Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 149
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Thanks for your comments. Yes, I'd agree that Yeshua dealt partially with showing how the commandments of the Torah (its legal sections) should be viewed, honored and observed. That's a good insight.

    Small sectors of the Jewish world have related to the commandment of the Torah in a 'legalistic' manner. But they have been few and far between, and fringe groups. The question that needs to be asked is what 'legalistic' means. As used in Galatians, it clearly refers to keeping the Torah's legal codes as a way of entering the world to come. This was NOT a Jewish teaching from the 1st century, when Galatians was written. So whose teaching was it? That is the million dollar question. We don't know the answer, but it never did represent the mainstream, majority or large sectors of the 1st century (nor modern) Jewish world. In fact, just last week I read a wonderful homily by the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, in which he wrote that the challenge to those who love G-d today is to respond IN FAITH to his promises, and base our lives ON HIS PROMISES, just like our forefather Abraham did. That represents mainstream Jewish thought throughout history, including today.

    LH
    My question to you would be: What value do you place on believers (Jew or Gentile) in Jesus keeping all or part of the 613 laws? And if you do, which ones should be kept, and for what reason?

    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

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    I forgot three recent ad hominems of yours that are recent. Here they are:
    "Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1" =2 days ago
    You poor deluded fool!

    YOU ARE THE MAN who introduced the phrase "Mr. Nasty" when you threw it at me in post #25. That's why I added it to the illustrious title of "Dr. Mr. Nasty Romans 2:1 Sabra" that you have been earning here on my forum.

    And as for Romans 2:1 - your post is proof enough that you earned that title, since once again you are doing the very thing you accuse me of!
    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.
    How many times do I need to show you this verse? You are the one who introduced ad hominem into this thread. I saw you for what you are, and knew that if I tossed back what you were spewing, you would blow a gasket and the gunk in your heart would be revealed. And that's what has happened. But you don't care ... you continue looking for new ways to attack me because you cannot attack my arguments. Truly pathetic.
    • 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. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    My point was concerning the rejection and replacement of Paul's Biblical name to "Shaul." Well, you better talk to him about it, pal. It is he who remained a Pharisee, and there ain't no Pharisee I'm aware of who had the name Paulos.
    You've never once heard of a Pharisee named Paul? My oh my ... that's quite revealing in light of the fact that the Bible twice refers to Paul as a Pharisee:
    Philippians 3:4 Though I [Paul] might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee

    Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
    Is there anything in the Bible that you don't reject?
    • 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

  4. #54

    Response

    Wow, Richard, you are having a temper tantrum par excellence here, using words that I have never heard used by one who claims to be a believer in Yeshua. Again, you might want to check your temper at the door.

    And again, you blast away with your ad hominems a whole lot more than I have in the past 3 or 4 postings I've made. Check it out. You are the one calling other's names. Yet you complain about it. I guess what's good for the proverbial goose isn't good for the gander, huh? Let's highlight a few from today: 'deluded fool' , "You are ignorant beyond all description!"--again, the 1st time in my 65 years that anyone has ever said that to me. So at least you're original!

    "That is absurd"--it absolutely isn't. Ever studied Greek, Richard? Tell me all about it.

    "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." =in terms of being justified. That is the issue that he is addressing: how is one justified. Yet his point here does not attempt to nullify the legal codes of the Torah, or Shaul contradicts the scriptures of the Torah, which he never did.

    "...the idea of "under the law."=I can see how you would think this way if you don't know what Shaul is referring to here. You can certainly think he's referring to this if you want to. But it's not what the original Greek idiom means. Would you like to go into the Greek on that one? Just let me know.

    "pushing an novel interpretation that contradicts nearly everything in the vast body of literature ever written on this topic."=not really. He references, discusses and quotes a lot of quality Christian (and Jewish) scholarship in his book (e.g., Lightfoot, R. Longenecker, Saldarini, Neusner, Stuhlmacher, Witherington, Hengel, Ellis) . But then you wouldn't know that, would you? So instead you say something that seems right to you without checking the facts. Again...hey, Richard...pick up his book & read it so you actually know what you're talking about.

    "for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."--again, we are talking about the revelation of the identity of who Messiah is. However, it is also apparent that when my Jewish people see that day (cf. Zech. 12.10ff, 14.4ff), that the Christian world will learn a LOT from the Jewish people about honoring G-d, respecting G-d, serving alongside Israel, and much more. Thus, Dr. Nanos, basically being called a worthless scholar by you, actually has much worth to you and to the entire Christian world. Why? The christian world, often too arrogant vis a vis the Jewish people due to what I'll call theological arrogance (cf. Romans 11, plus the historical example and writings of Augustine, Marcion, Chrysostom & Luther, among others), would actually do well to see the many humble, G-d loving Jewish people who I, for one, know. this isn't touching on the doctrine of entrance into the world to come; it is touching on arrogance and humility, two aspects of historical Christianity that has driven a wedge between the Jewish world and our own Messiah.

    You almost became Jewish, huh. Richard...spare me. Honestly. Oy. Some of my best friends are Christians, too.

    "What is wrong with your brain???" Let's see...I had an MRI done when I turned 65, and they assured me that my brain function is totally normal. No tumors, no abnormalities. So you young whippersnapper (I trust you're younger than me), I'll match mine with yours anytime.

    'It is absurd in the extreme for you to claim that you believe in the Bible and then to rely on an UNBELIEVER'S INTERPRETATION to support your novel religion.' Ready for the actual truth instead of again your surmising? Here goes, I hope you can follow this...in my conversations with Dr. Nanos, he and I don't believe the same thing on a good number of issues. But I can still respect his scholarship, and I do. I believe his research helps me to dunderstand the Bible. Doesn't matter if he's a believer or not on that score. I listen to the Jewish rabbi Gabriel Barkai explain to me the archaeological background of the Exodus. Because Barkai, a scholar, is a Conservative rabbi, I guess I should throw his works out the window. Can't trust him, huh?

    Richard, I know you can't imagine that lumping such people into your theological boxes follows NOT PAUL, but Marcion. And since so many Jewish people get whipped into your iron-cast theological boxes (me, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nanos are but three; I think you basically whipped the entire Messianic Jewish community worldwide there, too, so add another 35,000 or so people), these boxes by appearance (and I'd guess by definition) border on anti-Semitism. Dig it (like we used to say in the early 60s)! The late Rev. Franklin Littell writes about such things in his many works--I'd recommend that you read them, but I'm sure you have an excuse not to...no problem.
    Bye for now. Lenny

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." =in terms of being justified. That is the issue that he is addressing: how is one justified. Yet his point here does not attempt to nullify the legal codes of the Torah, or Shaul contradicts the scriptures of the Torah, which he never did.
    You totally missed my point. You had asserted that "under the law" meant "legalistically following the legal codes." So I asked "How does 'legalistically following legal codes' function as a 'tutor' to lead someone to Christ?" You have not answered.

    Why can't you respond with simplicity and clarity? I quoted your exact words and showed your error but you do not respond to what I wrote. This is very strange.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    "...the idea of "under the law."=I can see how you would think this way if you don't know what Shaul is referring to here. You can certainly think he's referring to this if you want to. But it's not what the original Greek idiom means. Would you like to go into the Greek on that one? Just let me know.
    You have never presented any logic or facts to support your assertion about the "original Greek idiom." And neither did you refute the explanation I gave. You are just writing like a child, saying "Is so! Is not!" without providing any evidence or logic. And worse, the fact that you are wrong about the meaning of "under the law" is trivial to demonstrate. Just look at how Paul used it:
    Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
    So Jesus was "made of a woman, made legalistically following the legal codes" so he could "redeem them that were legalistically following the legal codes? Brilliant. And "whatsoever the Torah says, it says to those who are "legalistically following the legal codes?"
    Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are legalistically following the legal codes: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
    Your interpretation is simply NUTS. It makes no sense whatsoever. It is no wonder that you have merely repeated what you were told and have not even attempted to give any support to such an absurd claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Thus, Dr. Nanos, basically being called a worthless scholar by you, actually has much worth to you and to the entire Christian world. Why? The christian world, often too arrogant vis a vis the Jewish people due to what I'll call theological arrogance
    This has nothing to do with "arrogance." It is simple logic and facts. Nanos' interpretation of the "two covenants" is fringe at best. I believe it is just plain nuts, which seems to be confirmed by the fact that you can't even explain it yourself though you claim to "believe" it and it's the only hope you have to rescue your little religion from the junk pile. Likewise, your interpretation of "under the law" is equally absurd, and you can't support it either. All you do is make claims without any evidence, logic, or facts to back them up. And then you simply ignore the evidence I present no matter how plainly I present it. You have chosen a path that has absolutely nothing to do with truth or reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    You almost became Jewish, huh. Richard...spare me. Honestly. Oy. Some of my best friends are Christians, too.
    So now you call me liar? That coheres perfectly with the "character" you have demonstrated on this forum. It's no different than when you falsely asserted I knew no Hebrew, and then failed to acknowledge, let alone apologize for, your error. And you call yourself a follower of Yeshua? Again, I say BULLSHIT! You lie all day and never admit it even when corrected. You are no follow of Yeshua, you have made that perfectly clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    'It is absurd in the extreme for you to claim that you believe in the Bible and then to rely on an UNBELIEVER'S INTERPRETATION to support your novel religion.' Ready for the actual truth instead of again your surmising? Here goes, I hope you can follow this...in my conversations with Dr. Nanos, he and I don't believe the same thing on a good number of issues. But I can still respect his scholarship, and I do. I believe his research helps me to dunderstand the Bible. Doesn't matter if he's a believer or not on that score. I listen to the Jewish rabbi Gabriel Barkai explain to me the archaeological background of the Exodus. Because Barkai, a scholar, is a Conservative rabbi, I guess I should throw his works out the window. Can't trust him, huh?
    Helped you understand the Bible? Yeah, I can see how well you "understand" the Bible. Why then can't you simply state what Nanos supposedly taught you? I'll tell you why ... because it doesn't make any sense any more than your your crazy assertion that "under the law" is a "Greek idiom for legalistically following legal codes." That's not how Paul used that phrase in the Bible. Anyone who can read can see that for himself. Jesus was made "legalistically following the legal codes" so he could redeem those who were ""legalistically following the legal codes?" Give me a break! And give yourself one too while you are at it by abandoning the absurd interpretations required to support your recently invented religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Richard, I know you can't imagine that lumping such people into your theological boxes follows NOT PAUL, but Marcion. And since so many Jewish people get whipped into your iron-cast theological boxes (me, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nanos are but three; I think you basically whipped the entire Messianic Jewish community worldwide there, too, so add another 35,000 or so people), these boxes by appearance (and I'd guess by definition) border on anti-Semitism. Dig it (like we used to say in the early 60s)! The late Rev. Franklin Littell writes about such things in his many works--I'd recommend that you read them, but I'm sure you have an excuse not to...no problem.
    Bye for now. Lenny
    There you go again. Mindlessly throwing out meaningless canned insults - anti-semite, Marcion, blah blah blah. And you imagine your arrogant little self is justified to spew lying shit on people like that? I have written nothing to justify any accusation of anti-Semite, and nothing I have written is related to Marcion in any way at all. He threw out the enter OT and most of the NT because it contradicted his novel religion. You are more like him than I since you have rejected the plain and obvious meaning of the text in favor of your novel religion. It is patently obvious that you are flipping out because you are incapable of answering my arguments. Just look at the number of points I have made that you have not touched, let alone refuted! Don't you realize that this record is permanent? The fact that you began by spewing ad hominems is recorded forever. And your chosen responses to my arguments (lies, ad hominem, dodges, appeals to authority, and a dozen other logical fallacies) are recorded forever. The fact that I use strong language and call a spade a spade is not the same as making up lying insults like "anti-Semite." Go think about that for a while.
    • 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. #56

    response

    your nasty name calling & temper flares continue, nevertheless...i will give a more detailed response after the weekend. am busy enjoying the sunshine.
    lenny, whose whole family wrote me off after i confessed faith in yeshua as my messiah. but i guess i was wrong, huh?[judge + jury once again]

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    your nasty name calling & temper flares continue, nevertheless...i will give a more detailed response after the weekend. am busy enjoying the sunshine.
    lenny, whose whole family wrote me off after i confessed faith in yeshua as my messiah. but i guess i was wrong, huh?[judge + jury once again]
    You've got to be joking! I've never seen anyone as unaware of his behavior as you seem to be. When I explained to you my personal history of moving from a general interest in spirituality, to pop Kabbalah, to serious Judaic kabbalah, to Judaism with the idea that I might convert, and then to Christianity, you set your self up as judge + jury and wrote this dismissive little piece of godless bullshit:
    You almost became Jewish, huh. Richard...spare me. Honestly. Oy. Some of my best friends are Christians, too.
    You set yourself up as "judge + jury" dozens of times in this thread. You began with your absurd assertion that I don't know Hebrew. And now you accuse me of setting myself up as "judge + jury" and doing what you did? Man! You have ZERO self-awareness. You are the Romans 2:1 poster child if ever there were one. I've never seen anyone as ignorant of their own behavior as you. Don't bother writing any more. Any attempt to communicate with you is obviously pointless. You write like a brain-dead robot.
    • 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. #58

    response, galatians

    The overall Galatians perspective, part 1

    Now I have some time, after enjoying the Israeli sunshine for awhile, to write re: Galatians. The Jewish scholar Peter Sigal noted: ‘'much of modern scholarship inaccurately portrayed both 1st century Judaism and the relationship of Judaism to Christianity. This error is largely rooted in a misunderstanding of both Paul’s and Judaism’s position on faith and works…(the) simplistic conception of Judaism as ‘legalism’.' That is what is so striking about your analyses. You seem to view the entire Jewish world through Shaul’s words in Galatians, when he meant those words for a very specific group of people who may or may not have even been Jewish. Nanos makes it clear in his historical analysis that we are not certain on the ethnic background of Shaul’s intended audience. That is why you see Galatians as doing some negation of keeping the Torah (whatever ‘keeping the Torah’ is defined as; you never really defined what you meant by this). And if you’ve ever studied epistemology, you’ll know that familiarization with the background of all parties involved in a communication is crucial to understanding the contents of the communication. It is here where I find your analysis lacking. You stereotype Judaism of the 1st century in a way that is inaccurate to its historical reality. You interpret Shaul to be addressing that same stereotypical belief. I can see the logic of your thoughts re: Galatians IF you believe that stereotype. But knowing that Shaul remained a Torah observant Pharisee till his death, if your interpretation of Galatians re: Torah is to be accurate, then Shaul lied about how he lived, or you are wrong. I can’t cut it any other way.

    Let’s examine your stereotype of the 1st century Jewish world. You said you ‘almost converted’ to Judaism. Then you should be familiar with the Tachanun prayer and with the exposition of Rav Salmai from Makkot 23-24 re: what G-d requires from mankind. The language of both texts is replete with references to G-d’s grace, and with faith and trust being the active factors in entrance into the world to come. These prayers/recitations, performed by Jews for nearly two millennia, were put into the Siddur to emphasize their theological points. The Jewish world of Shaul’s time had mainstream belief in entrance to the coming world through faith in G-d, not by one’s successful completion of keeping the entire 'taryag' of the mitzvot. If Shaul is interpreted to be saying that, then he is either interpreted wrongly, OR is addressing a real fringe group within the Jewish world. That is Nanos’ contention, and I do believe Dr. Friedman has written extensively on that viewpoint, and is also my perspective.

    The Jewish world did have beliefs (not homogenous ones) re: the Messiah, with a strong stream of belief in vicarious atonement (cf. Sanhedrin 98b and the discussion of the ‘leper Messiah’ from Isaiah 53). That is why so many Jewish people became believers in Yeshua in the 1st century (according to Dr. John Fischer and Dr. Friedman, possibly half of Jerusalem were Messianic Jews. Cf. Friedman’s book on that issue, he makes a pretty point). When Yakov, the 1st Chief rabbi of the Messianic Jewish community in Jerusalem, was murdered, Josephus informs us that Torah-loving Jews complained about his death, which resulted in the removal of the high priest for his alleged complicity in it. Messianic Jews in Israel should receive the respect and love of all Gentile church members throughout all of history for their courage, and boldness in spreading the belief in the Jewish Messiah to the pagan world. Sadly that hasn't been the case, has it?

    Anyhow, let’s delve further into the stereotype I mention. Jewish scholar H.J. Schoeps noted (and BTW, he’s favorable toward Christianity in his writings): '…all Christian polemic, especially modern Protestant polemic against ‘the law’, misconstrues the law of the Jews as a means of attaining justification in the sight of G-d.'

    It is the consensus of the Jewish scholarly world (and again, Christian historians and scholars will agree with us, e.g. B. Young, D. Bivin, J. Frankovic, Anglican bishop D. Pileggi, all Christian scholars who live in Israel, actively writing and teaching, among them), that 1st century Judaism wasn’t as it is so often stereotyped to be=[not homogenous, not into ‘salvation by works’, etc.]. Yet this is the conclusion held by a number of expositors of Galatians that I’ve read. (In fact, where did the entire idea of faith in One G-d originate?) (in the Jewish world itself, within the treasures of the Torah!)

    Dr. Fischer has done his analysis of Galatians which states; 'The book has nothing to do with Jewish believers not observing Torah & tradition; the implication of the council decision is that they will follow their heritage and customs' (take a gander at Acts 15.16ff). I’m happy to discuss Acts 21 with you, which offers us clear proof that in the 1st century, 30 years after Yeshua’s death, his followers kept the mitzvot. In fact, Dr. Friedman discusses this fact in his first book. And that brings me back to my point that you egregiously miss: Dr. Friedman agrees with Dr. Fischer, and is NOT calling on Christians to do this same thing. But unless you actually speak with Dr. Friedman, you’ll never know the truth, as you’ve not assessed his position correctly. Don't know what type of fear holds you back from asking him what he meant (??) Seems like your excuses are just that. Anyhow, I’ll refrain from any more comments on that. My position as Dr. Friedman’s student on that issue is clear.

    So here’s what I’m saying: the overall message of Galatians can’t be made to contradict the historical record of the book of Acts, or that of how the earliest Jewish believers in Yeshua lived (obedient to their forefather’s covenants). So what is it that Shaul is opposing in Galatians, if not the Jewish world’s theological error of ‘salvation through earning it’, to put it in the aforementioned stereotypic phraseology? To quote Dr. Fischer: 'It is not Torah observance or adherence to the Jewish traditions, but legalism and perhaps its teaching in a specific form.' (This is why the historical background of Galatians’ recipients, lacking to us historically, should preclude anyone from jumping on an anti-Torah, anti-Jewish emphasis to this book. Neither exists. Anti-legalism does, and its abounds!
    Chapter 2, vv.3-5: Shaul frames the teaching of the legalists as bringing the Galatian area believers into the bondage of legalism. Shaul is informing us of the belief system of these particular false teachers, not of the extant Jewish world, nor that of the content of the Torah! 2.19 is often cited to argue v. the content of the Torah, with the Torah coming out as the legalistic bondage-giver. A horrendous, anti-Semitic misconception, since this has been played upon in Jewish history to lead to the shedding of Jewish blood, or more recently, simple overall apathy by the Church as 6 million of my people were butchered. This development alone is enough for many Jewish people never to consider the Messianic claims of Yeshua. The rampant dislike of anything Jewish in the history of the Church started with a theological divorce, based upon wrong interpretations of Shaul’s works. Never think that a theological one-upmanship wasn’t active in contributing to the church’s complicity in the Holocaust. Just read Chrysostom, Augustine and later Luther, and this is well-seen. This theological ‘one-upmanship’ (and worse in the cases of Marcion & Luther) is contributed to in part by misinterpreting the writings of Shaul, and viewing them to be anti-Torah polemic. And I stand by my words here (I was born in Germany; I know about this situation all too painfully well).
    Now, in v. 19, is Shaul saying that he ‘died to the Torah’? (If so, it’s the 1st usage of that term in Jewish religious writings in history; possibly the only one with that meaning to it!) If the Torah reflects G-d’s instructions to men (and that is the proper definition of what the Torah is—do you know enough Hebrew to know that the word comes from the ancient root ‘to shoot at a target’, and ‘to instruct’? Well, there you go…80% of the content of the books of Genesis-Deut. is historical narrative, not legal content, as A. Berkowitz bring out in his classic, ‘Torah Rediscovered’. So is Torah ‘law’? Only if Olympia is the only city in Washington state, Richard.

    My view: Shaul teaches here of death to the condemnation that a legalistic approach to the Torah brings (cf. 3.10-11). Perhaps he speaks here of a death to legalism itself as a valid system of thought. Legalism [‘do it this way to earn your way into the world to come’] pronounces the death sentence…not the Torah. The Torah is not death, or Joshua’s words (Joshua 1.1-8), would contradict Shaul’s--or G-d changed His mind about the nature of the Torah, even though it is written, ‘I am the L-rd, I change not…’). The hold of legalism (Shaul is using his name not as the personal ‘victim’ here, but as an example of a person, as we often do in modern Hebrew (or English) today. So the hold of legalism producing death on people is broken (cf. Rom. 7.1ff=the same point is driven home). It is Yeshua who removed that death (3.13-14). Any anti-Torah way of interpreting this is simply inaccurate to history, and is a foundation for Christian anti-Semitism.

    Lenny

    (to be continued, tomorrow).

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Good morning Lenny!

    Thank you for your reasoned response!



    Your many words helped me understand where you are coming from, but too many words can obscure the central issues. So I will try to keep my responses brief, though it won't be easy because you brought up so many points all at once. In the future, it would be best if we could choose one point to discuss at a time to keep the posts manageable.

    1) You wrote: "Let’s examine your stereotype of the 1st century Jewish world."

    How do you anything about my view of "the first century Jewish world?" How do you know it is a "stereotype?" Have I written anything about it in this thread? Have you read anything I've written on that topic elsewhere? Or are you making an entirely unfounded assumption without any evidence at all? If you want to make an assertion about something I believe, it is very important that you make a proper citation and/or quotation of what I have actually stated just like I am doing now with your post. Otherwise, it is likely that you will fall into the error of making false assumptions and your comments will be irrelevant at best, and probably even erroneous.

    2) You wrote that many people misconstrue "the law of the Jews as a means of attaining justification in the sight of G-d.”

    That seems to be a very odd assertion for a variety of reasons. First, there are many passages in the Bible that directly assert that justification in the sight of God is achieved by obeying commandments. I'm sure you know them or can look them up, so there is no need to list them here. But there also are verses like Gen 15:6 and Hosea 2:4 that speak of being justified by faith, and we all know that these verses have caused a perennial hermeneutical tension between the ideas of justification by works vs. faith. This is not something that comes from bad translations, heretics like Marcion, or other anti-Semitic Christians. On the contrary, it comes straight from Scripture. Indeed, it is a central issue of the entire Gospel as preached in nearly every book of the New Testament. Let us begin with the teachings of the profoundly devout Jew Yakov (aka James) who spoke of "observing the Torah" this way:
    James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
    Obviously, the word "law" in this verse is referring to Torah since he cited the Ten Commandments. It is inconceivable that any first century Jew would disagree with James on this point. We see therefore that the first century Jews had a problem. The Torah was not merely an "instruction" from God. It contained laws, and death was explicitly demanded for violation of many of those laws, even for things as seemingly trivial as "picking up sticks on the sabbath." So the way that you expressed the issue seems backwards. The problem was not that Jews thought they could gain "entrance to the coming world" through law as opposed to faith, but rather that the law imposed penalties on those who failed to keep it completely, and so all were under the penalty of death because of sin. This is the Gospel preached throughout the New Testament. The Apostle Paul explained how the "law" itself contained a "sting" that would kill anyone who failed to obey it, and that this included everyone:
    1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
    What is this victory of which he spoke? Paul expanded on the relation between the law, sin, and death:
    Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    What is sin? The Apostle John explains:
    1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
    Here we see James, Paul, and John all speaking of the central message of the Gospel - the law brings knowledge of sin, and sin brings death, and faith in Christ is the solution to this problem:
    Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them 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 there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
    Note the phrase "under the law." You have repeatedly asserted that this is a "Greek idiom" that means "legalistically following legal codes." Unfortunately, you have never supported that assertion with any evidence, logic, or Scripture despite repeated requests from me. It seems obvious to me that it is a false assertion and does not fit in any way with the way that Paul used it.

    Bottom line: Your assertions concerning first century Jewish belief are based on the work of some modern scholars, not on what the Bible actually teaches. There is not a trace of "legalism" in Paul's use of the phrase "under the law." On the contrary, he is explaining how the Gospel of Christ solves the problem of sin, and how sin relates to the law. This is what the Bible teaches, and it appears to be entirely contrary to your teachings. Indeed, I have not heard anything from you that sounds anything like the Gospel that Paul preached. What do you think the Gospel is? How does it relate to Torah? Why did Paul contrast works with faith?

    There is much more that I could say about other issues you brought up, but I think it is better to focus on the issues I have discussed above.

    All the best, and thanks again for a reasoned response.

    Richard
    • 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. #60

    My thoughts

    Just sharing my thoughts about your last post:

    The legal part (in fact, all) of the Torah from Sinai was given to Israel after the tribes had been redeemed by G-d. A redeemed people received the Torah, including its legal codices. The Torah didn’t redeem them. G-d had already freed the people out of slavery from Egypt. The legal codes of the Torah weren't given to redeem them, and they certainly understood that. So I’m left to wonder who you think Shaul was writing about in Galatians, who held a belief that the legal codes of the Torah could garner eternal life for them? All of Israel, from Dan to Beersheva? Diaspora Jews? Everyone who was Jewish? Pharisees? Sadducees? Essenes? There is no Jewish group that is historically known to us that interpreted the legal codes of the Torah in the way you construe them to fit into Galatians. And that’s my point: you can try to find such a group of people, but won't, outside of 1 possibility: a small, fringe group of teachers who may or may not have been Jewish at all; who did NOT understand the purpose of the Torah at all! They mixed a wrong understanding of the Torah alongside their belief in Yeshua, and began to try and convince people to earn their eternal life through a legalistic approach to the legal codes. Try to find another group that could have fit that bill, Richard, and then quote their writings. Well, no one can. No ancient Jewish sources confirm that the Jewish people as a whole saw the Torah’s legal codes as a means to attaining eternal life in the late 2nd Temple Period. None. In fact, I can find texts from then that talk about how Torah demands a faith response. It always has! Oh,,as Deuteronomy & Joshua note, the Torah does give life [=the Jewish understanding is that when the word ‘Torah’ is mentioned, G-d is implied, as He is the author of Torah; so it’s really G-d who gives life, or doesn’t, not words on a parchment], because if the nation didn’t follow Torah, the entire people would be exiled (this happened). If the people committed murder, adultery and robbery, then life would be taken away. Their human lives were greatly affected by their keeping of or ignoring of, the Torah and its legal codes. But it was not a step-ladder by which to attain eternal life.

    The understanding of my forefathers in the passage of history is an important factor in how to interpret scripture. It must be interpreted in its historical context, or we end up making interpretations that seem logical, but aren’t true. I.e., 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth…'=seems like it is in simple black & white, only needs a peshat interpretation to be understood. Thus, in a literal rendition, if I poke out the eye of my neighbor (my intention or lack of it is not even mentioned here), I am liable to having my eye poked out as a judicial response. But this has never been carried out in this manner, nor interpreted this way in Jewish history. In fact, I’ve never seen 1 documented case of this occurring at anytime in Jewish history. Why not? Even in the very beginning of the 2nd century, it was recognized by Rabbi Ishmael (who loved the peshat meaning of the text) that this is not the meaning, and never had been. 'Really?' he wrote, in reply to a simple literal understanding of this verse. Without knowing how the rabbis even from ancient times read and interpreted this text, we’d be gouging out each other’s eyes (a la sometime Muslim jurisprudence). So context and the history of interpretation by those who came before us does have some value.

    Let’s re-phrase your question…’what is the ‘good news’?’ It is that Israel’s Messiah, Yeshua, gave himself as an "asham" offering and as a "Pesach" offering in order to provide eternal life for anyone who believes in him (Jn 3.16, 1 Cor. 5.7). Isaiah 53 calls the Messiah an ‘asham’ offering (in 2 different places). I trust you understand what that is. He also opened up the way for Gentiles to believe and serve the One True G-d of Israel, without the requirement of conversion (Acts 15). As the designated King of Israel, Yeshua will return to rule the nations, and function as the king of his people. His people will then be restored to fulfilling our G-d given role (Ex. 19.5-6, Deut. 4.4-8), concurrently as Messiah is honored in Israel by all nations (Zech. 14.16ff, Isaiah 19.24ff). That’s it in a nutshell. There are many more implications of belief in the Jewish Messiah, such as one’s relationship to the Jewish people, which goes hand in hand with the good news (cf. Romans 9-11). If joining Israel and loving Israel, doesn’t go hand in hand with the good news, then whoever believes is being robbed of what it means to be associated or partnered with the root of the olive tree (to quote Shaul in Romans 11: 'sugkoinwno\ß').

    No, I don’t see the legal codes of the Torah as contradictory to the good news. (unless those codes are kept in such a way as to attempt to earn one’s eternal life. Then I would see people misusing them. I still maintain that this is what Shaul addresses in Galatians). Did G-d give us something that Shaul wrote was ‘holy, just and good’ (Romans), only to tell us that it’s not really for us, since we can’t observe it anyway! So just chuck it because Yeshua did away with it. I sure don't read this in Mt. 5.17ff. Whoops! Just a temporary fixture, even though it is written that the Torah is ‘perfect, restoring life’ ['torat Adonay temimah, ad shiv’at nefesh'],(Ps. 19). Did G-d change His mind? (cf. Malachi 3.6). If you interpret Shaul the way you do in Galatians, the answer is ‘yes’.

    James 2:8 ¶ If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right.
    James 2:9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
    James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. =v. 10 is used as a proof of v. 9’s argument. He buttresses his point, which is that showing 'maso’ panim' transgresses Torah. It may be thought of as such a minor ‘crime’, that it is ignored (as it apparently was ignored with the people whom Yakov served as Chief Rabbi). However, he parallels it to other (more serious) Torah crimes. That is how he uses v. 11. This is not an antinomian diatribe, which does not fit the context of the argument, nor the point being made.
    James 2:11 For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
    James 2:12 ¶ Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,=which ‘law’ is that? A contrary one to Torah? Or is it found IN Torah?(=keep Leviticus 19.18b, the 'Royal Law'. Yeshua has empowered us by his Spirit to keep that mitzvah…so Yakov’s congregants could carry this out). That is his point here.

    Nearly all Messianic Jews see Yeshua as a ‘renewer’ of the previous covenants, not a replacer of them. This also goes along with Galatians 3.17. Shaul cannot be interpreted as saying that Yeshua replaced the previous covenants. In fact, this would contradict his very words in 3.17! The covenant in Messiah’s blood is indeed a better and stronger one than any previous one (cf. Hebrews), but not a replacement. It is a continuation and a renewer of the very promises given in the previous covenants. Much confusion reigns re: how to interpret the word ‘new’ as used in both the Torah and the Newer Testament writings. In Jewish thought, ‘hadash’ does not just mean ‘new’. It certainly can. It is also the same word for ‘renewed’ (Dr. John Fischer of St. Petersburg Theological Seminary has done an excellent piece on this subject). The moon, for example…even in English it is called a ‘new’ moon every month. But is it a ‘new’ moon, or is the cycle of the moon’s appearance ‘renewed’? The latter, of course. Same moon. The word ‘hadash’ has the same connotations, and since Jews (and probably one G-d fearer=sebamenos=Luke) wrote all of the Newer Testament writings, one needs to be very careful not to make ‘hadash’ or its Greek equivalent say ‘new’ when it doesn’t mean that, but ‘renewed.’ The same care needs to be taken with this word as is used when translating the word ‘logos’ from Greek: it has multiple meanings according to its contextual use. Some people use it to mean ‘law’ every time it appears, which is clearly not the case.

    Another point: how is it that you nearly became Jewish through studying kabbalah? This is an unacceptable way to bring someone to conversion. Whoever was working with you violated Jewish custom, which is NEVER to begin an exposure to Judaism by studying kabbalah. Dr. Friedman wrote an excellent article about that very custom for an evangelical magazine once, as they asked his opinion on Madonna’s flirtation with kabbalah.

    If this was the major exposure that you had to Judaism, you may have missed large portion of what Judaism actually teaches, and has taught throughout out history. If you garner your info on what Judaism is by what I’d consider an incomplete (and inaccurate) analysis =(only through your interpretation of the Newer Testament writings), then I feel sorry that this has been your exposure. No knock on you, but I don’t know what you were exposed to. Now understand that I’m not trying to make you into a Jew. No need to, according to the pattern of Acts 15. (And BTW, Dr. Friedman tows this same line). But every believer owes it to themselves to understand the world that birthed Messiah, as well as to understand and embrace your connection through Messiah to his flesh and blood brothers, the Jewish people.

    Lenny

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
  •