Oh, That's Just The Old Testament

[mymistake]

 

 

2 Cor 12:16

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

 

(Color added to emphasize confession.)

 

That was likely meant sarcastically (check out the context). Otherwise, good points.

 

 

 

I consider the larger passage to be evidence of Paul's trouble with his competition.  There are these "super apostles" who are getting in the way.  Yes, you are right it was probably sarcasm rather than a genuine confession.  But the fact that the sarcasm was used indicates Paul was having some problem.  Was he perceived as using trickery?  Was he accused of trickery?  It's hard to say.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

@funguyrye

If you disagree so much how about you provide a simpler explanation that solves all of the apparent contradictions in the Bible.  "It is a work of men" addresses every single problem and renders all of them as expected.  Can you identify any exception?

Understanding the historical context and who the Epistles were being written to helps understanding this.  Paul was writing to a bunch of Jews and Greeks who never had to contend with a bunch of Gentiles entering into the faith.  Paul was writing letters on how the two groups were to live together and while giving the Gentiles time to adopt Torah customs and commandments. 

 

Under law is probably the hugest misunderstood two words in the bible, that has created many, many theologies and unnecessary divisions in the church.  I shudder when I hear pastors try and understand those two words and teach it to their churches.  Makes me mad actually.

 

 

But all those divisions we see are consistent with the idea that the Bible is the word of men.  If God is real then we have to explain why God isn't doing something to prevent all that confusion.

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.  The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such. 

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.  The New Testament isn't new, it was only true.  Christianity said forget about it, and tried something different, and what you see now is a result of Christianity forgetting about the Torah.

 

 

So, Jesus came down to clear up the confusion and hmmmm....we still have confusion. Each denomination saying it has the "correct understanding" but all the others are wrong. Jesus didn't do a very good job clearing up the confusion 2000 years ago. And if you believe he is magically alive today, he isn't doing a good clearing up confusion today either. Maybe cuz he doesn't really exist. Maybe what God tells you is really sorta what you tell yourself.

[Ravenstar]

The Mosaic laws are detailed and clear.. there's no 'misunderstanding' them. They aren't deep, metaphorical or allegorical. They are literal. All 613 of them.

 

It doesn't matter what the Saduccees or Pharisees of the 1st century thought of them.. and though we only have originals of these texts from around maybe 400 BCE… it is crystal clear what they mean and what they expected from the people of the Covenant. You can twist it every which way you want, it can not be read any other way. "This is what you do for this" and "this is what you do for that".. and exactly HOW, WHEN, and WHO is to perform which ritual.. "this is forbidden", this is NOT forbidden" but if you DO the forbidden, this is how you atone for that"..etc, etc, etc… These are personal.. these are group sins, etc, etc, etc,.. every detail of their society is outlined, even down to festivals and how to wash their hands. The unchanging Yahweh has set his HOLY STANDARD for his people in the laws.

 

I don't get how people can try to make excuses for it. It's right there, in black and white. How to treat your slaves, your employees, your wives, your livestock and sacrificial animals, how to treat your neighbours and how to treat your enemies, how to borrow money, or lend it… how to treat your children. It's not rocket science… it's laid out in DETAIL. It's like a "for dummies' manual.

 

Crystal friggin' clear. Yet since earliest times the Hebrews, and now the gentiles, have been trying to make it fit THEIR ideas…(madrash) apologists from the beginning…(because NO ONE could ever live that way - not if they are human) and in my opinion any people who need every detail of their lives laid out in such minute detail are devoid of inner morality anyway. Look at the laws, why would anyone needs laws saying bestiality is wrong, if it wasn't a widespread problem? (really - think about it)

 

 

 

Paul was a lying asshole, a control freak and a cult leader. I'm convinced he created 'christianity' to serve himself. Right up there with Jim Jones.. a religiously deluded narcissist.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

 

2 Cor 12:16

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

 

(Color added to emphasize confession.)

 

That was likely meant sarcastically (check out the context). Otherwise, good points.

 

 

 

I consider the larger passage to be evidence of Paul's trouble with his competition.  There are these "super apostles" who are getting in the way.  Yes, you are right it was probably sarcasm rather than a genuine confession.  But the fact that the sarcasm was used indicates Paul was having some problem.  Was he perceived as using trickery?  Was he accused of trickery?  It's hard to say.

 

 

I agree completely. The sarcasm probably was based on accusations, considering that there obviously were disputes among the early factions of Christianity, just as there are disputes among modern denominations. So much for Jesus' prayer that his followers would be one, huh?

[★ Citsonga ★]

The Mosaic laws are detailed and clear.. there's no 'misunderstanding' them. They aren't deep, metaphorical or allegorical. They are literal. All 613 of them.

 

It doesn't matter what the Saduccees or Pharisees of the 1st century thought of them.. and though we only have originals of these texts from around maybe 400 BCE… it is crystal clear what they mean and what they expected from the people of the Covenant. You can twist it every which way you want, it can not be read any other way. "This is what you do for this" and "this is what you do for that".. and exactly HOW, WHEN, and WHO is to perform which ritual.. "this is forbidden", this is NOT forbidden" but if you DO the forbidden, this is how you atone for that"..etc, etc, etc… These are personal.. these are group sins, etc, etc, etc,.. every detail of their society is outlined, even down to festivals and how to wash their hands. The unchanging Yahweh has set his HOLY STANDARD for his people in the laws.

 

I don't get how people can try to make excuses for it. It's right there, in black and white. How to treat your slaves, your employees, your wives, your livestock and sacrificial animals, how to treat your neighbours and how to treat your enemies, how to borrow money, or lend it… how to treat your children. It's not rocket science… it's laid out in DETAIL. It's like a "for dummies' manual.

 

Crystal friggin' clear. Yet since earliest times the Hebrews, and now the gentiles, have been trying to make it fit THEIR ideas…(madrash) apologists from the beginning…(because NO ONE could ever live that way - not if they are human) and in my opinion any people who need every detail of their lives laid out in such minute detail are devoid of inner morality anyway. Look at the laws, why would anyone needs laws saying bestiality is wrong, if it wasn't a widespread problem? (really - think about it)

 

 

 

Paul was a lying asshole, a control freak and a cult leader. I'm convinced he created 'christianity' to serve himself. Right up there with Jim Jones.. a religiously deluded narcissist.

 

Spot-on!!! I find it both sad and humorous how believers accuse nonbelievers of twisting the Bible when in reality the believers have to constantly twist the obvious meaning of Bible texts in order to attempt to make it appear reasonable. I'm glad I'm no longer caught up in that pathetic nonsense.

[amateur]

 

The Mosaic laws are detailed and clear.. there's no 'misunderstanding' them. They aren't deep, metaphorical or allegorical. They are literal. All 613 of them.

 

It doesn't matter what the Saduccees or Pharisees of the 1st century thought of them.. and though we only have originals of these texts from around maybe 400 BCE… it is crystal clear what they mean and what they expected from the people of the Covenant. You can twist it every which way you want, it can not be read any other way. "This is what you do for this" and "this is what you do for that".. and exactly HOW, WHEN, and WHO is to perform which ritual.. "this is forbidden", this is NOT forbidden" but if you DO the forbidden, this is how you atone for that"..etc, etc, etc… These are personal.. these are group sins, etc, etc, etc,.. every detail of their society is outlined, even down to festivals and how to wash their hands. The unchanging Yahweh has set his HOLY STANDARD for his people in the laws.

 

I don't get how people can try to make excuses for it. It's right there, in black and white. How to treat your slaves, your employees, your wives, your livestock and sacrificial animals, how to treat your neighbours and how to treat your enemies, how to borrow money, or lend it… how to treat your children. It's not rocket science… it's laid out in DETAIL. It's like a "for dummies' manual.

 

Crystal friggin' clear. Yet since earliest times the Hebrews, and now the gentiles, have been trying to make it fit THEIR ideas…(madrash) apologists from the beginning…(because NO ONE could ever live that way - not if they are human) and in my opinion any people who need every detail of their lives laid out in such minute detail are devoid of inner morality anyway. Look at the laws, why would anyone needs laws saying bestiality is wrong, if it wasn't a widespread problem? (really - think about it)

 

 

 

Paul was a lying asshole, a control freak and a cult leader. I'm convinced he created 'christianity' to serve himself. Right up there with Jim Jones.. a religiously deluded narcissist.

 

Spot-on!!! I find it both sad and humorous how believers accuse nonbelievers of twisting the Bible when in reality the believers have to constantly twist the obvious meaning of Bible texts in order to attempt to make it appear reasonable. I'm glad I'm no longer caught up in that pathetic nonsense.

 

Beautiful! 

[centauri]

 

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.

Per the Bible, God is not a man nor a son of man.

A messianic impostor that undermines the law, as Jesus did, is not fulfilling anything except perhaps the warnings Yahweh gave to his people about not being seduced by false teachers.

Jesus undermined the dietary law in Mark 7.

This was pointed out to you before and you ignored it.

 

The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such.

Then Jesus failed because undermining the law, as he did, is corruption.

All foods are not clean.

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.

Paul taught against circumcision, against the food restrictions, and claimed that Jesus was the end of the law.

Paul was also reprimanded for not adhering to the law, so there was indeed confusion.

Paul ended up caving in to the demands of the Jerusalem council.

The law was Paul's competition and it hindered his efforts to gain converts to the new religion.

 

The following translations have the "(thus declared all foods clean)" or a derivative of it:

ASV, AMP, CEB, CJB, CEV, ERV, ESVUK, GW, GNT, HCSB, PHILLIPS, KNOX, MSG, MOUNCE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE, TNIV. These are the translations that don't have the "(thus declared all foods clean)"

KJ21, DARBY, DRA, KJV, NKJV, OJB, WE.

 

I use the Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bible from scripture4all and here is a link to Mark 7 http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar7.pdf

 

As well a link to Mark 7:19 with the concordance numbers with ASV version: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

KJV with the Strongs references: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

 

So there is one version from the ASV that declares all food clean, and the KJV that says "purging all meats". So there are slight translation differences, but for the sake of argument I am not gonna belabor the point whether (all foods are declared clean) as the Interlinear versions I use, do not have that in there.

 

The words "foods" or "meat" has been defined as one being ceremonially allowed or forbidden by the Jewish Law.  Swine or non kosher food was not even considered a food item or a thought as being be able to be consumed. Food of how we define food in our western thought was not the same thought of what food was as a Jew living in Israel living in kosher paradise.

 

As Jesus and the disciples were sitting down to eat a meal in Mark 7 was most definitely conforming to the standards of the biblical dietary laws.

 

As I pointed out repeatedly before, the issue may have started with hand washing, and Jesus could have easily resolved that by saying "you don't have to wash your hands".

He did not leave it at that and went much further by declaring that nothing entering the body through the mouth can defile a person.

Hence, the note in Bibles that Jesus declared all foods clean, which is exactly what he implied.

 

Mark 7:14-19(ESV)

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:

There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,

since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”(Thus he declared all foods clean.)

 

All foods are not clean and some things entering the body can defile a person.

You're trying to deflect the false teaching by claiming it only applied to hand washing when it clearly went further than that.

Paul echoes the same doctrine and the theme is again expressed in Acts with Peter.

This is a Christian teaching and it stands in violation of the law.

 

The Pharisees were incorrectly distinguishing what was clean and unclean by their own man made commandments, and telling the Jews they have sinned if they didn't follow instructions such as the handwashing as that video showed. It was never the Law that the Lord spoke to Moses that Jesus changed or spoke against, it was the man made traditions that circumvented the commandments of God and placed those ahead of God's commandments.

Jesus declared that nothing entering the body could defile it.

That is a false statement.

He cooked his own goose with his absolutist statement.

If you can find a verse where Jesus recants and only says "you don't have to wash your hands", I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, you're employing the apologetic that he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Paul was probably the most ardent defender and teacher of the Torah.

Really????

Is that why he undermined the dietary restrictions, scorned circumcision, promoted flexible holidays, and had to be reprimanded for not teaching according to it?

 

These are not the words of a man who defends and teaches the law:

 

Eph 2:13-16(ESV)

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

 

Paul was promoting a new religion where faith in a human sacrifice replaced the need to devote oneself to the law.

It's utter heresy, contradicting the formula for gentiles being accepted into God's fold (Isa 56), and contradicting Psa 119, where the law is declared the avenue to salvation.

 

More heresy from Paul:

Roman 10:4(ESV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

It directly contradicts Psa 119, where salvation and righteousness is found in the law, not through faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Psa 119:155(ESV)

Salvation is far from the wicked, for they do not seek your statutes.

 

There are no instructions in Psa 119 to seek Jesus for salvation, or any hint that God would toss out his system and replace it with an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Doing away with cumbersome regulations and circumcision certainly would have appealed to gentiles, but such changes are not endorsed in the Old Testament.

 

[mymistake]

FGR is just going to ignore all that and cherry pick Bible verses he likes.

[Guest ThereIsNoGod]

One of the things I hate most about Christianity is the fact that it rips off material created by Hebrew/Jewish writers without giving much credit to them. I think most Christians' respect of the Jewish scriptures amounts to "The Prophets foretell Jesus's coming, Jesus' acts abolished SOME OF the OT laws and their consequences". Is there really any respect for the depth and history behind the OT scriptures? Has a Christian ever started to sympathize with the Jewish people in the Gospels who could not see how Jesus could possibly be fulfilling prophecies made in their scriptures? Let's face it though. Studying the OT would just be too much of a challenge for many Christians. Reading about all the barbaric acts carried out by races of old, including "Yahweh's people" the Hebrews and their descendants and asking themselves "Is this the God Jesus worshiped? Is this really the God I am worshiping today?".  Ignoring the Old Testament makes it easier for a Christian to be a Christian. It's not hard to understand how that works. But the thing is, it really hurts their credibility when they simply refuse to study and acknowledge the origins of their religion. I had a friend Nathaniel once who was a fairly devout Christian in his own way, but he had a lot more respect for and understanding of Jews than the average Christian does. He in fact told me that he thinks Jews still have a better understanding of the OT than Christians do. I havn't seen this guy in ages but if he is still a Christian, it would be nice to know that he was encouraging other Christians to have the same attitude towards Jews and the OT that he has.

[Gamecock1973]

 

 

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.

Per the Bible, God is not a man nor a son of man.

A messianic impostor that undermines the law, as Jesus did, is not fulfilling anything except perhaps the warnings Yahweh gave to his people about not being seduced by false teachers.

Jesus undermined the dietary law in Mark 7.

This was pointed out to you before and you ignored it.

 

The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such.

Then Jesus failed because undermining the law, as he did, is corruption.

All foods are not clean.

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.

Paul taught against circumcision, against the food restrictions, and claimed that Jesus was the end of the law.

Paul was also reprimanded for not adhering to the law, so there was indeed confusion.

Paul ended up caving in to the demands of the Jerusalem council.

The law was Paul's competition and it hindered his efforts to gain converts to the new religion.

 

The following translations have the "(thus declared all foods clean)" or a derivative of it:

ASV, AMP, CEB, CJB, CEV, ERV, ESVUK, GW, GNT, HCSB, PHILLIPS, KNOX, MSG, MOUNCE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE, TNIV. These are the translations that don't have the "(thus declared all foods clean)"

KJ21, DARBY, DRA, KJV, NKJV, OJB, WE.

 

I use the Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bible from scripture4all and here is a link to Mark 7 http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar7.pdf

 

As well a link to Mark 7:19 with the concordance numbers with ASV version: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

KJV with the Strongs references: http://studybible.info/ASV_Strongs/Mark 7:19

 

So there is one version from the ASV that declares all food clean, and the KJV that says "purging all meats". So there are slight translation differences, but for the sake of argument I am not gonna belabor the point whether (all foods are declared clean) as the Interlinear versions I use, do not have that in there.

 

The words "foods" or "meat" has been defined as one being ceremonially allowed or forbidden by the Jewish Law.  Swine or non kosher food was not even considered a food item or a thought as being be able to be consumed. Food of how we define food in our western thought was not the same thought of what food was as a Jew living in Israel living in kosher paradise.

 

As Jesus and the disciples were sitting down to eat a meal in Mark 7 was most definitely conforming to the standards of the biblical dietary laws.

 

As I pointed out repeatedly before, the issue may have started with hand washing, and Jesus could have easily resolved that by saying "you don't have to wash your hands".

He did not leave it at that and went much further by declaring that nothing entering the body through the mouth can defile a person.

Hence, the note in Bibles that Jesus declared all foods clean, which is exactly what he implied.

 

Mark 7:14-19(ESV)

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:

There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,

since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”(Thus he declared all foods clean.)

 

All foods are not clean and some things entering the body can defile a person.

You're trying to deflect the false teaching by claiming it only applied to hand washing when it clearly went further than that.

Paul echoes the same doctrine and the theme is again expressed in Acts with Peter.

This is a Christian teaching and it stands in violation of the law.

 

The Pharisees were incorrectly distinguishing what was clean and unclean by their own man made commandments, and telling the Jews they have sinned if they didn't follow instructions such as the handwashing as that video showed. It was never the Law that the Lord spoke to Moses that Jesus changed or spoke against, it was the man made traditions that circumvented the commandments of God and placed those ahead of God's commandments.

Jesus declared that nothing entering the body could defile it.

That is a false statement.

He cooked his own goose with his absolutist statement.

If you can find a verse where Jesus recants and only says "you don't have to wash your hands", I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, you're employing the apologetic that he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Paul was probably the most ardent defender and teacher of the Torah.

Really????

Is that why he undermined the dietary restrictions, scorned circumcision, promoted flexible holidays, and had to be reprimanded for not teaching according to it?

 

These are not the words of a man who defends and teaches the law:

 

Eph 2:13-16(ESV)

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

 

Paul was promoting a new religion where faith in a human sacrifice replaced the need to devote oneself to the law.

It's utter heresy, contradicting the formula for gentiles being accepted into God's fold (Isa 56), and contradicting Psa 119, where the law is declared the avenue to salvation.

 

More heresy from Paul:

Roman 10:4(ESV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

It directly contradicts Psa 119, where salvation and righteousness is found in the law, not through faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Psa 119:155(ESV)

Salvation is far from the wicked, for they do not seek your statutes.

 

There are no instructions in Psa 119 to seek Jesus for salvation, or any hint that God would toss out his system and replace it with an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Doing away with cumbersome regulations and circumcision certainly would have appealed to gentiles, but such changes are not endorsed in the Old Testament.

 

 

Agree 100%.  

 

It's utterly ridiculous to claim Paul was an ardent defender and teacher of the Torah.  There was a reason everywhere he went in the book of Acts Jews were trying to kill him for blasphemy.  Because what Paul was teaching WAS blasphemy and obviously contrary to the Law.  It is also the reason Pauline Xtianity was successful and the Jerusalem Jewish version the other 12 apostles were teaching faded into utter obscurity in history.  The Jews rejected this new religion, not because "their hearts were hardened," but besides setting aside the Law, such beliefs and practices such as virgin births, hell, water baptism, human blood atonement, a communal meal of bread and wine, worship on SUNday, etc were NOT JEWISH IN THE LEAST.  Any Jew of that day would have recognized such ideas as being stolen from the pagan mystery religions ALL AROUND THEM.  Of course they rejected this new gospel.

 

Initially, Paul's message succeed ONCE it was taken to gentiles, in an age when most believers were illiterate. Most of his followers would have just heard the letters read in church, not studied them, and even the literate Gentiles wouldn't have had much knowledge of Judaism .  His theology and quotes of the Old Testament wouldn't have been checked, as they were by the Jewish scholars in Jerusalem (where he was run out!).  Paul kept boasting about his credentials as an expert of the Law (almost to the point of obvious insecurity), and for most of his Gentile followers, he was the closest to an expert they would ever meet.  Of course they just took his word for it!

[centauri]

 

It's utterly ridiculous to claim Paul was an ardent defender and teacher of the Torah.  There was a reason everywhere he went in the book of Acts Jews were trying to kill him for blasphemy.  Because what Paul was teaching WAS blasphemy and obviously contrary to the Law.  It is also the reason Pauline Xtianity was successful and the Jerusalem Jewish version the other 12 apostles were teaching faded into utter obscurity in history.  The Jews rejected this new religion, not because "their hearts were hardened," but besides setting aside the Law, such beliefs and practices such as virgin births, hell, water baptism, human blood atonement, a communal meal of bread and wine, worship on SUNday, etc were NOT JEWISH IN THE LEAST.  Any Jew of that day would have recognized such ideas as being stolen from the pagan mystery religions ALL AROUND THEM.  Of course they rejected this new gospel.

 

Initially, Paul's message succeed ONCE it was taken to gentiles, in an age when most believers were illiterate. Most of his followers would have just heard the letters read in church, not studied them, and even the literate Gentiles wouldn't have had much knowledge of Judaism .  His theology and quotes of the Old Testament wouldn't have been checked, as they were by the Jewish scholars in Jerusalem (where he was run out!).  Paul kept boasting about his credentials as an expert of the Law (almost to the point of obvious insecurity), and for most of his Gentile followers, he was the closest to an expert they would ever meet.  Of course they just took his word for it!

Nice summary here.

The claim about Paul being an ardent defender and teacher of Torah is so absurd, one has to wonder what drugs a person must be on to write such a thing.

I've encountered these types of believers before and they live in a state of complete denial.

[RipVanWinkle]

"FGR is just going to ignore all that and cherry pick Bible verses he likes." mymistake

 

It's more than just cherry picking. If he doesn't like what the OT says, he merely changes its

interpretation to say what he wants it to say, irrespective of its plain meaning. That's what is so

infuriating. bill

[mymistake]

 

OK, let's get logical here for a sec.  Peter, who walked, talked and was taught by Rabbi Jesus, would have heard this teaching and if Jesus intended to change the law and contradict the law, then the Pharisees would have cried blasphemous and would have stoned him on the spot.  Remember, they were trying to trap him anyway they could and were looking for opportunities to do so any way they could.

 

 

 

 

You are not getting logical.  In order to get logical you would have to realize that you have offered no reason at all to believe any of it happened.  The burden is on the believers to demonstrate that Peter existed, that Jesus existed and that these events happened.  Until you do that the logical thing to do is doubt it.  And no, just to give you a clue, quoting Bible verses is not evidence that your beliefs are true.  If you want to be logical then cough up objective evidence.  If you want to stay in the realm of pure faith then don't pretend you are being logical.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

 

@funguyrye

If you disagree so much how about you provide a simpler explanation that solves all of the apparent contradictions in the Bible.  "It is a work of men" addresses every single problem and renders all of them as expected.  Can you identify any exception?

Understanding the historical context and who the Epistles were being written to helps understanding this.  Paul was writing to a bunch of Jews and Greeks who never had to contend with a bunch of Gentiles entering into the faith.  Paul was writing letters on how the two groups were to live together and while giving the Gentiles time to adopt Torah customs and commandments. 

 

Under law is probably the hugest misunderstood two words in the bible, that has created many, many theologies and unnecessary divisions in the church.  I shudder when I hear pastors try and understand those two words and teach it to their churches.  Makes me mad actually.

 

 

But all those divisions we see are consistent with the idea that the Bible is the word of men.  If God is real then we have to explain why God isn't doing something to prevent all that confusion.

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.  The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such. 

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.  The New Testament isn't new, it was only true.  Christianity said forget about it, and tried something different, and what you see now is a result of Christianity forgetting about the Torah.

 

 

So, Jesus came down to clear up the confusion and hmmmm....we still have confusion. Each denomination saying it has the "correct understanding" but all the others are wrong. Jesus didn't do a very good job clearing up the confusion 2000 years ago. And if you believe he is magically alive today, he isn't doing a good clearing up confusion today either. Maybe cuz he doesn't really exist. Maybe what God tells you is really sorta what you tell yourself.

 

When Jesus said in Matthew 5 do not think I have come to destroy the Torah, it is a Jewish idiom for incorrectly interpreting the Torah.  The doctrine of the Pharisee's were so legalistic, it was essentially the false message.  As Torah scrolls were not in every home, the people relied on the teachers of the Torah to teach it so they had nothing else to believe but according to their interpretation.  So the people were absolutely amazed when Jesus healed and did other things the Pharisees told the people not to do on the Sabbath.

 

 

Is Jesus a book, or is Jesus the almighty Lord that could easily place the one true correct understanding in everyone's mind? Guess, he's just a book. The various denominations of Christianity all believe something somewhat differently which is the reason for their splitting off from some larger group. Christians do not agreee with each other, hence the little booklets you find in the fundy Christian bookstore belittling the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholics and other denominations who all believe in Jesus, but slightly differently. Jesus didn't do anything to fix any of this confusion which is going on NOW. Apparently Jesus doesn't want his flock to be of one accord. Or he doesn't exist.

[centauri]

 

 

As I pointed out repeatedly before, the issue may have started with hand washing, and Jesus could have easily resolved that by saying "you don't have to wash your hands".

He did not leave it at that and went much further by declaring that nothing entering the body through the mouth can defile a person.

Hence, the note in Bibles that Jesus declared all foods clean, which is exactly what he implied.

 

Mark 7:14-19(ESV)

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:

There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,

since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”(Thus he declared all foods clean.)

 

All foods are not clean and some things entering the body can defile a person.

You're trying to deflect the false teaching by claiming it only applied to hand washing when it clearly went further than that.

Paul echoes the same doctrine and the theme is again expressed in Acts with Peter.

This is a Christian teaching and it stands in violation of the law.

 

OK, let's get logical here for a sec.  Peter, who walked, talked and was taught by Rabbi Jesus, would have heard this teaching and if Jesus intended to change the law and contradict the law, then the Pharisees would have cried blasphemous and would have stoned him on the spot.  Remember, they were trying to trap him anyway they could and were looking for opportunities to do so any way they could.

 

Peter's vision implied that all foods were clean.

Peter then appeals to the authority of "God" for changing the rules.

 

^{Matthew 22:15} Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. ¹⁶ And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. (NASB)

So then, if it was about food, Peter didn't get the email later in Acts how many years later when the vision said "kill and eat" several times and Peter responded never have I ever eaten anything unclean.  So when Jesus supposedly said bald eagle is now on the menu, to when Peter was given that vision, he was appalled God would ask him to do such a thing.  But Peter later talks about what the true meaning of the vision was about.

 

 

Acts 10:28

And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

 

The central theme of unclean vs. clean is present in this vision just as I wrote earlier.

The message is that the rules have been changed.

Where in the OT does God state that the rules will change regarding clean and unclean food?

[centauri]

 

 

These are not the words of a man who defends and teaches the law:

 

Eph 2:13-16(ESV)

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

There was a sign erected by the Jews in the temple era that said essentially uncircumcised Gentiles had to stay out  by fear of death.  That was the dividing wall of hostility as this is talking about Gentiles coming into the Covenant with the GOd of Israel.  It further says Gentiles are partakers and co-heirs of the promises made to Israel.

 

Gentiles certainly don't share in the promises made to Israel if they do not adopt the covenant.

Faith in an illegal human sacrifice isn't the way to be part of God's fold.

Recognizing and observing the law is the way.

If they do that, they'll be accepted.

 

centauri:

Paul was promoting a new religion where faith in a human sacrifice replaced the need to devote oneself to the law.

It's utter heresy, contradicting the formula for gentiles being accepted into God's fold (Isa 56), and contradicting Psa 119, where the law is declared the avenue to salvation.

 

funguyrye:

Following the Torah was never meant to merit or gain ones salvation.  It was meant to be a walk of life for a redeemed person to follow so all will go well with them and they could be blessed. 

Really?

Repenting and following the law was indeed the path to salvation as Psa 119:155 proves.

Further confirmation is found in Ezek 18:20-27, where doing what is right will save your soul.

Where do you see Jesus in Psa 119 or Ezek 18????

 

centauri:

More heresy from Paul:

Roman 10:4(ESV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

funguyrye:

The word end is telos in Greek and actually has a meaning of goal to is.  The word end was put in as a biasby  the translators so they could represent Paul as teaching as one who did away with Torah. 

There isn't any translation I've seen that doesn't have Paul attempting to downplay the law in favor of his human sacrifice based religion.

In other words, Paul is saying faith in Jesus has replaced the law.

 

centauri:

It directly contradicts Psa 119, where salvation and righteousness is found in the law, not through faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Psa 119:155(ESV)

Salvation is far from the wicked, for they do not seek your statutes.

 

There are no instructions in Psa 119 to seek Jesus for salvation, or any hint that God would toss out his system and replace it with an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Doing away with cumbersome regulations and circumcision certainly would have appealed to gentiles, but such changes are not endorsed in the Old Testament.

 

funguyrye:

Faith and being born again was in the Torah.  It was always about having faith in God could one be saved.  Psalm 119:155 is contrasting the righteous from the unrighteous.  A wicked person would have no desire to seek salvation, nevermind wanting to live by God's ways.  Imagine if Hitler imposed the Shabbat?  Or the Year of Jubilee?  Preposterous isn't it?  So Hitler could not possibly ever seek his statutes.

Hitler was brought up as Christian, so no, I would not expect him to have much interest in God's law.

That's the point, Christians do not seek the law, they seek a substitute.

 

Psa 119:155 is making it clear that the wicked do not seek the law, and such disregard disqualifies them from salvation.

Faith in God requires that you comply with his instructions, which are to follow the law.

Psa 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it's devoted to the glory and salvation found in God's law.

It says nothing about needing to believe in Jesus or any other human sacrifice.

Christianity revised the system and then claimed God changed his rules as part of some bizarre plan.

[WaitingInfinity]

Jesus was just one of those radical people who broke the Law because he felt parts of it were unjust. Then he was deified.

[RogueScholar]

It's not a bizarre plan at all.

 

 

Yeah, ok, it's pretty damn bizarre.

[mymistake]

I see your DM2525 and I raise ya two NSC

 

 

 

[centauri]

 

 

The central theme of unclean vs. clean is present in this vision just as I wrote earlier.

The message is that the rules have been changed.

Where in the OT does God state that the rules will change regarding clean and unclean food?

Nowhere does it say the rules will change regarding food. 

 

Acts 10:13 "A voice came to him, Get up, Peter, kill and eat!

 

Kill and eat is a Hebrew concept of going up to Jerusalem of going to make "aliyah" and make a sacrifice. The Greek says "thusia kai phago" meaning go to sacrifice and eat. Make a sacrifice to the Lord and eat and partake of the sacrifice as this was protocol (depending on the sacrifice) such as in Leviticus 7:15 "Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning" However, there was a problem and we need to understand the concept and the difference of one being unholy and holy versus unclean and clean which there is a big difference before going any further.

Unholy or common, or koinos in Greek, can also be used as ritually impure, profane, unhallowed and unable to offer to the Lord in the state that it was in. But, what was unholy could be rendered holy and permissible to be offered to the Lord. So a clean animal (such as a lamb) could be rendered as unholy or impure if it came into contact with an unclean animal such as swine as stated in Leviticus 7:21 "When anyone touches anything unclean, whether human uncleanness, or an unclean animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people." Just being in direct contact with something "unclean" can render a "clean" animal "common" or "impure." The opposite of common, comes the Hebrew word "tahor" which means pure, ceremonially clean, morally and ethically clean.

 

Jesus changed the rules in Mark 7 and Paul also changed them.

You've already denied that Jesus meant what the scripture clearly states.

Either you believe the scripture or you don't.

You've indicated that you do not believe the scripture.

In essence, you've written your own Bible.

 

Now an unclean animal such as swine, could never be made clean and be ritually pure or ceremonially clean to be offered to the Lord. No matter how "holy" we try to make it, a pig is still a pig. In Greek it is "akathartos" which is "unclean."

 

Acts 10:14 " But Peter said, By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy [common] and unclean.

So now knowing unholy means a clean animal that has come into contact with something unclean. Peter here has expressed there is a difference between what is common and unclean. In verse 13 "and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air" Peter said there were all "kinds" meaning there were animals that were both clean and unclean. However, the clean animals were in contact with the unclean animals. Hence, making the clean animals "common" or "unholy." If there weren't any clean animals, he would have surely said I have never eaten anything that was unclean. But he didn't. He was differentiating that the clean animals were now "common" as they were in contact with the unclean animals. Peter had never eaten a clean animal that was "unholy or common," nor an unclean animal such as a swine. Following along?

I'm following that you are going to great lengths to deny what Jesus stated in Mark 7.

The theme of Acts 10 was that God changed the rules, using unclean animals as examples in a vision.

 

Acts 10:15 "Again a voice came to him a second time, What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.

This is the kicker here now. The voice clearly said what God has cleansed, no longer consider "unholy". This was repeated twice. We already know an unclean animal cannot be considered to be made clean, or be in a state or ritual purity. God specifically did not say "unclean." If he said "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy and unclean" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. He only pointed out what was "unholy" as it had the possibility of being made "tahor" or being made pure again. To state otherwise would be an impossibility as that would be God going against his Word, which I know is unbreakable and never changing. He cannot change his mind. Period.

But he did change his mind.

Jesus and Paul changed the food law to include all foods as clean.

That's change.

There were other changes as well.

According to Christianity he scraped his old system, and came up with a new one that uses a human sacrifice to provide salvation.

That human sacrifice itself is illegal according to God's unchanging law.

You're trying to claim God doesn't change his unbreakable word, yet ignoring that Christianity does change it.

 

Now this was Peter's problem. His problem was the thinking at that time that a Gentile was "unclean" and without hope of having eternal life because unclean creatures can never be clean. So to explain some of the epistles, the Jews believed erroneously that a Gentile must convert to being Jewish so they could be made "clean" and then being able to obtain eternal life. God was telling Peter the 3 Gentiles were not to be considered "unclean" but rather likened to "clean animals" which were made "unholy or common" by paganism and an unbelief in Jesus. However, belief in Jesus can make what was "unholy or common," now "holy." This is why Peter concludes that he is never to call any man no matter how defiled with paganism they are, as being "unclean." He was taught to call them as being "unholy or common" but being able to be made clean again by faith in Jesus.

The Jews were not in error regarding how gentiles could be accepted by God.

Isaiah spelled it out quite clearly in Isa 56.

Nowhere in that passage does it say anything about needing to believe in Jesus.

Gentiles are to adopt the same covenant as the Jews.

Believing in a vicarious pagan sacrifice doesn't do a gentile a bit of good.

[centauri]

 

centauri:

Gentiles certainly don't share in the promises made to Israel if they do not adopt the covenant.

Yes, you are right.

 

centauri:

Faith in an illegal human sacrifice isn't the way to be part of God's fold.

 

funguyrye:

Is it morally right for an adult to take a substitutionary role:

• by paying the parking ticket for someone
• by paying someone's personal debts
• by getting accidentally hit in trying to break up a fight
• by contracting a highly-contagious fatal disease during caring for someone dying of that disease
• by being killed by a car, after pushing a child out of the street to safety
• by being hit with a sniper's bullet, while attempting to shield the President from gunfire (e.g. Secret Service agents)

We normally do not consider these cases of self-sacrifice to be immoral--indeed, we typically praise these actions.  Beginning in Genesis 3:15 is the promise of the Messiah that would bare the stripes for us. 

Recognizing and observing the law is the way.

If they do that, they'll be accepted.

 

There is no messiah mentioned in Gen 3:15.

It's a statement that serpents and humans would not get along.

God's law does not allow for a vicarious human sacrifice to atone for the sin of anyone.

Each person will die for their own sin and can save themselves through proper action, which means repenting and keeping the law.

 

Ezek 18:20-27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

The recipe for salvation is to save yourself through proper actions.

 

centauri:

Paul was promoting a new religion where faith in a human sacrifice replaced the need to devote oneself to the law.

It's utter heresy, contradicting the formula for gentiles being accepted into God's fold (Isa 56), and contradicting Psa 119, where the law is declared the avenue to salvation.

 

funguyrye:

Following the Torah was never meant to merit or gain ones salvation.  It was meant to be a walk of life for a redeemed person to follow so all will go well with them and they could be blessed. 

 

centauri:

Really?

Repenting and following the law was indeed the path to salvation as Psa 119:155 proves.

Further confirmation is found in Ezek 18:20-27, where doing what is right will save your soul.

I was speaking of one trying to merit their salvation by works.  That is impossible.  How could someone repent and follow the Torah if they were not already redeemed?  Repentance could only be sought by the person who had already been redeemed.  That is why repentance means to turn back to where one came from.  How can a person who isn't redeemed, be able to repent when they have never been able to turn back to the good path because they were never on it? 

Gentiles qualify for the same salvation as Jews if they adopt the same covenant.

Their work of conforming to God's law will save them and they'll be accepted.

 

Where do you see Jesus in Psa 119 or Ezek 18????

Everywhere where the word salvation is there, that is Jesus's Hebrew name, Yeshua. 

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier.

You have a Jesus fetish.

You want to see Jesus everywhere, even though there is no application of Jesus to these verses.

[centauri]

 

 

centauri:

More heresy from Paul:

Roman 10:4(ESV)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

The word end is telos in Greek and actually has a meaning of goal to is.  The word end was put in as a biasby  the translators so they could represent Paul as teaching as one who did away with Torah. 

 

It directly contradicts Psa 119, where salvation and righteousness is found in the law, not through faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Psa 119:155(ESV)

Salvation is far from the wicked, for they do not seek your statutes.

 

There are no instructions in Psa 119 to seek Jesus for salvation, or any hint that God would toss out his system and replace it with an illegal human sacrifice.

 

Doing away with cumbersome regulations and circumcision certainly would have appealed to gentiles, but such changes are not endorsed in the Old Testament.

 

funguyrye:

Faith and being born again was in the Torah.  It was always about having faith in God could one be saved.  Psalm 119:155 is contrasting the righteous from the unrighteous.  A wicked person would have no desire to seek salvation, nevermind wanting to live by God's ways.  Imagine if Hitler imposed the Shabbat?  Or the Year of Jubilee?  Preposterous isn't it?  So Hitler could not possibly ever seek his statutes.

Hitler was brought up as Christian, so no, I would not expect him to have much interest in God's law.

That's the point, Christians do not seek the law, they seek a substitute.

 

Psa 119:155 is making it clear that the wicked do not seek the law, and such disregard disqualifies them from salvation.

Faith in God requires that you comply with his instructions, which are to follow the law.

See above, but once one has been redeemed, they are free to go onto Mt. Sinai to see the instructions on how we are to live our lives.  We are not perfect, that is why we need that redeemer because it is impossible for us to be perfect. 

 

You are not required to be perfect.

If you have done wrong then repent and keep the law.

None of your past sins will be held against you.

There is no human sacrifice redeemer needed and such a creature would violate the very law God wants people to observe.

 

Psa 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it's devoted to the glory and salvation found in God's law.

It says nothing about needing to believe in Jesus or any other human sacrifice.

It pointed to the glory in the Torah that salvation was to come from his Torah as Jesus was the word made flesh.  He was the walking Torah which is so offensive for some reason to many Christians. 

There is nothing in the Torah that says it would require faith in a human sacrifice to be saved.

Jesus did not conform to the regulations of the Torah, nor could he be a valid sin sacrifice. 

[miekko]

 

Where do you see Jesus in Psa 119 or Ezek 18????

Everywhere where the word salvation is there, that is Jesus's Hebrew name, Yeshua. 

This is eactly what I mentioned earlier.

You have a Jesus fetish.

You want to see Jesus everywhere, even though there is no application of Jesus to these verses.

 

My particular favorite is אַל־תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים בְּבֶן־אָדָם שֶׁאֵֽין לֹו תְשׁוּעָֽה׃ - do not put your trust in princes, in a son of man there is no salvation. And yes, salvation there is from the same root as Yeshua.

[centauri]

 

 

Where do you see Jesus in Psa 119 or Ezek 18????

Everywhere where the word salvation is there, that is Jesus's Hebrew name, Yeshua. 

This is eactly what I mentioned earlier.

You have a Jesus fetish.

You want to see Jesus everywhere, even though there is no application of Jesus to these verses.

 

My particular favorite is אַל־תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים בְּבֶן־אָדָם שֶׁאֵֽין לֹו תְשׁוּעָֽה׃ - do not put your trust in princes, in a son of man there is no salvation. And yes, salvation there is from the same root as Yeshua.

 

Nice example.

[mymistake]

 

Not really.  It means do not put your trust in men to warrant your salvation.  Pretty simple the context here.

 

 

 

Except that the ignorant Greek and Roman authors didn't know about it so when they wrote the gospels stories they had Jesus call himself "the Son of Man".