Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Rachael Slick question.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Maybe this bit of commentary on Matthew by R.T. France will help you

    Source: "The Gospel of Matthew by R.T. France, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007, pg. 183

    ...we might...paraphrase Jesus' words here as follows: "Far from wanting to set aside the law and the prophets, it is my role to bring into being that to which they have pointed forward, to carry them into a new era of fulfillment." On this understanding the authority of the law and the prophets is not abolished. They remain the authoritative word of God. But their role will no longer be the same, now that what they pointed forward to has come, and it will be for Jesus' followers to discern in the light of his teaching and practice what is now the right way to apply those texts in the new situation which his coming has created. From now on it will be the authoritative teaching of Jesus which must govern his disciples' understanding and practical application of the law. Verses 21-48 will go on to show how this interpretation can no longer be merely at the level of the literal observance of regulations, but must operate at the deeper and more challenging level of discerning the will of God which underlies the legal rulings of the Torah. If in the process it may appear that certain elements of the law are for all practical purposes "abolished," this will be attributable not to the loss of their status as the word of God but to their changed role in the era of fulfillment, in which it is Jesus, the fulfiller, rather than the law which pointed forward to him, who is the ultimate authority.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And if you actually read the letters of Paul I suggested earlier, you'll find they go to some length in answering your questions about them.

    By the way, in your post to MM, I noticed you wrote:



    But somehow you missed the context of which Gentiles the passage has in mind only a verse or so up:

    Source: Numbers 15:22

    ‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses, 23even all that the LORD has commanded you through Moses, from the day when the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations, 24then it shall be, if it is done unintentionally, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one bull for a burnt offering, as a soothing aroma to the LORD, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin offering. 25‘Then the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and they will be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their error. 26‘So all the congregation of the sons of Israel will be forgiven, with the alien who sojourns among them, for it happened to all the people through error.

    27‘Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. 28‘The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. 29‘You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. 30‘But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’”

    © Copyright Original Source

    Verse 30 also suggests a certain manner and attitude, that of "defiantly ... blaspheming the Lord", and even then the proscribed punishment was that the offender be "cut off from among his people". It would seem that simply violating the law in and of itself was not necessarily worthy of death.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Verse 30 also suggests a certain manner and attitude, that of "defiantly ... blaspheming the Lord", and even then the proscribed punishment was that the offender be "cut off from among his people". It would seem that simply violating the law in and of itself was not necessarily worthy of death.
      Don't worry MM, my peeps have plenty more things for which you can be stoned! After all, good ole' Robert Zimmerman wrote that "everyone must get stoned."

      NORM
      When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        That is actually a very critical difference. You're right that they're ultimately commands from God, but not all of God's commands are unconditional. For instance, the command that husbands are to love their wives obviously doesn't apply to someone who isn't married. Similiarly, Old Covenant ceremonial laws don't apply to those under the New Covenant. Moral laws, on the other hand, apply to everybody without condition.

        Now if you want to discuss which laws are moral and which are ceremonial, that's fine, but suggesting that there's no distinction between the two is ignorant.
        As I read that I see nothing except an assertion that there is a distinction, with the added retort that anyone who doubts you is ignorant. Is that what passes for an argument in your head?

        I would love to see how you determine which laws are moral and which are ceremonial. Let us start with worshiping other gods and keeping the sabbath. Are these moral or ceremonial? How do you decide?
        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
          No. In the context of his time, Hillel was controversial. Actually, he still is among the ultra-orthodox. But, they are the minority. Reformed Jews actually think Hillel a bit stodgy.

          NORM
          Hillel was surprisingly wise, funny or shocking even in his use of the golden rule to teach the Torah to a convert while standing on one leg, willing to compromise, but do you have any other references for considering him to be or rebellious? I really don't see how you can deny that he and his followers, along with the lesser role played by the House of Shammai, were the founders of rabbinic Judaism. Hillel founded the dominant rabbinic school which coninued a Davidic dynasty of perennial leaders of the House of Justice/Sanhedrin over some 15 generations for nearly 400 years. I agree he
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Hillel was surprisingly wise, funny or shocking even in his use of the golden rule to teach the Torah to a convert while standing on one leg, willing to compromise, but do you have any other references for considering him to be or rebellious? I really don't see how you can deny that he and his followers, along with the lesser role played by the House of Shammai, were the founders of rabbinic Judaism. Hillel founded the dominant rabbinic school which coninued a Davidic dynasty of perennial leaders of the House of Justice/Sanhedrin over some 15 generations for nearly 400 years. I agree he
            The story you just related (summing up the Law and Prophets while standing on one leg) is an example. It was quite cheeky at the time. Again: context. I said AT THE TIME. By today's standards he is ultra orthodox.

            NORM
            When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
              The story you just related (summing up the Law and Prophets while standing on one leg) is an example. It was quite cheeky at the time. Again: context. I said AT THE TIME. By today's standards he is ultra orthodox.

              NORM
              It may have been controversial, perhaps only cheeky, but we do not have any indication whatsoever of this provoking any reaction at all from his contemporaries. It seems to be primarily an account of the opposing views of Hillel and Shammai toward converts and Hillel is said to have held the highest position with respect to 'rabbinic' authority at the time, Shammai the second highest. So is this really an act of rebellion? Rebellious? Really? All we know about the impact that Hillel had upon the fellow Jews of his time is that he was supposedly the leader of the House of Judgment at the time and that he founded the dominant rabbinic school which coninued a Davidic dynasty of perennial leaders of the House of Justice/Sanhedrin over some 15 generations for nearly 400 years. Do you have any references to Jews of Hillel's time considering him rebellious? Did any authorities ever speak ill of him or ever seek to punish him?

              Now you say he is ultra orthodox by today's standards, but earlier you seemed to place him at the start of the tradition (along with Reformed Judaism) that 'many in the Orthodoxy consider breaking away' and said that he is still controversial among the ultra-orthodox. Do you have any references to orthodox Jews considering Hillel controversial today? I am not doubting that some might, but I would like to be aware of who they are and what exactly they are saying.
              Last edited by robrecht; 11-14-2014, 08:53 AM.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                As I read that I see nothing except an assertion that there is a distinction, with the added retort that anyone who doubts you is ignorant. Is that what passes for an argument in your head?

                I would love to see how you determine which laws are moral and which are ceremonial. Let us start with worshiping other gods and keeping the sabbath. Are these moral or ceremonial? How do you decide?
                I did not argue by assertion. I provided you a logical reason for accepting that not all of God's commands are unconditional (i.e. God's commands to married people obviously do not apply to those who are not married). The Bible also makes an explicit distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, so this isn't something I'm inventing. Jeremiah 31 tells the people of Israel to expect a new covenant, and the Apostle Paul wrote at length about the Old Covenant under the law versus the New Covenant under grace.

                To answer your specific questions, we can look at how Jesus interpreted and practiced the law to help us understand what is binding on us today and how it is binding. For instance, Jesus affirmed that we are to worship God alone (Matthew 4:10; Mark 12:30), and he challenged the Jewish understanding of Sabbath observances (Matthew 12; Luke 6).
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I did not argue by assertion. I provided you a logical reason for accepting that not all of God's commands are unconditional (i.e. God's commands to married people obviously do not apply to those who are not married).
                  You might as well say a prohibition to shoot people only applies to people with guns. Or speed limits only apply to people driving cars. Well, yes, in sense, it is only applicable in that situation, but the rule applies to everyone. Keeping the Sabbath only applies one day a week. Is it not God's law on a Thursday? He does not expect anyone to keep the Sabbath on the Thursday, right? Only on the Sabbath. So is it only a conditional law, the condition being what day of the week it is?

                  More importantly, in what way can this be extended to suddenly ignoring a law, even if the condition is now true. You fail to say, and thus your post comes down to a mere assertion.
                  The Bible also makes an explicit distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, so this isn't something I'm inventing. Jeremiah 31 tells the people of Israel to expect a new covenant, and the Apostle Paul wrote at length about the Old Covenant under the law versus the New Covenant under grace.
                  As I said to someone else, I know the Paul would agree with you. That does not mean that Jesus would. He specifically said he had not come to change the laws.

                  And that does not mean it actually makes sense. The issue is why God changed his mind about what his laws are. It was a sin to eat pork at one time. Now it is not.

                  I would love to see how you determine which laws are moral and which are ceremonial. Let us start with worshiping other gods and keeping the sabbath. Are these moral or ceremonial? How do you decide?
                  To answer your specific questions, we can look at how Jesus interpreted and practiced the law to help us understand what is binding on us today and how it is binding. For instance, Jesus affirmed that we are to worship God alone (Matthew 4:10; Mark 12:30), and he challenged the Jewish understanding of Sabbath observances (Matthew 12; Luke 6).
                  So are those ceremonial laws or morals laws? A simple question, I am sure you can tell me the answer, and tell me how you can be confident you are right.

                  Let us throw in eating pork. I am glad you specified Jesus here. How did Jesus interprete and practice that law?
                  My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                    You might as well say a prohibition to shoot people only applies to people with guns. Or speed limits only apply to people driving cars. Well, yes, in sense, it is only applicable in that situation, but the rule applies to everyone. Keeping the Sabbath only applies one day a week. Is it not God's law on a Thursday? He does not expect anyone to keep the Sabbath on the Thursday, right? Only on the Sabbath. So is it only a conditional law, the condition being what day of the week it is?

                    More importantly, in what way can this be extended to suddenly ignoring a law, even if the condition is now true. You fail to say, and thus your post comes down to a mere assertion.

                    As I said to someone else, I know the Paul would agree with you. That does not mean that Jesus would. He specifically said he had not come to change the laws.

                    And that does not mean it actually makes sense. The issue is why God changed his mind about what his laws are. It was a sin to eat pork at one time. Now it is not.


                    So are those ceremonial laws or morals laws? A simple question, I am sure you can tell me the answer, and tell me how you can be confident you are right.

                    Let us throw in eating pork. I am glad you specified Jesus here. How did Jesus interprete and practice that law?
                    First things first, Matthew 15:11, "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

                    Second, explain to me how a conditional command can be unconditionally binding? If someone is not married, is he somehow sinning when he doesn't follow God's command to "love your wife as Christ loved the church"? Does a single woman commit a sin when she doesn't honor her husband? To insist that these commands apply to all people unconditionally is nonsense. Similarly, a command issued under the Old Covenant is not binding on those under the New Covenant. This is spelled out explicitly in scripture. There is zero disagreement between Jesus and Paul.

                    Besides, you're slightly misquoting Jesus through omission. He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). When the purpose of something is fulfilled then it is no longer in effect (the word fulfill means "bring to completion"). If you're under contract to perform a service for a company, and the terms of the contract are fulfilled, the contract is no longer binding. Jesus fulfilled the old contract and established a new contract through his death and resurrection. This is all spelled out clearly in scripture.

                    So why did God "change his mind" regarding pork? He didn't, actually. It's just that the conditions and purpose for which that particular command existed are no longer in effect, and per Jeremiah 31, God always knew that it was a temporary prohibition.

                    Again, this is all explained clearly in the Bible. Maybe you should try actually reading it some time instead of ignorantly criticizing it.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                      The story you just related (summing up the Law and Prophets while standing on one leg) is an example. It was quite cheeky at the time. Again: context. I said AT THE TIME. By today's standards he is ultra orthodox.
                      My understanding is "the Law and Prophets" refers to two section of what Christians consider the OT, and the Law specifically means the first five books. It does not refer to a set of laws as such (though the five books do include laws), as Christians seem to hold. Would you agree?
                      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                      Comment


                      • So you cannot answer the question. And do not have the integrity to just admit it. Fine.

                        Let us see what you do have...
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        First things first, Matthew 15:11, "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
                        Okay.

                        No idea how that is relevant. If you want to explain, please do, but given you seem to like dodging questions, I will not hold my breath.
                        Second, explain to me how a conditional command can be unconditionally binding? If someone is not married, is he somehow sinning when he doesn't follow God's command to "love your wife as Christ loved the church"? Does a single woman commit a sin when she doesn't honor her husband? To insist that these commands apply to all people unconditionally is nonsense. Similarly, a command issued under the Old Covenant is not binding on those under the New Covenant. This is spelled out explicitly in scripture. There is zero disagreement between Jesus and Paul.
                        In what sense are they similar?

                        When God commands "love your wife as Christ loved the church" it is implicit right there in the command that if you do not have a wife, you are not obliged to love her. Are you claiming that when God said do not eat pork there was something in the text that made it clear that this was conditional? Do please point it out. You do say "This is spelled out explicitly in scripture." so I am sure you will have chapter and verse, right...
                        Besides, you're slightly misquoting Jesus through omission. He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). When the purpose of something is fulfilled then it is no longer in effect (the word fulfill means "bring to completion"). If you're under contract to perform a service for a company, and the terms of the contract are fulfilled, the contract is no longer binding. Jesus fulfilled the old contract and established a new contract through his death and resurrection. This is all spelled out clearly in scripture.
                        I said this before (though to some else). The Law and the Prophets refers to the Old Testament (the Torah and the Nevi'im) (eg see here). When Jesus said he fulfills the Law, he means he fulfills the prophesies in the OT.

                        Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

                        My interpretation: Do not think I have come to abolish the Old Testament, rather I have come to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. Truly I tell you that not one bit of the Old Testament can be discarded until God's kingdom has come.

                        Your interpretation (apparently): Do not think I have come to abolish the laws, rather I have come to fulfill the laws. Truly I tell you that not one bit of the laws can be discarded until God's kingdom has come. They just do not apply any more becasiuse they were only conditional. The ritual ones anyway.
                        So why did God "change his mind" regarding pork? He didn't, actually. It's just that the conditions and purpose for which that particular command existed are no longer in effect, and per Jeremiah 31, God always knew that it was a temporary prohibition.
                        Jeremiah says nothing about it being a temporary prohibition. It says there will be a new covenent, but there are no details, nothing to suggest a change to God's dietry commands.
                        Again, this is all explained clearly in the Bible. Maybe you should try actually reading it some time instead of ignorantly criticizing it.
                        If you can tell me if keeping the Sabbath is a ritual or moral command and how you can be sure, I might think you had a point.

                        Hey, if you can quote the verses in Jeremiah 31 that saying eating pork was a "temporary prohibition" I might think you had a point.
                        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                          Jeremiah says nothing about it being a temporary prohibition. It says there will be a new covenent, but there are no details, nothing to suggest a change to God's dietry commands.

                          If you can tell me if keeping the Sabbath is a ritual or moral command and how you can be sure, I might think you had a point.

                          Hey, if you can quote the verses in Jeremiah 31 that saying eating pork was a "temporary prohibition" I might think you had a point.
                          This is one basis to show that there was always a distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised, in what days they observe and what they eat:
                          Source: KJV

                          Exodus 12:43-45 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          The same is reflected here in not requiring Gentiles to fully convert to become Jews bound to the whole Law:
                          Source: KJV

                          Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

                          Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Some Jewish entities like like Chabad even say that Gentiles can be killed for observing Sabbath: you either have to observe a limited form of Torah, or convert to be a Jew if you want to observe all of it:
                          Source: Chabad

                          Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die...The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them. -Source

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          So even though that view may be extreme, you can see it isn't just a Christian idea that Gentiles aren't obligated to observe all Torah.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                            My understanding is "the Law and Prophets" refers to two section of what Christians consider the OT, and the Law specifically means the first five books. It does not refer to a set of laws as such (though the five books do include laws), as Christians seem to hold. Would you agree?
                            Er, Christians recognize those distinctions too. Words can have more than one meaning, after all.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Er, Christians recognize those distinctions too. Words can have more than one meaning, after all.
                              Good to know. Some people seemed to be arguing that Jesus was saying he had come to full the law, as in the set of rules laid down in the OT (" Jesus fulfilled the old contract and established a new contract through his death and resurrection. This is all spelled out clearly in scripture. ").
                              My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                My understanding is "the Law and Prophets" refers to two section of what Christians consider the OT, and the Law specifically means the first five books. It does not refer to a set of laws as such (though the five books do include laws), as Christians seem to hold. Would you agree?
                                That is correct. Christians grossly oversimplify what Jews call "obeying the Law." The deeper meaning is living one's life in obedience to G-d, which includes ALL of the Law. And, of course, the Christian Testament tells Christians that it is OK to break the Law - they were intentionally moving away from the Jewish faith.

                                It really is that simple. Notice that all the Christian apologists are quoting the Christian Testament when justifying their arbitrary disobedience to G-d's Law. And the references in the Tanakh that they suppose are referring to the so-called New Covenant, are merely referring to a hoped-for unification of a divided kingdom.

                                I really struggle with this obsession of Christians to prove that they are just as Jewish as anyone in the Kosher community. They have their own religion. Why do they need to take over Judaism as well?

                                NORM
                                When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X