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.
Upvote
0
This is bogus. Saul was a Jew. He studied under one of the most prominent Rabbis of the time.
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?Everything is equally significant. That still doesn't render cosmic importance to our (as per the Bible) "sinful" appetite for bacon or shrimp cocktail.
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?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.
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.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).
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.I don't mind giving a potential deity its due.
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?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.
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.Why should it be?
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.And how do you "reject God" to begin with?
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.It's not as if we could break the "laws" of nature.
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.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".
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....while simultaneously KNOWING that each and every human being will fail to meet His standards, because, well, we're human - not divine.
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.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.
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.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,
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.in spite of being just as arbitrary and unrelated to actual ethical considerations as prohibitions against wearing wool-cotton blend jumpers.
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.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 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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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".
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.
MY BROTHER!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.
DEAR ONE,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.
MY BROTHER,The places you have translated perfect, my translation says "wholehearted" which is a different concept than perfection.
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
DEAR ONE,
THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY GOD FOR US TO BREAK, NOT TO KEEP.
ephraim
Is not "wholehearted" surrender to God in Love and Obedience PERFECTION?
MY BROTHER,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.
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.
MY BROTHER,You've just betrayed your lack of understanding. A high ranking Pharisee would not work for the Sadducees. Period.
MY BROTHER,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.
The Ten Commandments were given to Israel, not mankind. Only Israel was to keep the Sabbath, not everybody.
Either Paul is a liar or you are mistaken.
i believe the later to be the case.
MY BROTHER,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.
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.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.