *And* *all* *the* *host* *of*
*heaven* *shall* *be* *dissolved* *and* *the* *heavens*
*shall* *be* *rolled* *together* *as* *a* *scroll* *and* *all*
*their *host* *shall* *fall* *down* as the leaf falleth off
*from* *the* *vine* *and* *as* *a* *falling* *fig* *from*
*the* *fig* *tree* . *For* *my* *sword* *shall* *be* *bathed*
*in* *heaven* *behold* *it* *shall* *come* *down* *upon*
*Idumea* *and* *upon* *the* *people* *of* *my* *curse* ...
If you go on reading you'll see that the destruction of this heaven was
the slaughter of all the princes of Edom, and on the nation as a whole so
that none of them remain. Heaven is rulers, Earth is people when used
metaphorically in Scripture. That is why, when Jesus uses the phrase in
the Olivet prophecy its is part of a description of wholesale slaughter of
people and their rulers. So don't give us Josephus and tell us that his
words are suitable to define what the Lord Jesus means, and don't claim to
be quoting Jesus saying things as defined by Josephus, you're simply
confused, David, not a new situation in my experience of you.
>> it was set up in a Jubilee year; its wars with
>> the surrounding nations have accurately
>> fulfilled many of the endtimes prophecies
>> - Zechariah 14 and 1948 is surely obvious
>> enough even for a blind man like you to see.
>
> Typical Futurist. You think that Zech 14 is about
> Israel becoming a nation again, when in fact,
> it says the opposite.
I don't think Zechariah 14 is about Israel becoming a nation again, its a
description of events that followed on from Israel becoming a nation
again. Why don't you go and do a little research on the battle of
Jerusalem in 1948 and see how perfectly it fits Zechariah 14 - Half of the
city [in effect the bit called 'the Old City'] fell into the hands of the
Arab Legion, a lot of nasty things went on there. Some hundreds of Jews
were taken away as prisoners of war, but the Jewish inhabitants of the new
end of the city were not removed, because that was in Jewish hands - It's
Zechariah 14:2 to a T. You cited it for us so we can all see how well it
fits...
> 2) For I will gather all the nations to battle
> against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken,
> the houses rifled and the women ravished.
> Half of the city shall go into captivity, but
> the remnant of the people shall not be
> cut off from the city.
>
> Note: The city is taken.
No sir, half of the city is taken; do try to do some remedial reading
classes before you come back to this.
> Note: The houses rifled (the spoil taken).
> Note: The women raped.
That's just what happened. How remarkable
> Note: Half the city taken into captivity
Exactly.
The prophets plainly forecast a reestablished nation of Israel, in the
Holy Land in unbelief, behaving in such a way as to defame the name of
their God and constantly at war with their neighbours. Finally, they tell
us, situation will boil over and the Edomites, that is the Palestinians,
will be destroyed in a vast conflict at Bozrah [Zechariah 14 and other
prophets]. Then a horde of nations will descend from the North [Ezekiel 38
- where you will note that Edom is not listed among the confederates who
join in]; these nations are overseen and protected by Russia and fronted
by Iran. At some point during these events the city of Damascus will
become a ruinous heap and at the same time, Israel will be very badly
reduced [Isaiah 17]. These are prophecies which we can see happening now,
and they began to roll faster and faster from 14th May 1948. Wriggle and
squirm as much as you like, but Israel remains there laughing at you.
Ed Form
bear
Very good response Ed.
Bear
I
> The prophets .... Finally, they tell
> us, situation will boil over and the Edomites, that is the Palestinians,
> will be destroyed in a vast conflict at Bozrah [Zechariah 14 and other
> prophets]. Then a horde of nations will descend from the North [Ezekiel 38
> - where you will note that Edom is not listed among the confederates who
> join in]; these nations are overseen and protected by Russia and fronted
> by Iran. At some point during these events the city of Damascus will
> become a ruinous heap and at the same time, Israel will be very badly
> reduced [Isaiah 17]. These are prophecies which we can see happening now,
> and they began to roll faster and faster from 14th May 1948.
Really?
WHERE in ANY of the bible is the name "RUSSIA"??????? ( I gather you mean
the USSR which likewise is NEVER mentioned in the bible.)
You read too much into supposed "prophecies".
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
vince garcia
This is an interesting take and post. Good as always.
I think it also relates to the demonic powers behind the rulers of Edom,
though. Verse 5 says WHEN MY SWORD HAS DRUNK ITS FILL IN THE HEAVENS, IT
WILL DESCEND UPON EDOM...
I don't know if you believe or do not believe in beings like "the prince
of persia" being demonic spirits behind nations, but I do, and so see a
reference also to these beings here, and not only to men.
Verse 2 also is interesting because it reveals God's wrath against "all
nations", and I think between it and Jesus referring to these words in
the gospels, there is an apotelesmatic application of prophecy showing a
greater/greatest fulfillment at the end of the age.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
Now you're just being dishonest.
1) I said "the Scriptures and the historical facts".
You want to treat time as if it stopped right
after the NT was finished and then didn't
start again until after you opened a Bible
for the first time. You want to pretend
that nothing happened in between those
two points in time. But the truth is, that
much happened! Many wars, for example.
But to you, none of those qualify, because
you don't want them to, because they didn't
happen at times that you think will affect
you today in your time and lets' face it,
not only are you ignorant of history, you
absolutely and willingly choose to be so!
2) I quoted more than Josephus. I also quoted
Scripture. But when I did quote Josephus,
I quoted a contemporary person to show
what the various parts of the temple were
called. And he is not the only one who
records that.
3) I never said that "my various quotations from
Josephus amount to the Lord Jesus saying what
I claim" and you are being obtuse when you
claim that's what I said.
> In their use as metaphor in Scripture, the phrase
> 'the heavens and the earth' refers to governmental
> constitutions of human society.
They can indeed refer to such things and a metaphor,
or symbolism, can be used to describe more than
one thing. And in the case of the temple and what
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18, the temple was indeed
divided up into the heaven, the earth (land) and sea.
And someone who knew more about it than you and
who lived at that time said so. But you would rather
choose to ignore whatever does not suit your doctrine
and to remain ignorant of anything and everything
that happened, because it isn't good enough for you.
Furthermore, you intentionally ignore the fact that
Jesus said that it would happen within the same
generation and that it was about Jerusalem and
Judea, not the whole world.
> Consider for example...
>
> Isaiah 34:1...
> Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people:
> let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all
> things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD
> is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies:
> he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to
> the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their
> stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains
> shall be melted with their blood. *And* *all* *the* *host* *of*
> *heaven* *shall* *be* *dissolved* *and* *the* *heavens*
> *shall* *be* *rolled* *together* *as* *a* *scroll* *and* *all*
> *their *host* *shall* *fall* *down* as the leaf falleth off
> *from* *the* *vine* *and* *as* *a* *falling* *fig* *from*
> *the* *fig* *tree* . *For* *my* *sword* *shall* *be* *bathed*
> *in* *heaven* *behold* *it* *shall* *come* *down* *upon*
> *Idumea* *and* *upon* *the* *people* *of* *my* *curse* ...
>
> If you go on reading you'll see that the destruction
> of this heaven was the slaughter of all the princes
> of Edom, and on the nation as a whole so that
> none of them remain.
Thank you for quoting this, since it is fulfilled prophecy
and shows that such language is symbolic, which makes
Futurists who await physical events when they see this
sort of wording in Matthew 24 and Revelation funny. :)
>>> it was set up in a Jubilee year; its wars with
>>> the surrounding nations have accurately
>>> fulfilled many of the endtimes prophecies
>>> - Zechariah 14 and 1948 is surely obvious
>>> enough even for a blind man like you to see.
>>
>> Typical Futurist. You think that Zech 14 is about
>> Israel becoming a nation again, when in fact,
>> it says the opposite.
>
> I don't think Zechariah 14 is about Israel becoming
> a nation again, its a description of events that
> followed on from Israel becoming a nation again.
Okay, but it still doesn't explain the fact that it
speaks of their losing, not winning.
>> 2) For I will gather all the nations to battle
>> against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken,
>> the houses rifled and the women ravished.
>> Half of the city shall go into captivity, but
>> the remnant of the people shall not be
>> cut off from the city.
>>
>> Note: The city is taken.
>
> No sir, half of the city is taken; do try to
> do some remedial reading classes before
> you come back to this.
The words are above. "The city shall be taken".
It says that half the city shall go into captivity.
That is speaking of the people of the city.
You want to ignore the first sentence and
apply the second one to the physical city.
>> Note: The houses rifled (the spoil taken).
>>
>> Note: The women raped.
>
> That's just what happened. How remarkable.
This is what I'm talking about. You intentionally
skip whatever history doesn't suit your doctrine!
It happened in the Jewish War first and you
don't get to just skip that war, which did come
after Jesus saying what He said and within
that same generation as He said it would.
But hey, why acknowledge that, when you can
just skip it and pretend it's all about your time?
And the fact is, that you still haven't admitted that
Zech 14 is about the Jews losing, not winning.
>> Note: Half the city taken into captivity
>
> Exactly.
>
> The prophets plainly forecast a reestablished nation
> of Israel, in the Holy Land in unbelief, behaving in
> such a way as to defame the name of their God
> and constantly at war with their neighbours.
Sorry, but that isn't what it says.
> Finally, they tell us, situation will boil over and
> the Edomites, that is the Palestinians, will be
> destroyed in a vast conflict at Bozrah [Zech 14
> and other prophets].
You are just making stuff up and claiming that
the Bible says it. But Isaiah 34 was fulfilled.
But what do you care, when you can just switch
the names and pretend that they equal the names
of nations that are around today?
Now why don't you show us where THE BIBLE SAYS
that "Edomites = Palestinians".
Oh wait, that's right, you can't. You just say it's so
and think that makes it so.
> these nations are overseen and protected
> by Russia and fronted by Iran.
Really? Where does the Bible say "Russia" and "Iran"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't! Not anywhere!
How does one have a discussion about WHAT THE
BIBLE SAYS with someone who just inserts different
names from the news in the place of the ones that
are actually there and then claims that's what the
Bible prophesied, all the while ignoring the fact
that the names that are actually in the Bible did
in fact exist?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If we abide by the principles in the Bible, our country
will go on prospering." - Daniel Webster
randy
"Ed Form"
I could only wish to be as eloquent as you, Ed! ;)
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Yes, absolutely. Jesus was actually saying this was yet to take place, but
> he indicated it would be accomplished *by himself.* So this does mean that
> it has already taken place. Yes, the Law has already been fulfilled in the
> works of Jesus, in particular when he died on the cross.
"No, he said when heaven and earth pass (not happened yet),
and "when *all* is accomplished" (not happened yet)."
Jesus was stating the *necessity* that the entire Law be fulfilled in his
own work, Rob! The whole purpose of the Law, according to Jesus, was its
fulfillment on the cross. If this failed to happen, then the universe had
failed in its purpose as well. It might as well just cease to exist. Just as
the universe existed for the sole purpose of getting God's plans fulfilled,
so the Law had to have its purpose fulfilled in the work of Christ. That is
why the universe could not pass away unless the Law was entirely fulfilled
first.
But Ed says it so much better than me. Let me defer to him on this point.
Otherwise I'll just be indulging you in your wish to make my Christian
verbage look silly.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Yes, absolutely. Jesus was actually saying this was yet to take place, but
> > he indicated it would be accomplished *by himself.* So this does mean that
> > it has already taken place. Yes, the Law has already been fulfilled in the
> > works of Jesus, in particular when he died on the cross.
>
> "No, he said when heaven and earth pass (not happened yet),
> and "when *all* is accomplished" (not happened yet)."
>
> Jesus was stating the *necessity* that the entire Law be fulfilled in his
> own work, Rob! The whole purpose of the Law, according to Jesus, was its
> fulfillment on the cross.
No. That's not what he said.
He said the Law wouldn't pass until heaven and earth passed.
He also said the purpose of the Law was to be obeyed.
"If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
> ...That is
> why the universe could not pass away unless the Law was entirely fulfilled
> first.
Except what is actually written is the reverse.
>
> But Ed says it so much better than me.
Not really.
> Let me defer to him on this point.
> Otherwise I'll just be indulging you in your wish to make my Christian
> verbage look silly.
Deciding that "X won't happen until Y" means X happens first
isn't going to fly with me no matter who says it.
It's just reinventing English.
--
Rob Strom
Mordecai
Rob Strom wrote:
It is worse than that - three times JC spoke to make it absolutely clear that
those who entered the kingdom of heaven were to do the law.
The first was a statement of intent - I am NOT here to do away with the law, but I
AM here to do fulfil it.
Here we have the a negation of doing away with the law and an affirmation of
fulfilling it. He was going to do BOTH.
The second point - so that nobody could become so insistent that you cannot do
the law as it ought to be done (to fulfil) it, he actually says the time that
the law is to pass.
Not with the cross, but rather after heaven and earth pass away.
He made it CLEAR - NOT the CROSS!
But - knowing people like Ed and randy ... JC was not satisfied as these can
pervert everything - he then goes on to make it clear what he expects of his
followers who are after the cross (as this is where "the kingdom of heaven"
began) and tells them straight out - the least of YOU will set aside the least of
the laws - and teach others the same. The greatest of you will keep all the laws
and do them. But unless your righteousness exceeds the scribes and the pharisees -
you will not even get into the kingdom of heaven.
Dear oh dear - his followers do not sit on their duff relaxing after a hard days
work and getting waited on hand and foot by a grateful JC who is so happy that
they have faith in him ... NO ...he says "OK you are now part of the family - get
to work. Do something!"
So outside the kingdom of heaven are the scribes and the pharisees who keep the
law but with the wrong attitude ... plus Randy and Ed who are actively teaching
others not to do the laws and also not doing themselves.
And you note - even THREE repetitions of a single theme - including the warning
that the people in his "kingdom of heaven" have to actually DO something ...
that some like these will rebel.
So JC was wise enough to tell them three times in three ways - and he knew in
advance that people would not follow him.
And you have Ed, and you have Randy and nothing anyone can say will get through
their prejudices.
The cause of them rebelling is that they do not know what the law is. They have
some of the statements of the law and refuse to listen to other statements of the
law and conclude "the law is evil and wrong and a danger."
As such it is to be opposed and resisted.
You have tried and I have tried to educate them on the law as to what it is ...
not a threat, not a danger - good ... and worthy.
But it is a case of horses and water.
THEY have an idea in their brain about the law ... and nobody is going to convince
them otherwise!
As such - JC "HAD" to get rid of this evil thing ... and nothing will convince
them to do as JC commands.
So - because not even a sledge hammer will fit this square peg into that round
hole - they use a pile driver.
You can always fit a square peg into a round hole if you use enough force.
Little things like arguments and intellectual honesty will not convince them -
they have a "higher purpose" to protect people from the evil law.
You cannot change a heart to seek after G_d.
Nor can you change a Christian into a follower of JC.
I have better things to do with my time than play with "christian pharisees."
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong,
and reality is Never wrong.
Terry Cross
You cannot "fulfill" a law. The sytax is meaningless. Even if
everyone observed the law for a hundred years with no violations, the
law would not be "fulfilled." It would still be a law. Something has
been lost or invented to make the statement meaningless.
Go ahead and pick any other law anywhere and describe what must be
done to "fulfill" it. You will see, the phrase is meaningless.
> Here we have the a negation of doing away with the law and an affirmation of
> fulfilling it. He was going to do BOTH.
The second half of which is meaningless.
> The second point - so that nobody could become so insistent that you cannot do
> the law as it ought to be done (to fulfil) it, he actually says the time that
> the law is to pass.
> Not with the cross, but rather after heaven and earth pass away.
> He made it CLEAR - NOT the CROSS!
Jesus also said at one point that Mosaic stoning could not be done
because the people throwing the stones were not "without sin," at
another that Moses invented divorce in contradiction to God's Law, and
at another that Moses' law on Sabbath was of confused in priority
Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
In a dozen other places, Jesus shows Mosaic Law was in error,
sometimes making vague reference to ML with a phrase such as "you have
heard it said," sometimes with no reference at all, as when he told
his followers that Kosher was bunkum.
When Jesus finished with Mosaic Law, what was left? Not very much.
That is why the Christians who cling to the Old Testament are fixated
on the Ten Commandments and not much else. Anything else is an
embarrassment to the teachings of Jesus.
TCross
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Jesus was stating the *necessity* that the entire Law be fulfilled in his
> own work, Rob! The whole purpose of the Law, according to Jesus, was its
> fulfillment on the cross.
"No. That's not what he said.
He said the Law wouldn't pass until heaven and earth passed."
No, he said the Law would be *fulfilled* before the heaven and earth passed.
I keep showing you that, and it's significant that you keep leaving the word
"fulfilled" out!
As I've been saying, Jesus felt that the importance of fulfilling the Law
was equal to the importance of the continuing existence of the universe. If
the universe should pass, that would be the equivalent of losing the
fulfillment of the Law at the cross of Christ.
"He also said the purpose of the Law was to be obeyed.
"If you would enter life, keep the commandments" "
Yes, the Law should be obeyed, and its fulfillment should be obeyed. Once
redemption was completed in the work of Christ, Christ was to be obeyed,
because his work was the fulfillment of the Law.
randy
randy
"Mordecai"
> It is worse than that - three times JC spoke to make it absolutely clear
> that
> those who entered the kingdom of heaven were to do the law.
> The first was a statement of intent - I am NOT here to do away with the
> law, but I
> AM here to do fulfil it.
> Here we have the a negation of doing away with the law and an affirmation
> of
> fulfilling it. He was going to do BOTH.
He was doing away with negating the importance of *fulfilling* the Law. And
fulfilling the Law meant accomplishing every jot and tittle of what the Law
meant to fulfil in Christ. On the cross Christ died for the sins of all men.
That is what fulfilled every law in the Law of Moses having to do with human
redemption. We no longer need animal sacrifices. We just need faith in what
Christ did when he said, "Father, forgive them."
> The second point - so that nobody could become so insistent that you
> cannot do
> the law as it ought to be done (to fulfil) it, he actually says the time
> that
> the law is to pass.
> Not with the cross, but rather after heaven and earth pass away.
> He made it CLEAR - NOT the CROSS!
Wrong, Jesus indicated *he* was the one to fulfil the Law, and it therefore
cannot be something done after heaven and earth pass away. The importance of
fulfilling the Law is emphasized by equating it with the importance of the
universe itself. If the Law was not to be fulfilled, neither should the
universe itself continue to exist.
randy
randy
"Terry Cross"
"You cannot "fulfill" a law. The sytax is meaningless. Even if
everyone observed the law for a hundred years with no violations, the
law would not be "fulfilled." It would still be a law. Something has
been lost or invented to make the statement meaningless.
Go ahead and pick any other law anywhere and describe what must be
done to "fulfill" it. You will see, the phrase is meaningless."
Yes, moshe and I both used to state, clearly, that the word "fulfil" here
has to do with prophetic fulfillment. Jesus saw himself as Messiah, as the
one who would fulfil redemption and make animal sacrifice no longer
necessary for Israel. He *was* the Lamb of God, who was to take away the
sins of the world.
randy
Donna Kupp
> Now some will try to separate off the Ten Commandments
> and claim that we must follow them, but the fact is, that
> the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, which
> is why they are repeated in Deuteronomy, where the Law
> is summed up.
>
> Some will try to separate "moral laws" from "ritual laws",
> but again, there is no separation and God made no such
> separation!
Donna writes:
The Ten Commandments are recorded in the book of the law --
but the book of the law is not part of the Ten Commandments.
They are two separate laws.
The following quote is not from the Bible, but it is important as a
historical witness of what early Christians believed. The quote is
from Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons ( circa 175-195) He was the
student of Polycarp who was taught by the apostle John.
According to the Dictionary of the Christian church (Zondervan)
Irenaeus "...encountered Gnostic activity and devoted five books
to the DETECTION AND OVERTHROW OF FALSELY
NAMED KNOWLEDGE usually called 'Against Heresies'." These
writings are still published today.
In one passage from Against Heresies, Irenaeus teaches what must
have been accepted doctrinal belief in the early church concerning
the relationship between the Decalogue and the Mosaic Law. He
wrote:
GOD ADDED MOSAIC LAW AS YOKE OF BONDAGE
"1. They [the Jews] had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and
a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed, warning
them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning He
had implanted in mankind, that is by means of the Decalogue,
(which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation), DID
THEN DEMAND NOTHING MORE OF THEM. As Moses says
in Deuteronomy,
'These are all the words which the Lord spake to the whole
assembly of the sons of Israel on the mount, and He added no
more; and He wrote them on two tables of stone, and gave them to
me.' (Deut 5:22)
For this reason, that they who are willing to follow Him might
keep these commandments. BUT when they turned themselves to
make a calf, and had gone back in their minds to Egypt, desiring to
be slaves instead of freemen, THEY WERE PLACED FOR THE
FUTURE IN A STATE OF SERVITUDE SUITED TO THEIR
WISH, - which did not indeed cut them off from God, but
SUBJECTED THEM TO THE YOKE OF BONDAGE; as Ezekiel
the prophet, when stating the reasons for the giving of such a law,
declares:
'And their eyes were after the desire of their heart; and I gave
them STATUTES THAT WERE NOT GOOD, and judgements in
which they shall not live' Ezek 20:24
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES, (AD 120 - 202) from The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, TT Clark 1897 (see Gal 2:4, 3:19)
[It is important to note that in contrast to Ezekiel, the
prophet Nehemiah says the statutes given on Mt. Sinai were "good
statutes", whereas Ezekiel calls the Mosaic law: "statutes that
were NOT good]:
"Thou camest down also upon Mt. Sinai, and spakest with them from
heaven, and gavest them right judgements, and true laws, GOOD
STATUTES and commandments" Neh 9:13
***
In addition, a Chronology of the events at Mt. Sinai, shows that the
ceremonial law was given in May of 1490, on the other hand, the
Ten Commandments in May of 1491, therefore, THE DIETARY
LAWS (part of the yoke of bondage) were commanded a full
YEAR after the Decalogue. The Mosaic law was part of a second
covenant with a second set of tablets. After they made the calf,
God was going to destroy the Israelites, but Moses begged the Lord
for their forgiveness and the nation was allowed a reprieve, but
with a much stricter set of rules designed to keep their minds on
obedience to God's law. This was the yoke of bondage. Now you
can understand what Paul meant when he said: "Why then the
law? It was added because of transgressions," The Mosaic law
was added to the original covenant (the Ten Commandments)
because of the Israel's transgressions.
Please note the deliberate and pointed comment Irenaeus made
above, about the necessity of obedience to the Ten
Commandments:
"1. They [the Jews] had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and
a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed, warning
them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning He
had implanted in mankind, that is by means of the Decalogue,
**(which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation),**
DID THEN DEMAND NOTHING MORE OF THEM.
The original covenant was the Ten Commandments, not the Mosaic law.
Harold and Donna Kupp
http://groups.google.com/group/Freetruth?hl=en,
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/show.php?i=630302&cat=0
The Seven Deadly Deceptions Of Counterfeit Christianity
http://www.freetruth.info
vince garcia
utterly the most repugnant heretic. Beyond Snow, Aaron, Ruth, Sam--she
is in a class of heresy all by herself. Here is a record of the satanic
views she has so you know precisely what you're dealing with if you
choose to respond to her post:
The poster, Donna Kupp, is a heretic who denies the deity of
Christ, thinks we're saved by keeping the 10 commandments--especially
the sabbath--and denies essential after essential of the Christian
faith. She flat out denies the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and
labels it a doctrine of Satan:
>"The strategy of Satan in the modern church has been to make people
>believe that they have eternal life the moment they accept Jesus as
>their personal Savior."
* * *
Also from her heretical web site:
> "No matter how big the church, no matter how many scriptures
> they use to prove their doctrine, look for the red flag. If they
> have set aside even a part of God's law, they have turned away
> from the truth. By the way, the Sabbath is the fourth
> commandment. To deny it is to deny the God that has declared
> the seventh day to be holy. The Epistle of James teaches that
> there is one law with ten parts. If you refuse to obey any part of
> it, you are refusing the authority of the lawgiver"
>
>If you were the Judge in the case of the CHURCHMEN VERSUS
> THE SABBATH, would you be willing to say that Paul had cancelled
> one of the commandments of God based on the evidence you find in
> the 14th chapter of Romans?
>
> In our opinion, the evidence from Romans and Zechariah
> demands a verdict for Sabbath observance. The church must obey
> the Fourth Commandment - that is the only decision that will
> uphold the Law of God.
* * *
Donna has also written:
> The sabbath commandment makes a distinction between The Creator of the
> heavens and the earth and all the gods of the heathen. If you decide
> to observe the seventh day sabbath you will be testifying to the world
> (including your boss) that you do not believe in evolution; but have
> faith in the Creator of the universe to provide for your needs.
>
> Our faith must be tested and approved before we receive the crown of
> life.
NOTE THIS UTTER ABOMINATION FROM HER MOUTH...
>To be saved is the first step in the process of salvation. Those who
>are saved do not have eternal life -
* * *
Donna has also written:
> "...For I the LORD your God am a jealous God ...showing
> steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and KEEP MY
> COMMANDMENTS." (Exodus 20:5-6, (2nd commandment)
>
> According to those verses, all who are not keeping the Ten
> Commandments of God can be certain that God does not love them.
> (Anything contrary is a lie.)"
* * *
Donna also teaches that a true Christian cannot commit sin, and if one
DOES commits sin, proclaims that ONE WILLFUL SIN is blasphemy
of the Holy Spirit, and thus AN UNFORGIVABLE SIN THAT WILL DAMN THE
PERSON.
As her site reads about the Unforgivable Sin:
> "If one who is born of God has truly repented of committing sin
> (chosen to cease from sin) and then deliberately commits sin he has
> despised the Holy Spirit, just as the OT the Israelites despised the > Law of God. It is blasphemy!"
And she recently posted:
> "When we are converted all past sins are forgiven. After a person is
> born-again, only sins of ignorance are forgiven. If a person sins
> with knowledge and intent after that time, they have blasphemed
> the Holy Spirit and there is no more sacrifice for sin. See Hebrews
> 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-31."
> Blood of Christ covers: 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light,
> as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the
> blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Only sins
> of ignorance)
Notice how she added the words "Only sins of ignorance" to pervert
John's words. He says Christ's blood cleanses us from ALL sin; Donna
adds words to change it to all UNINTENTIONAL sins
> If a man sins wilfully, he has probably not truly repented in the
> first place, or if he has repented and turns back by committing
> deliberate sin he will die - "in the day that he sinneth" he shall > not live.
* * *
She and her husband have also rewritten the Gospel of John in order to
DENY CHRIST'S DEITY in its very opening verse:
"In the beginning was Jesus
>
> and Jesus was with THE RULER,
>
> and Jesus was Ruler.
>
> The same was in the beginning with THE RULER."
>John was teaching that Jesus was our Ruler (our theos) and that
>Jesus was with the Father from the very beginning of creation.
>(Not that Jesus was one third of some mysterious and mind-
>boggling "Trinity" that no one had ever heard of.)
* * *
Conclusion: This woman is the worst sort of cultist, denying everything
from the deity of Christ, to the doctrine of salvation by grace through
faith. She uses the words "Brothers and sisters" in her posts, seeking
to represent herself as a part of the body of Christ. But the truth is,
her gospel comes from the mouth of Satan himself. Point by point, she
leads people away from salvation and into deception and damnation.
As John says, THIS is how we are to treat someone like her who teaches
these heresies:
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath
not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the
Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4B49CF...@ix.netcom.com...
Amen, Vince! Excellent post. Donna's supporters who call themselves
Christians should really also read it.
Jesus is LORD!
Vera
vince garcia
Does she have any supporters, vera??? I can only think of one or two
nuts twisted enough to agree with half her false doctrines.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
4B4A55...@ix.netcom.com
Yes, that is true. Those few people might even believe their false
tolerance would bring people closer to Jesus, while God warns us to stay
away from such ones like Donna, Dave or Glenn and some others. But they
prefer to follow their "feelings", and think feelings could fly them to
Heaven and not God. They should really better listen to Him.
Short-sighted, really. God said we are to overcome ourselves and listen
to Him. Feelings can be so wrong and mislead us. Most murders are
committed due to feelings. There are not many supporters of Donna, but
they made a big ado about her.
With regard to Dave, however, I know of at least one follower he made in
usenet. One too much, I think, and just one reason for us to worry about
him and his lies.
I am just glad that the Lord has won the battle in the end, because He
fought the devil who lost, and there is no doubt about that. No Donna
nor Glenn or Snow can ever change that. God paid for our sins about 2000
years ago already.
robstrom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Jesus was stating the *necessity* that the entire Law be fulfilled in his
> > own work, Rob! The whole purpose of the Law, according to Jesus, was its
> > fulfillment on the cross.
>
> "No. That's not what he said.
> He said the Law wouldn't pass until heaven and earth passed."
>
> No, he said the Law would be *fulfilled* before the heaven and earth passed.
> I keep showing you that, and it's significant that you keep leaving the word
> "fulfilled" out!
Perhaps you could post a quote of Jesus saying this.
I have posted a quote of Jesus saying the exact *opposite*,
"till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
This means no termination of the law happens until
*************************************after*********************************
heaven and earth pass. After is the opposite of "before".
> ...
>
> "He also said the purpose of the Law was to be obeyed.
> "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" "
>
> Yes, the Law should be obeyed, and its fulfillment should be obeyed.
Please don't switch to non-English.
"The law should be obeyed" is a good English sentence.
Unfortunately you don't agree with it.
"Its fulfillment should be obeyed" is not a good English sentence.
How do you obey fulfillments?
Can a soldier get court-martialed for disobeying a fulfillment?
--
Rob Strom
randy
"robstrom"
randy
> No, he said the Law would be *fulfilled* before the heaven and earth
> passed.
> I keep showing you that, and it's significant that you keep leaving the
> word
> "fulfilled" out!
"Perhaps you could post a quote of Jesus saying this."
I have done this many, many times now. Note the words "fulfil" in the
following...
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to *fulfill.*
18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one
jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all is
*fulfilled.*
"I have posted a quote of Jesus saying the exact *opposite*,
"till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished." "
Yes, I know. I've been trying to discuss this with you, how Jesus' equation
of the passing of the universe equates with the passing of the Law. When
Jesus denied his "abolishment" of the Law, he was not denying that the Law
would be annuled. Rather, he was asserting *his own* responsibility under
the Law to fulfil it, in view of Israel's failure to abide by their own
terms of the contract.
In other words, it was *Israel* who caused the Law to be terminated--not
Jesus! Jesus was stating that even though Israel failed to live under the
terms of the contract, even though the abolishment of the Law was
inevitable, he had not personally come to abolish the contract himself. On
the contrary, he had come to fulfil his own terms of the contract, which was
to be a prophetic fulfillment completely distinct from the contract of the
Law. Every jot and tittle of the Law pointed to this necessity of this
fulfillment of Messiah *apart from the contract of the Law,* precisely
because Jesus had already asserted that Israel would inevitably break the
Law, just as Moses had stated.
So here is the unquivocal reality that both Jesus and Moses stated that
Israel would break the Law, would fail under contract of the Law. And it is
equally clear that Jesus indicated he would still somehow *fulfil* the
Law--every jot and tittle. So until he could offer himself as a sacrifice on
the cross for all sin, Jesus continued to assert the literal value of every
jot and tittle of the Law, until that event actually came to pass. The cross
was the point at which *Israel* became responsible for the abolishment of
the Law, but Jesus would still fulfil every jot and tittle of the Law by
providing a redemption that completes every act of redemption required under
the Law of Moses.
randy
Rob Strom
> "robstrom"
> randy
>
> > No, he said the Law would be *fulfilled* before the heaven and earth
> > passed.
> > I keep showing you that, and it's significant that you keep leaving the
> > word
> > "fulfilled" out!
>
> "Perhaps you could post a quote of Jesus saying this."
>
> I have done this many, many times now. Note the words "fulfil" in the
> following...
> Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the
> Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to *fulfill.*
> 18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one
> jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all is
> *fulfilled.*
Doesn't say that fulfillment precedes the passing of heaven and earth.
>
> "I have posted a quote of Jesus saying the exact *opposite*,
> "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
> will pass from the law until all is accomplished." "
>
> Yes, I know. I've been trying to discuss this with you, how Jesus' equation
> of the passing of the universe equates with the passing of the Law. When
> Jesus denied his "abolishment" of the Law, he was not denying that the Law
> would be annuled.
The words are synonyms. Abolish = annul.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
You are explaining "fulfilling prophesy" and what you write makes
sense after its own fashion.
But fulfilling the "law" is not at all as meaningful. Yet that is
what the Scripture says, and now we have a riddle.
We know Jesus did not regard the Law as did the Pharisees. He
deprecated the Sabbath, mocked the laws of Kosher, poked holes in the
divinity of Mosaic Law, canceled Mosaic divorce, preached against
stoning, denounced the priesthood, argued against Temple prayer,
interrupted the animal blood sacrifice, disputed long-held doctrines
on the superiority of the Judaic race, ... on and on. It seems 90% of
his dialog in the Synoptic Gospels is a diatribe against the Judaism
of his day and all of its doctrines, laws, and traditions.
TCross
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>dave--of ALL the people here, this woman--if you don't know her, is
>utterly the most repugnant heretic. Beyond Snow, Aaron, Ruth, Sam--she
>is in a class of heresy all by herself. Here is a record of the satanic
>views she has so you know precisely what you're dealing with if you
>choose to respond to her post:
>
>
>The poster, Donna Kupp, is a heretic who denies the deity of
>Christ, thinks we're saved by keeping the 10 commandments--especially
>the sabbath--and denies essential after essential of the Christian
>faith. She flat out denies the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and
>labels it a doctrine of Satan:
I know who she is. :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party
it injures, so that society has to take the place
of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement
or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which
society has a direct interest." - W. H. Auden
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
>> Yes, moshe and I both used to state, clearly, that the word "fulfil" here
>> has to do with prophetic fulfillment. Jesus saw himself as Messiah, as
>> the
>> one who would fulfil redemption and make animal sacrifice no longer
>> necessary for Israel. He *was* the Lamb of God, who was to take away the
>> sins of the world.
> You are explaining "fulfilling prophesy" and what you write makes
> sense after its own fashion.
> But fulfilling the "law" is not at all as meaningful. Yet that is
> what the Scripture says, and now we have a riddle.
I suppose I've never seen "fulfilling the Law" as awkward, because I was
raised a Christian and always understood it as the normal and reasonable
explanation of what Jesus did on the cross.
> We know Jesus did not regard the Law as did the Pharisees. He
> deprecated the Sabbath, mocked the laws of Kosher, poked holes in the
> divinity of Mosaic Law, canceled Mosaic divorce, preached against
> stoning, denounced the priesthood, argued against Temple prayer,
> interrupted the animal blood sacrifice, disputed long-held doctrines
> on the superiority of the Judaic race, ... on and on. It seems 90% of
> his dialog in the Synoptic Gospels is a diatribe against the Judaism
> of his day and all of its doctrines, laws, and traditions.
I don't think what Jesus did was as callous as you describe it, but there is
much to be said for your claim. Jesus did make a distinction between
spiritual observance and legal observance. And I think everybody understands
this in our society, because every judge has to decide when someone's
departure from legal observance actually constitutes serious damage. In
other words, we all make lots of errors, technically, but normally we will
dismiss these "human errors." It is much more important to go after serious
infractions that damage our society overall.
In Jesus' day, many of the religious rulers had fallen to a low moral state
and tried to use their legal observances as a cover for their sins and
abuses of society. Jesus fully recognized that these religious leaders
attempted to display themselves publicly as upright men, while at the same
time plotting to have him slandered and killed.
Jesus didn't try to circumvent the Law, in my opinion. Rather, he recognized
that no mortal man was unblemished, as he was, and had to rely upon the hope
within the Law that Messiah would bring about eternal vindication. Jesus saw
himself as the fulfillment of that promise. The OT Law, inasmuch as it was
based on the record of fallen humanity, could not bring about human
redemption. So Jesus intended to establish eternal redemption on a different
basis, on the basis of his own immortal spirituality and righteousness. When
we show these virtues in our own life, it is enough to show that we've
commited ourselves to an eternal path.
In my view this is what the Law promised, in the full knowledge that animal
sacrifices were just a temporary respite from condemnation. As long as man
remains sinful and mortal, he has no hope. But with the promise of an
eternal spirituality, we can expect that redemption will be "fulfilled."
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "Perhaps you could post a quote of Jesus saying this."
> I have done this many, many times now. Note the words "fulfil" in the
> following...
> Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the
> Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to *fulfill.*
> 18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not
> one
> jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all is
> *fulfilled.*
"Doesn't say that fulfillment precedes the passing of heaven and earth."
We are arguing this because it is not always clear, either way. Jesus said
he didn't come to abolish the Law. He didn't. Israel did. Jesus said he came
to establish the efficacy of the Law--not eternally, but in the case of
Israel's contract with God. Israel was breaking that contract of Law. Jesus
said he would fulfil the Law in some way in his own earthly ministry, in his
own time. This positively means that the fulfillment of the Law would *not
be* synonymous with the end of the universe!
So we have to ask ourselves, How did Jesus' view his earthly work as a
"fulfillment" of the Law? I'm suggesting that he saw his own martyrdom as a
way of completing forgiveness for Israel. For Jesus this is what
"fulfillment of the Law" meant. Since much of the Law had to do with
providing atonement for Israel, Jesus saw his own historic act of
forgiveness as equal to all of the atonement offered under the Law.
Jesus did come to establish the efficacy of the Law. But as was the proper
thing to do, when that contract is defied and broken, he had to acknowledge
that the Law would have to be annuled. Jesus resigned himself to death as a
symbol of a broken covenant. But he rose from the dead to show that the
crime was not overwhelming. Forgiveness for that crime could still be had.
The fulfillment of the Law is therefore the hope of life after death. If
life ended at death for Christ, the crime would have been insurmountable.
But as it was, Christ lived and could still forgive those who had wronged
him. By extension this forgiveness applies to the whole human race, because
Christ demonstrated how the grace of God operates. What Jesus did in his own
experience is the way God is in all experiences.
randy
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d93ebd74-3369-4b05...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> You are explaining "fulfilling prophesy" and what you write makes
> sense after its own fashion.
Said the idiotic heretic who thinks she can separate Jesus from Moses.
[snip]
Ike
Rob Strom
> Jesus did come to establish the efficacy of the Law. But as was the proper
> thing to do, when that contract is defied and broken, he had to acknowledge
> that the Law would have to be annuled.
Except he didn't acknowledge this.
> Jesus resigned himself to death as a
> symbol of a broken covenant.
Except he didn't say that.
...
>
> The fulfillment of the Law is therefore the hope of life after death.
People hoped for that before and after Jesus, so by that logic,
the Law was fulfilled many times before and after Jesus.
But none of these fulfillments caused the law to be annulled.
> If
> life ended at death for Christ, the crime would have been insurmountable.
I'm not sure what crime you are referring to, or how one surmounts a
crime.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Jesus did come to establish the efficacy of the Law. But as was the proper
> thing to do, when that contract is defied and broken, he had to
> acknowledge
> that the Law would have to be annuled.
"Except he didn't acknowledge this."
He surely did!
Matthew 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to
you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will
scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city; 35 so that on
you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you
killed between the temple and the altar.
36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation. 37 O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are
sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as
a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your
house is left to you desolate.
This is precisely the process that the ancient Prophets took Israel through
just before they broke their own commitment to the Law. And the contract at
that time was broken in the same way, by the coming judgment and dispersion.
That is just what Jesus was calling for! I don't see how you can look at it
in any other way?
> Jesus resigned himself to death as a
> symbol of a broken covenant.
"Except he didn't say that."
Jesus called for God's judgment upon his own generation. That entails a
broken contract. It is in this context that we read the following...
Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why
do you seek to kill me?"
> The fulfillment of the Law is therefore the hope of life after death.
"People hoped for that before and after Jesus, so by that logic,
the Law was fulfilled many times before and after Jesus."
I'm talking about hope *fulfilled.* Witnessing the resurrection of Jesus
from the dead, the resurrection of a man who was flawless in his
spirituality, gives all men a *realized* hope, when the promise of that
spirituality has also been given to us!
"But none of these fulfillments caused the law to be annulled."
The implication was there.
Lu 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you,
while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of
Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
Jesus saw the Law as a failure on the part of Israel, but successful in the
eyes of God. The Law called for an unblemished sacrifice to pardon Israel
*forever.* Only Jesus did this by rising from the dead and giving us this
power by the gift of his spirit.
The Law was a matter, therefore, of being fulfilled in the *life of Jesus,*
and only observed temporarily in the life of Israel. When Jesus fulfilled
the Law, he did it differently than the way Israel had been doing it. He did
it as a perfect man, unstained by sin. He had no need to observe a law of
redemption, when he had no need for redemption. He simply had to die,
undeservingly, and rise from the dead, and then give us this power by
granting us his spirit.
> If
> life ended at death for Christ, the crime would have been insurmountable.
"I'm not sure what crime you are referring to, or how one surmounts a
crime."
If Jesus did not rise from the dead and give us this power, we could never
ourselves rise from the dead and live in the presence of God forever. We
required an *eternal* spirituality, one unstained by the witness of flawed
men under the Law. The Law was just a temporary representation of Jesus'
perfect spirituality by flawed men. This is what Jesus said...
Lu 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news
of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently."
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Jesus did come to establish the efficacy of the Law. But as was the proper
> > thing to do, when that contract is defied and broken, he had to
> > acknowledge
> > that the Law would have to be annuled.
>
> "Except he didn't acknowledge this."
>
> He surely did!
> Matthew 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to
> you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will
> scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city; 35 so that on
> you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of
> righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you
> killed between the temple and the altar.
> 36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation. 37 O
> Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are
> sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as
> a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your
> house is left to you desolate.
>
This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!
Please mark the above verses with stars. I want to see which
verb in the above you claim is a synonym for the word "annul",
and which noun in the sentence containing that verb you
claim is a synonym for the word "Law".
For example *gathered* your *children*. Does "gathered" mean
"annulled" and "children" means Law?
...
> > Jesus resigned himself to death as a
> > symbol of a broken covenant.
>
> "Except he didn't say that."
>
> Jesus called for God's judgment upon his own generation. That entails a
> broken contract. It is in this context that we read the following...
> Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why
> do you seek to kill me?"
I am looking for a noun phrase that you think means "broken covenant".
I don't see it.
>
> > The fulfillment of the Law is therefore the hope of life after death.
>
> "People hoped for that before and after Jesus, so by that logic,
> the Law was fulfilled many times before and after Jesus."
>
> I'm talking about hope *fulfilled.*
Fulfilled, you claim, in reference to the law, means to hope for life
after death.
I am not sure why you claim that, but in the sense that you are using
the
term, the Law was fulfilled (meaning that people hoped for life after
death)
many times before Jesus.
> Witnessing the resurrection of Jesus
> from the dead, the resurrection of a man who was flawless in his
> spirituality, gives all men a *realized* hope, when the promise of that
> spirituality has also been given to us!
>
> "But none of these fulfillments caused the law to be annulled."
>
> The implication was there.
> Lu 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you,
> while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of
> Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
Not a syllable of that says that any bit of the law be annulled.
You keep thinking that any word can mean any other word.
To you, "fulfilled" means "hoping for life after death",
and "gathering your children" means "annulling the law",
and now "everything written about me in the law"
means "the law disappears".
>
> Jesus saw the Law as a failure on the part of Israel, but successful in the
> eyes of God. The Law called for an unblemished sacrifice to pardon Israel
> *forever.* Only Jesus did this by rising from the dead and giving us this
> power by the gift of his spirit.
What does that have to do with annulling the law? Nothing!
>
> The Law was a matter, therefore, of being fulfilled in the *life of Jesus,*
> and only observed temporarily in the life of Israel.
> When Jesus fulfilled
> the Law, he did it differently than the way Israel had been doing it. He did
> it as a perfect man, unstained by sin. He had no need to observe a law of
> redemption, when he had no need for redemption. He simply had to die,
> undeservingly, and rise from the dead, and then give us this power by
> granting us his spirit.
Where did this nonsense come? There's nothing in the Bible about
that!
>
> > If
> > life ended at death for Christ, the crime would have been insurmountable.
>
> "I'm not sure what crime you are referring to, or how one surmounts a
> crime."
>
> If Jesus did not rise from the dead and give us this power, we could never
> ourselves rise from the dead and live in the presence of God forever. We
> required an *eternal* spirituality, one unstained by the witness of flawed
> men under the Law.
I'm still not sure what this has to do with surmounting crimes.
> The Law was just a temporary representation of Jesus'
> perfect spirituality by flawed men. This is what Jesus said...
> Lu 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news
> of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently."
>
I don't know what this means, but you have left off the next sentence
which totally blows your position out of the water:
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,
than for one dot of the law to become void"
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> > that the Law would have to be annuled.
> "Except he didn't acknowledge this."
> He surely did!...
> 36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation. 37
> O
> Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who
> are
> sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even
> as
> a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold,
> your
> house is left to you desolate.
"This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!"
I've shown you how Israel in ancient times "broke the covenant." They failed
under the covenant, and the prophets consigned her to exile, to judgment, to
the curses of the Law. This "broken covenant" is what I refer to as an
"annulment." When the covenant was designed not for cursing, but for
blessing, then when the curses fall, it means the covenant failed.
Jesus used precisely the same kind of language against Israel in his
generation as the ancient Prophets had used in connection with their own
generation. It was the language of judgment, designed to be inflicted upon
people who had definitively *broken* God's covenant. This, in my view, is
synonymous with an "annulment." As I've told you before, it is like a
divorce, an annuled marriage.
> Jesus called for God's judgment upon his own generation. That entails a
> broken contract. It is in this context that we read the following...
> Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law.
> Why
> do you seek to kill me?"
"I am looking for a noun phrase that you think means "broken covenant".
I don't see it."
Jesus identified his own death as a part of Israel's rejection of their
covenant.
"Fulfilled, you claim, in reference to the law, means to hope for life
after death.
I am not sure why you claim that, but in the sense that you are using
the
term, the Law was fulfilled (meaning that people hoped for life after
death)
many times before Jesus."
Yes, I believe people have always hoped for immortality, for life after
death. I think people especially hoped for this under the Law, with the
understanding that God is both eternal and the creator of mankind. But sin
barred the way to the "tree of life." This means that eternal fellowship
with God was prohibited by human sin. Since mankind remains sinful, we are
still barred from the "tree of life." However, I believe Jesus presented a
pathway to eternity that he made available through his spirituality. And
this offering was sanctioned by God, not just because Jesus' life was
spotless, but also because Jesus *was* God and had every right to forgive
mankind and give us a second chance.
At the point where his spirituality became available to us, the hope of an
after life was fulfilled. It was not just hope in an afterlife, but
specifically, hope for an afterlife with God, forever and ever. The sin
problem had to be resolved, and it was, I believed, resolved in the life and
teachings of Jesus.
> The implication was there.
> Lu 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you,
> while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of
> Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
"Not a syllable of that says that any bit of the law be annulled."
You're not reading deep enough into the content of what Jesus is saying. He
is describing the necessity of his sufferings, indicating that Israel is in
violation of the Law, is at the point of breaking the Law. But Jesus said
this is all part of his own fulfillment of the Law, which certainly could
not then have been fulfilled by a nation in apostasy!
> Jesus saw the Law as a failure on the part of Israel, but successful in
> the
> eyes of God. The Law called for an unblemished sacrifice to pardon Israel
> *forever.* Only Jesus did this by rising from the dead and giving us this
> power by the gift of his spirit.
"What does that have to do with annulling the law? Nothing!"
On the contrary, the Law offered hope deferred. Mankind could not achieve
eternity by a law that required continual offerings, that always in effect
still required the consummate pardon for sin. Therefore, the Law had to be
annuled in favor of a final pardon, a system that no longer required
sacrifices for sin. This system, according to Jesus, came by him. He offered
a new system, as a way of fulfilling a system that preceded him and was
inept, ultimately.
> When Jesus fulfilled
> the Law, he did it differently than the way Israel had been doing it. He
> did
> it as a perfect man, unstained by sin. He had no need to observe a law of
> redemption, when he had no need for redemption. He simply had to die,
> undeservingly, and rise from the dead, and then give us this power by
> granting us his spirit.
"Where did this nonsense come? There's nothing in the Bible about
that!"
It really depends on what Bible you're reading. The NT Scriptures exlain it,
but it is rooted in the Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish Scriptures have no
solution to the problem of sin. The Law requires an endless train of
sacrifices, with no hope of resolution.
And yet the prophets cry out that a remedy is coming by means of Messiah. He
will bring an end to sin, and somehow provide eternity for mankind. The
prophet said, "Where is your sting, death?"
> The Law was just a temporary representation of Jesus'
> perfect spirituality by flawed men. This is what Jesus said...
> Lu 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good
> news
> of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently."
'I don't know what this means, but you have left off the next sentence
which totally blows your position out of the water:
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,
than for one dot of the law to become void" "
The problem is, you don't know what it means. That's why I'm trying to
explain how Christians view it. And of course, it is our Bible. If you wish
to join us, you must find out what the spirituality of Jesus is like. You do
that only by prayer, my friend. A spiritual relationship *is* prayer!
randy
Rob Strom
> "This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!"
>
> I've shown you how Israel in ancient times "broke the covenant."
No, you never showed me anything of the kind.
> They failed
> under the covenant, and the prophets consigned her to exile, to judgment, to
> the curses of the Law. This "broken covenant" is what I refer to as an
> "annulment."
You can't decide on your own what an annulment means.
The word has a standard meaning.
It means it ceases to take effect. If you're using some special
Randy meaning of "annulment" that doesn't mean not taking
effect, then I say, fine the Law's annulled, but it's still
in effect and you have to obey all of it.
> ... It was the language of judgment, designed to be inflicted upon
> people who had definitively *broken* God's covenant. This, in my view, is
> synonymous with an "annulment." As I've told you before, it is like a
> divorce, an annuled marriage.
But it doesn't mean that we don't have to obey it.
>
> > Jesus called for God's judgment upon his own generation. That entails a
> > broken contract. It is in this context that we read the following...
> > Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law.
> > Why
> > do you seek to kill me?"
>
> "I am looking for a noun phrase that you think means "broken covenant".
> I don't see it."
>
> Jesus identified his own death as a part of Israel's rejection of their
> covenant.
>
And I identify Jesus' death as a commandment to defeat Republicans.
Everybody, in your view, can interpret any word as meaning anything.
Sad, that Massachusetts may be under horrible judgment for
violating Jesus' explicit statement.
...
> At the point where his spirituality became available to us, the hope of an
> after life was fulfilled. It was not just hope in an afterlife, but
> specifically, hope for an afterlife with God, forever and ever. The sin
> problem had to be resolved, and it was, I believed, resolved in the life and
> teachings of Jesus.
No, because people still sin.
>
> > The implication was there.
> > Lu 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you,
> > while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of
> > Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
>
> "Not a syllable of that says that any bit of the law be annulled."
>
> You're not reading deep enough into the content of what Jesus is saying. He
> is describing the necessity of his sufferings, indicating that Israel is in
> violation of the Law, is at the point of breaking the Law. But Jesus said
> this is all part of his own fulfillment of the Law, which certainly could
> not then have been fulfilled by a nation in apostasy!
And not a syllable of this constitutes an annulment.
>
> > Jesus saw the Law as a failure on the part of Israel, but successful in
> > the
> > eyes of God. The Law called for an unblemished sacrifice to pardon Israel
> > *forever.* Only Jesus did this by rising from the dead and giving us this
> > power by the gift of his spirit.
>
> "What does that have to do with annulling the law? Nothing!"
>
> On the contrary, the Law offered hope deferred.
Hope deferred, whatever that means, doesn't mean annulment.
> Mankind could not achieve
> eternity by a law that required continual offerings, that always in effect
> still required the consummate pardon for sin. Therefore, the Law had to be
> annuled in favor of a final pardon, a system that no longer required
> sacrifices for sin.
You're making this up. There isn't a peep in the Bible about this.
...
>
> "Where did this nonsense come? There's nothing in the Bible about
> that!"
>
> It really depends on what Bible you're reading. The NT Scriptures exlain it,
No they don't.
...
>
> 'I don't know what this means, but you have left off the next sentence
> which totally blows your position out of the water:
> "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away,
> than for one dot of the law to become void" "
>
> The problem is, you don't know what it means.
I do. Let A be how easy it is for heaven and earth to pass away.
Let B be how easy it is for any of the law to become void.
Then B is smaller than A.
That's what it means.
If it doesn't mean this, you're just making up meanings of words.
Then I can make up meanings of words too.
> That's why I'm trying to
> explain how Christians view it. And of course, it is our Bible.
It's not a Bible.
--
Rob Strom
Ike E 1/2/2010
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:raednZcbxq5uPsXW...@wavecable.com...
>
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>> Jesus did come to establish the efficacy of the Law. But as was the
>> proper
>> thing to do, when that contract is defied and broken, he had to
>> acknowledge
>> that the Law would have to be annuled.
>
> "Except he didn't acknowledge this."
>
> He surely did!
Jesus NEVER "annulled the law," Satan: He made a way around it. In fact,
it's the ONLY way anyone--past, present, OR future--will be saved.
You false teachers are starting to give me the willies: How can anyone be so
IGNORANT of what Christ has done, is doing, and will do?
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:0b503193-283f-46fd...@e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!
That's because Jesus never annulled it--He bypassed it by fulfilling it
Himself on behalf of those who accept His premise of salvation by grace
through faith.
So the fact is neither one of you knows what he is talking about, and this
is yet another "battle of wits" between unarmed opponents.
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
[snip]
> I've shown you how Israel in ancient times "broke the covenant." They
> failed under the covenant, and the prophets consigned her to exile, to
> judgment, to the curses of the Law. This "broken covenant" is what I refer
> to as an "annulment." When the covenant was designed not for cursing, but
> for blessing, then when the curses fall, it means the covenant failed.
Rhetorical bullshit...
Rom 11:26-32
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this
is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes: FOR THE
GIFTS AND CALLING OF GOD ARE WITHOUT REPENTANCE.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained
mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that
through your mercy they also may obtain mercy; For God hath concluded them
all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
ISRAEL THAT WAS will be saved by the covenant of ISRAEL THAT WAS, and ISRAEL
THAT IS will be saved by the covenant of ISRAEL THAT IS. (And God has
ANOTHER "Israel" coming.)
> Jesus used precisely the same kind of language against Israel in his
> generation as the ancient Prophets had used in connection with their own
> generation. It was the language of judgment, designed to be inflicted upon
> people who had definitively *broken* God's covenant. This, in my view, is
> synonymous with an "annulment."
Then you're an illiterate idiot, 'cause that's NOT what Jesus said--that's
why you're IMPOSING ON THE BIBLE, as usual.
> As I've told you before, it is like a divorce, an annuled marriage.
What an idiot: God intends to ANNUL is THE DIVORCE, NOT THE COVENANT...
You know, you REEEALLLY need to shut up, randy: You make a horses' ass of
yourself every time you try to teach what you don't understand.
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
[snip]
> It means it ceases to take effect. If you're using some special
> Randy meaning of "annulment" that doesn't mean not taking
> effect, then I say, fine the Law's annulled, but it's still
> in effect and you have to obey all of it.
You're statement is as false as Randy's: The law IS in effect, but only on
those who "neglect so great a salvation." For the BELIEVERS, the law no
longer HAS any effect...
THAT'S the Gospel of Jesus Christ...
Rom 8:1-9
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For
they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that
are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is
death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace, because the carnal
mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither
indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit
of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his.
You BOTH need to sit down and read your Bible's sometime, because neither
one of you is on the right track.
Ike
Rob Strom
wrote:
I studied New Testament with educated scholars
with joint appointments at Harvard College and Harvard Divinity
School.
According to them, all this grace through faith stuff is from Paul,
and
not from Jesus at all.
You're welcome to continue to say that I don't know what I'm talking
about, but I'm unlikely to believe you.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
wrote:
Sorry, I've read Romans, but I don't believe in Paul. Randy
and I were debating what Jesus said, not Paul.
--
Rob Strom
Ike E 1/2/2010
> On Jan 22, 2:13 pm, "Ike E 1/2/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:0b503193-283f-46fd...@e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> [snip]
>
>>> This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!
>
>> That's because Jesus never annulled it--He bypassed it by fulfilling it
>> Himself on behalf of those who accept His premise of salvation by grace
>> through faith.
>
>> So the fact is neither one of you knows what he is talking about, and
>> this
>> is yet another "battle of wits" between unarmed opponents.
> I studied New Testament with educated scholars
> with joint appointments at Harvard College and Harvard Divinity
> School.
You're prevaricating.
Properly stated: "I've read some books from members of the (heretical) Jesus
Seminar, some of whom teach at Harvard."
You did NOT go to Harvard (which is what you tried to slide by everyone).
Not that is matters, because Harvard is one of our national centers for
disinformation, which disqualified your statement right off the bat.
> According to them, all this grace through faith stuff is from Paul, and
> not from Jesus at all.
And you're illiterate to boot...
Mt 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will
also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will
your Father forgive your trespasses.
Mt 18:23-35
Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which
would take account of his servants.
And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed
him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord
commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had,
and payment to be made.
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have
patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him,
and forgave him the debt.
But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants,
which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by
the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying,
Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay
the debt.
So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and
came and told unto their lord all that was done.
Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou
wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I
had pity on thee?
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he
should pay all that was due unto him.
So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your
hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Mr 11:25-26
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that
your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses; but if
ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your
trespasses.
Lk 6:35-38
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing
again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the
Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be
condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given
unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over,
shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete
withal it shall be measured to you again.
Lk 18:9-14
And [Jesus] spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that
I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a
sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the
other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted.
The Gospel of Salvation by GRACE through FAITH originated with JESUS, moron:
Paul only EXPOUNDED upon what Jesus had ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
Harvard...
<chuckle>
Give me a break.
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
Neither do I: I believe IN Jesus Christ, whose teachings Paul expounded
upon.
> Randy
> and I were debating what Jesus said, not Paul.
Jesus said the same thing, moron:
Lk 18:9-14
And [Jesus] spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that
I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a
sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the
other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Gospel of law = fails.
Gospel of grace that overcomes the law by throwing oneself on the Mercy of
the Court = succeeds.
Ike
Rob Strom
wrote:
...
> > I studied New Testament with educated scholars
> > with joint appointments at Harvard College and Harvard Divinity
> > School.
>
> You're prevaricating.
I warned you once, when you called me idiot. Now you've had it.
Had you in fact looked up my bio, you would have seen
that I studied at Harvard in the class of 1966, receiving
a bachelors degree in Philosophy. Among my professors were
Rogers Albritton and Stanley Cavell. (Though I can't remember
the name of my other Humanities teacher from 1963 who
first taught Paul. Sorry, 47 years is a long time.)
>
> Properly stated: "I've read some books from members of the (heretical) Jesus
> Seminar, some of whom teach at Harvard."
>
You are a disgusting liar. You didn't look me up.
But I took the trouble to look up the Jesus Seminar.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html
It turns out that the Jesus seminar was instituted in ****1985****,
that is, 19 years after I graduated!!!!!!!
I also managed to look up the charter members of Westar.
None were on the Harvard faculty during the time in question.
So it is impossible for the books for my Harvard courses
to have been published by Jesus Seminar. Absolutely impossible.
And my teachers weren't folks who joined Jesus Seminar later, either.
And I know with a moral certainty that you never bothered
to look this up; you just made it up out of what can
most charitably be described as "whole cloth".
> You did NOT go to Harvard (which is what you tried to slide by everyone).
>
> Not that is matters, because Harvard is one of our national centers for
> disinformation, which disqualified your statement right off the bat.
You make stuff up without looking for evidence, which is what
disqualifies YOUR statement right off the bat.
>
> > According to them, all this grace through faith stuff is from Paul, and
> > not from Jesus at all.
>
> And you're illiterate to boot...
>
> Mt 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will
> also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will
> your Father forgive your trespasses.
If you actually had understood Paul or the theology
of grace, you would know that he
does not define "faith" as "forgiving men their trespasses".
To Paul, and the folks who interpreted him afterward,
getting into heaven wasn't predicated on
the act of being merciful, or indeed on any acts
at all, but upon believing that Jesus died
for you on the cross, and accepting the "free gift".
TOTALLY DIFFERENT from anything Jesus said.
...
>
> The Gospel of Salvation by GRACE through FAITH originated with JESUS, moron:
> Paul only EXPOUNDED upon what Jesus had ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
>
What Jesus said is that *to the measure* that you are
merciful with your fellows, God is merciful with you
(Matt 7:2) -- in short,
harsh justice to the unforgiving, and lenient justice to the
forgiving.
But all within a context of conformity to law.
That's not what Paul teaches. Paul teaches that the law doesn't
save you one bit, only faith does.
> Harvard...
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Give me a break.
>
No, I'm not going to give you a break.
You called me "idiot". And I warned you.
And now you call me again "idiot" and "moron",
and illiterate, and make up lies about me without
researching me. (And you're wrong about
the NT too, but that's not what I'm condemning you for.)
You had better hope that Christianity is false,
because if it were true, you would be quaking
in your boots that you would get a grilling in the afterlife
about how you slandered one of God's children,
and you would be cast into the lake of fire,
with the wailing and gnashing and all that.
Never speak to me again.
May God have mercy on your soul.
--
Rob Strom
Ike E 1/24/2010
> On Jan 23, 10:23 am, "Ike E 1/2/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> ...
>>> I studied New Testament with educated scholars
>>> with joint appointments at Harvard College and Harvard Divinity
>>> School.
>
>> You're prevaricating.
> I warned you once, when you called me idiot. Now you've had it.
No I haven't. You may think you're well-schooled, but you're STILL an idiot.
> Had you in fact looked up my bio, you would have seen
> that I studied at Harvard in the class of 1966, receiving
> a bachelors degree in Philosophy. Among my professors were
> Rogers Albritton and Stanley Cavell. (Though I can't remember
> the name of my other Humanities teacher from 1963 who
> first taught Paul. Sorry, 47 years is a long time.)
LOL
NONE of your teachers "taught Paul."
> Properly stated: "I've read some books from members of the (heretical)
> Jesus
> Seminar, some of whom teach at Harvard."
> You are a disgusting liar. You didn't look me up.
Why would I bother? You're an insignificant and ignorant flea.
> But I took the trouble to look up the Jesus Seminar.
> http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html
> It turns out that the Jesus seminar was instituted in ****1985****,
> that is, 19 years after I graduated!!!!!!!
Now, if you knew anything about the Jesus Seminar, you would know that it is
the outgrowth of the so-called foolish "higher critics," just taken to
another level of blasphemy.
> I also managed to look up the charter members of Westar.
> None were on the Harvard faculty during the time in question.
Bother to check their SOURCE MATERIALS?
> So it is impossible for the books for my Harvard courses
> to have been published by Jesus Seminar. Absolutely impossible.
> And my teachers weren't folks who joined Jesus Seminar later, either.
> And I know with a moral certainty that you never bothered
> to look this up; you just made it up out of what can
> most charitably be described as "whole cloth".
Not at all: As I said, the Jesus Seminar is a bastarardized outgrowth of the
Higher Critics, and, if you went to Harvard, then THAT'S where you are
getting your RIDICULOUS notions from.
>> You did NOT go to Harvard (which is what you tried to slide by everyone).
>
>> Not that is matters, because Harvard is one of our national centers for
>> disinformation, which disqualified your statement right off the bat.
> You make stuff up without looking for evidence, which is what
> disqualifies YOUR statement right off the bat.
HARVARD is what disqualifies your statement right off the bat.
>>> According to them, all this grace through faith stuff is from Paul, and
>>> not from Jesus at all.
>
>> And you're illiterate to boot...
>
>> Mt 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will
>> also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither
>> will
>> your Father forgive your trespasses.
> If you actually had understood Paul or the theology
> of grace,
LOL
I both understand Paul (warts and all) AND what Jesus taught, and they were
THE SAME THING (which was why you snipped the quotes from Jesus, and tried
to go around Him with your Pharisaical "degrees.")
<chuckle>
> you would know that he does not define "faith" as "forgiving men their
> trespasses".
LOL
The fact is as basic as the Lord's prayer, idiot, INCLUDING JESUS'
EXPLANATION OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SALVATION...
Mt 6:9-15
After this manner therefore pray ye:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.
THAT'S SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH, moron.
> To Paul, and the folks who interpreted him afterward,
> getting into heaven wasn't predicated on
> the act of being merciful, or indeed on any acts
> at all, but upon believing that Jesus died
> for you on the cross, and accepting the "free gift".
It's the same thing, moron.
> TOTALLY DIFFERENT from anything Jesus said.
No, it IS what Jesus said, moron...
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses."
> The Gospel of Salvation by GRACE through FAITH originated with JESUS,
> moron:
> Paul only EXPOUNDED upon what Jesus had ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
> What Jesus said is that *to the measure* that you are
> merciful with your fellows, God is merciful with you
> (Matt 7:2) -- in short,
> harsh justice to the unforgiving, and lenient justice to the
> forgiving.
> But all within a context of conformity to law.
Bullshit.
Jesus did NOT tie Salvation to CONFORMING TO THE LAW.
That's a lie of Satan.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called GREAT IN THE
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
Least in the Kingdom, or great in the Kingdom, but STILL IN THE KINGDOM.
Now HOW DID THEY GET THERE?
Not by LAW, but by GRACE.
Idiot.
> That's not what Paul teaches. Paul teaches that the law doesn't
> save you one bit, only faith does.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAID, moron...
Lk 18:9-14
And [Jesus] spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that
I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a
sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the
other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted.
The LAW-KEEPER went away UNJUSTIFIED (and therefore won't enter heaven), and
the PUBLICAN, who knew he COULDN'T keep the law, WAS.
>> Harvard...
>
>> <chuckle>
>
>> Give me a break.
> No, I'm not going to give you a break.
> You called me "idiot".
You ARE an idiot.
> And I warned you.
Warned me of what? That you're an IDIOT who doesn't know jack about the
Bible (and that BECAUSE you went to Harvard).
> And now you call me again "idiot" and "moron",
> and illiterate,
Which you are.
> and make up lies about me without
> researching me.
Make up lies?
No.
You're claim to "study New Testament" at Harvard IS a lie, since they don't
STUDY New Testament at Harvard--THEY STUDY HERESY, just like all the rest of
the secularists who think they can separate Paul from Jesus (Which is really
quite funny, since Paul was part-and-parcel of the authorship of the Gospels
going back to Mark, so HOW COULD Jesus have taught a "different Gospel" when
all anyone know of Jesus' Gospel is INFLUENCED BY PAUL).
<chuckle>
> (And you're wrong about
> the NT too, but that's not what I'm condemning you for.)
Oh, no, I'm not: I've FORGOTTEN more about the Bible than you know, dumbass,
and the Gospel Paul preached is EXACTLY THE SAME as the Gospel JESUS
preached.
> You had better hope that Christianity is false,
> because if it were true, you would be quaking
> in your boots that you would get a grilling in the afterlife
> about how you slandered one of God's children,
> and you would be cast into the lake of fire,
> with the wailing and gnashing and all that.
You are NOT "one of God's children:" The minute you put on LEGALISM, you
NEGATED the work of cross, leaving you as one of the children of THE DEVIL.
Idiot.
> Never speak to me again.
Don't post here again and won't be a problem, Satan.
> May God have mercy on your soul.
That He may...but he WON'T have mercy on yours if you continue perverting
His teachings.
Ike
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!"
> I've shown you how Israel in ancient times "broke the covenant."
"No, you never showed me anything of the kind."
As I've said before, we have different views of what "breaking the covenant"
means. The Jewish Scriptures clearly indicate that ancient Israel not only
broke the covenant, but they broke it irretrievably. By this I don't mean to
suggest that Israel could not be restored from judgment. I'm just referring
to the fact God said Israel's "wound" came to be without remedy, that the
coming judgment came to be irrevocable.
This is more than just a "violation" of God's Law, as you seem to suggest it
means. It is a wholescale *failure* of the covenant, because as I'm
suggesting, the covenant was designed to bless--not curse. The curses of the
Law were only the consequences of *failure* under the Law, and not the
primary intention of the Law.
The reason the Jewish Scriptures do not mention an annulment of the Law in
the terminology of modern law is because the Law was more than just a
covenant system. It was also the perennial tradition of the country, the
backdrop in which Israel's relationship with God was practised, regardless
of whether the Law as a covenant system had failed. God was not interested
in revoking the *idea* of His covenant relationship with Israel even if
Israel had completely failed under the Law, and had come under its curses.
God preserved the idea of a continuing covenant with Israel because there
existed a higher covenant already established with the patriarchs that
superceded any failure that took place under the Law of Moses. Still, this
did not mean that the Law of Moses could not fail. It most certainly did!
"You can't decide on your own what an annulment means.
The word has a standard meaning.
It means it ceases to take effect. If you're using some special
Randy meaning of "annulment" that doesn't mean not taking
effect, then I say, fine the Law's annulled, but it's still
in effect and you have to obey all of it."
I'm using the above *biblical* definition of a "broken covenant." It sought
to preserve the practise of the Law as a matter of custom, to preserve the
idea of a covenant relationship between God and Israel. But the Law as a
covenant system technically failed, even if it was later revived. Ultimately
under the new covenant of Christ the Law is no longer necessary, since its
purpose was to find eternal life in Christ. That has already come.
> At the point where his spirituality became available to us, the hope of an
> after life was fulfilled. It was not just hope in an afterlife, but
> specifically, hope for an afterlife with God, forever and ever. The sin
> problem had to be resolved, and it was, I believed, resolved in the life
> and
> teachings of Jesus.
"No, because people still sin."
It was a matter of two things here.
1) It was a matter of the *record* of human sin. Jesus' record of
sinlessness can be distinguished from the record of human sinfulness under
the Law.
2) It was a matter of distinguishing the flawless spirituality of Jesus from
the mixed record of spirituality observed under the Law by flawed men. God
was interested in basing our salvation not upon our own efforts at producing
the spirituality of God, but rather, upon the simple fact that in our flawed
record we fix our hope of salvation *only* upon the spirituality of Christ,
which is divine and flawless.
I know this is not said in perfect English. In sum, the OT and NT legal
systems are distinguished by their *records.* The one is a record of flawed
humanity observing a mixed spirituality. The other is a matter of flawed
humanity basing their observance on the perfect spirituality of Christ. In
both cases men can be seen to be flawed and sinful. But in the case of the
NT system we do not observe a theological system that emphasizes imperfect
spirituality. The Law contains the requirement that sacrifices for sin be
continuously offered, suggesting that final redemption can *never* be
achieved.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > "This says *nothing* about annulling the law at all!!"
> > I've shown you how Israel in ancient times "broke the covenant."
>
> "No, you never showed me anything of the kind."
>
> As I've said before, we have different views of what "breaking the covenant"
> means. The Jewish Scriptures clearly indicate that ancient Israel not only
> broke the covenant, but they broke it irretrievably.
Actually, they don't indicate this at all.
> By this I don't mean to
> suggest that Israel could not be restored from judgment. I'm just referring
> to the fact God said Israel's "wound" came to be without remedy, that the
> coming judgment came to be irrevocable.
If the Jewish scripture showed that the covenant was already
annulled, as you claim it did, why then didn't Jesus state this?
As it is, the position you have been defending for the multiple
year duration of our argument has been that the Law *was*
in effect prior to the death of Jesus. If it was in effect then,
then the Jewish scripture can't possibly have annulled it earlier.
And if it was not in effect then, then Jesus misspoke when
he said to observe the commandments (even ignoring
the oft-debated statement about 'till heaven and either pass').
...
>
> "You can't decide on your own what an annulment means.
> The word has a standard meaning.
> It means it ceases to take effect. If you're using some special
> Randy meaning of "annulment" that doesn't mean not taking
> effect, then I say, fine the Law's annulled, but it's still
> in effect and you have to obey all of it."
>
> I'm using the above *biblical* definition of a "broken covenant."
There are no biblical definitions. The only thing we
have is the statement in Deuteronomy that even if
you violate the law so badly that you're expelled,
your children are expected to repent and return
to Law-observance. That would seem to imply
that there is no such thing as "so horribly broken
that the covenant is no longer in place". Instead,
it is "so badly broken that you'll be exiled, but
the covenant is still there for your descendants
to return to".
...
>
> "No, because people still sin."
>
> It was a matter of two things here.
> 1) It was a matter of the *record* of human sin. Jesus' record of
> sinlessness can be distinguished from the record of human sinfulness under
> the Law.
> 2) It was a matter of distinguishing the flawless spirituality of Jesus from
> the mixed record of spirituality observed under the Law by flawed men. God
> was interested in basing our salvation not upon our own efforts at producing
> the spirituality of God, but rather, upon the simple fact that in our flawed
> record we fix our hope of salvation *only* upon the spirituality of Christ,
> which is divine and flawless.
This makes no sense at all. If I'm bad, I'm bad. The fact that
I'm bad and somebody else is perfect doesn't change anything.
>
> I know this is not said in perfect English. In sum, the OT and NT legal
> systems are distinguished by their *records.* The one is a record of flawed
> humanity observing a mixed spirituality. The other is a matter of flawed
> humanity basing their observance on the perfect spirituality of Christ.
The Christian record is no better than the Jewish record.
And many Christians don't even *try* to observe Jewish law.
In fact many Protestants condemn such trying to observe
Jewish law as legalism. (See Garcia, Vince).
--
Rob Strom
Ike E 1/24/2010
On Jan 25, 11:30 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
And the two morons are STILL at it.
Randy, at no time did Jesus "annul the law."
Rob, Jesus made a way to BYPASS the law which condemns everyone it
encounters.
Get a clue already.
Ike
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> As I've said before, we have different views of what "breaking the
> covenant"
> means. The Jewish Scriptures clearly indicate that ancient Israel not only
> broke the covenant, but they broke it irretrievably.
"Actually, they don't indicate this at all."
I've shown you this a number of times. A notable example is the prophet's
statement, "your wound is without cure." In a number of places in the Bible
God said He had determined to bring judgment, that it was too late for
mercy. The sins of the people had reached an irreversible stage in which
judgment could no longer be avoided.
> By this I don't mean to
> suggest that Israel could not be restored from judgment. I'm just
> referring
> to the fact God said Israel's "wound" came to be without remedy, that the
> coming judgment came to be irrevocable.
"If the Jewish scripture showed that the covenant was already
annulled, as you claim it did, why then didn't Jesus state this?"
Jesus actually stated just what the prophets had stated, that Jewish sins
had come (in his own generation) to the point of irreversible judgment. The
covenant of Law was not annuled in the generation of Jesus until the cross
took place. The Law had been in effect "annuled" in the time of the
Babylonian judgment, but had been renewed during the Persian restoration.
Jesus saw this whole process taking place again, under Roman oppression.
"As it is, the position you have been defending for the multiple
year duration of our argument has been that the Law *was*
in effect prior to the death of Jesus. If it was in effect then,
then the Jewish scripture can't possibly have annulled it earlier.
And if it was not in effect then, then Jesus misspoke when
he said to observe the commandments (even ignoring
the oft-debated statement about 'till heaven and either pass')."
See above.
> I'm using the above *biblical* definition of a "broken covenant."
"There are no biblical definitions. The only thing we
have is the statement in Deuteronomy that even if
you violate the law so badly that you're expelled,
your children are expected to repent and return
to Law-observance. That would seem to imply
that there is no such thing as "so horribly broken
that the covenant is no longer in place". Instead,
it is "so badly broken that you'll be exiled, but
the covenant is still there for your descendants
to return to"."
This is what I mean by "biblical language." The covenant is expressed as an
eternal relationship between God and Israel. But the Law of Moses is
expressed as a legal document which could be "broken." This is not a glib
reference to cases of violating the law, but rather, a serious legal
agreement in which God guarantees Israel's blessings as long as they are in
compliance with the Law overall. (It has nothing to do with minor
infractions.) But if Israel fails to observe the Law on a national scope,
then the consequences of "breaking the Law" are pretty clear. Exile will
result, which is what I refer to as an "annulment of the Law." The reason
biblical terminology does not refer to it as such is because it doesn't want
to convey the idea that preceding covenant agreements will be broken at the
same time. God does not want to convey that even if the nation breaks the
covenant of Law that His relationship with Israel will ever cease. God does
not "annul" His relationship with Israel, even if a particular agreement is
rescinded. And since God intended to restore the legal agreement following
exile, it made no sense to permanently state it as "annuled."
But in the case of Jesus' generation it *was* in fact annuled, and the
Apostle Paul states it as such. Jesus did not state it as such because until
the cross his generation was as yet *under the Law!*
> It was a matter of two things here.
> 1) It was a matter of the *record* of human sin. Jesus' record of
> sinlessness can be distinguished from the record of human sinfulness under
> the Law.
> 2) It was a matter of distinguishing the flawless spirituality of Jesus
> from
> the mixed record of spirituality observed under the Law by flawed men. God
> was interested in basing our salvation not upon our own efforts at
> producing
> the spirituality of God, but rather, upon the simple fact that in our
> flawed
> record we fix our hope of salvation *only* upon the spirituality of
> Christ,
> which is divine and flawless.
"This makes no sense at all. If I'm bad, I'm bad. The fact that
I'm bad and somebody else is perfect doesn't change anything."
The point is that we must base our righteousness on the most perfect system
available. For awhile the Law of Moses was the best system available. But
after Christ came, we could base our righteousness on *the record* of his
perfect spirituality, as opposed to the record of those who had lived under
the Law.
"The Christian record is no better than the Jewish record."
It is *Jesus' record* that is primary--not the record of men, who are
sinners. When Christians follow Jesus' spirituality it is the same as when
Israel followed after God's spirituality under the Law. The only difference
is that when Christians follow after Jesus' spirituality today, they have no
need to offer sacrifices, now that redemption is completed. No more
sacrifices for sin need be made.
Not only that, but when there is an emphasis on a system that exposes flawed
human observance (under the Law), then there is a danger of following the
poor example of men, and failing to live by the moral purity that the
religious system actually meant to convey. Even in Christianity our emphasis
is not to be on the *church,* but rather on the gospel testimony of how
Jesus' lived, with an emphasis on accessing his spiritual life today. It is
the *record* of Jesus that counts, and works together with our current
experience. Both aspects must be comparable.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > As I've said before, we have different views of what "breaking the
> > covenant"
> > means. The Jewish Scriptures clearly indicate that ancient Israel not only
> > broke the covenant, but they broke it irretrievably.
>
> "Actually, they don't indicate this at all."
>
> I've shown you this a number of times. A notable example is the prophet's
> statement, "your wound is without cure."
No, that is a completely out-of-context statement, having nothing
to do with dissolving the law, and in fact, makes it totally clear
that
the law continues, and we are to return to righteousness,
not to belief in a man-god.
Here is the context:
"When E'phraim saw his sickness,
and Judah his wound,
then E'phraim went to Assyria,
and sent to the great king.
But he is not able to cure you
or heal your wound.
For I will be like a lion to E'phraim,
and like a young lion to the house of Judah.
I, even I, will rend and go away,
I will carry off, and none shall rescue.
I will return again to my place,
until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face,
and in their distress they seek me, saying,
'Come, let us return to the Lor; for he has torn, that he may heal us;
he has stricken, and he will bind us up' ...
...Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God,
for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.
Take with you words and return to the Lord;
say to him,
'Take away all iniquity;
accept that which is good
and we will render
the fruit of our lips."
> In a number of places in the Bible
> God said He had determined to bring judgment, that it was too late for
> mercy. The sins of the people had reached an irreversible stage in which
> judgment could no longer be avoided.
Not here, and never permanently, no.
> ...
>
> "If the Jewish scripture showed that the covenant was already
> annulled, as you claim it did, why then didn't Jesus state this?"
>
> Jesus actually stated just what the prophets had stated, that Jewish sins
> had come (in his own generation) to the point of irreversible judgment.
He didn't say that, and the prophets didn't say it either.
> The
> covenant of Law was not annuled in the generation of Jesus until the cross
> took place. The Law had been in effect "annuled" in the time of the
> Babylonian judgment, but had been renewed during the Persian restoration.
Then you shouldn't have said it was a divorce. And in any case
none of the verses you quote said the law was annulled.
...
>
> This is what I mean by "biblical language." The covenant is expressed as an
> eternal relationship between God and Israel. But the Law of Moses is
> expressed as a legal document which could be "broken."
You meant "could not" rather than "could" in the above.
> ... But if Israel fails to observe the Law on a national scope,
> then the consequences of "breaking the Law" are pretty clear. Exile will
> result, which is what I refer to as an "annulment of the Law."
But exile means people leave the land, not that the law stops.
You keep saying X is Y all the time.
It's as if I said "Jesus said 'blessed are the meek'" and, the
word 'meek' is what I refer to as 'scientists', and hence
this is proof that Jesus said that scientists will inherit the
earth.
> The reason
> biblical terminology does not refer to it as such is because
the word "exile" doesn't mean "dissolution of the law".
...
> But in the case of Jesus' generation it *was* in fact annuled,
No, it never said that.
> and the
> Apostle Paul states it as such.
No he doesn't, and Paul isn't reliable anyway.
> Jesus did not state it as such because until
> the cross his generation was as yet *under the Law!*
Not sure what the sentence means, but we didn't
hear a peep from him about the law other than
that the law was forever.
If he was as knowledgeable about the future as Christians think,
he would have said something.
...
>
> "This makes no sense at all. If I'm bad, I'm bad. The fact that
> I'm bad and somebody else is perfect doesn't change anything."
>
> The point is that we must base our righteousness on the most perfect system
> available.
The torah is from God; you can't get anything better than that.
People observed it imperfectly, to be sure, but they also
observed Christianity imperfectly.
...
>
> "The Christian record is no better than the Jewish record."
>
> It is *Jesus' record* that is primary--not the record of men, who are
> sinners.
You're using a different standard to judge Christian
Law from Jewish.
> When Christians follow Jesus' spirituality it is the same as when
> Israel followed after God's spirituality under the Law. The only difference
> is that when Christians follow after Jesus' spirituality today, they have no
> need to offer sacrifices, now that redemption is completed. No more
> sacrifices for sin need be made.
But they would still ahve to observe the law.
>
> Not only that, but when there is an emphasis on a system that exposes flawed
> human observance (under the Law), then there is a danger of following the
> poor example of men, and failing to live by the moral purity that the
> religious system actually meant to convey.
There's as much danger of following the poor example
of Christian men.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> I've shown you this a number of times. A notable example is the prophet's
> statement, "your wound is without cure."
"No, that is a completely out-of-context statement, having nothing
to do with dissolving the law, and in fact, makes it totally clear
that the law continues, and we are to return to righteousness, not to belief
in a man-god."
It's not out of context at all. It has to do with the fact God brings Israel
to the place where judgment is inevitable. The sin in the country is so bad
that God cannot be persuaded to hold back His judgment, even if a few great
prophets plead with God to withhold judgment. For me this is an end to the
contract of the Law, because the Law was designed to avoid exile. But you
think it can *never* be an end to a contract of the Law because whenever
Israel is restored, it is evidence that the Law has never stopped being in
force.
> In a number of places in the Bible
> God said He had determined to bring judgment, that it was too late for
> mercy. The sins of the people had reached an irreversible stage in which
> judgment could no longer be avoided.
"Not here, and never permanently, no."
Israel is never cast off permanently. But the Law as a contract becomes
broken at the point where its purpose is no longer recognized. When Israel
ceases to be blessed as a nation, and when it is in fact cast off as a
nation, the contract is in disrepair. It is a broken contract. Even if it is
restored, it was in fact broken.
That's why, I believe, the prophet used the metaphor of a divorce. That is a
legally-dissolved contract of marriage. It is in fact a broken contract.
Even if the marriage is restored, the contract was in fact broken.
> Jesus actually stated just what the prophets had stated, that Jewish sins
> had come (in his own generation) to the point of irreversible judgment.
"He didn't say that, and the prophets didn't say it either."
He compared his generation to Sodom and Gomorrah, and even worse. That is
equal to a broken covenant, since breaking the contract of the Law only
required national exile. What Jesus called for was wholescale destruction of
the nation, such as occurred with Sodom and Gomorrah. Even worse, it would
lead to generations of exile, in a state of cursing and bitterness.
Mt 10:15 Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of
judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
Mt 11:24 But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of
judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.
> The
> covenant of Law was not annuled in the generation of Jesus until the cross
> took place. The Law had been in effect "annuled" in the time of the
> Babylonian judgment, but had been renewed during the Persian restoration.
"Then you shouldn't have said it was a divorce. And in any case
none of the verses you quote said the law was annulled."
A true divorce took place, though only as a metaphor representing an end of
God's contract with Israel through the Law. That's why Israel could be
restored to the Law, because the divorce took place only in reference to the
Law, and not in terms of an actual relationship between God and Israel. If
you'll remember, after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, their relationship
with God changed, but the relationship did not end. The divorce was a
*metaphor* for a broken covenant--not for a completely-terminated
relationship.
> Jesus did not state it as such because until
> the cross his generation was as yet *under the Law!*
"Not sure what the sentence means, but we didn't
hear a peep from him about the law other than
that the law was forever."
What I meant was that until Jesus died on the cross he taught the Law as
applicable to Israel. He did not teach the applicability of the Law after
his death. We don't hear him say one "peep" about practising the Law *after*
he rose from the dead. That's because Jesus saw his death on the cross as
the occasion in which all sin was forgiven, on the basis that we receive his
spirituality into our own lives.
We don't have to offer sacrifices for our sin anymore, no sin sacrifices, no
peace offerings, no guilt offerings--no offerings at all. Sin has been
legally dealt with, and nothing more need be done on our part to obtain
atonement. All we need to do is accept the free gift of Christ's
spirituality into our lives.
We are now judged on the basis of *his* spirituality, and not on the basis
of our sinful record. When we live in his spirituality, we are judged as
being just as righteous as he was. And his record was spotless.
"If he was as knowledgeable about the future as Christians think,
he would have said something."
He said as much as we needed to discern what his spirituality was. It was
pure, and it is accessible. That is all we need to know.
"The torah is from God; you can't get anything better than that."
No, the Torah had unfinished business. It left the job of final atonement
undone. Otherwise sacrifices meant to achieve atonement would no longer be
required.
"People observed it imperfectly, to be sure, but they also
observed Christianity imperfectly."
Just as in ancient Judaism it is fidelity to God that ultimately matters, so
it is in Christianity. Neither religion required perfection. They just
require devotion. The terms Christianity lays down for fidelity really does
achieve spirituality today, since God does honor it today. Any religion that
God does not honor today will not have the spirituality He requires.
The only reason God abandoned ancient Judaism (under the Law) for
Christianity is because the record of Jesus' life is superior as a moral
system to the record of sinful Israel under the Law. Which system would you
rather be your mentor?
randy
robstrom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > I've shown you this a number of times. A notable example is the prophet's
> > statement, "your wound is without cure."
>
> "No, that is a completely out-of-context statement, having nothing
> to do with dissolving the law, and in fact, makes it totally clear
> that the law continues, and we are to return to righteousness, not to belief
> in a man-god."
>
> It's not out of context at all. It has to do with the fact God brings Israel
> to the place where judgment is inevitable. The sin in the country is so bad
> that God cannot be persuaded to hold back His judgment, even if a few great
> prophets plead with God to withhold judgment. For me this is an end to the
> contract of the Law, because the Law was designed to avoid exile.
The Law was not designed solely or even mainly to avoid exile.
It was designed to tell us how to live righteously.
It still is, even if we can avoid exile (which I'm not sure we can).
> But you
> think it can *never* be an end to a contract of the Law because whenever
> Israel is restored, it is evidence that the Law has never stopped being in
> force.
I think it cannot be an end because God said that even exiles
can return to the Law. That wouldn't be possible if exile terminated
the Law.
...
>
> "Not here, and never permanently, no."
>
> Israel is never cast off permanently. But the Law as a contract becomes
> broken at the point where its purpose is no longer recognized.
No. It becomes broken only at the point when God says it no longer
applies.
But He said it would always apply.
> When Israel
> ceases to be blessed as a nation, and when it is in fact cast off as a
> nation, the contract is in disrepair. It is a broken contract.
No. The nation may be in disrepair, but not the Law.
...
> > Jesus actually stated just what the prophets had stated, that Jewish sins
> > had come (in his own generation) to the point of irreversible judgment.
>
> "He didn't say that, and the prophets didn't say it either."
>
> He compared his generation to Sodom and Gomorrah, and even worse.
He didn't. He (hyperbolically) compared particular sins to S&G not
the whole generation.
...
> "Then you shouldn't have said it was a divorce. And in any case
> none of the verses you quote said the law was annulled."
>
> A true divorce took place, though only as a metaphor representing an end of
> God's contract with Israel through the Law.
"True but a metaphor" is a contradiction....
> > Jesus did not state it as such because until
> > the cross his generation was as yet *under the Law!*
>
> "Not sure what the sentence means, but we didn't
> hear a peep from him about the law other than
> that the law was forever."
>
> What I meant was that until Jesus died on the cross he taught the Law as
> applicable to Israel. He did not teach the applicability of the Law after
> his death.
Yes he did.
> We don't hear him say one "peep" about practising the Law *after*
> he rose from the dead.
That's because once you're dead it hard to make peeps. The
brain stops working and the body goes into rigor mortis.
Now if you actually believe the stories of his ghost speaking,
then the ghost says preach the gospel and the gospel says
follow the law.
...
> We don't have to offer sacrifices for our sin anymore, no sin sacrifices, no
> peace offerings, no guilt offerings--no offerings at all. Sin has been
> legally dealt with, and nothing more need be done on our part to obtain
> atonement.
You have to promise to stop sinning, and stopping sinning
entails following the law.
> All we need to do is accept the free gift of Christ's
> spirituality into our lives.
No, you have turned into a free grace person. You need to repent,
and you can't do that without promising not to sin again,
which implies following the Law, which implies the existence of the
Law.
...
>
> He said as much as we needed to discern what his spirituality was. It was
> pure, and it is accessible. That is all we need to know.
>
> "The torah is from God; you can't get anything better than that."
>
> No, the Torah had unfinished business. It left the job of final atonement
> undone. Otherwise sacrifices meant to achieve atonement would no longer be
> required.
Huh?? You still have to follow the Torah.
...
>
> The only reason God abandoned ancient Judaism (under the Law) for
> Christianity is because the record of Jesus' life is superior as a moral
> system to the record of sinful Israel under the Law. Which system would you
> rather be your mentor?
You're not comparing apples to apples. Compare the record of sinful
Israel
to the record of sinful (Christian) Rome.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"robstrom"
randy
> ...It has to do with the fact God brings Israel
> to the place where judgment is inevitable. The sin in the country is so
> bad
> that God cannot be persuaded to hold back His judgment, even if a few
> great
> prophets plead with God to withhold judgment. For me this is an end to the
> contract of the Law, because the Law was designed to avoid exile.
"That's for you, but not for me."
True.
"The Law was not designed solely or even mainly to avoid exile.
It was designed to tell us how to live righteously."
Yes, we disagree on this.
"It still is, even if we can avoid exile (which I'm not sure we can)."
Moses indicated that his people could not avoid exile. It was inevitable. He
saw sin in the people in his own time, and anticipated a future exile.
> But you think it can *never* be an end to a contract of the Law because
> whenever Israel is restored, it is evidence that the Law has never stopped
> being in force.
"I think it cannot be an end because God said that even exiles
can return to the Law. That wouldn't be possible if exile terminated
the Law."
On the contrary, God can *forgive* failure under the Law. That means even if
the Law *failed,* and it did, then the system can be reinstituted. That
means it stopped functioning, and then was resuscitated later.
> Israel is never cast off permanently. But the Law as a contract becomes
> broken at the point where its purpose is no longer recognized.
"No. It becomes broken only at the point when God says it no longer
applies. But He said it would always apply."
No he didn't. He said a brand new covenant would ultimately have to be
instituted, a covenant completely unlike the previous covenant of Law.
Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them
by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they
broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
> When Israel
> ceases to be blessed as a nation, and when it is in fact cast off as a
> nation, the contract is in disrepair. It is a broken contract.
"No. The nation may be in disrepair, but not the Law."
The other way around. The Law may perish, but not the people. The people may
*temporarily* perish, but not forever. But the Law may perish forever, being
fulfilled by something yet greater. The redemption that Christ brought for
people failing under the Law was greater than the temporary redemption
brought by the Law. One led to eternal life, the other to a temporary
reprieve and continued mortality.
> > Jesus actually stated just what the prophets had stated, that Jewish
> > sins
> > had come (in his own generation) to the point of irreversible judgment.
> "He didn't say that, and the prophets didn't say it either."
> He compared his generation to Sodom and Gomorrah, and even worse.
"He didn't. He (hyperbolically) compared particular sins to S&G not
the whole generation."
No, over and over again Jesus predicted the fall of his own Jewish
generation. See the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21).
> A true divorce took place, though only as a metaphor representing an end
> of
> God's contract with Israel through the Law.
" "True but a metaphor" is a contradiction...."
No, the kind of marriage that existed between God and man is not a typical
marriage. So we describe it in the language of a metaphor. But following
through with the metaphor, God and Israel could both be married and
divorced. Both were true, according to the Prophets.
> What I meant was that until Jesus died on the cross he taught the Law as
> applicable to Israel. He did not teach the applicability of the Law after
> his death.
"Yes he did."
There is a noticeable absence of proof on your part. Of course we know
you'll return to your constant theme that Jesus equated the age of the
universe with the era of the Law! ;) That is taken totally out of context
and ignores the words "until it is fulfilled."
> We don't hear him say one "peep" about practising the Law *after*
> he rose from the dead.
"That's because once you're dead it hard to make peeps. The
brain stops working and the body goes into rigor mortis."
I'm referring to the New Testament accounts in which Jesus rose from the
dead and engaged in recorded conversations. Nothing in those recorded
conversations indicates Jesus believed in the Law after his death. His
assumption was that his martyr's death removed the need for further
sacrifices under the Law. He was "the Lamb to be slain."
> All we need to do is accept the free gift of Christ's
> spirituality into our lives.
"No, you have turned into a free grace person. You need to repent,
and you can't do that without promising not to sin again,
which implies following the Law, which implies the existence of the
Law."
I don't know what you mean by "a free grace person?" A person who believes
grace does not have to be bought with money does not believe in liberty to
sin. When we choose to live by the spirituality of Jesus we choose to live
*like Jesus!*
> No, the Torah had unfinished business. It left the job of final atonement
> undone. Otherwise sacrifices meant to achieve atonement would no longer be
> required.
"Huh?? You still have to follow the Torah."
I'm using the argument in the letter to the Hebrews in which the author
argues that sacrifices under the Law had to be offered day and night
*perpetually.* This means that no amount of atonement, no amount of
redemption, ever fully sufficed to end the need for further offerings for
sin. There was no possibility of final closure on the issue of sin. Only
Jesus' redemption has promised to do that. That's why in Christianity there
is no longer need to offer sacrifices for our sins. Jesus' death alone
suffices for our forgiveness. He was in essence God's forgiveness.
> The only reason God abandoned ancient Judaism (under the Law) for
> Christianity is because the record of Jesus' life is superior as a moral
> system to the record of sinful Israel under the Law. Which system would
> you
> rather be your mentor?
"You're not comparing apples to apples. Compare the record of sinful
Israel to the record of sinful (Christian) Rome."
The Law was a just system of righteousness that prevented Israel from
obtaining the hope they sought after. It was a record of human failure,
albeit with a system of sometimes righteous deeds. But Jesus' record is a
spirituality that knew no sin, a spirituality we may participate in even as
flawed human beings. We can produce genuine divine love, even if our own
record is inconsistent. All God has ever really wanted was that we truly
love the real Him, the real spirituality that He represents. If we embrace
His love sincerely, we shall be with Him for all eternity.
randy
Rob Strom
> "robstrom"
...
>
> Moses indicated that his people could not avoid exile. It was inevitable. He
> saw sin in the people in his own time, and anticipated a future exile.
That is true, but it is said:
"`If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples;
but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them,
though your dispersed be under the farthest skies, I will gather them
thence and bring them to the place which I have chosen, to make my
name dwell there."
Meaning that exile doesn't cause the commandments to go away.
If the commandments went away, the phrase
"return to me and keep my commandments"
would have no meaning.
> ...
>
> On the contrary, God can *forgive* failure under the Law. That means even if
> the Law *failed,* and it did,
you have again slipped from "failure under the Law" to "the Law
failed"
...
> No he didn't. He said a brand new covenant would ultimately have to be
> instituted, a covenant completely unlike the previous covenant of Law.
>
> Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a
> new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
> 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them
> by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they
> broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
>
I don't see "completely unlike" in there.
The difference is illustrated in the very next line:
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
after those days,
says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon
their hearts;
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
> > When Israel
> > ceases to be blessed as a nation, and when it is in fact cast off as a
> > nation, the contract is in disrepair. It is a broken contract.
>
> "No. The nation may be in disrepair, but not the Law."
>
> The other way around. The Law may perish, but not the people.
That goes against the passage I quote above, since the descendants
of the people may return to the Law. If you can return to it, then
it hasn't perished.
...
>
> "He didn't. He (hyperbolically) compared particular sins to S&G not
> the whole generation."
>
> No, over and over again Jesus predicted the fall of his own Jewish
> generation. See the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21).
You completely misunderstand that speech. He explicitly says this is
the time of the end.
"And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory."
Nobody has seen anybody coming down in a cloud (unless you
think this means paratroopers landing).
So I think he was talking about some future time that still hasn't
happened.
...
>
> > What I meant was that until Jesus died on the cross he taught the Law as
> > applicable to Israel. He did not teach the applicability of the Law after
> > his death.
>
> "Yes he did."
>
> There is a noticeable absence of proof on your part. Of course we know
> you'll return to your constant theme that Jesus equated the age of the
> universe with the era of the Law! ;) That is taken totally out of context
> and ignores the words "until it is fulfilled."
There is no such phrase "until it is fulfilled". The phrase is
"until *everything* is accomplished", or in some translations
"until *all* is fulfilled". I have read this in multiple versions
in English, French, German, and Hungarian, and every single
one of them uses a universal quantifier there.
If you can show me a translation that says "until *it* is fulfilled",
I'll
back off, otherwise you must retract your statement "there is
a noticeable absence of proof on your part".
...
>
> "That's because once you're dead it hard to make peeps. The
> brain stops working and the body goes into rigor mortis."
>
> I'm referring to the New Testament accounts in which Jesus rose from the
> dead and engaged in recorded conversations. Nothing in those recorded
> conversations indicates Jesus believed in the Law after his death.
You missed the end of Mark, where it is written that Jesus said:
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation"
"The gospel" includes Matthew 5, which includes the bit about
the Law being forever.
> His
> assumption was that his martyr's death removed the need for further
> sacrifices under the Law. He was "the Lamb to be slain."
That's *your* assumption, not Jesus' assumption.
What he actually said in the words he spoke was the exact opposite.
And we were talking about the need for the Law, not "sacrifices
*under* the Law".
...
> "No, you have turned into a free grace person. You need to repent,
> and you can't do that without promising not to sin again,
> which implies following the Law, which implies the existence of the
> Law."
>
> I don't know what you mean by "a free grace person?"
Free grace is a technical term used by Christians.
Pam talked about it all the time.
People who think that just because they're Christians they don't need
to follow the Law and repent of their sins.
...
> > No, the Torah had unfinished business. It left the job of final atonement
> > undone. Otherwise sacrifices meant to achieve atonement would no longer be
> > required.
>
> "Huh?? You still have to follow the Torah."
>
> I'm using the argument in the letter to the Hebrews in which the author
> argues that sacrifices under the Law had to be offered day and night
> *perpetually.* This means that no amount of atonement, no amount of
> redemption, ever fully sufficed to end the need for further offerings for
> sin. There was no possibility of final closure on the issue of sin. Only
> Jesus' redemption has promised to do that. That's why in Christianity there
> is no longer need to offer sacrifices for our sins. Jesus' death alone
> suffices for our forgiveness. He was in essence God's forgiveness.
You still keep moving the goalposts from whether sacrifices are needed
to whether following Torah is needed. You constantly talk as if the
Torah
had nothing in it except rules about sacrifices. I'm talking about
following
the Torah laws, like don't steal and don't murder and don't gossip,
and don't put a stumbling block before the blind,
and don't vote for Republicans.
Anyway, I think the author of the book of Hebrews was mistaken.
>
> > The only reason God abandoned ancient Judaism (under the Law) for
> > Christianity is because the record of Jesus' life is superior as a moral
> > system to the record of sinful Israel under the Law. Which system would
> > you
> > rather be your mentor?
>
> "You're not comparing apples to apples. Compare the record of sinful
> Israel to the record of sinful (Christian) Rome."
>
> The Law was a just system of righteousness that prevented Israel from
> obtaining the hope they sought after. It was a record of human failure,
Human history may have included human failure; the Law did not.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Moses indicated that his people could not avoid exile. It was inevitable.
> He
> saw sin in the people in his own time, and anticipated a future exile.
"That is true, but it is said:
"`If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples;
but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them,
though your dispersed be under the farthest skies, I will gather them
thence and bring them to the place which I have chosen, to make my
name dwell there."
Meaning that exile doesn't cause the commandments to go away."
Yes, obviously I agree with everything you say here. God will never
*completely* cast off His people Israel. And God *always* has moral commands
for His people to obey. The question is, what are these "commandments" that
God always reserves for times of exile? And when Israel is restored to God,
what is the basis of this relationship?
As you know, I believe that there are two covenants. One, there is a
covenant that is *everlasting,* which God made with the patriarchs. No
matter how far Israel has fallen from God, Israel will always be restored to
once again become the people of God. God will never *permanently* take His
love away from Israel.
And two, God will always have commandments for Israel, whether or not the
Law is the covenant system in which these commandments take effect. My
argument is that commandments from God have *always* been in effect for man,
whether under the covenant of Law or not. God has always had commandments
for Israel, both before Sinai and after Sinai. It is my assumption that when
Israel went into exile, the covenant of Law had failed, and that
nevertheless Israel had commandments that they had to obey.
> On the contrary, God can *forgive* failure under the Law. That means even
> if
> the Law *failed,* and it did,
"you have again slipped from "failure under the Law" to "the Law
failed" "
As you know, this is not a "slip." I believe that *exile* signalled the end
of the covenant of Law. Yes, there were many violations of the Law. But when
exile took place, Israel went from failure under the Law to failure of the
Law. The covenant had been broken. Israel had committed grave sin, and God
cast her off like an adulterous wife.
> No he didn't. He said a brand new covenant would ultimately have to be
> instituted, a covenant completely unlike the previous covenant of Law.
> Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a
> new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
> 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them
> by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they
> broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
"I don't see "completely unlike" in there."
You had better look again. "Not like the covenant" is what the passage
reads. I read that, "completely unlike."
"The difference is illustrated in the very next line:
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
after those days,
says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon
their hearts;
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." "
The trouble is, all of that can take place even after a brand new covenant
has been instituted. A covenant can be instituted which not only puts off
the Law, but also puts off all infractions that had taken place under the
Law. A new covenant can be instituted that even forgives having failed under
the Law. And new commandments can be instituted completely outside of the
old covenant of Law. These commandments can even contain the same morality,
the command not to steal, not to kill, and not to commit adultery, and still
be distinct from the covenant of Law. This only serves to show that God's
love for Israel exceeds His love for them being under the old Law. His love
looks beyond their failures under the Law to a time in which they can hope
in an entirely different covenant system, with the same morality but with a
different outcome.
> No, over and over again Jesus predicted the fall of his own Jewish
> generation. See the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21).
"You completely misunderstand that speech. He explicitly says this is
the time of the end."
Jesus said his own generation *was* in fact the time of the end! This wasn't
some kind of eschatological statement about the distant future. This was
prophetic judgment being declared upon his own time and his own people.
"And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory."
"Nobody has seen anybody coming down in a cloud (unless you
think this means paratroopers landing)."
You then wish to mock the Prophets as well? This is the very language that
the Prophet Daniel used in describing the coming Kingdom of Messiah!
"So I think he was talking about some future time that still hasn't
happened."
No question Jesus put the coming of his Kingdom off in the distant future.
But judgment he said would take place *in his own generation.* The great
Diaspora would begin in his own generation.
"There is no such phrase "until it is fulfilled". The phrase is
"until *everything* is accomplished", or in some translations
"until *all* is fulfilled". I have read this in multiple versions
in English, French, German, and Hungarian, and every single
one of them uses a universal quantifier there."
Don't act so naive. You know well that a "universal quantifier" is defined
by the context in which that quantifier is used. If I'm saying that "I'm
going to go outside and feed "all" the chickens, I'm referring only to *my*
chickens. I'm not saying that I'm going to feed "all" the chickens of the
world, in all places and in all times! ;)
It is the same with "until all is fulfilled." Jesus is not saying he is
going to complete prophecy in all times and in all places. He is talking
specifically about the things that were concerned with the destruction of
the temple. That is what he was asked about. Jesus dismissed his own role in
these things, and put off the coming of his Kingdom for future generations,
*after* a great Diaspora would take place. But the fall of the temple, that
is, "all these things," would take place in his own generation. That is what
Jesus meant when he said heaven and earth would not pass away until he
fulfilled his own particular messianic role. He referred not to everything
that messiah had to do in time and space, but only to the things that he had
to accomplish in terms of bringing redemption under the Law to a conclusion.
> His
> assumption was that his martyr's death removed the need for further
> sacrifices under the Law. He was "the Lamb to be slain."
"That's *your* assumption, not Jesus' assumption.
What he actually said in the words he spoke was the exact opposite.
And we were talking about the need for the Law, not "sacrifices
*under* the Law"."
I agree that it seems ambiguous. Jesus' death did not take place with the
pronouncement that sacrifices under the Law were to be rendered ineffectual.
But in a sense Jesus had already said this by declaring that Israel's
righteousness *as a nation* had become vain. And when Jesus died on the
cross, the gospel writer noted that the temple veil had been rent. This
means that the whole temple system was understood to be undone by Jesus'
death.
And when John the Baptist declared that Jesus had come to be the Lamb who
would "take away the sins of the world," this was understood in biblical
prophecy to be heralding a time when no more redemptive ceremonies would be
required, when the ark would not be found any more. To confirm this, Jesus
said once again the temple would be destroyed, but that eternal salvation
would be granted by him, by the gift of his spirit. Jesus made it clear that
from that time forward, salvation would come only by him, and not by any
other system, including the Law.
"People who think that just because they're Christians they don't need
to follow the Law and repent of their sins."
The Law is a Jewish system, and morality did not have to be channeled
through that particular system. In fact it was not during times of Hebrew
exile. There may have been some elements of the Law remaining during times
of exile. But you can find elements of the Law in *any* moral system on
earth. Most moral systems do not favor murder or theft, or the annulment of
contracts. But when a contract like the Law is broken, it would be morally
wrong to continue to say it still is binding, when one of the partys has
already failed to meet its obligations.
> I'm using the argument in the letter to the Hebrews in which the author
> argues that sacrifices under the Law had to be offered day and night
> *perpetually.* This means that no amount of atonement, no amount of
> redemption, ever fully sufficed to end the need for further offerings for
> sin. There was no possibility of final closure on the issue of sin. Only
> Jesus' redemption has promised to do that. That's why in Christianity
> there
> is no longer need to offer sacrifices for our sins. Jesus' death alone
> suffices for our forgiveness. He was in essence God's forgiveness.
"You still keep moving the goalposts from whether sacrifices are needed
to whether following Torah is needed. You constantly talk as if the
Torah had nothing in it except rules about sacrifices. I'm talking about
following the Torah laws, like don't steal and don't murder and don't
gossip,
and don't put a stumbling block before the blind,
and don't vote for Republicans."
I'm saying that you can't say you are applying the Law and be selective
about which part of the Law you want to apply. The Law required both moral
commandments and rituals of sacrifice. If you ignore the sacrifices, you
don't have the Law at all!
> The Law was a just system of righteousness that prevented Israel from
> obtaining the hope they sought after. It was a record of human failure,
"Human history may have included human failure; the Law did not."
On the contrary, God instituted the Law *knowing* that it would include the
history not just of Israel's failure, but of the failure of the whole human
race. The Law showed the incapacity of man to obtain eternal salvation by
his own works. Mercy had to come from God to grant imperfect humanity
redemption, through resurrection from the dead, through the gift of
immortality. We cannot continue in these fallen bodies forever. We must put
on new immortal bodies that are free of the curse of sin. The Law could not
bring about our salvation. It could only teach Israel righteousness, until a
better system came along that could grant immortality. Jesus was that better
system. He offered his own unblemished record as our model, in place of the
Law and its record of Israel's failings.
randy
Rob Strom
>
> "That is true, but it is said:
> "`If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples;
> but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them,
> though your dispersed be under the farthest skies, I will gather them
> thence and bring them to the place which I have chosen, to make my
> name dwell there."
> Meaning that exile doesn't cause the commandments to go away."
>
> Yes, obviously I agree with everything you say here. God will never
> *completely* cast off His people Israel. And God *always* has moral commands
> for His people to obey. The question is, what are these "commandments" that
> God always reserves for times of exile? And when Israel is restored to God,
> what is the basis of this relationship?
"My commandments" means the ones He just gave.
...
> And two, God will always have commandments for Israel, whether or not the
> Law is the covenant system in which these commandments take effect. My
> argument is that commandments from God have *always* been in effect for man,
> whether under the covenant of Law or not. God has always had commandments
> for Israel, both before Sinai and after Sinai. It is my assumption that when
> Israel went into exile, the covenant of Law had failed, and that
> nevertheless Israel had commandments that they had to obey.
No. They have to obey the very same commandments that their
failure to obey caused the exile.
>
> > On the contrary, God can *forgive* failure under the Law. That means even
> > if
> > the Law *failed,* and it did,
>
> "you have again slipped from "failure under the Law" to "the Law
> failed" "
>
> As you know, this is not a "slip." I believe that *exile* signalled the end
> of the covenant of Law.
Without even the smallest peep of evidence.
...
>
> "I don't see "completely unlike" in there."
>
> You had better look again.
I did. It says "not like". Meaning different in some respect.
Not different in every respect.
> "Not like the covenant" is what the passage
> reads. I read that, "completely unlike."
But that is not what "not like" means in English, especially when
it is clarified.
...
>
> The trouble is, all of that can take place even after a brand new covenant
> has been instituted. A covenant can be instituted which not only puts off
> the Law, but also puts off all infractions that had taken place under the
> Law. A new covenant can be instituted that even forgives having failed under
> the Law. And new commandments can be instituted completely outside of the
> old covenant of Law. These commandments can even contain the same morality,
> the command not to steal, not to kill, and not to commit adultery, and still
> be distinct from the covenant of Law.
If it's the same morality, why are we arguing?
The reason we're arguing is that you're saying that it's a different
morality.
The Christian conservative morality doesn't include commandments
to be kind to animals, give to the poor, don't lie, etc.
That's the whole reason we're having this discussion. You're claiming
that OUR law doesn't have to be behaved and some much
slacker law is substituted.
...
>
> > No, over and over again Jesus predicted the fall of his own Jewish
> > generation. See the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21).
>
> "You completely misunderstand that speech. He explicitly says this is
> the time of the end."
>
> Jesus said his own generation *was* in fact the time of the end!
And obviously that didn't happen.
> This wasn't
> some kind of eschatological statement about the distant future. This was
> prophetic judgment being declared upon his own time and his own people.
>
> "And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power
> and great glory."
>
> "Nobody has seen anybody coming down in a cloud (unless you
> think this means paratroopers landing)."
>
> You then wish to mock the Prophets as well? This is the very language that
> the Prophet Daniel used in describing the coming Kingdom of Messiah!
I'm not mocking it; I'm saying that it DIDN'T HAPPEN.
You were saying that when Jesus was saying these words, he
meant the end of the law, when he was actually talking about a future
time.
>
> "So I think he was talking about some future time that still hasn't
> happened."
>
> No question Jesus put the coming of his Kingdom off in the distant future.
You can't simultaneously say the far future and the current
generation.
...
> "There is no such phrase "until it is fulfilled". The phrase is
> "until *everything* is accomplished", or in some translations
> "until *all* is fulfilled". I have read this in multiple versions
> in English, French, German, and Hungarian, and every single
> one of them uses a universal quantifier there."
>
> Don't act so naive.
Don't act so patronizing.
> You know well that a "universal quantifier" is defined
> by the context in which that quantifier is used.
Yes and the context of this one is "heavens and earth", i.e. the life
of the earth.
> If I'm saying that "I'm
> going to go outside and feed "all" the chickens, I'm referring only to *my*
> chickens. I'm not saying that I'm going to feed "all" the chickens of the
> world, in all places and in all times! ;)
>
> It is the same with "until all is fulfilled." Jesus is not saying he is
> going to complete prophecy in all times and in all places. He is talking
> specifically about the things that were concerned with the destruction of
> the temple.
He wasn't mentioning the temple. He was giving a parallelism
to "until heaven and earth pass".
> That is what he was asked about. Jesus dismissed his own role in
> these things, and put off the coming of his Kingdom for future generations,
> *after* a great Diaspora would take place. But the fall of the temple, that
> is, "all these things," would take place in his own generation. That is what
> Jesus meant when he said heaven and earth would not pass away until he
> fulfilled his own particular messianic role.
He never said heaven and earth would not pass away until he
fulfilled his own particular messianic role. I defy you to
come up with a passage where he says anything even close to that.
On the contrary he said the Law would not pass away until heaven and
earth did.
See heaven and earth appearing on the right side of the "until".
...
> > His
> > assumption was that his martyr's death removed the need for further
> > sacrifices under the Law. He was "the Lamb to be slain."
>
> "That's *your* assumption, not Jesus' assumption.
> What he actually said in the words he spoke was the exact opposite.
> And we were talking about the need for the Law, not "sacrifices
> *under* the Law"."
>
> I agree that it seems ambiguous. Jesus' death did not take place with the
> pronouncement that sacrifices under the Law were to be rendered ineffectual.
You said more. You said that the law itself would be rendered
ineffectual.
> But in a sense Jesus had already said this by declaring that Israel's
> righteousness *as a nation* had become vain. And when Jesus died on the
> cross, the gospel writer noted that the temple veil had been rent. This
> means that the whole temple system was understood to be undone by Jesus'
> death.
You make it sound as if this had anything to do with the Law going
away.
>
> And when John the Baptist declared that Jesus had come to be the Lamb who
> would "take away the sins of the world," this was understood in biblical
> prophecy to be heralding a time when no more redemptive ceremonies would be
> required, when the ark would not be found any more.
That has nothing to do with their being no law, nothing.
> To confirm this, Jesus
> said once again the temple would be destroyed, but that eternal salvation
> would be granted by him, by the gift of his spirit. Jesus made it clear that
> from that time forward, salvation would come only by him, and not by any
> other system, including the Law.
Not only didn't he "make it clear", he didn't even say anything
approximately CLOSE to this.
...
>
> The Law is a Jewish system, and morality did not have to be channeled
> through that particular system. In fact it was not during times of Hebrew
> exile.
Yes it was.
> There may have been some elements of the Law remaining during times
> of exile.
ALL of them.
> But you can find elements of the Law in *any* moral system on
> earth. Most moral systems do not favor murder or theft, or the annulment of
> contracts. But when a contract like the Law is broken, it would be morally
> wrong to continue to say it still is binding, when one of the partys has
> already failed to meet its obligations.
We've been through this before, and it is still binding, and God said
it
was still binding. I believe what God said. Whereas you just have
some random guesses and symbolism. Somebody's veil tore,
and this means it. Or Jesus said something about the temple,
and that means it. No. I might as well say Jesus was talking
prophetically about Senator Shelby's holds on Obama's nominees,
and how they foretold a new era.
...
...
>
> > The Law was a just system of righteousness that prevented Israel from
> > obtaining the hope they sought after. It was a record of human failure,
>
> "Human history may have included human failure; the Law did not."
>
> On the contrary, God instituted the Law *knowing* that it would include the
> history not just of Israel's failure, but of the failure of the whole human
> race.
Not the Law's fault.
> The Law showed the incapacity of man to obtain eternal salvation by
> his own works.
No. If there is such a thing as salvation, then of course it's by our
own works.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Yes, obviously I agree with everything you say here. God will never
> *completely* cast off His people Israel. And God *always* has moral
> commands
> for His people to obey. The question is, what are these "commandments"
> that
> God always reserves for times of exile? And when Israel is restored to
> God,
> what is the basis of this relationship?
" "My commandments" means the ones He just gave."
God's commandments are the universal moral standards that He has given man
from the beginning, and not necessarily the *package* of Law that God's
commandments came to Israel in. When Israel went into captivity, they
continued to keep God's commandments, but not the Law of Moses. Indeed they
could not do so because the Law required a temple, a priesthood, and
sacrifices for full observance!
But we've been through this before.
> As you know, this is not a "slip." I believe that *exile* signalled the
> end
> of the covenant of Law.
"Without even the smallest peep of evidence."
If anybody has any concept of contracts at all, they know that a broken
agreement happens when either party fails to adhere to the agreement. Exile
signalled the point at which *God Himself* considered Israel as having
failed the agreement. There is *massive* evidence in support of this
conclusion!
> "I don't see "completely unlike" in there."
> You had better look again.
"I did. It says "not like". Meaning different in some respect.
Not different in every respect."
In this case, "unlike" refers to a *different covenant.* Certainly there are
similarities between the two covenants, because they both contain God's
commandments. But they are not the same covenant! That's what I meant by
"completely unlike." It means that they are perfectly distinguishable as
separate covenants.
"If it's the same morality, why are we arguing?"
Maybe we shouldn't be! It is important in Christian theology to distinguish
between the two covenants because one is based on a Law with Israel's failed
record, and the other is based on Christ's own unblemished record. We must
follow the latter, now that the former has fulfilled its purpose.
There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices, a temple, and a
priesthood. Those things showed humanity needed forgiveness in order to
obtain immortality, and could not achieve it themselves. It actually
prepared Israel psychologically for the sacrifice that God had already been
making for them, and which He planned to make for them in the offering of
His Son as the unblemished model for humanity. Now that we have the Son as
an example, we don't need animal sacrifices anymore. Immortality is possible
by accepting the spirituality of the Son, whereas immortality is not
possible even when offering animal sacrifices. Forgiveness in that case is
strictly temporary.
> Jesus said his own generation *was* in fact the time of the end!
"And obviously that didn't happen."
On the contrary, Jesus was speaking of the end of the temple system. That
did come to an end.
> "Nobody has seen anybody coming down in a cloud (unless you
> think this means paratroopers landing)."
> You then wish to mock the Prophets as well? This is the very language that
> the Prophet Daniel used in describing the coming Kingdom of Messiah!
"I'm not mocking it; I'm saying that it DIDN'T HAPPEN."
Jesus didn't say it would happen immediately. He said his Kingdom would come
at the end of generations of Jewish Diaspora.
"You were saying that when Jesus was saying these words, he
meant the end of the law, when he was actually talking about a future
time."
No, Jesus was talking about the end of Jewish attempts, as a nation, at
self-justification. He came to be the only way to immortality, knowing that
living under the temple system could never lead to immortality. In fact,
rejection of Jesus in favor of the temple system became a form of rebellion
in itself, in which Israel consigned herself to judgment and exile.
> No question Jesus put the coming of his Kingdom off in the distant future.
"You can't simultaneously say the far future and the current
generation."
Actually that is precisely what Jesus said, that the temple would be
destroyed in his own generation. Then, after generations of Jewish Diaspora,
he would return to establish God's Kingdom on earth. This would be the
promised time of peace, prophesied by the Hebrew prophets.
> You know well that a "universal quantifier" is defined
> by the context in which that quantifier is used.
"Yes and the context of this one is "heavens and earth", i.e. the life
of the earth."
No, Jesus was talking about the fulfillment of the *Law!* This had nothing
whatsoever to do with the fulfillment of heaven and earth.
> It is the same with "until all is fulfilled." Jesus is not saying he is
> going to complete prophecy in all times and in all places. He is talking
> specifically about the things that were concerned with the destruction of
> the temple.
"He wasn't mentioning the temple. He was giving a parallelism
to "until heaven and earth pass"."
You actually raised the issue of two separate passages, the Olivet Discourse
and the Sermon on the Mount. In one Jesus talked about his fulfillment of
the Law, prior to the close of the ages. In the other he talked about the
fulfillment of all things pertaining to the temple's destruction. In both
cases, "fulfillment" is qualified by the things in question, in one case the
Law, and in the other case the temple's destruction. In no way does
"fulfillment" refer to the fulfillment of all prophecy and all things in the
universe. Such an unqualified interpretation borders on an absurdity.
"He never said heaven and earth would not pass away until he
fulfilled his own particular messianic role. I defy you to
come up with a passage where he says anything even close to that."
I've showed it to you repeatedly! Jesus said *he* would fulfil the Law.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets;
I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
He said he would fulfil the Law *before* the consummation of the universe.
Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not
an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is fulfilled.
> But in a sense Jesus had already said this by declaring that Israel's
> righteousness *as a nation* had become vain. And when Jesus died on the
> cross, the gospel writer noted that the temple veil had been rent. This
> means that the whole temple system was understood to be undone by Jesus'
> death.
"You make it sound as if this had anything to do with the Law going
away."
If you define the Law as "God's commandments" perhaps then the "Law" will
never go away. But when the temple went away, when the veil was rent, the
temple in effect really did go away. I believe God was signalling His loss
of interest in temple rituals when His Son had accomplished something better
than all the temple sacrifices in the world. At best the temple sacrifices
showed an interest in repentance and in righteous behavior. But this would
all nevertheless result in a continued mortality and death. But the
sacrifice Jesus offered of himself was a display of his wish to give us his
spirituality, which results in our immortality. There is no comparison in my
thinking between a temporary righteousness and a righteousness that leads to
immortality.
> To confirm this, Jesus
> said once again the temple would be destroyed, but that eternal salvation
> would be granted by him, by the gift of his spirit. Jesus made it clear
> that
> from that time forward, salvation would come only by him, and not by any
> other system, including the Law.
"Not only didn't he "make it clear", he didn't even say anything
approximately CLOSE to this."
Jesus said nobody got to the Father except through him. That *makes it
clear* that Jesus saw his own example and spirit as the exclusive means of
eternal salvation. The corollary to this is, the Law cannot do what only the
Son can do!
> There may have been some elements of the Law remaining during times
> of exile.
"ALL of them."
No, you define the necessity of temple worship as conditioned upon there
being a temple to worship at. If there is no temple then Israel does not
have to worship at the temple in order to practise the Law. That is not
true. To properly observe the Law there has to be a temple and there has to
be temple worship. And there has to be daily sacrifices, actually both night
and day. And there has to be a priesthood--not just one recognized nominally
in exile.
> "Human history may have included human failure; the Law did not."
> On the contrary, God instituted the Law *knowing* that it would include
> the
> history not just of Israel's failure, but of the failure of the whole
> human
> race.
"Not the Law's fault."
I didn't say it was. The Law was given by God precisely to show Israel's
record of human imperfection. It was to direct Israel, in their
imperfection, to a better example than that offered under the Law. They were
ultimately to look to God Himself, and to His Christ, who had an unblemished
record of morality.
> The Law showed the incapacity of man to obtain eternal salvation by
> his own works.
"No. If there is such a thing as salvation, then of course it's by our
own works."
We cannot earn by any stretch of the imagination the ability to obtain
immortality. It *must* be a gift of God!
randy
Rob Strom
I keep wondering about the title of this thread: I'm assuming
that these are the first two lines of the last verse of
"Joy to the World"?
>
> > Yes, obviously I agree with everything you say here. God will never
> > *completely* cast off His people Israel. And God *always* has moral
> > commands
> > for His people to obey. The question is, what are these "commandments"
> > that
> > God always reserves for times of exile? And when Israel is restored to
> > God,
> > what is the basis of this relationship?
>
> " "My commandments" means the ones He just gave."
>
> God's commandments are the universal moral standards that He has given man
> from the beginning, and not necessarily the *package* of Law that God's
> commandments came to Israel in.
The commandments are never the package; they are the contents.
Most often, the reference is "the commandments I gave you this day".
It includes the ones that you don't think you have to obey.
> When Israel went into captivity, they
> continued to keep God's commandments, but not the Law of Moses. Indeed they
> could not do so because the Law required a temple, a priesthood, and
> sacrifices for full observance!
No. The Law didn't require any of that. It actually *restricted*
where
priests could do sacrifices.
...
>
> "Without even the smallest peep of evidence."
>
> If anybody has any concept of contracts at all, they know that a broken
> agreement happens when either party fails to adhere to the agreement.
Actually, if anybody has studied contract law, they are familiar
with the principle of liquidated damages, which can appear in
contracts.
Breach of a term does not necessarily terminate a contract; it invokes
the liquidated damages provision if one is present.
The Torah explicitly says that a breach does not terminate the
contract.
> Exile
> signalled the point at which *God Himself* considered Israel as having
> failed the agreement. There is *massive* evidence in support of this
> conclusion!
In your vocabulary, "massive" actually means "a complete absence".
>
> > "I don't see "completely unlike" in there."
> > You had better look again.
>
> "I did. It says "not like". Meaning different in some respect.
> Not different in every respect."
>
> In this case, "unlike" refers to a *different covenant.* Certainly there are
> similarities between the two covenants, because they both contain God's
> commandments. But they are not the same covenant!
The way they are remembered is different, but the rules are the same.
...
>
> "If it's the same morality, why are we arguing?"
>
> Maybe we shouldn't be! It is important in Christian theology to distinguish
> between the two covenants because one is based on a Law with Israel's failed
> record, and the other is based on Christ's own unblemished record. We must
> follow the latter, now that the former has fulfilled its purpose.
But you've been arguing that the laws themselves are gone, not
simply the name of the covenant they are contained in.
>
> There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices, a temple, and a
> priesthood.
But what about the Laws themselves? Isn't there a need
for not slandering and telling the truth? Shouldn't, for example,
Republican Congressmen who say in congress that not one job has
been created by the stimulus (while when home in their
own states boast of how many jobs they've created
due to the bills they "helped pass" and actually voted against)
be brought before the seat of judgment and called to account?
But if the law is gone, they weren't sinning because
these laws were "waxen old" and ready to fall away!
> Those things showed humanity needed forgiveness
People like these Senators definitely need forgiveness,
but to get it they have to rededicate themselves to the
law, and realize that what they did was a sin. But if
the law is waxen old, they have nothing to rededicate
themselves to.
> ... Forgiveness in that case is strictly temporary.
Of course.
>
> > Jesus said his own generation *was* in fact the time of the end!
>
> "And obviously that didn't happen."
>
> On the contrary, Jesus was speaking of the end of the temple system. That
> did come to an end.
>
Temporarily.
> > "Nobody has seen anybody coming down in a cloud (unless you
> > think this means paratroopers landing)."
> > You then wish to mock the Prophets as well? This is the very language that
> > the Prophet Daniel used in describing the coming Kingdom of Messiah!
>
> "I'm not mocking it; I'm saying that it DIDN'T HAPPEN."
>
> Jesus didn't say it would happen immediately. He said his Kingdom would come
> at the end of generations of Jewish Diaspora.
He said this in the same speech you were claiming was about the end of
the Law.
...
>
> "You can't simultaneously say the far future and the current
> generation."
>
> Actually that is precisely what Jesus said, that the temple would be
> destroyed in his own generation.
Don't change the subject. You were claiming that Jesus
said the Law would be destroyed in his own generation.
You were claiming that the Law was destroyed at Jesus'
death; not in 70 CE when the temple was destroyed.
That's what the title of this thread, the words of this
Christmas Carol, imply. "nailed to the cross, the law is gone".
...
>
> "Yes and the context of this one is "heavens and earth", i.e. the life
> of the earth."
>
> No, Jesus was talking about the fulfillment of the *Law!* This had nothing
> whatsoever to do with the fulfillment of heaven and earth.
You love bringing up context while ignoring it yourself.
The context was Jesus saying "I have not come to destroy
the law but to fulfill it".
So the passage is about *not* destroying the law.
Jesus was modelling the law when he fulfilled it, not
bringing it to an end.
...
>
> "He wasn't mentioning the temple. He was giving a parallelism
> to "until heaven and earth pass"."
>
> You actually raised the issue of two separate passages, the Olivet Discourse
> and the Sermon on the Mount. In one Jesus talked about his fulfillment of
> the Law, prior to the close of the ages. In the other he talked about the
> fulfillment of all things pertaining to the temple's destruction
In Matthew, he was saying that until heaven and earth
pass (until everything has been fulfilled) not a dot will pass from
the law.
...
> cases, "fulfillment" is qualified by the things in question, in one case the
> Law, and in the other case the temple's destruction. In no way does
> "fulfillment" refer to the fulfillment of all prophecy and all things in the
> universe. Such an unqualified interpretation borders on an absurdity.
It's not absurd at all. It's a way of saying that something will
never happen.
...
> I've showed it to you repeatedly! Jesus said *he* would fulfil the Law.
> Matthew 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets;
> I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
>
Yup. Not to abolish them. We weren't arguing about fulfilling;
we were arguing about whether the law is Gone, i.e. abolished,
which that very verse said was not going to happen!
> He said he would fulfil the Law *before* the consummation of the universe.
Every action he does by definition happens before the consummation of
the universe.
How could anything he does be *after* the end of the universe?
What is significant is not about saying what will happen before the
end.
What is significant is that he said that something will *not* happen
before the end,
namely the least change in the law.
...
>
> "You make it sound as if this had anything to do with the Law going
> away."
>
> If you define the Law as "God's commandments" perhaps then the "Law" will
> never go away.
We're talking about the Law of Moses.
> But when the temple went away, when the veil was rent, the
> temple in effect really did go away. I believe God was signalling His loss
> of interest in temple rituals when His Son had accomplished something better
> than all the temple sacrifices in the world.
Again, nothing to do with "Joy to the World; The Law is Gone".
...
>
> "Not only didn't he "make it clear", he didn't even say anything
> approximately CLOSE to this."
>
> Jesus said nobody got to the Father except through him. That *makes it
> clear* that Jesus saw his own example and spirit as the exclusive means of
> eternal salvation. The corollary to this is, the Law cannot do what only the
> Son can do!
The Law isn't an agent. The law doesn't *do* stuff.
*People* do stuff that is either lawful or unlawful.
If you say the law is gone, then there is no longer a standard of
lawfulness.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"I keep wondering about the title of this thread: I'm assuming
that these are the first two lines of the last verse of
"Joy to the World"?"
I'm not rejoicing in the passage of a bad Law. Rather, I'm rejoicing in what
the Law itself was happy to declare, the end of Israel's mortality. The Law
was given to emphasize the fact of Israel's mortality, and the hope of
eternal forgiveness. Since the Law could not itself provide immortality, the
Law was given to point the way to a coming Messiah, who would complete the
process of redemption.
So yes, "joy to the world!" However, I didn't title the thread. Pastor Dave
did that, and I responded four days later on the last day of the year. I
agree. The Law was nailed to the cross as an outdated document to end the
condemnation of Israel. I think it is beyond dispute that the Law declared
the impurity of Israel and the need for daily sacrifices for purposes of
redemption. Since eternal redemption could not be obtained until mortality,
and the sin nature, were themselves disposed of, the Law itself had to be
disposed of as a reminder of human sinfulness and as the legal "sticking
point" that keeps man chained to his mortality. After all, it is native
human sin that made us mortal in the first place! It was when sin was
chained to human nature, by the disobedience of Adam, that God pronounced
his death curse upon all of mankind.
> God's commandments are the universal moral standards that He has given man
> from the beginning, and not necessarily the *package* of Law that God's
> commandments came to Israel in.
"The commandments are never the package; they are the contents."
Yes, many diverse covenants contain commandments. But what makes each
covenant unique is its own set of commandments. There were commandments
contained in the Law that are associated with the Law and yet able to be
packaged in another, new covenant. And there are universal human values
associated with "the commandments of God" that preexisted the Law of Moses
and yet were also identified with the Law of Moses. When we follow the
commandments of God today, we can do so without any need whatsoever to
observe the Law of Moses. In fact, the commandments of God were intended to
be fulfilled in an entirely different covenant package, the new covenant.
> When Israel went into captivity, they
> continued to keep God's commandments, but not the Law of Moses. Indeed
> they
> could not do so because the Law required a temple, a priesthood, and
> sacrifices for full observance!
"No. The Law didn't require any of that. It actually *restricted*
where priests could do sacrifices."
Yes, obviously sacrifices were not allowed to be offered where there was no
temple. But the Law also required that a temple be built.The fact it was
torn down was an indication God had cast off the covenant, not that He still
required its observance. And the reinstitution of the covenant system, or
the requirement of a partial fulfillment of the covenant system, did not
mean that the full covenant system was in play. It is my contention that the
full system of Law could *not* be in play in captivity, simply because the
Law was intended to be performed *in Israel,* with a fully functioning
temple system. Once Israel was in captivity and without a temple system, a
partial observance of the Law clearly was not the original covenant system.
> If anybody has any concept of contracts at all, they know that a broken
> agreement happens when either party fails to adhere to the agreement.
"Actually, if anybody has studied contract law, they are familiar
with the principle of liquidated damages, which can appear in
contracts."
Resolving contract disputes does not negate the fact a contract has been
broken. You can resolve contract disputes in a variety of ways. But a judge
determines if in fact there has been a breach of contract law.
"Breach of a term does not necessarily terminate a contract; it invokes
the liquidated damages provision if one is present."
Any resolution to a contract in the case of *interpretation* is not a breach
of contract. But resolution to an actual broken contract may mean that the
contract is renegotiated, which is in effect a brand new contract.
"The Torah explicitly says that a breach does not terminate the
contract."
On the contrary, the Torah says specifically that temple worship was
*required* to take place . It was to take place *forever,* or perpetually
(as long as the covenant was in effect), in the covenant land. It could not,
then, take place outside of the country, in exile. In fact *exile* was an
indicator that God viewed the contract as terminated and broken.
> Exile
> signalled the point at which *God Himself* considered Israel as having
> failed the agreement. There is *massive* evidence in support of this
> conclusion!
"In your vocabulary, "massive" actually means "a complete absence"."
To you the overwhelming evidence is a "lack of support."
> In this case, "unlike" refers to a *different covenant.* Certainly there
> are
> similarities between the two covenants, because they both contain God's
> commandments. But they are not the same covenant!
"The way they are remembered is different, but the rules are the same."
I try to discuss these rules in my new thread, "the elements of the Law." It
is not easy to understand unless you do accept the basis for my position.
You must understand how the prophets interpreted the Law to continue in an
eternal sense. It would be as an *entirely different covenant,* yet
containing identical elements of morality and redemption.
"But you've been arguing that the laws themselves are gone, not
simply the name of the covenant they are contained in."
I try to explain this in my new thread. But I've explained it before in
terms of "universal moral values." These values remain in place far beyond
the covenant of Law itself. In a sense, the Law lives on through its heir,
Christ's own morality and Christ's own spirituality. These things were, in
fact, what the Law looked forward to as the fulfillment of its own purpose.
> Jesus didn't say it would happen immediately. He said his Kingdom would
> come
> at the end of generations of Jewish Diaspora.
"He said this in the same speech you were claiming was about the end of
the Law."
There are two passages you referred to, the Sermon on the Mount and the
Olivet Discourse. I'll try to clearly distinguish them. The Sermon on the
Mount had Jesus claiming *he* would fulfil the elements of the Law *in his
own lifetime.* In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus said that "all these things"
would take place in his own lifetime. "All these things" referred to the
destruction of the temple by the Romans, and did not include his coming to
establish the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus said his coming to establish his
Messianic Kingdom would take place long after his own generation, at the end
of a long period of Jewish Diaspora.
> Actually that is precisely what Jesus said, that the temple would be
> destroyed in his own generation.
"Don't change the subject. You were claiming that Jesus
said the Law would be destroyed in his own generation."
I'm not changing the subject. Jesus did say that he would fulfil the Law in
his own generation, within his own lifetime. This means that Jesus
anticipated the new covenant would be introduced *by himself,* rendering in
effect the Law as nullified.
"You were claiming that the Law was destroyed at Jesus'
death; not in 70 CE when the temple was destroyed."
Absolutely. Pastor Dave seems to believe that the Law ended both at the
cross and in 70 AD, which for me is a contradiction. I believe the Law as a
covenant system ended at the point where the new covenant of Jesus was
initiated, at the cross. Jesus, in his Last Supper, announced the coming of
a new covenant, using the wine to symbolically represent his coming blood on
the cross.
"That's what the title of this thread, the words of this
Christmas Carol, imply. "nailed to the cross, the law is gone"."
"Joy to the world, the Lord is come" is in fact saying joy to the world, the
Law is gone, yes. But our joy is not in the failure of Israel to obtain
salvation under the Law, not in the fact that Israel failed under the Law
(as all men would). Rather, our joy is in the fact that the Lord Jesus has
come to provide a righteousness that is immutable, and cannot pass away. And
this spirituality can be transferred to us simply by our choice to live by
the example that Jesus set for us in his earthly life.
"If you say the law is gone, then there is no longer a standard of
lawfulness."
Jesus is the standard of lawfulness, and he does not represent a complete
failure of the *purpose* of the Law. Israel may have failed, morally, to
live by the standards of the contract of the Law. But the purpose of the Law
itself did not fail, because its purpose was to introduce the Messiah as
possessor of eternal standards of righteousness, made available even to
imperfect men.
By accepting his spirituality into our lives we assume his own sinless
record (spiritually), and his own forgiveness (legally). We in this way
obtain the immortality that he himself possesses.
Our imperfection does not disqualify us from participating in his own
perfection. And after all, that is what God has always wanted, that man,
perfect or not, abide in His own person and in His own character. Any
spirituality that does not belong to God Himself is inadequate and
illegitimate, and will not produce eternity. The only spirituality that
produces for us eternity is the spirituality of God Himself. And that
spirituality was made available to us only by the testimony of Jesus Christ.
This alone provides a standard of lawlessness (the example of Jesus) that
leads us into the spirituality of God Himself.
randy