The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[Ben Avraham]

The

The Christ said he CAME to FULFILL the law, he did, at the Cross. He said that the law wouldn't change, and to you it hasn't, a law can exist, without any authority. He changed the law, you think not ? What did Moses say about divorce, or adultery ? Even your own Rabbi's changed the law of God with the Talmud. Christ had authority to change these, his law is different from what was written in the Torah. Torah law exists and you choose to be bound by it, the law of Christ exists, and that is what I follow. Paul was in perfect harmony with the Christ, who was in perfect harmony with God. You choose not to see it, thus as God described you, you are of the stiff necked people, That is between you and God. Don't blather nonsense about things you are incapable of understanding, and obviously don't. You do not seek to understand, you seek to condemn. God has clouded your mind because that is what you choose. True Christians understand fully, because through the Christ, the Spirit, and his Apostles we are given understanding. You are trying to read a treatise written in a language you don't understand, and in your ignorance of what is written, you make foolish statements to those who can read it.[/QUOTE]
above is for Big Ben, and the hybrids[/QUOTE]

No, absolutely not!, Jesus changed nothing of the Law. And he said that the whole Law, down to the letter would remain until heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Heaven and earth are still around. If Jesus was to be taken seriously, the Law is still to be obeyed. BTW, he said that we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[Ben Avraham]

The Christ said he CAME to FULFILL the law, he did, at the Cross. He said that the law wouldn't change, and to you it hasn't, a law can exist, without any authority. He changed the law, you think not ? What did Moses say about divorce, or adultery ? Even your own Rabbi's changed the law of God with the Talmud. Christ had authority to change these, his law is different from what was written in the Torah. Torah law exists and you choose to be bound by it, the law of Christ exists, and that is what I follow. Paul was in perfect harmony with the Christ, who was in perfect harmony with God. You choose not to see it, thus as God described you, you are of the stiff necked people, That is between you and God. Don't blather nonsense about things you are incapable of understanding, and obviously don't. You do not seek to understand, you seek to condemn. God has clouded your mind because that is what you choose. True Christians understand fully, because through the Christ, the Spirit, and his Apostles we are given understanding. You are trying to read a treatise written in a language you don't understand, and in your ignorance of what is written, you make foolish statements to those who can read it.
above is for Big Ben, and the hybrids

This post above is from Shmoguie, not me.

No, Jesus changed nothing of the Law. And he said that the whole Law, down to the letter would remain until heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Heaven and earth are still around. If Jesus was to be taken seriously, the Law is still to be obeyed. BTW, he said that we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[Ben Avraham]

And it clearly shows up in Paul's writing style that's obviously Greek influenced with his heavy use of dichotomy (good/bad, light/darkenss, etc.-- iow, no areas of gray).

Don't forget the Greek concept of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That's why Paul would preach about Jesus as the son of God. (Acts 9:20)

 

[Ben Avraham]

Please, I understand the Hellenized culture of Rome and to a greater or lesser extent the rest of the world. Appreciation of the arts, luxury, et.al. I asked you for proof of hellenized influence in what Paul wrote, you supply none. You just tell me how great a Jew (you) are at divining these alleged statements, and condemn me ( a Gentile Christian) for not having your deep knowledge and understanding. You point to the Catholic encyclopedia, I am not a Catholic, their theology and commentary is steeped in error, they are no authority to me. Who cares about a commentary in the New American Bible ? Opinions are like rectum's, everyone has one. Post your proof from Paul's writings, and prove they are the result of hellenization, and not of the source Paul says they came from, or get out of the way and be quiet on this issue. You are no authority, your attempts to stand on spurious authorities is lame. Either do it by proof based upon exegesis, or prove your comments to be total and empty nonsense.

Read Acts 9:20. Paul used to teach that Jesus was the son of God and, the Hellenist former disciple of Paul who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew, explains how Jesus was the son of God; just like the Greek concept of the Demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:18) When Paul was preaching around that Jesus was the son of God, do you think that Joseph was his biological father? Of course not! That's the proof you needed that Paul was a Hellenist.

 

[shmogie]

Read Acts 9:20. Paul used to teach that Jesus was the son of God and, the Hellenist former disciple of Paul who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew, explains how Jesus was the son of God; just like the Greek concept of the Demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:18) When Paul was preaching around that Jesus was the son of God, do you think that Joseph was his biological father? Of course not! That's the proof you needed that Paul was a Hellenist.

More nonsense Big Ben, your assumption means nothing, unless you state that Christ himself was a liar. Of course, you may believe that, then you have no business being in a Christian discussion. Now, to your assertion, an element of Greek mythology has some vague similarity to the Christ, ergo, Christianity is based upon Greek myth, promulgated by a hellenized Jew. Well, let's look at some other co incidences that in some peoples view proves Judaism is a borrowed religion from the Babylonians. Of course there is the flood story of Gilgamesh, believed to be far older than Moses's story, was it borrowed ? what do you think ? Lets look at the concept of sacrificing living animals, which was a basic part of OT Judaism, the Babylonians did it, the Egyptians did it on a limited scale, so obviously the Jews simply borrowed the idea from their interaction with the Babylonians and Egyptians long before Moses. So then, using your reasoning, I conclude that this proves that a central tenet of OT Judaism was simply lifted from previous religions, and incorporated in the hybrid religion of Judaism,by Babyloniaist Moses. There you go Ben, co incidence, or proof of a mongrelized religion ? I know what it is re Christianity, but to be consistent, you must conclude like you have with Christianity, that OT Judaism is a rehash of older beliefs

 

[shmogie]

Don't forget the Greek concept of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. That's why Paul would preach about Jesus as the son of God. (Acts 9:20)

the Greek concept of a "demigod" has no relation to the Christian concept of the Trinity, Christ is demi nothing, he IS God. More trying to make a vague co incidence a foundation, it fails

 

[shmogie]

The Christ said he CAME to FULFILL the law, he did, at the Cross. He said that the law wouldn't change, and to you it hasn't, a law can exist, without any authority. He changed the law, you think not ? What did Moses say about divorce, or adultery ? Even your own Rabbi's changed the law of God with the Talmud. Christ had authority to change these, his law is different from what was written in the Torah. Torah law exists and you choose to be bound by it, the law of Christ exists, and that is what I follow. Paul was in perfect harmony with the Christ, who was in perfect harmony with God. You choose not to see it, thus as God described you, you are of the stiff necked people, That is between you and God. Don't blather nonsense about things you are incapable of understanding, and obviously don't. You do not seek to understand, you seek to condemn. God has clouded your mind because that is what you choose. True Christians understand fully, because through the Christ, the Spirit, and his Apostles we are given understanding. You are trying to read a treatise written in a language you don't understand, and in your ignorance of what is written, you make foolish statements to those who can read it.

above is for Big Ben, and the hybrids[/QUOTE]

No, absolutely not!, Jesus changed nothing of the Law. And he said that the whole Law, down to the letter would remain until heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Heaven and earth are still around. If Jesus was to be taken seriously, the Law is still to be obeyed. BTW, he said that we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)[/QUOTE]
Jesus changed nothing of the law, huh ? The law says not to COMMIT adultery, Christ tossed that out on it's ear, he said to THINK about it is the same as doing it. Moses in the law provided a method of divorce, Christ said Moses was wrong, and totally redefined the concept. The law says not to murder, the Christ addressed this, and said that enmity and rage in the heart was akin to murder. Please tell me where the law addresses what you are feeling, or thinking, as opposed to what you do ? There are more examples, how many more do you need to prove to you that Christ changed the law ? You say the law is still to be obeyed, please tell me, by whom ?

 

[MountainPine]

"Original sin" is a Roman Catholic term and Idea. Protestants refer to "depravity", the depravity of mankind. Adam was a sinless being created with the ability to coldly and logically make choices. He chose poorly, hence the fall. Everything in creation was changed by this event, you think humans were not ? We do not have the sinless nature of Adam, we have a propensity to sin, it is perfectly clear that the flesh is depraved (no longer perfect) and can never be this side of the grave.

Original Sin, Depravity, call it what you want. It is the same theory in principle. Both suggest that sinful nature is unavoidable and inescapable, which contradicts the Bible in so many areas. (Romans 6:1-11, 1 John 3:5-9, Psalms 34:15-17, etc. *There are MANY more passages like them*). Yes the flesh has been corrupted, that's why Paul said the we must live in the Spirit and not the flesh. It's either one or the other, not both. Either live by the spirit and don't sin, or live by the flesh and be condemned by the Law. It's that simple.

[Ephesians 4:20-27] But you have not so learned Messiah, if indeed you have heard Him and were taught by Him, as truth is in יהושע: that you put off – with regard to your former way of life – the old man, being corrupted according to the desires of the deceit, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the renewed man which was created according to Elohim, in righteousness and set-apartness of the truth.Therefore, having put off the false, speak truth, each one with his neighbour, for we are members of one another. “Be wroth, but do not sin.” Do not let the sun go down on your rage, nor give place to the devil.

The "renewed man" does not sin.

Give us a whole set of rules and regulations about everything, we can do it ! Well, they didn't, they can't, and neither can you.

If the Israelites had obeyed a simple set of rules, the world would not be in the shape it is in now. They didn't obey because they were stubborn (Exodus 32:9, Jeremiah 7:24, Psalms 95:9-10), not because it was impossible. Another thing too is that you erroneously keep associating the Law with sacrifice. Sacrificial atonement was the punishment for breaking the Law. If one didn't break the Law, they didn't need to make a sacrifice. Why would God tell anyone to do something that they are incapable of doing? Do you mean to tell me that God gave Israel an impossible law knowing that they would break it in order to offer Him sacrifices? This makes God out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant (your god, that is). Obeying the Law is rather is simple task. (Deuteronomy 30:11)

Back to the law, Israel existed centuries before the law was given. The eight righteous people at the flood were righteous without the law, just as many others were.

You've just contradicted yourself by confessing that eight people were righteous (ie not sinful). OOPS!

Unlike Adam, who walked with God, who never knew sin, who lived in a perfect environment, you have lived with sin, and the influences of sin your whole life, murder, lying, terrorists, war, on and on it goes. you have committed sins unlike Adam before his fatal choice.

Yes I have sinned in my life, but that doesn't mean I still do.

[Romans 5:19] For as through the disobedience of one man [Adam] many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One [Christ] many shall be made righteous.

Because ONLY ADAM and CHRIST had a perfectly sinless nature, body, mind totally uncorrupted by sin. Try just as hard as you want, you might as well add self flagellation and pilgrimages to your attempt at keeping the law

So you believe Jesus was a liar? He must have been full of Himself when he said these things: Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 19:17, Luke 5:32, John 8:11

Don't you know what "repent" means? To stop sinning.

Aren't you busy enough yourself trying to keep the law without having to take on God;s role of judging his children ?

God's children are not sinners. Psalms 5:3-5, Psalms 34:14-16, 1 John 3:8

I have personally known Christians who believe like me who have DIED in God's service, unlike you who keep rules. I know a Medal of Honor recipient, a non combat medic, who believes like me, who saved LIVES because of his Christianity, while you keep rules and judge

First of all, read these passages: John 7:24 Ezekiel 3:18. Secondly, like the medic who has saved lives, I save lives by sharing a message of repentance. Judging someone and condemning them are two different things. To judge is to form a conclusion from observations and outweighing the evidence. To condemn is to decide a fate of doom on a person. I have not said anywhere on this thread that anyone is going to hell, so what is the problem?

 

[Ben Avraham]

above is for Big Ben, and the hybrids

No, absolutely not!, Jesus changed nothing of the Law. And he said that the whole Law, down to the letter would remain until heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Heaven and earth are still around. If Jesus was to be taken seriously, the Law is still to be obeyed. BTW, he said that we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)[/QUOTE]

Jesus changed nothing of the law, huh ? The law says not to COMMIT adultery, Christ tossed that out on it's ear, he said to THINK about it is the same as doing it. Moses in the law provided a method of divorce, Christ said Moses was wrong, and totally redefined the concept. The law says not to murder, the Christ addressed this, and said that enmity and rage in the heart was akin to murder. Please tell me where the law addresses what you are feeling, or thinking, as opposed to what you do ? There are more examples, how many more do you need to prove to you that Christ changed the law ? You say the law is still to be obeyed, please tell me, by whom ?

Listen Shmogie, do you believe your own Bible the NT? Do you take that Jesus was a serious Jew? It seems to me that "NO" is the answer for both questions. You must understand that Hellenists, form disciples of Paul wrote the NT. Not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. only a non-Jew would say that Moses was wrong. That's not Jewish at all. There is no sin in the thought. To transgress a commandment of the Law, one must take to effect what he or she thinks. So, Jesus did not say that to hate another, one has murdered in his heart; that the thought to possess one's wife is the same as to commit adultery. The Lord Himself said to Cain that indeed the urge of sin is against us but we can be its master. (Genesis 4:6,7) That's how Jesus as a Jew would take it. Hellenist exaggeration leads to hypocrisy.

 

[shmogie]

No, absolutely not!, Jesus changed nothing of the Law. And he said that the whole Law, down to the letter would remain until heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Heaven and earth are still around. If Jesus was to be taken seriously, the Law is still to be obeyed. BTW, he said that we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

Listen Shmogie, do you believe your own Bible the NT? Do you take that Jesus was a serious Jew? It seems to me that "NO" is the answer for both questions. You must understand that Hellenists, form disciples of Paul wrote the NT. Not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. only a non-Jew would say that Moses was wrong. That's not Jewish at all. There is no sin in the thought. To transgress a commandment of the Law, one must take to effect what he or she thinks. So, Jesus did not say that to hate another, one has murdered in his heart; that the thought to possess one's wife is the same as to commit adultery. The Lord Himself said to Cain that indeed the urge of sin is against us but we can be its master. (Genesis 4:6,7) That's how Jesus as a Jew would take it. Hellenist exaggeration leads to hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
Your contention that the NT was not written by Jews is utter and complete non proved baloney. You wish it were so, so it must be. Your position is utter nonsense, just like that of most of the Jewish nation at the time of Christ. Arrogant and blind. Jesus was the ultimate Jew, sent first for you and your people to straighten you up, and get you on the right track. You failed. The NT trumps the OT in every way, the law of the OT is obsolete, the OT is good for history and homily, doctrine and belief structure comes from the NT. alone. So we will NEVER agree on theology. That leaves the original issue, you have not, can not, and will not PROVE that hellenists wrote the NT or that Paul was a hellenized Jew. So, until you offer evidence rather than opinion, this conversation is of no value

 

[shmogie]

Original Sin, Depravity, call it what you want. It is the same theory in principle. Both suggest that sinful nature is unavoidable and inescapable, which contradicts the Bible in so many areas. (Romans 6:1-11, 1 John 3:5-9, Psalms 34:15-17, etc. *There are MANY more passages like them*). Yes the flesh has been corrupted, that's why Paul said the we must live in the Spirit and not the flesh. It's either one or the other, not both. Either live by the spirit and don't sin, or live by the flesh and be condemned by the Law. It's that simple.

[Ephesians 4:20-27] But you have not so learned Messiah, if indeed you have heard Him and were taught by Him, as truth is in יהושע: that you put off – with regard to your former way of life – the old man, being corrupted according to the desires of the deceit, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the renewed man which was created according to Elohim, in righteousness and set-apartness of the truth.Therefore, having put off the false, speak truth, each one with his neighbour, for we are members of one another. “Be wroth, but do not sin.” Do not let the sun go down on your rage, nor give place to the devil.

The "renewed man" does not sin.



If the Israelites had obeyed a simple set of rules, the world would not be in the shape it is in now. They didn't obey because they were stubborn (Exodus 32:9, Jeremiah 7:24, Psalms 95:9-10), not because it was impossible. Another thing too is that you erroneously keep associating the Law with sacrifice. Sacrificial atonement was the punishment for breaking the Law. If one didn't break the Law, they didn't need to make a sacrifice. Why would God tell anyone to do something that they are incapable of doing? Do you mean to tell me that God gave Israel an impossible law knowing that they would break it in order to offer Him sacrifices? This makes God out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant (your god, that is). Obeying the Law is rather is simple task. (Deuteronomy 30:11)



You've just contradicted yourself by confessing that eight people were righteous (ie not sinful). OOPS!



Yes I have sinned in my life, but that doesn't mean I still do.

[Romans 5:19] For as through the disobedience of one man [Adam] many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One [Christ] many shall be made righteous.



So you believe Jesus was a liar? He must have been full of Himself when he said these things: Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 19:17, Luke 5:32, John 8:11

Don't you know what "repent" means? To stop sinning.



God's children are not sinners. Psalms 5:3-5, Psalms 34:14-16, 1 John 3:8



First of all, read these passages: John 7:24 Ezekiel 3:18. Secondly, like the medic who has saved lives, I save lives by sharing a message of repentance. Judging someone and condemning them are two different things. To judge is to form a conclusion from observations and outweighing the evidence. To condemn is to decide a fate of doom on a person. I have not said anywhere on this thread that anyone is going to hell, so what is the problem?

First, you artfully dodged the questions re the sabbath and why God allowed the system he mandated to be destroyed. No matter I understand. You really think I am inconsistent because I said Noah, and Job and others were righteous without keeping the law ( there was no law) ? Lets see, Go back to Genesis, and look at the man who got the whole thing started, Abraham. Was Abraham righteous, without keeping the law ? You betcha !, how does that work ? Gen 15-6 : "And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord ( had faith) and He (God) accounted it to him for righteousness." Imputed righteousness, no works, no law, purely on faith. So then those pre law righteous people were righteous BY FAITH, not by anything they did, not by law, because there wasn't any. I can be, and am more righteous than you, because my faith in Christ IMPUTES his righteousness to me, and after being declared righteous by his imputed righteousness, I am being changed by his IMPARTED righteousness, not for salvation, but because I have salvation. Your definition of repentance is wrong, you made it up to suit your own strange view. To repent means to recognize you have lost your way, or to recognize your sinfulness leading to seeking forgiveness. If you repent, are forgiven, then fall back to cherish sin, habitually commit sin, your repentance counted for nothing. You tell me you are A-OK because you keep the law, you are dead wrong. You DO NOT KEEP THE LAW. Go back to Leviticus. You seem to think animal sacrifices were for sinners and only for atonement. WRONG. There were animal sacrifices required for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with atonement, you do not do them, you do not keep the law. Are you more righteous than Aaron? He and ALL the priests were to offer sacrifices for themselves. On the day of atonement, sacrifices were made for ALL THE PEOPLE, it doesn't say the bad people, it says ALL. Are you receiving the benefit of this required sacrifice ? No ? You don't keep the law, you have failed, by your own standard, you are unrighteous. Ever had a boil, or bad burn, or any skin condition ( saraath in Hebrew) ? if so, or if you do, you are required by the law to go to a priest, not a doctor, If you didn't, or don';t you have or will break the law. Ever had a discharge, say from a sinus infection, or do you think that any of the sinless women you know who get the very common yeast infection, went to a priest ? No ? the law was broken, there are no priests, that system is done, YOU CANNOT KEEP THE LAW. So, Like Christ said YOU preach your foreign Gospel, and make your hearer ten times more suited for hell than when he hadn't heard you. What did the Christ say about you ?" If you keep my teachings, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Fathers commandments, and abide in his love" John 15-9, This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. ibid. v 11, If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin ( because of the system of atonement), but now they have no excuse for their sin............. but this happened so that the word might be_ FULFILLED_ WHICH IS WRITTEN IN __THEIR__ LAW. ibid v22-24. The law is fulfilled, it is done, it has no meaning. It cannot be kept as it was given by God because he allowed the system to keep it to be destroyed because it was fulfilled in Christ. YOU CANNOT KEEP THE LAW, to believe you can and trying to to be good before God will send you straight to hell. There is only ONE way. " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever BELIEVES ( just like Abraham) in him will have everlasting life " John 3:16. The law ended at the cross, now there is only one way to be righteous, by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. You quoted "faith without works is dead", a very right and correct verse but it isn't addressing the law. Imputed righteousness will lead to a change in ones life, one will love to do good things. If your faith by which you are saved does not lead to doing good, then your faith, and your salvation has died

 

[MountainPine]

Jesus said himself said that the Law would never cease as long as heavens and earth existed. (Mat. 5:17-19)

I understand that, but what does that have to do with my point? If Jesus is the goal of the Law, how does that mean the Law has ceased?

Paul was referring to the Decalogue aka God's Law. (Romans 7:1-7)

No he wasn't. Read it again. He was giving an example of a widowed woman being free from the law of being married to her husband, who was dead. All he was saying is that the Law doesn't judge her as an adulteress if she remarries after her former husband passed away. The metaphor is Israel once being married to Moses is now married to Christ, and as you and I know that Christ never did away with the Law, but brought a more spiritual meaning to it, and this is exactly what Paul is trying to convey. It has nothing to do with the Decalogue.

Just so you know, I am pro-Torah like yourself, as you can infer by the responses I've been making to shmogie, but I'm not an anti-Paulinist. The reason why you and other anti-Paulinists think that Paul preached a false message is because you are interpreting Paul's epistles the same way Christians do, and making your conclusions based on the Christian interpretation. 2 Peter 3:15-16 doesn't only apply to Christians, but to anti-Paulinists too.

Now, that you have mentioned Mat. 23, if we are to believe Mat. 23:13-33, Jesus broke the Golden Rule 15 times in that text every time he charged the Pharisees of being hypocrites and brood of vipers. The Golden Rule says not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto ourselves. Do you think Jesus would have liked to be addressed to as a hypocrite and brood of vipers? I don't think so. The Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious discussions, mind you!

So you're charging Jesus with hypocrisy? Well considering that all the Prophets were obedient to God's Law, especially to the Decalogue (and therefore the Golden Rule), they were hypocrites as well considering they admonished Israel the same way Jesus admonished the Pharisees. You may as well charge Moses as being a hypocrite as well considering he listed a bunch of curses in Deuteronomy 27 against anyone who disobeyed God's Law, in so doing "broke the Golden Rule." The reality is that the Pharisees were the hypocrites, and Jesus was merely pointing it out.

If faith is to work on the expectation that God will do as He promised, I see no difference from treats promised to dogs to behave well or act funny. I think one ought to obey no matter what but because there is a law to be obeyed, not because of rewards.

I wasn't clear on that, my apologies. Faith is to work on obedience to God. If one obeys him, the God will give him as he promised. It is like a marriage. The wife obeys her husband, and the husband takes care of her. If we are faithful to God, he'll be faithful to us. I'm sure you can agree.

Circumcision is the everlasting token of the Abrahamic Covenant with Isaac as the sign that we are His chosen People. (Genesis 17:19-21) By criticizing Jewish circumcision as only an outward expression, you are undermining the obedience of Abraham.

Saying that it is an expression of obedience is not to say that circumcision is unnecessary, and that is not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying (and what Paul was saying) is that if you are going to follow the law of circumcision and not follow the rest of the Law, then what's the point of being circumcised? God will divorce you if you sin, the same way he divorced Israel for her sins.

 

[shmogie]

First, you artfully dodged the questions re the sabbath and why God allowed the system he mandated to be destroyed. No matter I understand. You really think I am inconsistent because I said Noah, and Job and others were righteous without keeping the law ( there was no law) ? Lets see, Go back to Genesis, and look at the man who got the whole thing started, Abraham. Was Abraham righteous, without keeping the law ? You betcha !, how does that work ? Gen 15-6 : "And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord ( had faith) and He (God) accounted it to him for righteousness." Imputed righteousness, no works, no law, purely on faith. So then those pre law righteous people were righteous BY FAITH, not by anything they did, not by law, because there wasn't any. I can be, and am more righteous than you, because my faith in Christ IMPUTES his righteousness to me, and after being declared righteous by his imputed righteousness, I am being changed by his IMPARTED righteousness, not for salvation, but because I have salvation. Your definition of repentance is wrong, you made it up to suit your own strange view. To repent means to recognize you have lost your way, or to recognize your sinfulness leading to seeking forgiveness. If you repent, are forgiven, then fall back to cherish sin, habitually commit sin, your repentance counted for nothing. You tell me you are A-OK because you keep the law, you are dead wrong. You DO NOT KEEP THE LAW. Go back to Leviticus. You seem to think animal sacrifices were for sinners and only for atonement. WRONG. There were animal sacrifices required for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with atonement, you do not do them, you do not keep the law. Are you more righteous than Aaron? He and ALL the priests were to offer sacrifices for themselves. On the day of atonement, sacrifices were made for ALL THE PEOPLE, it doesn't say the bad people, it says ALL. Are you receiving the benefit of this required sacrifice ? No ? You don't keep the law, you have failed, by your own standard, you are unrighteous. Ever had a boil, or bad burn, or any skin condition ( saraath in Hebrew) ? if so, or if you do, you are required by the law to go to a priest, not a doctor, If you didn't, or don';t you have or will break the law. Ever had a discharge, say from a sinus infection, or do you think that any of the sinless women you know who get the very common yeast infection, went to a priest ? No ? the law was broken, there are no priests, that system is done, YOU CANNOT KEEP THE LAW. So, Like Christ said YOU preach your foreign Gospel, and make your hearer ten times more suited for hell than when he hadn't heard you. What did the Christ say about you ?" If you keep my teachings, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Fathers commandments, and abide in his love" John 15-9, This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. ibid. v 11, If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin ( because of the system of atonement), but now they have no excuse for their sin............. but this happened so that the word might be_ FULFILLED_ WHICH IS WRITTEN IN __THEIR__ LAW. ibid v22-24. The law is fulfilled, it is done, it has no meaning. It cannot be kept as it was given by God because he allowed the system to keep it to be destroyed because it was fulfilled in Christ. YOU CANNOT KEEP THE LAW, to believe you can and trying to to be good before God will send you straight to hell. There is only ONE way. " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever BELIEVES ( just like Abraham) in him will have everlasting life " John 3:16. The law ended at the cross, now there is only one way to be righteous, by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. You quoted "faith without works is dead", a very right and correct verse but it isn't addressing the law. Imputed righteousness will lead to a change in ones life, one will love to do good things. If your faith by which you are saved does not lead to doing good, then your faith, and your salvation has died

One more thing I omitted, there is a new law, called the law of Christ, or the Royal law in the NT. Keeping this law is what we strive for, but, if we fail, we have a high Priest in the heavenly sanctuary that intercedes for us. Much like under the old covenant when the earthly priest interceded for the Israelites.

 

[MountainPine]

First, you artfully dodged the questions re the sabbath and why God allowed the system he mandated to be destroyed. No matter I understand. You really think I am inconsistent because I said Noah, and Job and others were righteous without keeping the law ( there was no law) ? Lets see, Go back to Genesis, and look at the man who got the whole thing started, Abraham. Was Abraham righteous, without keeping the law ? You betcha !, how does that work ? Gen 15-6 : "And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord ( had faith) and He (God) accounted it to him for righteousness." Imputed righteousness, no works, no law, purely on faith. So then those pre law righteous people were righteous BY FAITH, not by anything they did, not by law, because there wasn't any. I can be, and am more righteous than you, because my faith in Christ IMPUTES his righteousness to me, and after being declared righteous by his imputed righteousness, I am being changed by his IMPARTED righteousness, not for salvation, but because I have salvation. Your definition of repentance is wrong, you made it up to suit your own strange view. To repent means to recognize you have lost your way, or to recognize your sinfulness leading to seeking forgiveness. If you repent, are forgiven, then fall back to cherish sin, habitually commit sin, your repentance counted for nothing. You tell me you are A-OK because you keep the law, you are dead wrong. You DO NOT KEEP THE LAW. Go back to Leviticus. You seem to think animal sacrifices were for sinners and only for atonement. WRONG. There were animal sacrifices required for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with atonement, you do not do them, you do not keep the law. Are you more righteous than Aaron? He and ALL the priests were to offer sacrifices for themselves. On the day of atonement, sacrifices were made for ALL THE PEOPLE, it doesn't say the bad people, it says ALL. Are you receiving the benefit of this required sacrifice ? No ? You don't keep the law, you have failed, by your own standard, you are unrighteous. Ever had a boil, or bad burn, or any skin condition ( saraath in Hebrew) ? if so, or if you do, you are required by the law to go to a priest, not a doctor, If you didn't, or don';t you have or will break the law. Ever had a discharge, say from a sinus infection, or do you think that any of the sinless women you know who get the very common yeast infection, went to a priest ? No ? the law was broken, there are no priests, that system is done, YOU CANNOT KEEP THE LAW. So, Like Christ said YOU preach your foreign Gospel, and make your hearer ten times more suited for hell than when he hadn't heard you. What did the Christ say about you ?" If you keep my teachings, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Fathers commandments, and abide in his love" John 15-9, This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. ibid. v 11, If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin ( because of the system of atonement), but now they have no excuse for their sin............. but this happened so that the word might be_ FULFILLED_ WHICH IS WRITTEN IN __THEIR__ LAW. ibid v22-24. The law is fulfilled, it is done, it has no meaning. It cannot be kept as it was given by God because he allowed the system to keep it to be destroyed because it was fulfilled in Christ. YOU CANNOT KEEP THE LAW, to believe you can and trying to to be good before God will send you straight to hell. There is only ONE way. " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever BELIEVES ( just like Abraham) in him will have everlasting life " John 3:16. The law ended at the cross, now there is only one way to be righteous, by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. You quoted "faith without works is dead", a very right and correct verse but it isn't addressing the law. Imputed righteousness will lead to a change in ones life, one will love to do good things. If your faith by which you are saved does not lead to doing good, then your faith, and your salvation has died

Faith = obedience. If you don't obey God, then you're not doing good works anyway. No good works = no faith. You have it all wrong and twisted. You're saying that obeying God doesn't bring salvation, but believing in Christ does. That doesn't make any sense. If someone who is true to God and Moses, how can they not agree with Christ and obey him? One cannot have faith while simultaneously sin, not possible!

The Torah has never been destroyed, and never will be "until the Heavens and Earth pass away."

“יהושע said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6

What is the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

“Blessed are the perfect in the way, Who walk in the Torah of יהוה!” Psalm 119:1

“Your righteousness is righteousness forever, And Your Torah is truth.” Psalm 119:142

“The Torah of the wise is a fountain of life, Turning one away from the snares of death.” Proverbs 13:14

With that, I rest my case, and end our discussion. You have proven yourself to be troll, so I'm adding you to my ignored list. Good bye.

 

[shmogie]

Faith = obedience. If you don't obey God, then you're not doing good works anyway. No good works = no faith. You have it all wrong and twisted. You're saying that obeying God doesn't bring salvation, but believing in Christ does. That doesn't make any sense. If someone who is true to God and Moses, how can they not agree with Christ and obey him? One cannot have faith while simultaneously sin, not possible!

The Torah has never been destroyed, and never will be "until the Heavens and Earth pass away."

“יהושע said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6

What is the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

“Blessed are the perfect in the way, Who walk in the Torah of יהוה!” Psalm 119:1

“Your righteousness is righteousness forever, And Your Torah is truth.” Psalm 119:142

“The Torah of the wise is a fountain of life, Turning one away from the snares of death.” Proverbs 13:14

With that, I rest my case, and end our discussion. You have proven yourself to be troll, so I'm adding you to my ignored list. Good bye.

LOL, Rest your case. It needs more than rest, it's dead. I see, someone who shows you Biblically, in a discussion you initiated that you are wrong is a troll. Are your feelings hurt, do you need a safe space ? You aren't a Christian anyway, so you have no business discussing Christian doctrine.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I understand that, but what does that have to do with my point? If Jesus is the goal of the Law, how does that mean the Law has ceased?

Jesus was not the goal of the Law. The goal of the Law was and still is to keep us safe from the troubles of life.

No he wasn't. Read it again. He was giving an example of a widowed woman being free from the law of being married to her husband, who was dead. All he was saying is that the Law doesn't judge her as an adulteress if she remarries after her former husband passed away. The metaphor is Israel once being married to Moses is now married to Christ, and as you and I know that Christ never did away with the Law, but brought a more spiritual meaning to it, and this is exactly what Paul is trying to convey. It has nothing to do with the Decalogue.

I read it again as you suggested. Romans 7:1-7 was a Pauline allegory with the aim at teaching that as the widow is released of the law that subjected her to her husband with the death of her husband, we have been released from the Law with the death of Jesus. Read Romans 7:6. And, mind you, he meant the Law of the Decalogue because, if you read verse 7 again, where is it written "thou shall not covet" if not in the decalogue. You don't have to protect Paul of his own blunders because they bark like lost dogs. Every one can see where they are.

Just so you know, I am pro-Torah like yourself, as you can infer by the responses I've been making to shmogie, but I'm not an anti-Paulinist. The reason why you and other anti-Paulinists think that Paul preached a false message is because you are interpreting Paul's epistles the same way Christians do, and making your conclusions based on the Christian interpretation. 2 Peter 3:15-16 doesn't only apply to Christians, but to anti-Paulinists too.

Peter never wrote any thing. Luke himself spoke of him as an illiterate ignorant peasant. (Acts 4:13...I think) Illiterate people don't write books.

So you're charging Jesus with hypocrisy? Well considering that all the Prophets were obedient to God's Law, especially to the Decalogue (and therefore the Golden Rule), they were hypocrites as well considering they admonished Israel the same way Jesus admonished the Pharisees. You may as well charge Moses as being a hypocrite as well considering he listed a bunch of curses in Deuteronomy 27 against anyone who disobeyed God's Law, in so doing "broke the Golden Rule." The reality is that the Pharisees were the hypocrites, and Jesus was merely pointing it out.

No, I asked if he would have liked to be treated as one since thus, he treated the Pharisees if we are to believe the text of Mat. 23:13-33. Can you see the birth of a slander if I didn't stop you? And the Prophets were right to admonish many in Israel as hypocrites. But Jesus was not admonishing the Pharisees but cursing them with "Woe unto you..." But don't worry, I don't believe that text because Jesus would not insult his own colleagues with those words. Regaring Moses, he was a law-giver and he had to impress his listeners with the solemnity of the Law. But what about if Moses broke the Golden Rule too? We are not studying
him now but Jesus.

I wasn't clear on that, my apologies. Faith is to work on obedience to God. If one obeys him, the God will give him as he promised. It is like a marriage. The wife obeys her husband, and the husband takes care of her. If we are faithful to God, he'll be faithful to us. I'm sure you can agree.

Yes, I do but because I understand that all God's promises are conditional to the obedience of His Law.

Saying that it is an expression of obedience is not to say that circumcision is unnecessary, and that is not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying (and what Paul was saying) is that if you are going to follow the law of circumcision and not follow the rest of the Law, then what's the point of being circumcised? God will divorce you if you sin, the same way he divorced Israel for her sins.

For the Jews yes, circumcision on the 8th day from birth and at any time for the convert is necessary to keep the Jewish identity with God's People aka Israel through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Genesis 17:19,21)

 

[Ben Avraham]

Your contention that the NT was not written by Jews is utter and complete non proved baloney. You wish it were so, so it must be. Your position is utter nonsense, just like that of most of the Jewish nation at the time of Christ. Arrogant and blind. Jesus was the ultimate Jew, sent first for you and your people to straighten you up, and get you on the right track. You failed. The NT trumps the OT in every way, the law of the OT is obsolete, the OT is good for history and homily, doctrine and belief structure comes from the NT. alone. So we will NEVER agree on theology. That leaves the original issue, you have not, can not, and will not PROVE that hellenists wrote the NT or that Paul was a hellenized Jew. So, until you offer evidence rather than opinion, this conversation is of no value

Thank you for your classical description of Replacement Theology. Any one can see how terribly you wish the gospel of Jesus aka the Tanach specially the Law was obsolete. But you are terribly wrong and if Jesus himself were here, he would dedicate his parable of the Richman and Lazarus to you, that you will never escape hell-fire if you do not repent and listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) That's Judaism alive and kicking which you wish it was gone. Me, arrogant! I am defending myself from your arrogance about Replacement Theology. Obviously, you are right about something; we will never agree with each other on Theology. I have already proved that Hellenists wrote the NT but, you are not big enough to come down your high horse and pay homage to the Logic that Jews could not have written a single page of the NT. Jews don't write against their own Faith, mind you! So, this conversation must stop here because there is absolutely nothing to learn from you.

 

[shmogie]

Thank you for your classical description of Replacement Theology. Any one can see how terribly you wish the gospel of Jesus aka the Tanach specially the Law was obsolete. But you are terribly wrong and if Jesus himself were here, he would dedicate his parable of the Richman and Lazarus to you, that you will never escape hell-fire if you do not repent and listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) That's Judaism alive and kicking which you wish it was gone. Me, arrogant! I am defending myself from your arrogance about Replacement Theology. Obviously, you are right about something; we will never agree with each other on Theology. I have already proved that Hellenists wrote the NT but, you are not big enough to come down your high horse and pay homage to the Logic that Jews could not have written a single page of the NT. Jews don't write against their own Faith, mind you! So, this conversation must stop here because there is absolutely nothing to learn from you.

Big Ben, you don't understand what replacement theology is, let me educate you. Replacement theology is the concept that CHRISTIANITY REPLACED JUDAISM and the Jews in their special relationship with God. I don't accept nor teach it. You dear folk missed the Messiah, but God has made specific promises to you, so I leave it to him. I have begged you for evidence of your spurious idea's, you still just pontificate. What scholars agree with you ? What books have been written to support your nonsense ? Where are the text analyses ? This isn;t the first time I have come across your ideas's, and I have, by evidence repudiated them. This IS the first time I have come across someone who just offers an opinion, and can't bear someone simply asking for evidence. I don't want Judaism gone, why should I ? You and your co religionists will have to work it out with God and I am confident in him. I am a strong supporter of the Jew's and Israel, because I understand God's promises to you. I am not a Jew, I am not bound by your law, or your confusion.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Big Ben, you don't understand what replacement theology is, let me educate you. Replacement theology is the concept that CHRISTIANITY REPLACED JUDAISM and the Jews in their special relationship with God. I don't accept nor teach it. You dear folk missed the Messiah, but God has made specific promises to you, so I leave it to him. I have begged you for evidence of your spurious idea's, you still just pontificate. What scholars agree with you ? What books have been written to support your nonsense ? Where are the text analyses ? This isn;t the first time I have come across your ideas's, and I have, by evidence repudiated them. This IS the first time I have come across someone who just offers an opinion, and can't bear someone simply asking for evidence. I don't want Judaism gone, why should I ? You and your co religionists will have to work it out with God and I am confident in him. I am a strong supporter of the Jew's and Israel, because I understand God's promises to you. I am not a Jew, I am not bound by your law, or your confusion.

God's Law of the Decalogue binds every one to it, be he a Jew or a Christian. When Paul claimed that he and his disciples had been released from the Law, he was simply juggling with nonsense. (Romans 7:6)

 

[Hawkins]

God's Law of the Decalogue binds every one to it, be he a Jew or a Christian. When Paul claimed that he and his disciples had been released from the Law, he was simply juggling with nonsense. (Romans 7:6)

Or rather you are clueless about what he's talking about.

The big picture,

God's plan, as He gradually reveals to humans, is to build an eternity we call Heaven for His creatures such as the angels and humans living with Him forever. However God hates something which we call sin. God is said to be completely sin incompatible. Law is thus set up to address what a sin is, so that if any entities with freewill chooses to break the Law in a specified period of time then he's disqualified to enter the final Heaven. That's why there's a Final Judgment to legitimately and openly bring those qualified to Heaven. That's when the New Heaven and New earth starts to run.

However under the influence of Satan, the first lineage of humans sinned when put in Eden (a place inside God's realm). Since then humans are driven out of God's realm, living in the current planet earth where Satan is literally said to be the god of this world. When humans are no longer inside God's realm, with Satan's influence being much stronger, no human can thus enter the final heaven by abiding the Law. This point is proven (by God) so it came the story of Noah. God's purpose for humans (to live the eternal Heaven) was defeated. Humans as a whole will fail the final judgment of God's Law. Thus the existence of earth serves no purpose but a pool of sins which God hates. It's thus time to destroy this pool of sins once and for all (by water).

Satan thus triumphs as he has destroyed God's plan of bringing humans to Heaven. But it's not yet. God has Jesus Christ the savior. Through the blood of Jesus Christ God can now grant a series of covenants as a mean of salvation to humans. A covenant simply says, "since you humans can't abide by God's Law in full, you only need to abide by a set-aside set of rules (such as Mosaic Law) to a said standard, such that you will be saved by God's Grace through Jesus Christ. Each and every covenant serves the main purpose of identifying and thus separating the righteous from the wicked. The righteous thus will be brought to Heaven legitimately under open witnessing (of angels and saints).

Satan (and his angels) on the other hand will stress his influence, humans will thus sin further to an extent that an older covenant may fail in identifying the righteous (the harvest). Then it is time for God to upgrade His covenant to a newer one by granting more Grace, such that His Elect (the righteous) will become savable.

Romans 5:20-21 (NIV2011)
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The New Covenant brought in directly by Jesus Himself became the final covenant because it has the maximum Grace granted. Under this covenant, our salvation is measured by our faith alone. Faith in Christ becomes the only rule (unlike Mosaic Law) applied for us to be saved. You believe with Faith in a correct fashion then you will be saved (brought to the final Heaven) legitimately and openly.

Whether one can fulfill what a covenant said will be judged by Jesus Christ Himself, because all the Grace is granted under His name. His blood gives Him the right to grant the Grace to anyone He wishes though He will judge fairly and He will judge what is deep inside your heart. The angels and saints will also be the witnesses to see if you have fulfilled the covenant. As for the New Covenant, Jesus will judge if your faith qualifies you to enter the final Heaven.

If you are considered (by Jesus Christ) to fail the covenant, then you will be judged by the Law which will sentence you to death (the second death) with whatever consequences it brings.