04 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71I'm curious how both of you guys can overlook what Paul says in Romans 3:9-12:
I personally think some get saved! It might not be an orthodox teaching but I agree with what Roman's 2-3 says.
"We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
Yet, you go ahead and claim that Paul is teaching just a few verses earlier that there are Pagan Gentiles who are righteous before God. Is it not clear enough here that none are righteous, that none understand, that none seek after God, that none do good, not a single one? How can Paul be any more straightforward?
When Paul refers to those Gentiles who have "the law written on the hearts" in Romans 2, he can only be referring to the Christian Gentiles. The righteousness of God without the law is manifested in only those who believe in Jesus Christ:
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe." (Romans 3:21-22).
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]Sounds like you are twisting one part of what Paul said to fit into another part.
I'm curious how both of you guys can overlook what Paul says in Romans 3:9-12:
"We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unp gh faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all [b]who believe." (Romans 3:21-22).
Find some other part to twist because Gentiles who having not the law, are a law unto themselves:, cannot mean Christians who do infact have a law and cannot be a law unto themselves.
In addition the part where Paul says none is righteous and good, and understandeth etc etc must be interpreted in the light of the rest of the Bible which is full people described as good, and perfect, and righteous and have understanding and seeking after God and doing good.
05 Nov 09
8 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Find some other part to twist because Gentiles who having not the law, are a law unto themselves:, cannot mean Christians who do infact have a law and cannot be a law unto themselves.
Sounds like you are twisting one part of what Paul said to fit into another part.
Find some other part to twist because Gentiles who having not the law, are a law unto themselves:, cannot mean Christians who do infact have a law and cannot be a law unto themselves.
In addition the part where Paul says none is righteous and good, and understande ...[text shortened]... as good, and perfect, and righteous and have understanding and seeking after God and doing good.
When Paul speaks of 'the law' he is referring to the Torah (i.e., the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Judaism's legal and religious texts. Christian Gentiles have not received the Torah as the Jews have, yet they fulfill the law because it has been 'written on their hearts.' Christians have not been given another 'law' (i.e., another Torah), as you claim, what they have been given is the Spirit of Christ:
"For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who... walk according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:3-4).
"Those who are in Christ Jesus... do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:1). For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Romans 8:14). If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9).
Bottom line: The righteousness of the law cannot be fulfilled without gift of the Spirit, and only those who believe in Jesus Christ receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
05 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasAll Christians have the spirit of Christ
[b]Find some other part to twist because Gentiles who having not the law, are a law unto themselves:, cannot mean Christians who do infact have a law and cannot be a law unto themselves.
When Paul speaks of 'the law' he is referring to the Torah (i.e., the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Judaism' it, and only those who believe in Jesus Christ receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/b]
Explain that statement in simple language please., because your argument and conclusion seems to rest it. Let see how realistic that statement is.
eg what exactly is the spirit of Christ, when do Christians receive it, how exactly are the Christians affected by the spirit of Christ .. etc.
12 Jan 10
Just finished Mark. Notably, there were way less practical teachings espoused in Mark as there were in Matthew. I'm not sure why that would be so...
__________
(81) Repent and believe the Good News (Mark 1:15)
(82) Come after me and be my disciple (Mark 1:17)
(83) The measure of thought and study you give to the truth you hear will be the measure of virtue and knowledge that comes back to you (Mark 4:24)
(84) Do not be timid or fearful (Mark 4:40)
(85) Have faith (Mark 4:40)
(86) Tell the world what great things the Lord has done for you (Mark 5:19)
(87) Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me [Christ] (Mark 8:34)
(88) Do not be ashamed of Me [Christ] and My words (Mark 8:38)
(89) In order that you may enter into life, mortify your flesh with its affections and lusts (Mark 9:43-47)
(90) Receive the Kingdom of God like a little child (Mark 10:15)
(91) Do not trust in riches (Mark 10:24)
(92) Believe that whatever you ask for in prayer is granted to you and you will get it (Mark 11:24)
(93) If you have anything against anyone, forgive them (Mark 11:25)
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is where Judaism and Christianity are very different—even paradigmatically different—on several counts. And Paul, though a Jew, cannot be said to represent the mainstream of Judaism (in his time, even), which is not nearly so “black and white”. Not all of the “Judaisms” (Jacob Neusner’s term) of Jesus’ time were “messianic”—i.e., looking for the advent of the messianic age (which itself has different interpretations); Hillel (an older contemporary of Jesus) is recorded in the Talmud as rejecting the notion of looking forward to “the” messiah. Others, of course, did—but I don’t think they were the majority, either in Galilee/Judea or in the diaspora. There is (and was) no doctrine of messiah in Judaism.
[b]Find some other part to twist because Gentiles who having not the law, are a law unto themselves:, cannot mean Christians who do infact have a law and cannot be a law unto themselves.
When Paul speaks of 'the law' he is referring to the Torah (i.e., the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Judaism' ...[text shortened]... it, and only those who believe in Jesus Christ receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/b]
I appreciate that you point out that the word nomos (law) for Paul means the Torah—and not just the commandments, not just the “legal” parts of the Torah. Many Jewish writers have pointed out that “law” is probably not a good translation of Torah (either in the Greek or in English).
But Torah does not (and did not) mean just the written Torah either. The Oral Torah predates Jesus (and Paul)—mythological (my word) tradition dates it all the way back to Sinai; but, historically, it might not go back beyond the first or second century B.C.E. Nevertheless, both Jesus and Paul were likely aware of the Oral Torah (Paul, after all, said that he studied under Gamaliel).
Along with messianism, the “Jesus Jews” and their followers developed a doctrine of salvation, however much Christians argue about the terms of that doctrine. Judaism per se does not (and did not) have a doctrine of salvation (or, who is eligible for ha’olam ha’ba, the world to come; or even what ha’olam ha’ba entails). As with messiah, there are various rabbinical opinions.
The bane of perfectionism—which, it seems to me, Paul, to his credit, is trying to relieve (and that is part of his gospel)—is also not part of Judaism. It may have been among Gentiles trying to understand the Torah that Paul talked about. Paul (who noted his own zealousness in that regard) may also have—Luther-like—suffered under the illusion that perfectionism is called for and required.
[This first struck me when I started to read about Jewish attitudes toward the Sabbath: most fundamentally, the Sabbath is a day of—joy. Now (my former Christian mind asked), how can that be? When they are burdened by all those dos and don’ts? But even among Orthodox Jews, the idea of perfection—and failing in that perfection—cannot, should not ruin the joy of Sabbath.]
In Judaism, failure to be a perfect tzaddik (just or righteous person) does not mean that one is a “perfect” rasha (wicked person). Most people are beinoni—somewhere in the middle, generally. And a person can “justly” be called a tzaddik, even if they sometimes fail to “meet the mark”. (There is also nothing like the Christian doctrine(s) of “original sin”.)
Nor is God—in divine perfection—“perfectly” intolerant of human failure (sin). (Which seems to be the view of some, not all Christians.)
Judaism is not “the religion of the Old Testament” (not that you said that it is, but that also seems to be a fairly common Christian error; at least it was once mine). It is the religion of Torah—both written and oral, the latter being dynamic and continuing, not confined to the parts that were eventually written down in the Talmuds and the Midrash and such. And part of “keeping Torah” is participating in the ongoing interpretive project of the Oral Torah. Unfortunately, I am not in a place where I can so participate formally and properly, though I have been invited to do so (when Viv and I visited a Reform synagogue last year). All proper Torah study (talmid torah) is done dialogically—in argument.
__________________________________________________
None of this is to pretend to claim what “proper” Christian doctrine and theology are. Nor is it to criticize Christianity. My only aim is point out some paradigmatic differences between the two religions, for the sake of undertsanding. I do not think that Paul paints an accurate picture of “majority” Judaism, except of his own experience; I’m not sure that’s his point, to be fair. Judaism, like Christianity, has evolved. But I am not convinced that Paul paints an accurate picture of “majority” Judaism in his own time.
Let me close with an example of a case where I do not think the gospel distorts Jewish thought—but where I think Christians may draw a distorted conclusion (at least, again, I did). “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Absolutely! Not only lawful, but required. It is a mitzvah that takes precedence. That is why I think that the Pharisees to whom this question was addressed did not answer. Jesus had simply bested them in good rabbinical argument. (And there were a lot of differences between the views of Galilean rabbis and Judean rabbis, e.g. the Pharisees.) But I (before I started to study) drew the inaccurate conclusion that Jews were not/are not permitted to heal on the Sabbath.
I am still the same nondualist that you have known, Epi. But that is, if not the mainstream, at least a very broad stream within Judaism as well. It goes, in part, to how one interprets the singular doctrine of Judaism: Shema Ysrael YHVH eloheinu YHVH echad.
Shalom v’chaim: Well-being and life to you!
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by vistesdIn Judaism, failure to be a perfect tzaddik (just or righteous person) does not mean that one is a “perfect” rasha (wicked person). Most people are beinoni—somewhere in the middle, generally. And a person can “justly” be called a tzaddik, even if they sometimes fail to “meet the mark”. (There is also nothing like the Christian doctrine(s) of “original sin”.)
This is where Judaism and Christianity are very different—even paradigmatically different—on several counts. And Paul, though a Jew, cannot be said to represent the mainstream of Judaism (in his time, even), which is not nearly so “black and white”. Not all of the “Judaisms” (Jacob Neusner’s term) of Jesus’ time were “messianic”—i.e., looking for the adve ...[text shortened]... : Shema Ysrael YHVH eloheinu YHVH echad.
Shalom v’chaim: Well-being and life to you!
Were there a standard set by God which man could not meet, it would be natural for man to seek to excuse himself in one way or another, or, if not that, imagine God's requirement more lax than it really is, e.g., "I may sin from time to time, but I believe I will be acceptable to God in the end since I do more good than ill."
My understanding of the Jewish religious history regarding sin is primarily how it was dealt with, as far as I'm aware right up to the time of Jesus and Paul; namely, that blood must be shed for the remission of sins, without exception. Of course, God forgives men on the basis of faith and obedience, but it has also been made abundantly clear throughout Jewish history that no flesh can be justified in God's sight without the shedding of blood. The stain of sin had to be transferred to an animal and that animal sacrificed in order to effect the sin's remission. What this process must have engendered in its participants, I'd imagine, is first the reality of sin; that sin is something which must be dealt with rather than simply excused. And second, that nobody keeps the law perfectly (or in Paul's words, no flesh is justified by keeping the law).
Original sin as a doctrine is irrelevant, I think, because it is already plain that all men fall short of God's standard. If one accepts the accountability to God implied by God's law, and is honest with oneself, there can be no doubt that we are helpless. I don't think Paul is saying much more than this when he speaks of the law of God and our relation to it -- not that the Jews of his era or any era believed that God ever expected perfection from them; God more than any human being of course knows that His standard of righteousness is unassailable. What Paul is pointing out, however, is that we are nevertheless condemned by it.
Jesus, in dealing with the Pharisees, blasted their slavish obedience to the laws and customs of men. My understanding is that the Pharisees did this in order to procure for themselves an easy righteousness apart from God's law. What Jesus had to continually point out to them was the fact that they were spurning the law of God for the unhallowed customs of men. The heart of the law was lost to them, which meant that they could not recognize their utter need for mercy and grace. The purpose of the law being basically twofold, to show forth the righteousness of God and to reveal the true sinfulness of men.
I for one think that Paul is exceedingly familiar with Jewish tradition and accurately and successfully builds a case for Christ using that knowledge.
(I have to go to bed now; I hope what I wrote makes sense. I don't have the time right now to proof read it. G'nite.)
13 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]Were there a standard set by God which man could not meet, it would be natural for man to seek to excuse himself in one way or another, or, if not that, imagine God's requirement more lax than it really is, e.g., "I may sin from time to time, but I believe I will be acceptable to God in the end since I do more good than ill."
[b]In Judaism, failure to be a perfect tzaddik (just or righteous person) does not mean that one is a “perfect” rasha (wicked person). Most people are beinoni—somewhere in the middle, generally. And a person can “justly” be called a tzaddik, even if they sometimes fail to “meet the mark”. (There is also nothing like the Christian doctrine(s) of “original I wrote makes sense. I don't have the time right now to proof read it. G'nite.)
Well, that’s pretty harsh: anyone who offers a more rounded and balanced view of “moral psychology” is just seeking excuses… Ironically, that is pretty close to the same charge that folks like Rajk and ThinkOfOne level at sola fide/sola gratia Christians such as yourself.
…without exception…
Well, this is where I think you are just historically in error, and that is the only point of my objection here: that “without exsception” .
For some reason my primary source here (a book on Judaism in the NT period by Jacob Neusner in collaboration with a Christian theologian; the one in which Neusner uses the term “Judaisms) seems to have gone on walkabout from my shelves. I have looked at some other sources, and offer the following—
E.P. Sanders—who disagrees with Neusner, and thinks he can discern what he calls a “common Judaism” in the period, nevertheless opens his book with this: “Judaism in the period of our study was dynamic and diverse.” [Judaism: Practice and belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (my italics).]
Lawrence H. Schiffman leans closer to Sanders than to Neusner, but his “common Judaism” is characterized by a great deal of diversity. Nevertheless, he makes these points:
“The question of the discontinuance of animal sacrifice is more complex. In the years leading up to the revolt and the destruction, animal sacrifice was certainly regarded as the highest form of worship. Yet it was not the only form. Evidence of various kinds, including that of the Dead Sea Scrolls, demonstrates that the role of prayer was constantly increasing in Second Temple times.”
[The Essenes, for example, did not take part in the Temple sacrifices. Nor could the Jews of the diaspora (outside Judea/Galilee), who numbered three to four times the population of Judea/Galilee.]
And: “Clearly, however, the concomitant development of the synagogue as an institution, along with the gradual ascendancy of prayer over sacrifice as a means of worship, prepared Judaism for the new situation brought about by the destruction of the Temple. By the time the Temple was taken away, its replacement had already been created.”
—Lawrence H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism
Schiffman notes that some scholars think that the history of the synagogue began during the Babylonian Exile (after the destruction of the first temple in 586 BCE). He disagrees, but says that it certainly began during the Hellenistic Age, which began in the 330s and ran up to the first century BCE. In any event, the synagogue and the shift from sacrifice to prayer had begun before the first century CE.
Regardless of the development of the synagogue, David S. Ariel notes: “Following the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in 586 B.C.E. and the exile of many Jews to Babylonia, nearly seventy years passed before the Israelites were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Many Jews who chose not to return developed ritual alternatives to to the sacrifices. Within the Babylonian Diaspora, the practice of studying the Torah text itself emerged as the main alternative to sacrifice.” [David S. Ariel What Do Jews Believe? (my italics).]
The beginning of this shift may also be hinted at in the prophets Jeremiah, Micah and Hosea—
“Thus says YHVH Tzevaot, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your other offerings and eat the meat! For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: Do my bidding, that I may be your God and you may be my people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you.” (Jeremiah 7:21-23; from the JPS translation.)
—Now, I have heard the objection that God did not command the sacrifices just then, but later in the wilderness. But that certainly blunts the edge of Jeremiah’s words here to the point (pun alert!) of making them almost superfluous.
Micah 6:6-8 (from the JPS):
With what shall I approach YHVH,
Do homage to the God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would YHVH be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
“He has told you, O man, what is good,
And what YHVH requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then your name will achieve wisdom.”
And Hosea 6:6 (from the JPS):
For I desire goodness, not sacrifice;
Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings.
_____________________________________________________
Now I do not claim that these texts are not open to various interpretations; but they do challenge the “blood sacrifice only” notion, and may mark a prophetic move away from that (albeit a small one).
Again, I have to find my Neusner source, since he was more emphatic about the variety of Judaisms at that time. The point is made, however, even by his academic opponents, that the Judaism of the time was diverse, and the move from sacrifice to prayer (and Torah) had already begun from the time of the Babylonian Exile.
Comtinued…
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Continued from above…
Original sin as a doctrine is irrelevant, I think, because it is already plain that all men fall short of God's standard.
My use of the word “doctrine” was meant to refer to a centralizing religious belief, or set of beliefs. Your theology seems to be that God applies the standard of God’s own being to humans, and then condemns them for falling short—i.e., for being human. In fact, not so much for being human as for not being God.
And I have no intention of challenging that as being wrong from a Christian perspective. But it is not the majority view—let alone the only view—in Judaism. The Hebrew Scriptures not only speak of God’s condemnation for sin, but also of God’s redeeming Israel: redemption is as much a part of the cycle as is judgment—and redemption at times when the Israelites could not perform the ritual sacrifices.
I find it interesting that Christian theology is bound to this blood-sacrifice thing, long after Jews left it behind. I am not saying that Jesus and Paul were not bound to it; but other Jews were already progressing beyond it. Rightly or wrongly, in your view.
Your view may not be one of Calvinistic “total depravity”, but it seems to be one of “utter condemnation”—absent the blood sacrifice of Jesus.
What Jesus had to continually point out to them was the fact that they were spurning the law of God for the unhallowed customs of men.
What you are calling the “unhallowed customs of men”, I take to be the Oral Torah? One of the effects of the Oral Torah is to prevent an idolatry of the written text, of images graven on the page. But I don’t know if that’s what you (or Jesus) mean. The Pharisees (unlike the Sadducees) kept the Oral Torah. And although the Pharisees, as an identifiable party, numbered only 6,000 (according to Josephus), I am always uncomfortable with generalizations of “they”. Maybe you could clarify a bit.
However, Jesus often doesn’t sound much different from modern Reform (or Reconstructionist) rabbi criticizing the “hyper-orthodoxy” of some Orthodox Jews (as did the Baal Shem Tov and the Hasidim in the 18th century).
The purpose of the law being basically twofold, to show forth the righteousness of God and to reveal the true sinfulness of men.
Well, my understanding is that that was Paul’s understanding. That is certainly not the stated purpose of the Torah revealed at Sinai in Exodus, for example. And I really doubt if many Jews ever heard such a thing before Paul (or Jesus, if he said something similar).
I for one think that Paul is exceedingly familiar with Jewish tradition and accurately and successfully builds a case for Christ using that knowledge.
Well, if Paul was thoroughly familiar with Jewish tradition, he certainly didn’t let all of it out in his evangelism—after all, he wasn’t trying to present a complete Jewish case. If he was, he would’ve had to have noted that not all Jews were expecting a messiah, and that the whole concept of messiah is not/was not thoroughly defined in Judaism. There were different groups with different opinions—without any centralizing belief (or “doctrine). What Paul was trying to do was to convince mostly gentiles (and some diaspora Jews) that Jesus was the messiah.
Sure, the Jews that followed Jesus believed he was messiah. But that had to depend on some specific notions (at least latently) about who/what messiah was. As I noted before, not all Jews (or, I expect, even most Jews) had such definitive messianic beliefs or expectations. There were/are no “centralizing beliefs” about messiah in Judaism; there were/are no definitive criteria by which “all Jews” could recognize a/the messiah. Messianism simply was not/is not such a central issue in Judaism as a whole—as it was for some Jews, and is for Christians.
Just to understand that simple fact—even within the context of your own belief that Jesus is the messiah—takes one a long way toward understanding why Jews remain Jews.
Be well.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by epiphinehashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
What are the teachings of Christ? I'm not looking for a broad overview, but specifics. A list, if possible, complete with book, chapter and verse. Please only include direct quotes. Thanks ahead of time for your cooperation.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)
Let me narrow things down a bit.
I'm not looking for broad generalizations (e.g., love God with all your heart, etc.), or everything Christ said about anything. What I'm looking for specifically (I should've mentioned this earlier), are the teachings of Christ which pertain to how one ought to behave; i.e., what one must do in order to be considered ...[text shortened]... the time being). I'd like to create a list of only practical teachings.
Thanks.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd they shall chat on the Internet with heretics and not be turned into atheists.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)