|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Curse of the Law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I set parameters for the debate. Bible scholars have had their debates on the issue of authorship. There are those that are considered authentic, those that are disputed, and those where the scholars are split. Bible scholars have determined a range of dates for the books of the NT. If you are unable to debate within the parameters, then don't join the debate. The debate takes into account the estimated dates of the writings in the NT. The issue being that the later writings show a change. We aren't talking about the spirit either. The issue is about whether Paul wrote in the letters considered authentic, that the Torah or Jewish Law had been abolished by the death of Christ. I don't see that the author of Ephesians made the distinction that it was only abolished as a means to justification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But you aren't showing me that that is what Paul taught. I'm interested in Paul's theology, not yours. The Torah and Jewish Laws were not abolished by the death of Christ. Again, still not talking about these laws as a means of justification. In "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, we see that Jewish reformers were already trying to change Jewish Law.
The reformers did not want to abolish the Law completely but to purge it of those elements which forbade participation in Greek culture... and reduce it to its ethical core, so universalizing it. I don't see the change as a result of Christ's death and resurrection. I see it as a result of progress and Paul's efforts. Still not talking about justification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
But you aren't showing me that that is what Paul taught. I'm interested in Paul's theology, not yours. I have exactly the same feeling about your posts. I am interested in the word of God.If your theology refects that, I am certainly interested in what you have to write. But if it doesn't, that's another story. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The Torah and Jewish Laws were not abolished by the death of Christ. Again, still not talking about these laws as a means of justification. Richh's post on the Wuest word study of "abolished" addressed that issue very well. I don't think you are really interested in Paul's theology.That is why you have to exclude a large portion of what he wrote under a suspicious rational. You're interested in the "Paul" of your concoction.And I think you are interested in that because you are interested in the "Jesus" of your concoction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Richh's Message 312 and Message 347 from the Ephesians thread. Except that it doesn't. It just says the same thing I've been saying. Paul's point is that no law or rule is a means of justification. Law is only inoperative as a means to justification. Law is still operative as a means to regulate behavior. Ephesians 2:15 doesn't seem to make that distinction. When Paul starts the marriage illustration he is speaking to Jews. He is speaking to men who know law. So they probably understand the illustration a lot better than we do today. Tim Hegg in his book "The Letter Writer: Paul's Background and Torah Perspective" presents this idea concerning Paul's contrast between letter and spirit.
But how then are we to interpret his use of "letter" and "Spirit" in these passages? If we look more closely at the contexts in which this language occurs, we will see that what Paul is contrasting in each case are those who exercise genuine faith and those who do not. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul speaks of those who have only the external sign of circumcision but who, through their life of disobedience to the Torah, show the have no true faith. In contrast, there are those who keep the Torah even though they do not have the physical sign of circumcision. Those who disobey the Torah yet are circumcised, are identified as having the "letter of the Torah." Thus "letter" is connected with those who are not believers but who attempt to keep the Torah in their own strength. Likewise, the passage in Romans 7 that utilizes the "letter/Spirit" dichotomy is contrasting those who have been released from the condemnation of the Torah (those who have come to true faith in God and therefore are indwelt by the Spirit), with those who are still under its condemnation. (Page 224) IOW, the "letter" people were just going through the motions. (To do something because you are expected to do it and not because you want to) The "spirit" people aren't just going through the motions. That the difference between serving the new way over the old way. (Romans 7:6) None of this means the Torah or Jewish Law was rendered inoperative as a means to regulate behavior. It was still in effect after Christ's death and the apostles and Paul still participated. Ephesians 2:15 (Young's Literal Translation)
...the enmity in his flesh, the law (nomos) of the commands (entole) in ordinances (dogma) having done away (katarge), that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, My contention is that in the letters considered authentic, Paul claimed that Christ redeemed them from the curse of the law. (Galatians 3:13) He did not claim that Christ's death rendered the law or commands inoperative in regulating behavior. Show me that the letters considered to be authentic support the statement in Ephesians 2:15 or show me that Ephesians 2:15 is speaking of justification and not regulating behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3933 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
Epistles considered authentic and the order in which they were possibly written: (Timelines differ) Estimated dating is 50-60 CE. First ThessaloniansGalatians First Corinthians Romans Second Corinthians Philippians Philemon For some reason, I have in my head some old memories (that I don't remember where I got) that the ordering was different. So I am curious as to where you got this ordering. It is somewhat relevant to your topic because I recall from those same memories there being a discussion about how Paul's view of the law changed over time as is reflected in his authentic works. I don't remember the exact ordering but I do remember that Galatians was earliest and Romans the latest and what is interesting about these two books is that they represent the ends of the spectrum of Paul's discussions about the law. It may still be relevant given your ordering since Romans is still later than Galatians. In Galatians he is very forceful in making a distinction between the law and faith. I agree that he eventually comes around to calling the law "holy" and "spiritual" as he does in Romans but it does seem like he is doing so due to what he perceives as a misunderstanding of his prior exhortations concerning the law such as he does in Galatians.
He didn't claim that Christ's death abolished any portion of a written legal system or that God's Law was cursed. He considered God's Law to be holy and spiritual. My thought is, I wonder how much of this is him backpedaling just a little bit? Its not that his opinion of the law is all that different from Galatians but he certainly is expanding and clarifying the notion of freedom from the law. In both books he refers to the law as a reactionary element to sin:
Galatians 3 writes: Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one. Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. Romans writes: While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. So in Galatians he is saying that the law was necessary but specifically says that righteousness cannot come through the law. Thats a pretty bold claim considering the people who were under the law who were also called righteous. In Romans he makes the same point about the law being necessary, but ties that necessity into something of more cosmic relevance, illuminating the need for justification by faith. In Galatians the law is a stop-gap thing, a "disciplinarian until Christ" as he says. In Romans he is saying that you cannot know sin without the law. That seems like a pretty big clarification in my mind. Not necessarily discordant with Galatians, but certainly a refinement.
Ephesians 2:14-16 writes:
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. In all the previous discussion about Ephesians, I don't really see this verse as being all that different from, "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian" from that same Galatians quote and, "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" from the same Romans quote. Moreover, the writer of Ephesians here is not necessarily making a point about the law here. He is really making a point about Gentile acceptance into the religion of the Jews. Look at the verse in full context:
Ephesians 2:11-22 writes:
So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"-a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands- remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God. So maybe, just maybe he is being careless with his description of the law here but that may be only because he really is trying to make a different point. His main point here in full context is that Jesus tore down the wall between Jew and Gentile. Granted, that wall existed because of the law, but that doesn't contradict the role that the law plays as outlined in Galatians and Romans. So overall, I think you are going a little bit too far with how firm the author of Ephesians is dismissing the law. I do believe there are theological discrepancies between Ephesians and the rest of the Paulean corpus but this doesn't seem to be one of them.If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
He did not claim that Christ's death rendered the law or commands inoperative in regulating behavior. Show me where I wrote that Paul taught law or commands were totally not operative in regulating behavior. I have explained something of how it is walking by the Spirit of Christ / by the divine nature which alone can build up the Body of Christ. And that was Paul's chief concern. You are asking me to defend a position which I have not espoused.If I am wrong then I expect you to quote me where I have been arguing from ANY prefered or suspicioned epistle of Paul that law of this or that kind is of no use to regulate in some sense human behavior. Quote me. Something like - "Paul taught that no laws can regulate behavior." I did quote Colossians 2 that "Such things have a reputation of wisdom in self-imposed worship and lowliness and severe treatment of the body, but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Paul's point is that no law or rule is a means of justification.
The point of law in Ephesians 2 is that it erected a barrier between Jews and Gentiles preventing them from being one. Christ has broken down that middle wall of enmity that God may fulfill His purpose of bringing into being one new man. So He abolished that law of commandments in ordinances. Richh pointed out that this was not to destroy but to render inoperative.
Law is only inoperative as a means to justification. Law is still operative as a means to regulate behavior. Ephesians 2:15 doesn't seem to make that distinction. Law is inoperative in eternal redemption AND in building up the one new man because the one new man is the old man who has received in addition now - the divine nature of God in Christ.
When Paul starts the marriage illustration he is speaking to Jews. He is speaking to men who know law. So they probably understand the illustration a lot better than we do today.
Do you mean Paul talking about marriage in Ephesians ? If so then this seems self contradictory of you. First you say you are so sure Paul did NOT write the book of Ephesisans. Now it is useful for you to say Paul DID write the book of Ephesians when he is talking about marriage in chapter 5. If you mean Paul speaking of marriage in Romans, you previously made issue that Romans was written to Gentiles. (I could have you mixed up with Jazzns, but I think not here). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
PurpleDawn writes:
The Torah and Jewish Laws were not abolished by the death of Christ. Again, still not talking about these laws as a means of justification. Message 17jaywill writes:
Richh's post on the Wuest word study of "abolished" addressed that issue very well. My post addresses the arguments in those posts. I understand the spirit issue and addressed that, but that isn't what Ephesians 2:15 is talking about. If you're not taking the opposing stance or trying to show that Ephesians is in line with Paul's authentic letters, what's your point other than walking in the spirit? OP: My contention is that Paul's authentic letters did not present the idea that Christ's death abolished any written or oral legal system or religious rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Romans 7 and I said predominantly Gentile in the other thread.
PurpleDawn writes:
The letter is to the congregation in Rome, which is predominantly Gentile believers. Message 319
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
None of this means the Torah or Jewish Law was rendered inoperative as a means to regulate behavior. It was still in effect after Christ's death and the apostles and Paul still participated. Explain to your audience why Paul did not participate in having Titus circumcised. Why, when he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabus and Titus, did NOT the elder apostles insist that Titus the Greek be circumcised ?
(Gal. 2:1-3) In Galatians he says he did not submit to false brothers (counterfeit Chistian disciples) for one hour - "who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into slavery." (Gal. 2:4) What "freedom" is Paul speaking of ? What was the "slavery" he was saying the false brothers were trying to bring the disciples into? What does Paul mean by "freedom in Christ Jesus"? Paul says that he and Titus (a fellow apostle of Greek descent) did not subject themselves to these false brothers for one hour - "that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." What was the "truth of the gospel" which Paul wanted to "remain" with the believers ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : I forgot the word "NOT". Edited by jaywill, : Forgot the word "might".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3841 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Much that Paul wrote explains that he taught the gentiles about Christ and that they were exempt from observation of the Law or the specifics of the Torah except for the obligation to observe the Seven (7) Noachide Laws.
The Children of Noah are the Gentiles, comprising the seventy nations of the world. They are commanded concerning the Seven Universal Laws, also known as the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah or the Seven Noachide Laws. These Seven Universal Laws pertain to: 1) Avodah Zarah: Prohibition on idolatry.2) Birchat HaShem: Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing the Name of G-d. 3) Shefichat Damim: Prohibition on murder. 4) Gezel: Prohibition on robbery and theft. 5) Gilui Arayot: Prohibition on immorality and forbidden sexual relations. 6) Ever Min HaChay: Prohibition on removing and eating a limb from a live animal. 7) Dinim: Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law to enforce the other 6 laws. Men and women are equal in their responsibility to observe the Seven Universal Laws. When a Gentile resolves to fulfill the Seven Universal Laws, his or her soul is elevated. This person becomes one of the "Chasidei Umot Haolam" (Pious Ones of the Nations) and receives a share of the World to Come.The Torah calls one who accepts the yoke of fulfilling the Seven Universal Laws a "Ger Toshav" (a Proselyte of the Gate). Page Not Found - Webs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I'm glad you changed Timothy to Titus. I was a bit confused. The difference between Timothy and Titus is really the answer to your question. Acts was supposedly written about 80-100 CE. The unknown author is supposedly another source of information on Paul. Acts 16 tells us why Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. Timothy's mother was Jewish and a believer. His mother hadn't bothered with the process, but Paul had him circumcised because of the Jews in the area. Not for justification or salvation purposes. Titus on the other hand was a Greek. Galatians 2:3 As Kofh2u showed in his link, the Greeks weren't automatically required by the Jews to be circumcised if they believed in the God of Abraham. Now this doesn't mean there weren't groups within Judaism who felt otherwise. The Apostles made the decision. Christ's death didn't change the fact that Greeks weren't required to take on the full mantle of Judaism. That's why I say that Christ's death did not make any laws inoperative and his death didn't bring down any dividing walls. I don't feel that Paul taught that vein of thought. As I pointed out in Message 10 and Message 17, Jews were already trying to adjust the rules. As for your last bunch of questions, you tell me. Make your argument for what Paul means and how that supports your position or counters mine. Edited by purpledawn, : ABE: Yellow Edited by purpledawn, : ABE: Yellow
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
quote: Explain to your audience why Paul did not participate in having Titus circumcised. I'm glad you changed Timothy to Titus. I was a bit confused.The difference between Timothy and Titus is really the answer to your question. The writing of "Timothy" was a typo on my part. I meant Titus and corrected it.
Acts was supposedly written about 80-100 CE. The unknown author is supposedly another source of information on Paul. Acts 16 tells us why Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. The question was concerning what is written in Galatians about his trip to Jerusalem, that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. And Paul did not have Titus circumcised.
Galatians you list in your so-called "authentic" letters of Paul.Supposedly you trust that the Galatians then authentically represents the apostle Paul's thought, teaching, and actions. You make a case that Paul still sought to practice the Law of Moses because no such Law was abolished as in your so-called "un-authentic" Ephesian letter says in Eph. 2:14,15. But circumcision was a major pillar of the Mosiac law. And how did the senior apostles Peter, James, and John plus Paul and Barnabus think of having the Greek co-worker of Paul circumcised ?
quote: ===============================1.) Paul in Jerusalem had private meetings and more open encounters. 2.) In his private meetings with the "founding" apostles there was no demand that the Greek Titus should be circumcised according to the Law of Moses. And Paul did not have Titus circumcised. This contradicts your belief that Paul still was interested in keeping the Law of Moses in his new covenant preaching. 3.) In the more open encounters "false brothers" who were imposters of Gospel preachers, tried to bring Paul and Barnabus under their kind of authority and insist that the Greek believer Titus be circumcised. Paul and Barnabus did not submit themselves to these counterfeit gospel preachers for even one hour. They did NOT follow them to practice the Law of Moses and have Titus circumcised. 4.) The refusal of Paul and Barnabus to circumcise Titus was for the purpose "that the TRUTH of the gospel might remain" among the Christians under Paul's ministry. 5.) Paul speaks of the demand to practice the old covenant circumcision as bringing them into "bondage". He says that the false Christian brothers secretly came in to spy out just how much "freedom" from their legal bondage was being enjoyed by the apostles Paul, Barnabus and Titus.================================ All of these facts argue against your theory that the "authentic" Pauline thought was to continue to practice the Law of Moses, regardless of how it was not effective for Justification for salvation.
Timothy's mother was Jewish and a believer. His mother hadn't bothered with the process, but Paul had him circumcised because of the Jews in the area. Not for justification or salvation purposes. Because Paul practiced to be all things towards all that he might gain some, I can see Paul doing this. His view here was ONLY what will facilitate more opportunity to preach the gospel of Christ. Rightly or wrongly, sometimes Paul used some wisdom as to how to approach unbelievers in order that he might gain some.
First Corinthains 9:19 - That in preaching the gospel I may present the gospel ... For though I am free from all, I have enslaved myself to all that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under the law, as under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law. To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak that I might gain the weak. To all men I have become all things that I might by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel that I may become a fellow partaker of it." Paul went out to preach the gospel just as Jesus instructed His twelve disciples. He told them to be as innocent as doves but as wise as serpents. Paul's only consideration was what would be most effective in gaining new believers. So he had Timothy circumcised in a hope that that would facilitate his preaching among the Jews at a certain place. In the case of Titus he refused to pervert the truth of the gospel.He would not preach that the believers should now come under the bondage of the Law of Moses POST salvation, POST justification. Titus the Greek co-worker would remain uncircumcised. Paul would not appease those false Christian teachers who wanted to bring the churches under Mosiac Law bondage. Corinthians is also listed under your "authentic" letters of Paul.
And to the Jews I became as a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under the law, as under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law. To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak that I might gain the weak. To all men I have become all things that I might by all means save some.
Titus on the other hand was a Greek. Galatians 2:3 As Kofh2u showed in his link, the Greeks weren't automatically required by the Jews to be circumcised if they believed in the God of Abraham. Now this doesn't mean there weren't groups within Judaism who felt otherwise. This is not correct. The false brothers, the counterfeit gospel preachers tried to bring Paul and Barnabus under subjection to OBEY the law of the Old Testament that this Greek prosylyte (as they saw him) be circumcised. This was in accordance to the demand of some of the Pharisees who became believers in Jesus:
quote: Circumcision as "the custom of Moses" we read about firstly in Genes 17:11, commanded by God to Abraham and his household of fellow Hebrews. We see it commanded by God in Exodus 12:44,48.
The Apostles made the decision. Christ's death didn't change the fact that Greeks weren't required to take on the full mantle of Judaism. I can go along with this in principle. But neither were the Jews required to take the full mantle of Judaism but to believe into Christ and walk by the Spirit of Christ. The Scriptures were good to feed thier spirit, sensatize their Christian consciences. All Scriptures is as the breath of God. But this taking in of the the Scripture was not coming under the bondage of law keeping. So the Christian today still benefits as then from the Old Testament Scriptures, not to mention even more so the New Testament Scriptures. I stop here. Your theory that aside from Justification by Faith Christians then (Jew or Gentile) and Christians now should understand that the Apostle Paul come under the bondage of the law keeping of Moses in ANY regard. And as I pointed out in the other thread effectively whether you received it or not, abolishing of the law of the commandments and ordinances did not mean making "anti law laws" forbidding the weaker ones among the Christians to still feel they had to do some laws. Paul did not forbid them to do some laws in ordinances. He ministered to enlighten them that they were both free and also had a more effective way to live righteously - walk by the Spirit of the indwelling Christ. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I don't think you understand what I'm saying and I'm sorry I'm not able to make my position clearer.
I've said that Christ's death did not render any laws or the fence inoperative. I don't feel that Paul taught that that was the purpose of Christ's death or Christ's mission.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." As I pointed out in Message 10 and Message 17, Jews were already trying to adjust the rules of the religion. Paul and believers made the changes in the rules and traditions for Christians, not Christ's death. Circumstances contributed to the changes in the rules and traditions, not Christ's death.
quote:I have pointed out and provided excerpts concerning history, that the Greco-Roman world was going through changes. Male circumcision in the Greco-Roman world These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominate, however it is an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who no longer circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who did. Rules for Greek converts was not new. That there were groups that thought converts should be circumcised, was not new. These battles were going on before Jesus was born and after he died.
Ger toshavs: These were Gentiles who chose to worship God without making a full commitment to Judaism. They did not necessarily become circumcised, nor did they keep the full Torah--but they often observed what were called the Noachide commandments, several fundamental commandments Jewish tradition asserted that God gave to Noah after the Ark landed. Ger toshavs were known as God-fearers. Naaman the Syrian is an Old Testament example of a God-fearer. The reason it is important to know about these two groups is that without understanding that the Jews did not necessarily require Torah observance of Gentile converts, we may become confused when we see apparently contradictory teachings in the New Testament that vary between extolling Jews keeping the Law while suggesting to Gentiles that they do not need to. The reason is, both groups treated the Law differently! Paul was Torah Observant
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024