Jesus Loves You

[b&wpac4]

This is bogus. Saul was a Jew. He studied under one of the most prominent Rabbis of the time.

Based on his writings, he wasn't a very good student since he came away with the flawed idea that one should be perfected by keeping the Law.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Jane_the_Bane

Everything is equally significant. That still doesn't render cosmic importance to our (as per the Bible) "sinful" appetite for bacon or shrimp cocktail.

Surely if the actual creation is significant, so should be any actions and consequences exhibited by that creation. Wouldn't that be a sound logical deduction?

Your example is not a good example of the real problem with mankind. It is not the bacon and shrimp, but sin. Those were restrictions placed upon only one set of people who coincidentally were separated from everyone else for a specific purpose. We are not even talking about the entirety of mankind when you bring up the bacon and shrimp issue. It was important to God to bring about revelation via this oracle (Israel); so, that is all that matters. You are the one who is putting the labels on stuff and then tearing down the paradigm. That looks like a strawman to me.

Even before those restrictions on Israel, there were already standard laws such as the Noahide laws and the Ten Commandments which apply to all humans. None of those laws involved such detail as what cloth to wear or what specific foods one couldn't eat, but for a few exceptions involved in worship.

I've always found that whenever the religious community contested a scientific discovery, such as heliocentrism, the age of the world or evolution, it wasn't because these discoveries belittled God - it was because these discoveries took away from the supreme importance of Man.

I don't really think that you can substantiate this conclusion of yours. It sounds like a stretch of your imagination to prove a point. Care to substantiate this?

Man, the bridge between the heavens and the earth. Man, living at the very centre of a universe that revolved around him. Man, God's physical and/or spiritual likeness (depending on your individual believer's take on the matter).

The image of man in relation to God is not physical; neither is it essentially spiritual; for it is also neither. There exist consciousness, emotions, thoughts, intelligence, etc. that are both non material and non spiritual.

I don't mind giving a potential deity its due.

But this deity that Christians worship created us and holds us accountable for what we do and don't do; so, it is hardly the case that we are just going to appease Him on occasion so that we can feel so proud of ourselves that we gave Him a little showtime. You are really lost in the sauce, I fear, when it comes to depicting a Christian perspective. This looks to me like you would be attempting to get brownie points with your deity for your efforts. What I see you doing is judging the deity instead of the deity judging you.

What I do mind is the pompous obsession with ourselves that's so common in Christianity and its illegitimate children, such as humanism, communism or what-have-you.

I don't think that this is entirely true by a long stretch, but you must admit that your post wreaks of those adjectives too. Could you be talking about yourself at the same time?

Why should it be?

Because sin separates us from God, who is sinless. You should be able to deduce that sinless does not mingle with sinful and still remains sinless, or shall I say, uncorrupted by contact. Our communion was broken with God when man first sinned; so, that is why Jesus purposed to save us to eventually restore us to our pristine state before God.

And how do you "reject God" to begin with?

By sinning. That is Christianity 101, which I would have expected you to know. Sin is unholy in God's eyes. Before sin, man had a perfect relationship with God and was in direct and perfect communion with Him. At that time, there was no problem. Man's ego was in check and his spirit free from corruption. Those issues that you have brought up were non issues at the beginning of humanity. To reject God, one does not have to make some concerted effort because rejecting the signs that God gives is enough to show a rebellious heart. Sin is ultimately a spiritual thing that manifests itself in the physical realm sometimes. I think that you probably don't consider sin since it is also a non physical concept. I am assuming that you are a materialist.

It's not as if we could break the "laws" of nature.

But we could defile nature itself, which renders the creation defiled in the process. The Bible indicates that both man and nature became corrupt upon man's sins. The perfect world became subjected to imperfection. That is one of the reasons that we see war, strife, and evils exhibited in God's creation.

Even our most creative acts fall strictly within the domain of the naturally possible - and thus, within whatever boundaries are placed upon us by what you'll call "creation".

As I stated directly above, sin changed the ball game completely. With the spiritual corruption caused by sin, man found it easy to do the very things that God had forbidden such as murder, steal, lie, etc. We went outside of our intended purpose(s) by rejecting what was good in God's eyes. The corruption of our spirit by sin opened our minds to evil.

...while simultaneously KNOWING that each and every human being will fail to meet His standards, because, well, we're human - not divine.

It is no different that when a parent knows that the child will break a rule; yet, the parent has to give the child the opportunity to break the rule; otherwise, the parent would have to take away the free will the child naturally exhibits. Would you rather the parent(s) lock the child up so that the child can't break the rule? Even worse, having some way of preventing the child of even thinking of breaking the rule? What would be your remedy? If you say, you wouldn't have birthed the child, then you would only be facing another dilemma of preventing yourself from performing a natural process that would be void of any wrongs, or shall I say sins. God, as the parent, holds us accountable for what we are freely open to do against His will, just as the natural parent does.

As for integrity and moral standards: I find that an actual evaluation of cultural codes and the ethical dimensions of any given situation make for a much greater degree of integrity than appealing to some hypothetical supernatural authority.

Your bias is evident; so, I can't expect you to understand until you become a more objective evaluator. There is nothing hypothetical about God. Since you don't see any evidence for a god, you conclude that there isn't, and all of us who do believe are somehow not too bright or are delusional. I have a feeling that you have a materialistic view of life; so, anything that goes outside of your paradigm must be untrue by default.

Now, if we use your relativistic view of morals and integrity, the immoral can and will eventually become moral and vice verse once a majority of people change their beliefs on an issue. That is not something superior to the beliefs of many religious people. In many aspects, it is far worse.

Having said that, I can understand why you would believe as you do; for, it does make sense, but shouldn't be seen as an absolute. Ethics and morals are often situational in reality. We often have to choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak; however, there still is a higher standard that we are judged by (God). He considers our heart too.

As a Christian, you already reject most of the culture-specific taboos of the ancient Hebrews, yet hang on to others that have somehow persisted in Christianity,

The ancient Hebrews don't represent entire mankind. Christians are principled after the teachings of Christ; so, we only need to adhere to those. Christ's teachings were relational to both God and mankind. If there were any taboos, they were founded in the various cultures that Christians lived in and were not part of any religious conformity. They were just a product of their times as is the case throughout history. We even have them today. You even practice some yourself if you care to look.

Christians have many choices about what we do. We can accept and reject customs and norms as we please as long as we don't go against God's rule; however, we do try to fit in with the rest of humanity where warranted by Christ's teachings. I am not sure how your statements really affect us at all or what significance they have in this discussion.

in spite of being just as arbitrary and unrelated to actual ethical considerations as prohibitions against wearing wool-cotton blend jumpers.

I do hope that you do know that this was strictly something the Israelites were instructed to do. Do you know the background on why they were instructed to do this? If you do, then you wouldn't be making this statement, or at least, you wouldn't sound so ignorant in your comment.

And yet, each and every culture both ancient and contemporary has a share of specific taboos and conventions that are just as restrictive and arbitrary as anything you'll find in the Old Testament.

The restrictions were a means to separate the Israelites from other nations. That is what made them Holy in the eyes of God. They were distinguished from their neighbors as I stated in my last post. It is no surprise that common customs or similar ones existed among different nations and cultures since people contacted others and migrated to other areas and formed new communities. Also consider traditions passed down throughout generations of the same people.

The ancient Israelites weren't "special" in that sense. Such taboos are a dime a dozen. Just look at the Inuit and some of the utterly idiosyncratic customs that they adhere to.

The Israelites were an oracle. I would hope that you would understand what that means. They were chosen for a purpose and were separated so that they could be seen in context of God's revelation. Don't make more or less of it that there is.

You know what? After YEARS of having every second Christian tell me that HIS particular perspective reflects TRUE Christianity, and that therefore any POV that does not coincide with his must reflect the incomprehension of the Unbeliever, I've come to place very little value in such accusations of holding a wrong perspective.

You are not arguing what I am arguing. You are taking a perspective from within Christianity, but mine is in reference to yours which is from the outside. What Christians may disagree over does not change the fact that you are not subjecting yourself to see from our POV so that you correctly reflect our beliefs. People are going to disagree in any group; so, your logic leads you to reject all perspectives, with perhaps the exception of your own. Yet, if I interview several people who have a very similar perspective to yours, I can arrive at the same conclusion about your POV as you have with ours. Where does that lead us to? The point for me was to get you to see that your outside perspective is incorrect. At this moment, it still is. I am familiar with what you see from Christians. Mind you that not all of those people may have the same level of understanding or in fact understand much on a particular subject. There is plenty of diversity on any subject, but that does not point out that there is no consensus or standard position to view from. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water, it seems.

You think sin does not affect God? Read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". You think we choose our path, make our own destinies? Read anything by A.W. Pink.

After commenting, I do realize that you may be seeing this from a different perspective than I am. For sin to affect God, God would be subjected to it in some way; but, He is not. Sin does not compromise God in any way. He remains unchanged by it. His omnipotence, omnipresence, or omniscience does not change as a result. If you mean that God changes in reaction to sin, then I can agree with you in some ways. Even so, His integrity is not compromised. Since God is independent of His creation, He remains unaffected by His creation in terms of his being.

For anything you object to, I'll be able to produce more than a handful of CHRISTIAN sources which adhere exactly to the beliefs that you pointed out as the "wrong perspective".

You may be able to do that, but there are general consensus on certain things within Christianity in which individuals can disagree on; but, we still have a standard view of.

BTW, I have never read those books.

 

[b&wpac4]

Even before those restrictions on Israel, there were already standard laws such as the Noahide laws and the Ten Commandments which apply to all humans. None of those laws involved such detail as what cloth to wear or what specific foods one couldn't eat, but for a few exceptions involved in worship.

The Ten Commandments were given to Israel, not mankind. Only Israel was to keep the Sabbath, not everybody.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Based on his writings, he wasn't a very good student since he came away with the flawed idea that one should be perfected by keeping the Law.

MY BROTHER!

Come on, now. Paul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and rose through the Pharisaical ranks to the point that he was entrusted by the High Priest and his cohorts with the important task of stamping out the Christian heresy (Acts 22:5). So it appears to me that everyone but you considered him a pretty darn good student. i think perhaps it is your UNDERSTANDING or ACCEPTANCE of what Paul wrote that is flawed, not the writings themselves.

In the Law it states:

"You must follow my customs and keep my laws; by them you must lead your life. I am Yahweh your God. You must keep my laws and my customs. Whoever complies with them will find life in them. I am Yahweh." (Leviticus 18:4-5) and again:

"You are to be perfect with the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 18:13) and again:

"Let your heart therefore be perfect with the Lord our God, to walk in His statutes, and to keep His commands, as at this day." (I Kings 8:61) and finally,

"Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace." (Psalms 37:37)

Soooooo . . . The Jews were expected to be perfect, and the Law was the only tool they had to work with to achieve that end. Paul understood perfectly the place and function--as well as the futility--of trying the keep the Law to achieve God's demanded perfection from His people.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[b&wpac4]

MY BROTHER!

Come on, now. Paul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and rose through the Pharisaical ranks to the point that he was entrusted by the High Priest and his cohorts with the important task of stamping out the Christian heresy (Acts 22:5). So it appears to me that everyone but you considered him a pretty darn good student. i think perhaps it is your UNDERSTANDING or ACCEPTANCE of what Paul wrote that is flawed, not the writings themselves.

You've just betrayed your lack of understanding. A high ranking Pharisee would not work for the Sadducees. Period.

 

[b&wpac4]

The places you have translated perfect, my translation says "wholehearted" which is a different concept than perfection.

 

[ephraimanesti]

If we are expected to be perfect, and it is completely futile, why does God give us ways to come back to Him when we falter? Why are we told that when we sin, we are to turn back to God and be forgiven?

Yes, the goal would be to keep the Law perfectly, the reality is that God never says if you cannot you are not able to come back to Him and your efforts are futile.

DEAR ONE,

THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY GOD FOR US TO BREAK, NOT TO KEEP.

Its purpose was to teach us that we would never be able to please God by our own efforts and must rely on Messiah to do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves--attain perfection.

All the sacrifices and temple ordinances mandated by the Law to atone for our sins were for the purpose of preparing us to accept the ULTIMATE ONCE-AND-FOREVER SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS, provided by God Himself--HIS BELOVED SON.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

The places you have translated perfect, my translation says "wholehearted" which is a different concept than perfection.

MY BROTHER,

Is not "wholehearted" surrender to God in Love and Obedience PERFECTION?

ephraim

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Wait a sec... wasn't Gamaliel in Jerusalem?

Wouldn't that mean that Saul/Paul was closely acquainted with Jerusalem, and known by sight to the Christians there?

How does that add up with what he writes in Galatians?

 

[b&wpac4]

DEAR ONE,

THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY GOD FOR US TO BREAK, NOT TO KEEP.

Its purpose was to teach us that we would never be able to please God by our own efforts and must rely on Messiah to do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves--attain perfection.

All the sacrifices and temple ordinances mandated by the Law to atone for our sins were for the purpose of preparing us to accept the ULTIMATE ONCE-AND-FOREVER SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS, provided by God Himself--HIS BELOVED SON.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

I have edited my post after double checking your passages. They do not say "perfect".

By the way, if your view of God is correct, I will become an atheist and stand defiantly before God at judgment as I will not worship a trickster God who directly lies to Jews about the purpose of the Law to prove some sort of cosmic point for later generations. I do not worship liars or deceivers.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

DEAR ONE,

THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY GOD FOR US TO BREAK, NOT TO KEEP.


ephraim

Rasputin, is that you?

 

[b&wpac4]

Is not "wholehearted" surrender to God in Love and Obedience PERFECTION?

No, I don't believe that is what it means. I love my future wife wholeheartedly, does that mean I do not make mistakes in regards to our relationship? No, it does not.

The point of Judaism is still the same. Try to do the will of God, and know how to come back to God when you stumble. Perfection is not demanded or even expected, because God knows we are only human. That is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.

 

[ephraimanesti]

No, I don't believe that is what it means. I love my future wife wholeheartedly, does that mean I do not make mistakes in regards to our relationship? No, it does not.

The point of Judaism is still the same. Try to do the will of God, and know how to come back to God when you stumble. Perfection is not demanded or even expected, because God knows we are only human. That is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.

MY BROTHER,

Jesus is Jewish. His teachings are the pinnacle of the Law and its fulfillment. Only in Him does the Law have meaning, and only through Him is its purpose achieved. Jesus enjoined us, "Be PERFECT, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) He alone has the Power to make that possible for us.

Marriage is a relationship between sinful human beings and so mistakes, as you say, will be made. (My wife will be more than willing to verify this fact.)

Our relationship with God through Jesus Christ, on the other hand, does not depend on us but is a function of God's indwelling Holy Spirit Who does not make mistakes.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[b&wpac4]

Jesus is Jewish. His teachings are the pinnacle of the Law and its fulfillment. Only in Him does the Law have meaning, and only through Him is its purpose achieved. Jesus enjoined us, "Be PERFECT, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) He alone has the Power to make that possible for us.

Which is why Jesus has been rejected as having any impact on Jewish thought for two thousand years. What he taught was not based on an understanding of the Torah, which does not tell us to wait for some ultimate perfect sacrifice or that we cannot keep the Law that God gave us.

 

[ephraimanesti]

You've just betrayed your lack of understanding. A high ranking Pharisee would not work for the Sadducees. Period.

MY BROTHER,

Paul states, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just a zealous for God as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished." (Acts 22:3-5)

Either Paul is a liar or you are mistaken.

i believe the later to be the case.

ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

Which is why Jesus has been rejected as having any impact on Jewish thought for two thousand years. What he taught was not based on an understanding of the Torah, which does not tell us to wait for some ultimate perfect sacrifice or that we cannot keep the Law that God gave us.

MY BROTHER,

You are correct that Jews--as a whole--have, unfortunately, spurned their Messiah. However, many converts have joyously discovered Him and surrendered to His Love. You might check out these folk--Messianic Jews--and get their take on your questions. It's late and i'm getting dizzy going around in circles. PEACE BE TO YOU AND ALL YOUR HOUSE!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[peaceful soul]

The Ten Commandments were given to Israel, not mankind. Only Israel was to keep the Sabbath, not everybody.

I will disagree with you (at least in part) on this one because there is evidence at least some of these laws were already known to mankind. For example, thou shall not murder was known to Cain and Abel. Sabbath concept was most likely known to Adam since God rested on the 7th day. Thou shall have no god(s) before me was already apparent even in the Garden.

I will agree that the first codification of the Ten Commandments as far as we know came with the advent of Israel. I am glad that you questioned me on that one. Now I will go and look in the Torah to see if I can find evidences for all 10 commandments before God called Israel.

 

[b&wpac4]

Either Paul is a liar or you are mistaken.

i believe the later to be the case.

This is the same man that told people to act like Jews around Jews and gentiles around gentiles, which is sort of suggesting to deceive people in order to convert them. So, you know my answer.

 

[ephraimanesti]

This is the same man that told people to act like Jews around Jews and gentiles around gentiles, which is sort of suggesting to deceive people in order to convert them.

MY BROTHER,

Why the desperate need to twist Scripture with malice aforethought?

The passage you refer to is a most beautiful example of Love and Compassion:

"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (t5hough I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." I Corinthians 11:19-22)

All Loving and thus successful missionaries and evangelists do the same thing--learn how the people they are trying to reach think and act, what they believe, what their taboos are,etc.--so as to show respect to them by meeting them on their own terms and explain how the Gospel fits into their scheme of things.

i have done much the same thing as an Alcohol/Drug Counselor in dealing with my clients who were primarily African-American--i listened to the music they listen to, learned about their values and heroes, listened to their stories, read all the information i could get on their status and needs, etc., all for the purpose of ascertaining where they were coming from so as to be able to help them get their lives on track before they self-destructed. There was no deceit or trickery involved--just a desire to understand and thus work with my clients effectively and compassionately.

So, you know my answer.

Yes, unfortunately i do--and it saddens me. Your chalking this care, concern, and empathy for others to "deceit", and trickery is unwarranted, unfair, and hopefully not an accurate gauge of the status of your Heart.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[b&wpac4]

Yes, unfortunately i do--and it saddens me. Your chalking this care, concern, and empathy for others to "deceit", and trickery is unwarranted, unfair, and hopefully not an accurate gauge of the status of your Heart.

Your beliefs sadden me because you make God a deceiver at best. When God told the Children of Israel that they could keep the Law, you believe He was lying because it was impossible.