Did Jesus come to establish a religion called, "Christianity", or The Order of Melchizedek?

[Soyeong]

The test for a false prophet was twofold: if the signs and wonders he announces do not take place, and if he says, "Let us follow other gods."
Paul is guilty of neither.

In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, walking after the Lord our God, fearing Him, keeping His commandments, obeying His voice, serving Him, and holding fast to him is what it looks like to resist the influence of the false prophet who has taught rebellion against the Lord our God in order to make us leave the way in which the Lord our God commanded us to walk, so it equates saying, "Let us follow other gods" with teaching against obeying the Mosaic Law, especially because the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to follow Him instead of following other gods. The Mosaic Law teaches us how to testify about the nature of the God of Israel, so speaking against obeying it is denying the nature of who the God of Israel is, which is essentially following a different god with a different nature.

I most definitely take Paul at his word.
To believe him or not is up to you.

Two people can agree that what Paul said is true, but disagree about how to correctly interpret what he said, which is why you can interpret him as speaking against the Mosaic Law, while can interpret him as never doing that. So instead of acting like I'm choosing not to believe what Paul said, you should try to explain why my interpretation is wrong and justify why your interpretation is correct.

So they're still offering animal sacrifices over at your church?

There is no temple.

Your error is shown in that you set the NT Scriptures against themselves, Mt 22:40 against Heb 7:12, 8:13; Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:14.
You simply don't believe the NT in Eph 2:14-16; Heb 7:12, 8:13; Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:14.
That is your choice.

The Mosaic Law is part of Scripture and spoke by God, so you are the one who is pitting those verses against God. Hebrews 7:12 is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to its content, Hebres 8:10-13 is speaking about the New Covenant following the Mosaic Law, and neither Ephesians 2:16-16 nor Colossians 2:14 are referring to God's law, so I believe those verses, I just don't think that you have interpreted them in a way that is justifiable.

Human thinking and flawed human reasoning do not govern God or his Word written.
For his thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways, his ways.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts.

Human reasoning is required to interpret the Bible and we should prefer interpretations of the Bible that make sense over those that do not. If you think that I've used flawed reasoning, then by all means please make the case for it, but it is contradictory for God's nature to be eternal while the way to testify about His nature changes over time. In Isaiah 55:7-9, those verses are spoken about the wicked.

Speaking of flawed human reasoning, you just acknowledged that the Decalogue was included in Mt 22:40 (as well as Ro 13:8-12),
now you infer that it is excluded.

I said nothing to infer that it is excluded.

Are you not assuming that Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:14; Heb 7:12, 8:13 are not about the ceremonial laws and regulations of the Mosaic code?

That is all made clear in Col 2:14; Heb 7:12, 8:13; Eph 2:14-16; e.g.,
Col 2:14 - God made you alive with Christ. . ."having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us (condemning for sin); he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

The Bible does even refer to the subcategory of ceremonial law, so I have not assumed that they do not, but rather I have made the case for how they should be interpreted.

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance that was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. In Matthew 27:37, it says that they put the charge that was against Jesus over his head, so what was nailed to people's crosses was not the laws themselves, but the charge that was against them. This serves as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws, especially because they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160). In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, so saying that there were any laws nailed to the cross undermines what he accomplished on the cross. The Greek word "dogma" means "edict, ordinance, or decree" and is never used by the Bible to refer to God's law.

How many different ways does Paul have to say it?
You are wrestling the word of God (2Pe 3:16).

I am disagreeing with your interpretation, not with the word of God, but rather the Mosaic Law is the word of God and you are the one who is wrestling with it. In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul is difficult to understand and that that those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his words to their own destruction and have fallen into the error of lawless men, so we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he never spoke against obeying God's law.

The defilement laws regarding food and persons (Lev 11-12) necessarily separated Israel from the Gentiles who were unclean to them.
Gentile uncleanness engendered a hostility in Israel toward them.
God did not give the laws for the purpose of hostility, that was simply the result in flawed human beings.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was given instructions for how to do that, and in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so we are also called to be set apart from the nations.

In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, which is not found in the Mosaic Law, and is therefore a man-made law that was the result of flawed human beings. God commanded the Israelites to love Gentiles, not to be hostile towards them, so if you agree that God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, then the solution to the problem is not to end God's holy, righteous, good, and eternal laws, but to end the man-made laws that were creating that hostility.

That is not Paul's meaning of justification; i.e., by faith apart from works (Ro 3:21, 28).
Your issue is not with me, it is with Paul.
.

Again, I agree with what Paul said, but disagree with how you have interpreted him. Paul is speaking about justification through faith apart from works of the law that were done for the purpose of earning our justification as though it were a wage (Romans 4:4-45), but he was not speaking about justification apart from obeying the Mosaic Law as an expression of faith because he concluded in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish our need to obey it, but rather our faith upholds it. Again, Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified. You are also interpreting Paul as being in disagreement with James, where I interpret them as being in agreement with each other.

 

[Clare73]

In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, walking after the Lord our God, fearing Him, keeping His commandments, obeying His voice, serving Him, and holding fast to him is what it looks like to resist the influence of the false prophet who has taught rebellion against the Lord our God in order to make us leave the way in which the Lord our God commanded us to walk, so it equates saying, "Let us follow other gods"

The associative linking breaks down at "resist" and "equate". . .interesting example of association links as proof of a false prophet.

I think I could show there is no God, and or Satan is a saint using linking.

Two people can agree that what Paul said is true, but disagree about how to correctly interpret what he said,

No doubt about it!

One can think "justification is by faith apart from works" (Ro 3:21, 28) relying only on faith for justification, and another can think justification also relies on works.

One can think that the (ceremonial) law with its commandments and regulations was abolished on the cross (Eph 2:14-16), and another can think they were not.

One can think the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13), and another can think it is not.

One can think salvation is by faith, not by works (Eph 2:8-9), and another can think salvation is also by works.

 

[Soyeong]

The associative linking breaks down at "resist" and "equate". . .interesting example of association links as proof of a false prophet.

Are you seriously denying that obedience to God's commands has nothing to do with resisting a false prophet who was trying to get them to rebel against God and leave the way in which He commanded them to walk? If you think that Paul taught to leave the way in which God commanded them to walk, then you should consider him to be a false prophet.

No doubt about it!

One can think "justification is by faith apart from works" (Ro 3:21, 28) relying only on faith for justification, and another can think justification also relies on works.

One can think that the (ceremonial) law with its commandments and regulations was abolished on the cross (Eph 2:14-16), and another can think they were not.

One can think the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13), and another can think it is not.

One can think salvation is by faith, not by works (Eph 2:8-9), and another can think salvation is also by works.

I have not taught that we should rely on our works. You still have given no justification for interpreting Ephesians 2:14-16 as referring to ceremonial laws or for why you reject the reasons that I have given for why those verses should not be interpreted as referring to any of God's laws. The Bible never states which laws belong in the subcategory of ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a subcategory of law. While I agree that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Hebrews 8:10), so God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it. I have never claimed that salvation is by works.

 

[Clare73]

Are you seriously denying that obedience to God's commands has nothing to do with resisting a false prophet who was trying to get them to rebel against God and leave the way in which He commanded them to walk? If you think that
Paul taught to leave the way in which God commanded them to walk, then you should consider him to be a false prophet.

Previously addressed, see post #62.

I have not taught that we should rely on our works. You still have given no justification for interpreting Ephesians 2:14-16 as referring to ceremonial laws or for why you reject the reasons that I have given for why those verses should not be interpreted as referring to any of God's laws. Bible never states which laws belong in the subcategory of ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a subcategory of law. While I agree that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Hebrews 8:10), so God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it. I have never claimed that salvation is by works.

Previously concluded by you in the following:

Two people can agree that what Paul said is true, but disagree about how to correctly interpret what he said,

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you seriously denying that obedience to God's commands has nothing to do with resisting a false prophet who was trying to get them to rebel against God and leave the way in which He commanded them to walk? If you think that Paul taught to leave the way in which God commanded them to walk, then you should consider him to be a false prophet.

I have not taught that we should rely on our works. You still have given no justification for interpreting Ephesians 2:14-16 as referring to ceremonial laws or for why you reject the reasons that I have given for why those verses should not be interpreted as referring to any of God's laws. Bible never states which laws belong in the subcategory of ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a subcategory of law. While I agree that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Hebrews 8:10), so God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it. I have never claimed that salvation is by works.

I am always perplexed by various folks who insist on obedience to the TEN COMMANDMENTS (only) and who ignore other commandments but classifying them as ceremonial or judicial or any other such term. I have yet to have anyone guide to me to any passage in the Bible which spells out the various categories of the Law for us.

 

[chad kincham]

The greek is Zoe Anionious - The Life of the Ages.
If you want to be academic about it. Most don't -
They want to fantasize about 'Life in Heaven after you die physically'.
I like the original.

According to Strongs dictionary it says Life Eternal in the Greek, or Life Perpetual - either way it literally means eternal life, or perpetual life.

G2222 (Strong)

ζωή

zōē

dzo-ay'

From G2198; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time). Compare G5590.

G166 (Strong)

αἰώνιος

aiōnios

ahee-o'-nee-os

From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

 

[Soyeong]

I am always perplexed by various folks who insist on obedience to the TEN COMMANDMENTS (only) and who ignore other commandments but classifying them as ceremonial or judicial or any other such term. I have yet to have anyone guide to me to any passage in the Bible which spells out the various categories of the Law for us.

Chukim and mishpatim are categories of law used by the Bible, however, there is nothing in the Bible that states that mishpatim are immoral to disobey while chukim are not, while the man-made division between moral are ceremonial laws implies that ceremonial laws are moral to disobey. Furthermore, not everything that people consider to ceremonial laws correspond to chukim, such as those who consider everything but the Ten Commandments to be ceremonial laws, or with memorial festivals, which are edot. The memorial festivals testify about who God is and Christians follow the same God, so by observing the memorial festivals, we are testify about God.

Mishpatim are in regard to our horizontal relationships with our neighbor and straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them because they derived from the principle of loving our neighbor as ourselves, which can be found in most societies that have courts. However, chukim are only in regard to our vertical relationship with God, which do not straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them, so the fact that there is no explanation for why they are given almost invite us to ponder what God is teaching us about His nature through them. It is the times when we don't understand why God commanded something that we have no greater opportunity to put our faith in God to rightly guide us or to obey simply because we love Him, though ultimately we need to obey if for not other reason than that He is God. Morality is not just in regard to our relationship with our neighbor, but also in regard to our relationship with God.

 

[Soyeong]

Previously addressed, see post #62.

I honestly don't see how you can deny that Deuteronomy 13:1-5 contrasts obedience to God's commands with false prophets leading them to leave the way that God commanded. In case, verse 5 says that the false prophet was to be put to death because they taught rebellion against God in order to make them leave the way that God commanded, so if you think that did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet.

Previously concluded by you in the following:

So if you disagree with how I have interpreted those verses, then you should explain why and justify why your interpretation is correct.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Chukim and mishpatim are categories of law used by the Bible, however, there is nothing in the Bible that states that mishpatim are immoral to disobey while chukim are not, while the man-made division between moral are ceremonial laws implies that ceremonial laws are moral to disobey. Furthermore, not everything that people consider to ceremonial laws correspond to chukim, such as those who consider everything but the Ten Commandments to be ceremonial laws, or with memorial festivals, which are edot. The memorial festivals testify about who God is and Christians follow the same God, so by observing the memorial festivals, we are testify about God.

Mishpatim are in regard to our horizontal relationships with our neighbor and straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them because they derived from the principle of loving our neighbor as ourselves, which can be found in most societies that have courts. However, chukim are only in regard to our vertical relationship with God, which do not straightforwardly make sense why God commanded them, so the fact that there is no explanation for why they are given almost invite us to ponder what God is teaching us about His nature through them. It is the times when we don't understand why God commanded something that we have no greater opportunity to put our faith in God to rightly guide us or to obey simply because we love Him, though ultimately we need to obey if for not other reason than that He is God. Morality is not just in regard to our relationship with our neighbor, but also in regard to our relationship with God.

Thank you. You are the first poster to actually explain this accurately for me.

 

[Thomas White]

Just being Socratic.

Jesus came to save the world.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus came to save the world.

Is the entire world, therefore, saved?

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

 

[Thomas White]

Is the entire world, therefore, saved?

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Whosoever believes in Him is saved.

 

[Nathan@work]

Is the entire world, therefore, saved?

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Not saved, but forgiven.

 

[atpollard]

Is the entire world, therefore, saved?

Sort of ....

• [John 12:17-19 NIV] 17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"
• [Act 1:8 NIV] 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
• [Act 13:47 NIV] 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: " 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
• [Rom 10:18 NIV] 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."
• [Rev 5:8-10 NIV] 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." [John 6:37 NKJV]

 

[atpollard]

Not saved, but forgiven.

John 3:18

 

[bbbbbbb]

Whosoever believes in Him is saved.

Thank you. Therefore, one can accurately say that Jesus came to save all who believe in Him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sort of ....

• [John 12:17-19 NIV] 17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"
• [Act 1:8 NIV] 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
• [Act 13:47 NIV] 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: " 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
• [Rom 10:18 NIV] 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."
• [Rev 5:8-10 NIV] 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." [John 6:37 NKJV]

I agree - sort of.

 

[Thomas White]

Thank you. Therefore, one can accurately say that Jesus came to save all who believe in Him.

He came to save all. It's our choice whether or not to accept that salvation.

 

[atpollard]

He came to save all. It's our choice whether or not to accept that salvation.

That is not what Jesus told the unbelievers in John 6:43-44 ... he said: "Stop complaining about what I said. For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up."
That is not what Jesus told the unbelievers in John 10:25-26 ... he said: "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is the work I do in my Father's name. But you don't believe me because you are not my sheep."

"Stop complaining" and "I already told you" are not words of unlimited opportunity for salvation.
"no one can come to me" and "you don't believe" are not words of universal justification.
"the Father draws" and "not my sheep" are not words of human Free will choice.

 

[Nathan@work]

Jesus is not limited by man's interpretation of a book.

He came to save the world - even though many reject Him.