- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Southern Baptist ban on women pastors fails in historic vote
Posted on 6/26/24 at 11:27 am to L.A.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 11:27 am to L.A.
quote:
Jesus was a Jew. Are you saying that he did away with His Father's Law?
Spoken like a true Pharisee.
Just as He said, He fulfilled the Law. What is the Law? The law of God given to Moses is a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure that the Israelites' behavior reflected their status as God’s chosen people. It encompasses moral behavior, their position as a godly example to other nations, and systematic procedures for acknowledging God’s holiness and mankind’s sinfulness. In an attempt to better understand the purpose of these laws, Jews and Christians categorize them. This has led to the distinction between moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial law.
Moral Law
The moral law encompasses regulations on justice, respect, and sexual conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. It also includes penalties for failure to obey the ordinances. Moral law does not point people to Christ; it merely illuminates the fallen state of all mankind.
Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of mishpatim in the church age. Some believe that Jesus’ assertion that the law will remain in effect until the earth passes away (Matthew 5:18) means that believers are still bound to it. Others, however, understand that Jesus fulfilled this requirement (Matthew 5:17), and that we are instead under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is thought to be "love God and love others" (Matthew 22:36-40). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin (Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim.
Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation”; the words are often translated as “statutes.” These laws seem to focus the adherent’s attention on God. They include instructions on regaining right standing with God (e.g., sacrifices and other ceremonies regarding “uncleanness”), remembrances of God’s work in Israel (e.g., feasts and festivals), specific regulations meant to distinguish Israelites from their pagan neighbors (e.g., dietary and clothing restrictions), and signs that point to the coming Messiah (e.g., the Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, and the redemption of the firstborn).
Christians are not bound by ceremonial law. Since the church is not the nation of Israel, memorial festivals, such as the Feast of Weeks and Passover, do not apply. Galatians 3:23-25 explains that since Jesus has come, Christians are not required to sacrifice or circumcise. There is still debate in Protestant churches over the applicability of the Sabbath. Some say that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments gives it the weight of moral law. Others quote Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5 to explain that Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath and become our Sabbath rest. As Romans 14:5 says, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it.
Judicial/Civil Law
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments. This includes everything from murder to restitution for a man gored by an ox and the responsibility of the man who dug a pit to rescue his neighbor’s trapped donkey (Exodus 21:12-36). Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars.
What is the purpose of the Mosaic Law?
1) Reveal the holy character of the eternal God to the nation of Israel (Leviticus 19:2; 20:7–8).
(2) Set apart the nation of Israel as distinct from all the other nations (Exodus 19:5).
(3) Reveal the sinfulness of man (cf. Galatians 3:19). Although the Law was good and holy (Romans 7:12), it did not provide salvation for the nation of Israel. “No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Romans 3:20; cf. Acts 13:38–39).
(4) Provide forgiveness through the sacrifice/offerings (Leviticus 1—7) for the people who had faith in the Lord in the nation of Israel.
(5) Provide a way of worship for the community of faith through the yearly feasts (Leviticus 23).
(6) Provide God’s direction for the physical and spiritual health of the nation (Exodus 21—23; Deuteronomy 6:4–19; Psalm 119:97–104).
(7) Reveal to humanity that no one can keep the Law but everyone falls short of God’s standard of holiness. That realization causes us to rely on God’s mercy and grace. When Christ came, He fulfilled the Law and with His death paid the penalty for our breaking it (Galatians 3:24; Romans 10:4). By faith in Him, the believer has the very righteousness of Christ imputed to him.
How did Jesus fulfill the Law?
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Prophets in that, in His first coming alone, He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies concerning Himself (e.g., Matthew 1:22; 13:35; John 19:36; Luke 24:44). Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in at least two ways: as a teacher and as a doer. He taught people to obey the Law (Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 1:44), and He obeyed the Law Himself (John 8:46; 1 Peter 2:22). In living a perfect life, Jesus fulfilled the moral laws; in His sacrificial death, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws. Christ came not to destroy the old religious system but to build upon it; He came to finish the Old Covenant and establish the New.
Jesus came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. In fact, the ceremonies, sacrifices, and other elements of the Old Covenant were “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Hebrews 10:1). The tabernacle and temple were “holy places made with hands,” but they were never meant to be permanent; they were but “copies of the true things” (Hebrews 9:24, ESV). The Law had a built-in expiration date, being filled as it was with “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Hebrews 9:10).
It’s worth pointing out that Jesus routinely clashed with the Pharisees over their misunderstanding of the intent of the law.
1
Posted on 6/26/24 at 2:46 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Except that I prove over and over that there isn’t any truth about our reality contained within the Bible.
I’ll say it again, since you ignored it. Murder, theft, adulteration are bad, m’kay. It’s in the Bible, and it’s objectively true.
quote:
time. I can’t prove a supernatural being doesn’t exist
Right. So you believe that there is no God.
quote:
I can prove the subject matter of the Bible to be patently false, and I do.
Anything can be “proven” false, when it is taken out of context. For the record, I don’t think that you intentionally misinterpret, or take out of context, the Bible. I think that’s what you genuinely see when you read the text. I just disagree, because I can’t help but see it the way I do.
quote:
You are like Dr. Sam Beckett in the body of Jimmy LaMotta, before you make your big discovery.
Good one. I had forgotten about that episode. 
quote:
If God said they had it coming, then it ain’t murder!
When a criminal gets executed- is it murder, or justice? Then, you’ll say something about innocent women and children, to which I’ll reply that none are innocent (according to God’s Word), and that God has full license to do whatever He pleases with His creation. I don’t pretend that much of the Old Testament is difficult to comprehend, in regards to why God did what He did. The difference between us, is that I believe that He is Justified by reasons we often can’t understand or explain, and I trust His righteous judgment. To you, those texts are reason for you to judge God, based on your own admittedly subjective standard of morality.
quote:
My position is one of rational thought and sensibility.
Nothing created everything? Infinite regress? I don’t question that you’re intelligent, or that you use your God-given faculties with success in judging the natural world around you. My point is that an atheistic worldview cannot account for things like objective truth and morality, or love, or why there is something rather than nothing, etc. Your worldview is only rational if you are correct- as is mine. Neither of our positions can be proven, externally, beyond a reasonable doubt. You can stomp your feet and proclaim that there is no God all you want- but you can’t prove it.
I assume you love your children. I get the impression that you’re actually a pretty good person (according to our standards, not God’s). Can you prove that you love your children? How would you go about proving something like that? It seems like it could be a situation where no matter what you say or do, the children could just say “I don’t believe you. That’s not enough evidence to prove it.” It’s just a hypothetical, and I think you’re probably a pretty good dad (the sacrifices you’re making to send your kids to Catholic school are impressive). But, just imagine how you would feel if your own kids, despite all you’ve done for them, believed that you didn’t really love them; and no matter what you said or did, you couldn’t prove it. Sorry for the tangent. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
quote:
I often wonder if you read mine and actually take the time to understand what I am stating. I don’t reject “God”. There’s nothing to reject. I reject your baseless assertion that your particular god exists. There’s a difference.
I do. And I applaud the effort that you put into them. But, to say that you simply lack belief in The Christian God, in my opinion, is logically impossible. You don’t “lack belief” in Santa Claus- you believe that there is no Santa Claus. To say that there is no God, is a positive statement. To lack belief in something, is to lack knowledge and awareness of that thing. Once you are aware of something, you immediately form beliefs about it, and begin to acquire knowledge of it, which will strengthen your beliefs in one direction or the other. There is no neutrality of belief. Even agnosticism is an alternating current of belief for vs belief against.
quote:
If guys like you started a death cult asserting the Cookie Monster created the universe and killed his only son as a sacrifice to himself so that he would be capable of forgiveness, and that everyone who doesn’t believe that nonsense is doomed to an eternity of torture, let me know.
Christianity is not a death cult. The sacrifice of Jesus is not “to God,” it is “for us.” God is the perfect standard of righteousness by which we are to be judged. Anything short of that standard leads to death- just like how fire burns and consumes whatever is placed in it. The wages of sin is death. Jesus paid our debt. It had to be that way because only a Holy, righteous and perfect God could fulfill the requirements of the Law- we are in incapable. To eliminate the possibility of our failure, is to eliminate free will.
Besides all that, if it’s made up- why care about its claims about eternity? Just laugh it off. Do you get this worked up with flat earthers?
quote:
You don’t know what a straw man or a fallacy even is apparently. You have a right to be ashamed for believing in such things, as it is shameful, but it’s no straw man fallacy. That’s what the Bible teaches.
Apologies. In hindsight, perhaps you are not creating a straw man. Perhaps you just truly believe that the Bible explicitly teaches those things. I don’t think it does. I’m sure we’ll get more into that later- again.
quote:
Except archaeologists have proven that most of the Bible is bullshite. No Adam. No global flood. No Abraham. No Moses. No mass exodus from Egypt. No conquest of Canaan. No unified Israel/Judah under David/Solomon. No David. No (real) Solomon except that he was named after a Canaanite sun god.
How so? I thought you couldn’t prove a negative? Unless of course, you’re claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There are tons of archaeological discoveries that verify the Bible.
quote:
but most of what is attributed to the ones that did exist are all fabrications and the rest are literally fabrications confirmed to be false by the consensus of modern archaeologists.
Link a source, and let’s discuss. I don’t deny that there are archaeologists who view the evidence through critical lense. I would just remind you that all interpretations are subject one’s own presuppositions.
quote:
Very cool. Wake me up if something is found dating to 30-40CE about Jesus of Nazareth.
So, the Pilate Stone is now a big nothing burger? Before its discovery, Pilate was said to be a fictional character. Now, it’s known that he was a real person- just like the Bible says.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 2:48 pm to Seldom Seen
That's one ugly looking Transgendered Baptist on the left.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 3:06 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Spoken like a true Pharisee.
Why the defensiveness? Why so insulting?
quote:You linked me to a Christian website. The Law was not given to Christians, so why link me to that? All of the distinctions your website makes about moral law and ceremonial law misses the point and reflects a lack of understanding on their part. Like the moral law, ceremonial law is not peripheral to Judaism; it is central. Sabbath observance, keeping kosher, etc are central to the Jewish faith and under no circumstances do they think of the law has have been abolished. They still consider the Law to be binding.
What is the Law?
Jesus thought that too. When asked once by a man what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him the path to eternal life was to keep the commandments.
quote:
.16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do so that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:16-17
This post was edited on 6/26/24 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 6/26/24 at 4:40 pm to L.A.
The division of mosaic law is a post biblical innovation. Those Jews saw no separation, and it may have allowed Christians to assert parts of the law they liked while ignoring parts they didn't. Aquanis post hoc rationalization.
Any accommodations Paul made to Gentiles were often because he thought the world was ending any day and unity was more important. At times paul prescribes what are being called ritual and moral law, and then contradicts his prescriptions, suggesting the laws not need be followed, but at no time delineates moral/civil/ceremonial.
Any accommodations Paul made to Gentiles were often because he thought the world was ending any day and unity was more important. At times paul prescribes what are being called ritual and moral law, and then contradicts his prescriptions, suggesting the laws not need be followed, but at no time delineates moral/civil/ceremonial.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 7:58 pm to L.A.
quote:
Why the defensiveness? Why so insulting?
Apologies- I was just kidding around. I didn’t think you’d be offended.
quote:
The Law was not given to Christians
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
quote:
All of the distinctions your website makes about moral law and ceremonial law misses the point and reflects a lack of understanding on their part.
Interesting. What is the point? The articles covered a lot of ground. What did they miss?
quote:
Like the moral law, ceremonial law is not peripheral to Judaism; it is central. Sabbath observance, keeping kosher, etc are central to the Jewish faith and under no circumstances do they think of the law has have been abolished. They still consider the Law to be binding.
Are you talking about Jews or Christians? Are we arguing about whether or not Jews are supposed to keep the Mosaic Law, or Christians? I’m certainly not arguing, one way or the other, about whether or not Jews are still required to keep the law.
quote:
Jesus thought that too. When asked once by a man what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him the path to eternal life was to keep the commandments.
The Young Ruler parable is not about keeping the commandments. Finish the story:
Matthew 19:18–26 (NASB95): 18 Then he ?*said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man ?*said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be ?complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
23 ?And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This parable is not about keeping the commandments, per se. That’s exactly what the rich young ruler thought it was about. It’s about the fact that we can’t keep the commandments, and that with God, it is possible for us to be saved.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 8:23 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
The division of mosaic law is a post biblical innovation. Those Jews saw no separation,
Agreed. The article states as much, as well.
quote:
and it may have allowed Christians to assert parts of the law they liked while ignoring parts they didn't
Also agree. “May have,” and certainly “did” and “does” in some cases. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t different laws for different people at different times, and that doesn’t mean that there aren’t laws that apply to all people at all times. The key is not finding out which is which. The key is identifying your motivation for doing so. Is the motivation to figure out how to better love God and one’s neighbors? Or is the motivation to try to rationalize behavior that is inconsistent with the whole of scripture?
quote:
Any accommodations Paul made to Gentiles were often because he thought the world was ending any day and unity was more important.
Can’t think of a better frame of mind to be in, when alerting people to God’s expectations of how He wants us to live.
quote:
At times paul prescribes what are being called ritual and moral law, and then contradicts his prescriptions, suggesting the laws not need be followed,
Now that’s interesting. Provide an exa, and let’s discuss it.
quote:
but at no time delineates moral/civil/ceremonial.
Agree again. But, are there not clear divisions in at least a portion of the 613 laws given in the Old Testament? Is it not beneficial to understand which areas of life certain laws pertain to? What it is about this post-biblical delineation that you take issue with?
Posted on 6/26/24 at 9:40 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
I didn’t think you’d be offended.
I wasn't offended. It's just unpleasant. I'd rather have a respectful conversation
quote:
The Law was not given to Christians
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
I mean exactly what I said. The Law was given to Israel. It is for Jews. Not only do Jews not expect Gentiles to keep the Law, they oppose it. I heard an Orthodox rabbi say once that converts to Judaism are REQUIRED to break the Law once a week before their conversion is complete. It's a symbolic gesture and the violation would not be drastic, like murder or adultery. it's usually something like disturbing the rest of others on the Sabbath by driving down the street in their cars and blowing the horn
quote:
All of the distinctions your website makes about moral law and ceremonial law misses the point and reflects a lack of understanding on their part.
Interesting. What is the point? The articles covered a lot of ground. What did they miss?
They miss that Gentile (Christians) were NEVER under the Law. Jews are STILL under the Law. Jews do not see the Law as Paul saw it, as a curse from which to be delivered. They see it as a blessing; as God's gift to them as the path to a blessed life approved by God. The whole theology about being "freed from the curse of the Law" is strictly Pauline theology. As I have pointed out, not even Jesus agreed with it.
quote:
Are you talking about Jews or Christians? Are we arguing about whether or not Jews are supposed to keep the Mosaic Law, or Christians? I’m certainly not arguing, one way or the other, about whether or not Jews are still required to keep the law.
See my response earlier in this post. Jews are STILL required to keep the Law. Christians were NEVER required to keep it. Paul's argument in Romans that Jesus' death freed us from the curse of the Law is utterly disconnected both from Judaism and from the teachings of Jesus.
quote:
Jesus thought that too. When asked once by a man what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him the path to eternal life was to keep the commandments.
The Young Ruler parable is not about keeping the commandments. Finish the story:
Matthew 19:18–26 (NASB95): 18 Then he ?*said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man ?*said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be ?complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
23 ?And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This parable is not about keeping the commandments, per se. That’s exactly what the rich young ruler thought it was about. It’s about the fact that we can’t keep the commandments, and that with God, it is possible for us to be saved.
A) It's not presented as a parable in Matthew. It's presented as an actual conversation with an actual person
B) Your interpretation is a Christian preacher interpretation that ignores the plain context of the passage. The addition of the "sell all you have" part in the passage makes it personal to that guy because Jesus discerned the guy was greedy, but the CLEAR answer to a CLEAR, unambiguous question of "What must I do to inherit eternal life" was, "Keep the commandments." Jesus said that. You're having trouble seeing that because (unknowingly) you're not defending the Bible; you're defending Christian orthodoxy. There's a difference.
This post was edited on 6/26/24 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 6/26/24 at 10:04 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
So it’s objective not because it is conveyed by God, but because you believe it is?
No. I believe it is because it is conveyed by God.
quote:
So you could be wrong and it’s still be objective.
Yes.
quote:
To clarify, it’s not objective because you’re right, it’s subjective because you think you’re right,
Yes, and no. I’m saying that the truth is objective, but interpretation is subjective. The fact that I think it’s right, is subjective.
quote:
You would likely say that Islam is not right, but In the same way you view morality, a Muslim would think his morality is objective also. Would you agree?
Yes. But, neither of us are right because we say so. A Muslim and a Christian make competing claims about truth and reality. One can be right, both can be wrong, but both cannot be right. I would argue that the Christian worldview more accurately represents reality,
quote:
I think I see your point about interpretation, that they’re all created in the mind, and leads us down some esoteric metaphysical conversation about what can really be known.
Right. And what tends to happen, is prevailing ideologies are those that attract the most support. This doesn’t always that those ideologies are the most accurate representation of the truth. That is why I try to judge the motivations behind ideologies- including my own.
quote:
Some interpretations we feel more confident about that others, feel more certain about.
No doubt.
Some are certainly more clear than others. Some have more biblical support than others. quote:
We know when someone’s really mad at us,
Interesting, isn’t it? How could we know this if there were no objective standard of morality?
quote:
If those things are possible, then it would follow that if God intended to have a relationship with us, there would be no reasonable non-belief. I imagine this is part of the argument of divine hiddenness.
I certainly agree. I think that unbelief is as irrational as a drug addict believing that his addiction is improving his quality of life. The illusion always fails, and reality comes crashing in. It’s just a matter of time. As far as divine hiddenness, I think it has to do with the fact that if God removed the possibility of unbelief, it removes the existence of free will. I’m still trying to figure out free will. It makes sense to me, that we are just n control of our decisions, but I’m unsure about our desires. Are they simply the culmination of prior decisions? Or something else? I feel confident that I’m making decisions, and that I’m responsible for them. I’m not sure exactly where the desires come from though. Am I responsible for the desires? Or am I only responsible for the decisions?
Posted on 6/26/24 at 10:36 pm to L.A.
According to Judaism, a gentle is not required to follow the Mosaic laws. However all gentiles are required to follow the Noahide laws.
1. Idolatry is forbidden.
2. Blasphemy is forbidden.
3. Murder is forbidden.
4. Theft is forbidden.
5. Sexual immortality is forbidden.
6. Eating the flesh of living animals is forbidden.
7. Justice laws.
1. Idolatry is forbidden.
2. Blasphemy is forbidden.
3. Murder is forbidden.
4. Theft is forbidden.
5. Sexual immortality is forbidden.
6. Eating the flesh of living animals is forbidden.
7. Justice laws.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 10:49 pm to dchog
quote:
According to Judaism, a gentle is not required to follow the Mosaic laws. However all gentiles are required to follow the Noahide laws.
Yes, the Noahide Laws are seen as the ancient laws that are the basis of civilized society. They govern morality and represent the “bare minimum” of what God expects of humanity.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 10:56 pm to L.A.
quote:
I wasn't offended. It's just unpleasant. I'd rather have a respectful conversation
Noted. And, again- apologies. I will tailor my conversation style to your liking.
quote:
Not only do Jews not expect Gentiles to keep the Law, they oppose Christians keeping it. I
If they’re to convert to Judaism, as opposed to Christianity, right? I’m not going to argue with that. It makes sense. But, Judaism is not Christianity. I’m only going to argue from a Christian perspective.
quote:
They miss that Gentile (Christians) were NEVER under the Law.
No, they don’t. From the article:
Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin (Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim (moral law).
Christians are not bound by ceremonial law
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments.
When Christ came, He fulfilled the Law and with His death paid the penalty for our breaking it (Galatians 3:24; Romans 10:4).
In no way am I saying that, as Christians, we are under the law. But that doesn’t give us license to freely transgress the law. And it’s nothing less than beneficial to be aware of the law. Not so you don’t break it, but so that you keep it. It’s not supposed to be about what you can’t do. It’s about what you want to do.
quote:
They see it as a blessing; as God's gift to them as the path to a blessed life approved by God.
And it absolutely is a blessing. His gave them 613 ways to live a holy life. I see Jesus Christ as a blessing. I see the grace of God’s gift of salvation as a much more high-yield, sure fire way to eternal security, than my ability to keep the whole of the law.
quote:
The whole theology about being "freed from the curse of the Law" is strictly Pauline theology
I’m sorry, are you talking about Paul the Apostle? Apostle of Jesus Christ? Whose writings are verified as inspired by God- by none other than St. Peter? Where do you get your theology from? There’s a whole genre of people who question St. Paul’s legitimacy. And, using nothing but scripture, these claims are easily dismissed. It always goes back to motivation. What’s your motivation for discounting Paul?
quote:
As I have pointed out, not even Jesus agreed with it.
Please, do it again. I missed it.
quote:
See my response earlier in this post. Jews are STILL required to keep the Law. Christians were NEVER required to keep it.
I agree. Jews are not Christians. Christians are not Jews.
quote:
Paul's argument in Romans the Jesus freed us from the curse of the Law is utterly disconnected both from Judaism and from the teachings of Jesus.
I agree with the first part of this statement. I think we should discuss why I don’t agree with the latter.
quote:
A) It's not presented as a parable in Matthew. It's presented as an actual conversation with an actual person
Noted. Agreed. Thank you for the clarification.
quote:
B) Your interpretation is a Christian preacher
You say that like it’s a bad thing. That’s the best compliment I’ve had on this board since Squirrelmeister once told someone that I wasn’t completely unreasonable (something to that effect).
quote:
interpretation that ignores the plain context of the passage. The addition of the "sell all you have" part in the passage makes it personal to that guy because Jesus discerned the guy was greedy
Right. He was greedy. And being greedy is a symptom of us not loving our neighbors as ourselves.
quote:
but the CLEAR answer to a CLEAR, unambiguous question of "What must I do to inherit eternal life" was, "Keep the commandments." Jesus said that
Well, it’s clear that He said that; but, apparently it’s not clear to one of us why He said it. You don’t seem to agree that Jesus said the one thing that the man didn’t know he was incapable of- until God pointed it out to him. And, that the reason He pointed it out was to reiterate that no one can keep the law, and that salvation is a gift from God. The law is meant to illuminate sin. It can’t deliver you from it. So, please, lay out your biblical case for your position.
quote:
You're having trouble seeing that because (unknowingly) you're not defending the Bible; you're defending Christian orthodoxy. There's a difference.
Well, please clarify that for me. Using the Bible, of course. Are you Jewish? Liberal Christian? Atheist? Seventh Day Adventist? Mormon? What? Where do you get your theology from? Is it based on your subjective interpretation of objective standards? How well does it line up with the whole of scripture? How well does mine? Let’s see.
This post was edited on 6/26/24 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 6/26/24 at 11:10 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
I wasn't offended. It's just unpleasant. I'd rather have a respectful conversation
Noted. And, again- apologies. I will tailor my conversation style to your liking.
Thank you. I will do the same
quote:
The whole theology about being "freed from the curse of the Law" is strictly Pauline theology
I’m sorry, are you talking about Paul the Apostle? Apostle of Jesus Christ? Whose writings are verified as inspired by God- by none other than St. Peter? There’s a whole genre of people who question St. Paul’s legitimacy. And, using nothing but scripture, these claims are easily dismissed. It always goes back to motivation. What’s your motivation for discounting Paul?
Yes, Paul/Saul of Tarsus, apostle of Christ.
I wouldn't say I discounted Paul. I said he does not agree with what Jesus taught. And Paul admits on more than one occasion that he not only never heard Jesus teach, once converted he intentionally avoided the people who DID hear him teach, the disciples of Jesus. He says that he got his theology from visions he received while in the 3rd heaven. That's a problem unless you believe Jesus changed his mind from the time he was on earth to the times, years later, when Paul saw him in his visions.
quote:
As I have pointed out, not even Jesus agreed with it.
Please, do it again. I missed it.
Paul said the Law was a curse and that the death of Jesus freed us from the curse of the Law.
Jesus said the Law was the pathway to eternal life. I quoted the passage from Matthew 19 in an earlier post.
The two views are diametrically opposed.
quote:
You don’t seem to agree that Jesus said the one thing that the man didn’t know he was incapable of- until God pointed it out to him. And, that the reason He pointed it out was to reiterate that no one can keep the law, and that salvation is a gift from God. The law is meant to illuminate sin. It can’t deliver you from it. So, please, lay out your biblical case for your position
I do not agree and I defy you to show me that in the text.
quote:
You're having trouble seeing that because (unknowingly) you're not defending the Bible; you're defending Christian orthodoxy. There's a difference.
Well, please clarify that for me. Using the Bible, of course. Are you Jewish? Liberal Christian? Atheist? Seventh Day Adventist? Mormon? What? Where do you get your theology from? Is it based on your subjective interpretation of objective standards? How well does it line up with the whole of scripture? How well does mine? Let’s see
I've already done it. You're defending orthodoxy, not Scripture, so anything i say that's not orthodox you see as unscriptural.
To answer your question, I am just a person who is deeply, passionately interested in Scripture. Orthodoxy interests me less, although for over 30 years I was quite orthodox. Orthodoxy was developed over a period of centuries. The unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was debated in church councils until the late 7th century. They never did fully agree even then. They just stopped debating. And fwiw I' belong to a Presbyterian church, although I am MUCH more conservative scripturally than my denomination.
This post was edited on 6/27/24 at 1:15 am
Posted on 6/26/24 at 11:24 pm to Seldom Seen
Theology for $100 Alex
Posted on 6/27/24 at 10:38 am to Prodigal Son
Acts 15:22-29 the council that paul was apart of prescribes gentiles to follow several ceremonial OT laws, and contradicts his other pro no old laws sentiment.
It makes sense to further describe and categorize OT laws, but not so much to work those descriptions back into a theology, not unless it benefits you. Putting a modern framework on an ancient culture is dangerous. I believe people are fallible, often irrational, and mostly unconscious of their biases, and more so in the past. I think that this innovation was to preserve an identity to a religion that conflicted with other identity markers.
I imagine Aquanis wanting to remain a Christian and rationalizing away a reason to need women to become pure and not enter the temple because it is Archaic, maybe part of Paul’s motivation as well. It’s possible that Greek/roman gentile culture and had a strong influence on Jesus and Paul’s edicts. They realized that these ancient laws from thousands of years ago at the dawn of civilization, we’re not appropriate. Then Paul creates a theology where Christs death negates abiding by the laws.
There are billions of reason for reasonable non belief as 70% of pop are not exposed to Christianity, or just marginally. People presume that if God is good, then it would follow that he would want a relationship with us, or at least make himself known that he is real. His visibility would not remove free will as there are many believers who still act in their own accord. A parent’s presence does not stop an adolescence from acting in one’s own interest.
There are several ways that we can effectively make decisions and know things without objective morality, and I think Christians use many of these in combination with objective morality, and could have been used by Jesus and Paul.
Cultural Norms and Social Consensus
Consequentialism
Empathy and Compassion
Human Flourishing
Utilitarianism
Legal and Institutional Frameworks
Evolutionary Psychology
Philosophical Constructivism
In the absence of moral objectivity, moral judgments become more subjective and context-dependent, relying on shared human experiences, social agreements, and practical considerations about the consequences of actions. While this can lead to variability in moral standards, it also allows for moral reasoning and ethical development based on human interaction and societal needs.
As far as free will, if we have any, it’s marginal, and that margin is predetermined. ones ability to change on their own is predetermined, and the amount is narrow, and very slightly from one person to the next.
We have tremendous influence upon our decision-making, we can’t control our thoughts, and didn’t even decide to be alive. Our decisions we make today are influenced by decisions we made in the previous seconds minutes hours days weeks years, parents Decisions, grandparents decisions, Genetics, epigenetics, and culture. But I don’t think that bothers people much, they want to know that they are a unique individual, and are OK with the amount of influence as long as it is uniquely their influence.
It makes sense to further describe and categorize OT laws, but not so much to work those descriptions back into a theology, not unless it benefits you. Putting a modern framework on an ancient culture is dangerous. I believe people are fallible, often irrational, and mostly unconscious of their biases, and more so in the past. I think that this innovation was to preserve an identity to a religion that conflicted with other identity markers.
I imagine Aquanis wanting to remain a Christian and rationalizing away a reason to need women to become pure and not enter the temple because it is Archaic, maybe part of Paul’s motivation as well. It’s possible that Greek/roman gentile culture and had a strong influence on Jesus and Paul’s edicts. They realized that these ancient laws from thousands of years ago at the dawn of civilization, we’re not appropriate. Then Paul creates a theology where Christs death negates abiding by the laws.
There are billions of reason for reasonable non belief as 70% of pop are not exposed to Christianity, or just marginally. People presume that if God is good, then it would follow that he would want a relationship with us, or at least make himself known that he is real. His visibility would not remove free will as there are many believers who still act in their own accord. A parent’s presence does not stop an adolescence from acting in one’s own interest.
There are several ways that we can effectively make decisions and know things without objective morality, and I think Christians use many of these in combination with objective morality, and could have been used by Jesus and Paul.
Cultural Norms and Social Consensus
Consequentialism
Empathy and Compassion
Human Flourishing
Utilitarianism
Legal and Institutional Frameworks
Evolutionary Psychology
Philosophical Constructivism
In the absence of moral objectivity, moral judgments become more subjective and context-dependent, relying on shared human experiences, social agreements, and practical considerations about the consequences of actions. While this can lead to variability in moral standards, it also allows for moral reasoning and ethical development based on human interaction and societal needs.
As far as free will, if we have any, it’s marginal, and that margin is predetermined. ones ability to change on their own is predetermined, and the amount is narrow, and very slightly from one person to the next.
We have tremendous influence upon our decision-making, we can’t control our thoughts, and didn’t even decide to be alive. Our decisions we make today are influenced by decisions we made in the previous seconds minutes hours days weeks years, parents Decisions, grandparents decisions, Genetics, epigenetics, and culture. But I don’t think that bothers people much, they want to know that they are a unique individual, and are OK with the amount of influence as long as it is uniquely their influence.
This post was edited on 6/27/24 at 10:46 am
Posted on 6/27/24 at 2:31 pm to L.A.
quote:
I said he does not agree with what Jesus taught.
Can you give me some specific examples?
Posted on 6/27/24 at 6:42 pm to Rust Cohle
This post was edited on 6/27/24 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 6/27/24 at 6:46 pm to L.A.
quote:
I said he does not agree with what Jesus taught.
Umm.... huh?
That would be laughable if I didn't think you were actually being serious.
This post was edited on 6/27/24 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 6/27/24 at 6:48 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Except that I prove over and over that there isn’t any truth about our reality contained within the Bible.
No, actually, you've done nothing of the sort. You may think you have, but you haven't.
Posted on 6/27/24 at 6:51 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
I said he does not agree with what Jesus taught.
Can you give me some specific examples?
I think we're going around in circles.
Thanks for taking the time to chat
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News