Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 149
  1. #31

    Lenny's back

    But you did diss them, my friend. You should pay attention to your tone. Read what you wrote about them and their inherent worth as commentators on scripture. That will help you see what you actually wrote. Jog your memory a bit. Better yet: why don't you actually read something written by them? That way you won't be doing what you accuse others of...not responding to a written text. Try it. It isn't my job to quote their highlighted teachings to you. It is more profitable for you to actually read a full work that one of them has written, especially one written on Yeshua's teachings. I'm recommending them, not quoting them. That is, if you're interested in really taking a look at someone's scholarly works. That is, if you're interested in really taking a look at how Messianic Jews and a growing number of Christian commentators understand Yeshua's teachings. If you're not interested, you won't. And that's certainly in our context a 'diss'--to knock authors while not reading them.

    You strongly intimated that Messianic Jews don't believe in the scripture. Again, check your tone when you write. You also strongly intimate other things about Messianic Jews, and thus, about all Jews, since we are but a part of the whole. Examples:..."Messianic Judaism" cult. They set themselves up as the "true believers" in Messiah better than all those ignorant "Gentile Christians" who don't even keep the seventh day sabbath!" Richard: that is very judgmental (Judge & Jury again), and is demeaning, both of Messianic Jews and of many Christians. It is not true as well. Now let's take Monte Judah, and remember that you mentioned him, not me. First off, Mr. Judah is not considered part of any Messianic Jewish movement. Nearly all Messianic Jews disagree strongly with his basic ideas. The entire "two house" idea that he promotes is rejected by 95% or higher of Messianic Jews. That is what forms the backbone of his belief system. Check out the MJAA or UMJC websites for what 95% of Messianic Jews believe about that idea. So your whole comment re: him is worthless. You set him up as some type of example of who we are, and he is none. I could compare you to the WeCanKnow.com people; they probably have as much similarity to you as Monte Judah does to me. The only similarity between most Messianic Jews and Monte Judah are a few similar beliefs. Now, your gross generalization (you know, the infamous 'they'--as in your meaning, 'Messianic Jews'='they set themselves up...' seems like you are lumping all of us together as cultish. All of Messianic Jews: MJAA, UMJC, AMB, HCA...Are you, Richard?

    "That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down." I will comment on this again. You took nothing down. Friedman's book is going into yet another new printing. It's one of the most popular ones in Messianic Jewish circles, a best seller. People's lives are being changed to follow Messiah with MORE devotion and MORE intensity due to Friedman's book. He encourages people to live in that way: to love Messiah with their whole lives. That's what people who buy the book are saying (as well as what his students say about him). And again, I stand by my words that you totally misunderstood who his audience was and who he is speaking to, and why. But if you're closed minded to finding out the truth of that, you'll remain in high denial. Whatever, dude.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    It isn't my job to quote their highlighted teachings to you.
    Wrong. If you cite someone as supporting your case, it is your responsibility to state what they wrote that supports your case. Merely listing a bunch of names is meaningless. It absurd that you don't understand such a basic fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    That is, if you're interested in really taking a look at how Messianic Jews and a growing number of Christian commentators understand Yeshua's teachings. If you're not interested, you won't. And that's certainly in our context a 'diss'--to knock authors while not reading them.
    I quoted the exact words of Friedman, and compared them with waht the Scripture actually teaches. You have not responded to any of the facts I presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    You strongly intimated that Messianic Jews don't believe in the scripture.
    No, I cited a specific Messianic Jewish teacher who explicitly rejects Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Again, check your tone when you write.
    Tone? Who are you to tell others to "check" their tone? You began this interaction with a very shitty tone, telling me to "Go learn Yiddish" and stating that I "don't know Hebrew" when in fact you knew nothing of my knowledge. And then you spewed out a flood of moronic ad hominems, and now you lecture me on "tone"? Get a mirror "dude."

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    You also strongly intimate other things about Messianic Jews, and thus, about all Jews, since we are but a part of the whole.
    False. I neither said nor implied anything about "Jews" per se. You have a profound problem with basic logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Examples:..."Messianic Judaism" cult. They set themselves up as the "true believers" in Messiah better than all those ignorant "Gentile Christians" who don't even keep the seventh day sabbath!" Richard: that is very judgmental (Judge & Jury again), and is demeaning, both of Messianic Jews and of many Christians. It is not true as well. Now let's take Monte Judah, and remember that you mentioned him, not me. First off, Mr. Judah is not considered part of any Messianic Jewish movement. Nearly all Messianic Jews disagree strongly with his basic ideas. The entire "two house" idea that he promotes is rejected by 95% or higher of Messianic Jews. That is what forms the backbone of his belief system. Check out the MJAA or UMJC websites for what 95% of Messianic Jews believe about that idea. So your whole comment re: him is worthless. You set him up as some type of example of who we are, and he is none. I could compare you to the WeCanKnow.com people; they probably have as much similarity to you as Monte Judah does to me. The only similarity between most Messianic Jews and Monte Judah are a few similar beliefs. Now, your gross generalization (you know, the infamous 'they'--as in your meaning, 'Messianic Jews'='they set themselves up...' seems like you are lumping all of us together as cultish. All of Messianic Jews: MJAA, UMJC, AMB, HCA...Are you, Richard?
    I grant that my statements were too general. I should have used words like "some Messianic Jews" etc.

    But this is not the real issue. The real issue of this thread is my review of Friedman's book. As far as I can tell, you have not refuted anything I wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "That's why I wrote my review of Friedman's book. It was just another brick in that wall that needs to come down." I will comment on this again. You took nothing down. Friedman's book is going into yet another new printing. It's one of the most popular ones in Messianic Jewish circles, a best seller. People's lives are being changed to follow Messiah with MORE devotion and MORE intensity due to Friedman's book. He encourages people to live in that way: to love Messiah with their whole lives. That's what people who buy the book are saying (as well as what his students say about him). And again, I stand by my words that you totally misunderstood who his audience was and who he is speaking to, and why. But if you're closed minded to finding out the truth of that, you'll remain in high denial. Whatever, dude.
    It doesn't matter how many printings there are of Friedman's book. Truth is not established by the number of printings. If you think that Christians are learning to "love Messiah" by acting like fake "Torah observant" pseudo-Jews, then there is nothing I can do to open your eyes. I had a "Torah observant" Christian show up on this forum when I first opened it. She told me how she would pick and choose which bits and pieces of the Torah were convenient to obey. She said she would eat a little pork or lobster offered by her friends so she wouldn't "offend" them, and she considered herself to be "Torah observant!" I explained that she was making a mockery of the Torah which demands DEATH for disobedience, but she did not understand. And neither do you. You have rejected the truth of Paul's teaching concerning Torah.
    Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
    Do you and Friedman want people to put themselves under the law? If not, why are you promoting Christian to pretend to "observe Torah?"
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #33

    2 big points

    I will gladly share 2 things with you, Richard. First off, you seem to have some kind of fantasy debate set up between you and I. I am not debating you. There is no audience of judge and jury, unless according to your 'debate' scenario, it's you (which as I've written, seems to be the case here). What I am doing is telling you what I know about Dr. Friedman's book--the intended audience, as well as, lately, the high popularity of the book. So give up on your weird fantasy of this being some kind of cosmic debate with a fantasy audience and fantasy judges who hold scorecards. Geez, Richard, I'm just trying to get you to see that you are mis-perceiving Friedman! That' it. I care neither to debate, nor to try to convince of you very much, being that I've seen just how close minded and stuck to your opinions that you are. And that, to be honest, makes me really sad.

    "I cited a specific Messianic Jewish teacher who explicitly rejects Scripture."
    Yes, but for the purpose of 'incriminating' those of us who call ourselves Messianic Jews. Look again at what you said and its context. It truly, clearly and loudly came off that way.

    "You have a profound problem with basic logic." Not really. I passed (with A's) 6 logic classes in university. I'm pretty good at it, actually. Your logical assumptions, meant mostly to try and defend your stuck opinions, again, are also illogical. Who would make a claim about an author's intentions without first consulting the author? Who then would, when told by a close student of the author, who historically knows the author's intent, would make such a fuss as you are, standing on an opinion that indeed defies logic!

    "you have not refuted anything I wrote." I have told you that's not my job. But yours IS to make sure you are right about this author's intentions. And you're wrong, but are too stuck on your own opinion to ask the author. Now that's illogical!

    "You have rejected the truth of Paul's teaching concerning Torah." No I haven't. I love the Torah, study it, and live to honor its Author. How that rejects the Torah is totally illogical!! (cf. Mt. 5.16-20). Shaul himself loved the Torah, and kept it marvelously, as it should be kept (cf. Acts 28.17). According to what I'm hearing from you, the Torah is done away with? That would make Yeshua a liar. And he isn't (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).

    You quote Gal. 4.21, but if you'd read Nanos book which I recommended to you, you'd see that there are many different ways to understand this scripture. Yours is not in tune with mine. So I imagine that makes you right, automatically, Or would you actually like to actually discuss this? Do you know Greek at all? You're looking at an idiom, being 'under the law'. It means usually the commandments of the Torah in a legalistic way in order to achieve entrance into the world to come. I certainly (as well as 99% of Messianic Jews that I know) do not do that. (Nor do I ever eat pork or lobster, by the way!)

    "Do you and Friedman want people to put themselves under the law?" No. Not if you understand what Shaul meant by this idiom.

  4. #34

    typo

    It means usually the commandments of the Torah in a legalistic way
    The above should read "it usually means the commandments of the Torah are observed in a legalistic way..."

    Shabbat shalom!
    Lenny

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    I will gladly share 2 things with you, Richard. First off, you seem to have some kind of fantasy debate set up between you and I. I am not debating you. There is no audience of judge and jury, unless according to your 'debate' scenario, it's you (which as I've written, seems to be the case here). What I am doing is telling you what I know about Dr. Friedman's book--the intended audience, as well as, lately, the high popularity of the book. So give up on your weird fantasy of this being some kind of cosmic debate with a fantasy audience and fantasy judges who hold scorecards. Geez, Richard, I'm just trying to get you to see that you are mis-perceiving Friedman! That' it. I care neither to debate, nor to try to convince of you very much, being that I've seen just how close minded and stuck to your opinions that you are. And that, to be honest, makes me really sad.
    What a joke! You say you are not "debating" and then you ramble on attempting to refute my arguments. So what am I supposed to do now? You have made it clear you do not want to enter into rational discourse on this topic. You have thrown out a mountain of fallacious ad hominems and continue to do so even after they have been exposed. Then you call yourself an "A" student in logic?

    Now let's look at the points you have raised:

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "You have a profound problem with basic logic." Not really. I passed (with A's) 6 logic classes in university. I'm pretty good at it, actually. Your logical assumptions, meant mostly to try and defend your stuck opinions, again, are also illogical. Who would make a claim about an author's intentions without first consulting the author? Who then would, when told by a close student of the author, who historically knows the author's intent, would make such a fuss as you are, standing on an opinion that indeed defies logic!
    You don't know my "logical assumptions" and you don't know if I have any "stuck opinions" and you don't know my motives, and you haven't presented any evidence that my "assumptions" are "illogical." Therefore, you committed four logical fallacies in that one sentence! Who gave you your "A" in Logic? The Mad Hatter?

    And you seem to have a fundamental problem with memory. I already answered your false assertion that I "could not know the intention" of an author without actually "being" or "asking" the author. I answered that in Post #5 using Friedman's own words. You never refuted the evidence I presented. And since you can't refute it, you now pretend that we are not "debating" at all so there is no need for you to actually support your statements with facts! Brilliant strategy Doctor. You need never fear being proven wrong with a strategy like that!

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "you have not refuted anything I wrote." I have told you that's not my job. But yours IS to make sure you are right about this author's intentions. And you're wrong, but are too stuck on your own opinion to ask the author. Now that's illogical!
    So there we have it. It's "not your job" to refute what I have written. Your job is only to ASSERT I am wrong without actually presenting any evidence. You are one brilliant internet "non-debater" Doctor! Brilliant! I can state categorically that no one could ever refute your non-arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "You have rejected the truth of Paul's teaching concerning Torah." No I haven't. I love the Torah, study it, and live to honor its Author. How that rejects the Torah is totally illogical!! (cf. Mt. 5.16-20). Shaul himself loved the Torah, and kept it marvelously, as it should be kept (cf. Acts 28.17). According to what I'm hearing from you, the Torah is done away with? That would make Yeshua a liar. And he isn't (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).

    You quote Gal. 4.21, but if you'd read Nanos book which I recommended to you, you'd see that there are many different ways to understand this scripture. Yours is not in tune with mine. So I imagine that makes you right, automatically, Or would you actually like to actually discuss this? Do you know Greek at all? You're looking at an idiom, being 'under the law'. It means usually the commandments of the Torah in a legalistic way in order to achieve entrance into the world to come. I certainly (as well as 99% of Messianic Jews that I know) do not do that. (Nor do I ever eat pork or lobster, by the way!)

    "Do you and Friedman want people to put themselves under the law?" No. Not if you understand what Shaul meant by this idiom.
    The Torah commands circumcision. Paul rejected circumcision. Your argument fails on that point alone.

    Furthermore, you have failed to understand the entire book of Galatians. It does not rest on the phrase "under the law" alone. Paul made the relation between "Torah/Law" and the New Covenant explicit in the allegory of Hagar = Bondage = Torah and Sarah = Freedom = New Covenant. That's why I quoted the whole section in my previous post. Here, let me do it again with highlights so you will know what I am getting at:
    Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? [Paul is setting up the whole topic here.] 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. [Do you understand? Hagar = Bondage = First Covenant = Torah and Sarah = Freedom = New Covenant.] 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
    You claim to be an "A" student of logic, but can't understand the logic Paul is presenting here? He says that Christians are not related to the "bondwomen" at all! They are children born of the freewoman and they are free from the bondage of the Law. This coheres precisely with what Paul taught elsewhere:
    Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
    Are you or are you not "free from the law?"

    Are you or are you not born of the freewoman?

    Why do you go about pretending to be Torah-observant when Paul chastised Peter for that very error? Why do I have to quote the entire book of Galatians to you?
    Galatians 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But from those who seemed to be something -- whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man -- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. 11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
    Paul's teaching here is confirmed throughout his letters. For example:
    Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
    Paul was explicit. The righteousness of the New Covenant is APART FROM THE LAW. Why then do you promote keeping the law?

    In as much as Messianic Judaism promotes "Torah-observance" it is a schismatic cult that directly contradicts the plain teachings of the New Testament.

    I can see why you don't want to "debate" this topic. Every word of the Bible contradicts your position.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #36
    "I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question!" A meaningless 'motto'. You don't seem to have any questions, Richard. Just all of the 'stuck' answers.

    The Torah commands circumcision for whom? I.e. I am circumcised. Did my parents' condemn me? And why would Shaul have wanted to circumcise a Gentile? (Titus). There's a fundamental issue there that seems very clouded in your mind. Neither Friedman nor I would ever say that a Gentile should be circumcised (though most American males, from what I understand, are. Does that condemn them?)

    Do you know what a midrashic homily (derash she'mevusas al-midrash) is? That is what we have in Galatians 4. Shaul uses the story of Hagar, Ishmael and the reference to the two 'mountains' to explain a particular point, one that I am not going to 'debate' with you, since your opinion of what it means is the Gospel, and everyone else is wrong. If you forget that the entire context of Galatians is that of false teachers (who probably weren't even Jewish) teaching that one had to keep the mitzvot of Torah in their particular prescribed manner to earn entrance into the world to come, and Shaul was fighting to uphold the Acts 15 decision, then you may understand his chapter 4 points. Otherwise, you really won't. Jewish civilization has NEVER believed that the Torah is to be kept in one certain manner in order to earn entrance into the world to come. That is a huge misunderstanding. In fact, reading people's work who believe this is really sad--some of the early church 'fathers' fall into that error (in history, a very few Jewish offshoots espoused something similar, but it's not been mainstream thought whatsoever).

    "You don't know my "logical assumptions." You're right. I can't find them!

    The New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20). Look at how Shaul lived : 'ego Pharisais eimi', he stated, when he could have had this written in the past tense. It is clearly in the present tense, which shows us his identification still in the middle of the 1st century.

    Lots more to say, but I'll refrain for the moment to see if you really discuss things instead of throwing around the 'ad hominem' phrases, as you clearly don't think that you do this, too.

    Shabbat shalom

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Do you know what a midrashic homily (derash she'mevusas al-midrash) is? That is what we have in Galatians 4. Shaul uses the story of Hagar, Ishmael and the reference to the two 'mountains' to explain a particular point, one that I am not going to 'debate' with you, since your opinion of what it means is the Gospel, and everyone else is wrong.

    ... The New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).
    Of course you won't "debate" that point - you know you can't. So what's the point of posting?

    The text is plain. You deny it because it contradicts your religion. Pretty simple stuff.

    Paul explicitly states that the "two mountains" are the "two covenants." And then he compares and contrasts those two covenants and shows that one leads to bondage and the other leads to freedom. He says that one is of the flesh, and the other is of the Spirit and the Promise, which is the term he uses for the Gospel. He then says that Christians are born of the promise (Gospel) and "heavenly Jerusalem" whereas unbelieving Jews identified with the "earthly Jerusalem" were of the flesh, in bondage, persecuting Christians, and should be "cast out" like Hagar. What could be more plain or obvious? But you can't speak in terms that are plain or obvious, and indeed, you cannot even touch what the Scripture actually states because you refuse to accept it. There's nothing I can do about that.

    But if you want to talk about what the Bible actually states, I'm all ears.

    You say that the "New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20)." This is not what Paul states in Galatians 4. He explicitly compares and contrasts the two covenants. If you can't see this, you can't see anything. He says the Old is "of the flesh" and the New is "of the spirit." There is no greater "contradiction" possible in the Bible. Later in the same letter Paul says that spirit and flesh are "are contrary the one to the other" (Gal 5:17). And everything Paul teaches in Galatians concerning the Law vs. Gospel is fully coherent with everything he teaches in all his other letters. But you are absolutely blind to what the Bible teaches because it contradicts the doctrines of your religion. You can't even get Paul's name right no matter how many times he signs his letters "Paul." That's truly pathetic on a grand scale.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #38

    Wowsers!

    I won't debate because you don't debate...you pontificate. Period. Anybody ever tell you that? I'll bet I'm not the first. Additionally, I am not here to debate. I am here telling you whom Dr. Friedman's book was intended for, but you are afraid to contact him to ask him. I don't blame you.

    "you cannot even touch what the Scripture actually states because you refuse to accept it." As previously stated, I accept all 66 books as the inspired revelation of God. What I don't accept is your view of some of it. I guess that makes me wrong, right?

    Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?

    Try reading Mark Nanos on Galatians 4. Until you do, I won't bother trying to tell you how I read it. Nanos' book (the Irony of Galatians) will give you more light on Galatians 4 than you've seen in awhile. Up for the challenge, or would you rather hide behind Marcion's ideas?

    "I never said you didn't believe in the 66 books." I think you have now= "you refuse to accept it." There you go. Black and white.

    In spite of our differences, I bless you.

    Lenny

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    I won't debate because you don't debate...you pontificate. Period.
    Ha! You state that with the infallible certainty of the Pontifex Maximus himself. All you need now is a pointy hat. You even followed your assertion with the single word sentence "Period" which is designed to end all discussion. What a joke! There is none so blind as those who accuse others of what they themselves do. You have no self-awareness whatsoever. You are the incarnation of Romans 2:1.
    Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
    This is how you earned your illustrious title of Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1 Sabra.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "you cannot even touch what the Scripture actually states because you refuse to accept it." As previously stated, I accept all 66 books as the inspired revelation of God. What I don't accept is your view of some of it. I guess that makes me wrong, right?
    Oh, really? So now you are saying that it is only "my view" that Paul's allegory is about the difference between the Old and New Covenants? It doesn't matter that he said "these are the two covenants?" Brilliant. It's no wonder you won't "debate" me! You can't admit the most plain and obvious facts of the text! Are you asserting that it's only "my view" that he said one covenant was "of the flesh" and led to "bondage" and corresponded to physical Jerusalem? Is that only my view??? And it's only "my view" that the other covenant is "of the Spirit" and "of Promise" like the Gospel, and is of the "Jerusalem that is above?"

    You deny everything the text says, and then run and hide, screaming "I WON'T DEBATE YOU LALALLALALA" with your fingers firmly plugging your ears. And all the while you think that you are absolutely right without any question, and anyone who presents evidence contradicting your blah-blah-blah interpretation is "pontificating." And on and on and on and on your words bubble up from the babble of your malformed mind without one of them actually dealing with the issue at hand. Wowsers indeed!

    Your effort to flee from the plain and obvious meaning of the text makes you look like a poster child for the post-modern wasteland. There is no meaning in the text! It's just one man's view versus another.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?
    If your interpretation of that passage is correct, then why are you not teaching all Christians that they must obey Torah? You teaching is logically incoherent.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post

    Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?

    Lenny
    Hi dr sabra,

    What I hear Jesus saying in Matthew 5 is that he has not come to destroy the law by abolishing it, but rather by "fulfilling the law" where he transforms it from a law of "works" to one of intents of the heart.

    Jesus goes on to admonish the Pharisee's NOT to break any of the laws, or teach men to break the laws because fulfilling the law is not done by breaking it, but by transforming it to a spiritual level.
    Matt.5:17-19 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    Keeping the law wholly, or partially does nothing to elevate one to a place of living in the New Covenant...where the Law has been transformed to loving your neighbor as yourself, upon which hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.
    Matt. 22:39-40 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
    All the Best,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •