PDA

View Full Version : Baptism and the Law



Trivalee
Mar 14th 2018, 08:06 PM
John the Baptist first introduced the concept of baptism in the bible. At the time, sin offering and sacrifice were still in situ. Col 2:12 says we are buried with Christ in baptism...

1. How do we reconcile this statement with the baptisms that occurred while Jesus was still standing?
2. Why did Jesus need to be baptised when he was without sin?

Walls
Mar 15th 2018, 01:36 AM
John the Baptist first introduced the concept of baptism in the bible. At the time, sin offering and sacrifice were still in situ. Col 2:12 says we are buried with Christ in baptism...

1. How do we reconcile this statement with the baptisms that occurred while Jesus was still standing?
2. Why did Jesus need to be baptised when he was without sin?

Marvelous questions.

"Baptism" means "immersed in water like dyeing a garment" It implies being totally "dunked".

Although I know what you mean, and do not dispute that Baptisms started with John, the concept of Baptism is the oldest concept of the Bible besides God's infinite power. We find it in Genesis 1:2. The earth was covered with water. It was IMMERSED in water. Then, as we travel through scripture we find the "Immersion" of the earth in Noah's time some 1655 years after Adam was made. Then, Abraham the idol worshiper, to get to God's destination, must pass through "the flood", no doubt the River Euphrates (Josh.24:2-3). Then, Israel, after worshiping idols in Egypt, must pass through another "flood" - the Red Sea (Josh.24:14-15). And again, Israel, after failing so miserably in the Wilderness and worshiping idols (Act.7:39-43), must pass through Jordan "in flood" (Josh.3:15), leave twelve stones in the river bed and take twelve stones out of the river and into the Good Land.

Baptism, or "Immersion" is a process whereby God "buries" the old and sinful and polluted out of sight, and raises up a new entity for His purpose. This, should help us answer the two questions.

When John Baptist came, Israel was in crisis. Although they had returned from Babylon, built the Temple and had the Law enforced, Israel was in darkness. They were ruled by (i) foreign government, (ii) an Edomite and (iii) an illegal self-elected sect "sitting in Moses' Seat". The nation was full of leaven, men's traditions, wrong motives, sickness, demon-possession and death - all indicators of a broken Covenant of Law. So John introduces that age-old solution - "Immersion of the old way". Israel under Law had failed miserably and John was commanding them to "repent". "Repent" means to go the opposite way. It means that the direction that Law had led Israel was, instead of life - was death (Rom.7:10). So John said, "BURY IT" and "bury it in God's age-old way" - in the same death waters that Israel of old left their stones - Jordan.
Now we must address the case of our Lord Jesus. Truly He was without sin. He had kept the Law to the last jot and tittle. While He was true Man, having been born of the woman, He was without the "sin"-nature of Adam, Mary having not been inseminated by a man. Why should He pass through the "death-waters"? Why should He be "BURIED" in judgement? The answer is relatively simple. Even though He was without sin, Jesus came from Adam via Mary - the OLD CREATION (see Luke's genealogy). The issue at hand is; "how does God return to His original plan in Genesis 1:26-28"? Adam was supposed to be in God's image and likeness AND he was supposed to rule. But the combination of "flesh and blood" was now unsuitable for RULING (1st Cor.15:50). Our Lord Jesus, though sinless and in the image and likeness of God, got His body from Mary - from the old creation. And for the COMING KINGDOM He must "BURY" the old in symbolic Judgement. Later, He goes to the cross, and the symbolism falls away. It becomes real. In Matthew 20:20-23. The mother of the "sons of thunder" wants her boys in the prime position IN THE KINGDOM when it comes. Our Lord Jesus answers, "can you go trough what I am going to go through FOR THE KINGDOM"?. For the Kingdom it is needful that we die and are resurrected. Our Lord Jesus calls this "my cup" and "my Baptism". Jordan was the SYMBOL that He, Jesus, perfect in all His ways, still abides by God's plan to END the OLD FLESH and institute a NEW FOR THE RULING OF THIS EARTH.

Now in the case of Israel, for gaining the Kingdom of Israel - the Good Land of Canaan, the same principle is set. The FLESH must be SYMBOLICALLY cut off. So circumcision is introduced and is called in Romans 4:11, "... he (Abraham) received the SIGN of circumcision, ... ." It is a SYMBOL or SIGN that for the gaining of the Kingdom we must put off the old flesh and blood. This SIGN is the part of man in the Covenant for the Land, and any man, though he be an Israelite and seed of Abraham via Isaac, will be "cut off from his people" if he refuses circumcision. God is so deadly serious about this that He, after preparing Moses for 80 years, "sought to kill Moses" for not circumcising his son (Ex.4:24-26). So circumcision is man's part in the Covenant for the Land.

Now, Galatians 3:29 says that through Christ, we Christians are also now sons of Abraham. Are we then forced to be circumcised? Is it not a Covenant? The answer is YES! The Covenant of circumcision has NOT been abolished (Gal.3:17). So what does God do now, especially as women may now be kings in the Millennium? He changes the SIGN without changing the meaning. It is not anymore the SIGN of the cutting of the foreskin. That was only for the Land of Canaan, and only for men. Now Abraham's seed will inherit the WORLD (Rom.4:13), and for this "flesh and blood" are not good enough. So the SIGN is changed to the "cutting off of the WHOLE BODY" - the SIGN of FULL IMMERSION in the "death waters". So in Colossians 2:10-12, in the context of, "... all principality and power" - the Kingdom (v.10), we Christians, men and women, are, "In whom (Jesus) also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

The matter is NOT salvation from the Lake of Fire. It is the matter of who gets to RULE the earth
Flesh and blood are not fit for this so it is to be SYMBOLICALLY cut off now, and suffer death later
The circumcision of Israel for Canaan is a "circumcision made with hands", but for the WORLD it is "made without hands"
This circumcision is the death of Christ - a Baptism (Matt.20:20-23), and it is applied to us now as JUDGMENT IN WATER
This IMMERSION is our part in the Covenant for the Kingdom of Heaven when Christ sets it up on earth after His return

So now we can understand John 3:3-5;

3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God.
...
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born (out) of water and (out) of the Spirit, he cannot ENTER into the kingdom of God."

John alludes to TWO THINGS;

A man or woman must have ROYAL HERITAGE to be a king over the earth. Thus, he/she needs to be born of God like Jesus was. The Israelite must be born of Abraham. The Covenant for the Land is made ONLY with Abraham, not the nations. The Christian must be born anew to SEE the Kingdom. This implies that the qualification is of birth from above is needed.
But then we learn that the rebirth only allows us to SEE the Kingdom of God on earth. That is, we will be resurrected at the same time as the Kingdom is instituted. But it does not guarantee us ENTERING the Kingdom. Why? Because the Covenant for the earth is ALSO dependent on IMMERSION (the substitute for circumcision). If we want to ENTER the Kingdom when Christ sets it up on His return, we must fulfill our part of the Covenant. We must be "circumcised with the circumcision made WITHOUT hands" - IMMERSION IN WATER!

randyk
Mar 15th 2018, 05:09 AM
John the Baptist first introduced the concept of baptism in the bible. At the time, sin offering and sacrifice were still in situ. Col 2:12 says we are buried with Christ in baptism...

1. How do we reconcile this statement with the baptisms that occurred while Jesus was still standing?
2. Why did Jesus need to be baptised when he was without sin?

I've spoken to this one before. I'm not sure baptism started with John the Baptist. But he certainly made it part of the Christian tradition. John was clearly a prophet, and was led by God to baptize sinners, just as Elisha baptized Naaman the Syrian. Just as Elisha was led by the Spirit to "baptize" Naaman, so was John the Baptist led by the Spirit to baptize all Israel. They were as sinful, as leprous, as Naaman--a pagan Gentile--was.

Jesus was baptized, as you say, without sin. So he didn't need to be cleansed from sin. But he did establish a precedent for future Christians, all of whom are in some ways sinful. All Christians should, in a sense, be baptized as sinners, particularly if they come out of a pagan, sinful life.

So what Jesus did was led by the Spirit to set an example for others--not to portray his own need for cleansing from sin. And of course baptism in the Christian sense is no longer a return to compliance to the Law. Instead, it is a turning to Christ both for forgiveness and righteousness.

Fenris
Mar 15th 2018, 01:21 PM
In Judaism, immersion in water can remove minor forms of ritual impurity (which is not sin) caused by coming in contact with animal carcasses and the like.

Also, upon conversion to Judaism one must be immersed in a pool of water. In addition to circumcision (for the boys only obv)

Trivalee
Mar 15th 2018, 09:00 PM
In Judaism, immersion in water can remove minor forms of ritual impurity (which is not sin) caused by coming in contact with animal carcasses and the like.

Also, upon conversion to Judaism one must be immersed in a pool of water. In addition to circumcision (for the boys only obv)

Glad to hear baptism dates back to OT times.

ewq1938
Mar 15th 2018, 09:58 PM
2. Why did Jesus need to be baptised when he was without sin?

John the Baptist didn't understand either:

Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.


Jesus basically just said "Do it anyways." It wasn't to remove sin as you said. It was to set an example and to fulfill righteous things.

Trivalee
Mar 16th 2018, 05:21 PM
John the Baptist didn't understand either:

Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Jesus basically just said "Do it anyways." It wasn't to remove sin as you said. It was to set an example and to fulfill righteous things.

I don't believe that John the Baptist baptized without fully understanding what it meant. Rather, he through discernment, understood who Jesus is, hence his protest that Jesus should baptise him instead.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2018, 02:33 PM
Glad to hear baptism dates back to OT times.

I don't think it's baptism. You're saying it removes sin? That's not what it's about in Judaism.

randyk
Mar 18th 2018, 02:59 PM
I don't think it's baptism. You're saying it removes sin? That's not what it's about in Judaism.

It's *symbolic* of the removal of the guilt of sin. It is divine acceptance that the sin is considered "cleansed." How else could you view Naaman's "baptism" by Elisha?

2 Kings 5.14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2018, 03:02 PM
It's *symbolic* of the removal of the guilt of sin. It removes ritual impurity. Not sin.


How else could you view Naaman's "baptism" by Elisha?

2 Kings 5.14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.His skin went from being leprous to healthy? Why see more there than what's in the text?

randyk
Mar 18th 2018, 03:10 PM
It removes ritual impurity. Not sin.


Christians view "sin" as not just an act of transgression, but also as a condition. This is what the story of Naaman indicates--not just transgression, but a condition, which was leprosy.

Ritual impurity can be either the result of careless transgression, or a representation that the human condition constantly requires ritual cleansing for human works to be accepted before God. Any way you cut it, it is a *human condition* that requires ritual cleansing.



His skin went from being leprous to healthy? Why see more there than what's in the text?

If you think about it, Naaman did not need "ritual cleansing." He was not under the Law of Moses, and would not have practiced the Law, unless he converted. This was a cleansing from *human sin,* and not a Hebrew requirement. Hebrews were not required to dip 7 times in the Jordan River, unless there's something you know that I don't?

Fenris
Mar 18th 2018, 03:21 PM
Christians view "sin" as not just an act of transgression, but also as a condition. This is what the story of Naaman indicates--not just transgression, but a condition, which was leprosy.....ok..... that's not how Jews see it.


Ritual impurity can be either the result of careless transgressionRitual impurity has nothing to do with transgression. It has to do with coming in contact with ritually impure objects. Like a corpse. Is burying a person a sin now?


If you think about it, Naaman did not need "ritual cleansing." He was not under the Law of Moses, and would not have practiced the Law, unless he converted. This was a cleansing from *human sin,* and not a Hebrew requirement.You'll have to explain how immersion in water removes sin, then. I thought only sacrifice did that. In Christianity, at least.


Hebrews were not required to dip 7 times in the Jordan River, unless there's something you know that I don't?
Jews immerse in water to remove ritual uncleanliness. It's not a cure for Tzaraat (commonly translated as "leprosy", although it isn't), so obviously God worked a miracle here, for reasons all His own.

ewq1938
Mar 18th 2018, 09:28 PM
You'll have to explain how immersion in water removes sin, then. I thought only sacrifice did that. In Christianity, at least.

There are no sacrifices in Christianity actually. The only one related is Christ's sacrifice but that was under the old covenant and Judaism. No sacrifices are actually a part of Christianity itself which of course came after the death of Christ and his sacrifice.

In Christianity sin is removed/forgiven in multiple ways but the most common is repentance.

Jas_5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Here a person who converts someone to Christ has their sins "hidden" which is the same as being forgiven.


1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Here someone who shows charity to others has their sins "covered" which is the same as being forgiven.

Here are two examples of sins being forgiven due to having faith:

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luk 7:38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
Luk 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

She has not repented of her sins yet her sins were forgiven and Christ also declares that her faith saved her! Faith can resuls in forgiven sins.



Mar 2:3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
Mar 2:4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Same is found here.

randyk
Mar 19th 2018, 02:11 AM
....ok..... that's not how Jews see it.

Ritual impurity has nothing to do with transgression. It has to do with coming in contact with ritually impure objects. Like a corpse. Is burying a person a sin now?


I don't agree. Ritual impurity has everything to do with the sinful human condition. If we were without sin there would be no need for ritual purity at all. Touching something dead, or being "contaminated" with human emissions, are symbolic pictures God used to show the sinful condition of humanity. Death itself was the result of sin. Bleeding was the result of sin. Thus, ritual purification represented God's willingness to overlook the sinful condition of the adherent.



You'll have to explain how immersion in water removes sin, then. I thought only sacrifice did that. In Christianity, at least.


1 Pet 3.21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.



Jews immerse in water to remove ritual uncleanliness. It's not a cure for Tzaraat (commonly translated as "leprosy", although it isn't), so obviously God worked a miracle here, for reasons all His own.

Elisha did this by prophetic revelation, and not in accordance with the Law of Moses. As such, it shows the prophetic value John the Baptist assigned to this, also under the Law and yet not by prescription of the Law.

What this shows is that this is a prophetic rite that can be applied *outside of the Law of Moses,* and directed towards Christians, whether Jew or otherwise.

Fenris
Mar 19th 2018, 01:19 PM
I don't agree. Ritual impurity has everything to do with the sinful human condition. If we were without sin there would be no need for ritual purity at all. Touching something dead, or being "contaminated" with human emissions, are symbolic pictures God used to show the sinful condition of humanity. Death itself was the result of sin. Bleeding was the result of sin. Thus, ritual purification represented God's willingness to overlook the sinful condition of the adherent.This isn't in the bible anywhere. You've invented it whole cloth.




1 Pet 3.21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsoónot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.So sacrifice is really unnecessary?




Elisha did this by prophetic revelation, and not in accordance with the Law of Moses. As such, it shows the prophetic value John the Baptist assigned to this, also under the Law and yet not by prescription of the Law.

What this shows is that this is a prophetic rite that can be applied *outside of the Law of Moses,* and directed towards Christians, whether Jew or otherwise.
It shows that God can perform any miracles He wishes. It's not the proscription for a new set of rituals or laws.

Jude
Mar 19th 2018, 04:48 PM
In Judaism, immersion in water can remove minor forms of ritual impurity (which is not sin) caused by coming in contact with animal carcasses and the like.

Also, upon conversion to Judaism one must be immersed in a pool of water. In addition to circumcision (for the boys only obv)

Why would anyone want to convert to Judaism where there is no hope for eternal life?


Jude

Fenris
Mar 19th 2018, 05:06 PM
Why would anyone want to convert to Judaism where there is no hope for eternal life?

Because they believe it's the truth?

And who said there's no hope for eternal life?

randyk
Mar 19th 2018, 06:16 PM
This isn't in the bible anywhere. You've invented it whole cloth.


Not at all. Your assumption that blood emissions arise from the original pristine state of man is theory on your part. My assumption is that God is good and man made "very good." Death is clearly enunciated as the result of human sin. Thus, touching a dead body, or things having to do with blood emissions have to do with the sinful condition of man.



So sacrifice is really unnecessary?


Sacrifice was absolutely necessary, both under the Law and under the laws of heaven. The sacrifices of the Law covered Israel's sinful condition assuming they pledged allegiance to the God of mercy and righteousness.

And the sacrifice required by heaven, in order to forgive sin for all time, required the death of Messiah. Full forgiveness, for all time, requires an eternal act of grace.

Animal sacrifices could not do that because it entailed animals, which is less than a full suffering of God. And these sacrifices were offered by imperfect men, whose acts of contrition and representation were themselves flawed. True and eternal mercy had to have been administered from heaven, via a heavenly sacrifice.

What water baptism does is offer a pledge to God via a symbolic act. The pledge, however, is real, even if the ceremony is ephemeral and symbolic.



It shows that God can perform any miracles He wishes. It's not the proscription for a new set of rituals or laws.

It's a valid prescription if it is prophetically determined to be so. It is every bit as binding as the requirement Elisha made upon Naaman to dip 7 times in the Jordan River!

Fenris
Mar 19th 2018, 06:25 PM
Not at all. Your assumption that blood emissions arises from the original pristine state of man is theory on your part. My assumption is that God is good and man mad "very good." Death is clearly enunciated as the result of human sin. Thus, touching a dead body, or things having to do with blood emissions have to do with the sinful condition of man.A woman's monthly period confers a state of uncleanliness that requires immersion in water. How does that have anything to do with sin? Touching an animal corpse can confer a state of uncleanliness that requires immersion in water. How does that have anything to do with sin?

This whole line of thought is odd. It has no scriptural support whatsoever, but you've decided that it's true anyway and you're running with it willy nilly.




Sacrifice was absolutely necessary, both under the Law and under the laws of heaven. The sacrifices of the Law covered Israel's sinful condition Sacrifice in the bible is only for certain, mostly accidental sins. We've discussed this already.


And the sacrifice required by heaven, in order to forgive sin for all time, required the death of Messiah.And this is in the bible....where?


Full forgiveness, for all time, requires an eternal act of grace. I don't think there is any such thing. Every time a person sins, they are required to ask forgiveness from the victim, be it man or God.


Animal sacrifices could not do that because it entailed animals, which is less than a full suffering of God. And these sacrifices were offered by imperfect men, whose acts of contrition and representation were themselves flawed. True and eternal mercy had to have been administered from heaven, via a heavenly sacrifice.Flip flip flip, can't find this....maybe it's in the back somewhere...



It's a valid prescription if it is prophetically determined to be so. It is every bit as binding as the requirement Elisha made upon Naaman to dip 7 times in the Jordan River!So now we dip in water for skin disease...right...

randyk
Mar 19th 2018, 07:22 PM
A woman's monthly period confers a state of uncleanliness that requires immersion in water. How does that have anything to do with sin? Touching an animal corpse can confer a state of uncleanliness that requires immersion in water. How does that have anything to do with sin?


The pristine state of man, in which he was created, is said to have been "very good." That means to me that Adam and Eve were not designed for blood emissions and death. Touching a dead animal that died by some unknown cause is symbolic of the kind of drama that followed the Fall of Man. Blood emissions from women, and semen emissions from men indicate the contaminating influence sin had upon Man after the Fall.

I'm not at all saying these things are unclean in and of themselves. I'm saying that God used these things to *symbolize* uncleanness, and required of Israel a pledge to observe the rituals to display things like admissions of personal failure, imperfection, and less than perfect compliance with God's moral standards. This may be something you as a Jew may disagree with?



This whole line of thought is odd. It has no scriptural support whatsoever, but you've decided that it's true anyway and you're running with it willy nilly.

Sacrifice in the bible is only for certain, mostly accidental sins. We've discussed this already.


Yes, we've discussed it already.



And this is in the bible....where?


God Himself said that He is the source of mercy. God consented to allow Israel's priests to administer rites of cleansing, sanctification, etc. But it had to have been assumed that this was by concession only, since a lack of perfection disqualified Adam and Eve from Eden to begin with! No priest has ever administered God's holy rites *perfectly!*

Isa 63.“I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the nations no one was with me. I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support; so my own arm achieved salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.



I don't think there is any such thing. Every time a person sins, they are required to ask forgiveness from the victim, be it man or God.


Nobody gets into God's eternal Kingdom unless they are made perfect. It is not enough to be forgiven in our current moral state. The state we are in is a flawed state. It is prone to error. As such, we cannot be any better than we were before the Fall. In fact we are much worse!

So, in order to obtain a wholesale change to our flawed human nature we required something I'm calling "eternal grace." We need a dispensation of forgiveness while we are as yet in our fallen bodies. And we need a guaranteed promise that at some point we will be remade. All this took place by heaven's own act of redemption, the cross of Christ.



Flip flip flip, can't find this....maybe it's in the back somewhere...


Move forward in your Bible to the "Christian" part. ;)

Heb 9.11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!



So now we dip in water for skin disease...right...

No, that was Elisha's baptism, indicating that prophetically, baptism could be established for reasons outside of the Law. Baptism has now been established, after John the Baptist, for the purpose of a pledge to Jesus, and for the purpose of cleansing our conscience. We can have full confidence in God's mercy if we know God's sufferings have been made complete. Nothing more to be forgiven! Clear conscience! :)

Fenris
Mar 19th 2018, 07:42 PM
The pristine state of man, in which he was created, is said to have been "very good."
Uh, chapter and verse please?


That means to me that Adam and Eve were not designed for blood emissions and death. Touching a dead animal that died by some unknown cause is symbolic of the kind of drama that followed the Fall of Man. Blood emissions from women, and semen emissions from men indicate the contaminating influence sin had upon Man after the Fall.Aaaand this is in the bible where exactly?



I'm not at all saying these things are unclean in and of themselves. I'm saying that God used these things to *symbolize* uncleanness, and required of Israel a pledge to observe the rituals to display things like admissions of personal failure, imperfection, and less than perfect compliance with God's moral standards. This may be something you as a Jew may disagree with?I'm saying there's zero biblical support for this idea. Literally none. This is all your invention.



God Himself said that He is the source of mercy. God consented to allow Israel's priests to administer rites of cleansing, sanctification, etc. But it had to have been assumed that this was by concession only, since a lack of perfection disqualified Adam and Even from Eden to begin with! No priest has ever administered God's holy rites *perfectly!*Why is this a requirement? The abstract idea of "perfection" isn't even in the bible. That's a Greek idea, unknown to the ancient Hebrews.


Nobody gets into God's eternal Kingdom unless they are made perfect.Says who? Again, where does this idea come from? I don't think we're measured against any perfect scale. We're judged by how close or far we get to our own personal potential.


So, in order to obtain a wholesale change to our flawed human nature we required something I'm calling "eternal grace."Call it whatever you like.




Move forward in your Bible to the "Christian" part. ;)Ohh not in my bible. so sorry.



No, that was Elisha's baptism, indicating that prophetically, baptism could be established for reasons outside of the Law. I'm going to disagree with you here. (Shocking, I know! :lol: ) God performing a one time miracle for a gentile does not establish, or even hint at, new laws.

randyk
Mar 20th 2018, 03:44 AM
Uh, chapter and verse please?


If you don't know Genesis ch. 1, you don't belong here! ;)



Aaaand this is in the bible where exactly?


Where God said He made man, male and female, in *His image.*



I'm saying there's zero biblical support for this idea. Literally none. This is all your invention.


No, I'd say that if you can't understand when something is being used as a symbol, then you just refuse to understand the basic meaning of things!



Why is this a requirement? The abstract idea of "perfection" isn't even in the bible. That's a Greek idea, unknown to the ancient Hebrews.


I don't think you represent "the Hebrews"--just your own Hebrew "neighborhood." I think Hebrews have all kinds of sense of perfection, if indeed they conceive of a "holy God," which of course they do!



Says who? Again, where does this idea come from? I don't think we're measured against any perfect scale. We're judged by how close or far we get to our own personal potential.


God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, and away from the tree of life for a *single sin.* Does that speak of "perfection" to you? Of course not. You don't recognize the sense in statements--just what is literally said, ignoring what the implications are.



Call it whatever you like.

Ohh not in my bible. so sorry.


Christianity is a *Jewish religion.* It was created by *Jews.* It may not be *your Bible,* but it is a *Jewish Bible.* And so, Jews wrote the NT Scriptures in order to explain how the OT Scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah.



I'm going to disagree with you here. (Shocking, I know! :lol: ) God performing a one time miracle for a gentile does not establish, or even hint at, new laws.

I'm not shocked that you draw *zero* conclusions that God placed in the Bible to understand not just what He said, but things about His nature, and about His moral character. But if it doesn't say anything directly about His moral perfection, that is beyond your scope! ;)

Fenris
Mar 20th 2018, 01:31 PM
If you don't know Genesis ch. 1, you don't belong here! Sorry, I don't see anywhere in Genesis 1 where God says "The pristine state of man, in which he was created, is said to have been "very good."".




Where God said He made man, male and female, in *His image.*There's lots of explanations for that, none of which conclude that "That means to me that Adam and Eve were not designed for blood emissions and death. Touching a dead animal that died by some unknown cause is symbolic of the kind of drama that followed the Fall of Man. Blood emissions from women, and semen emissions from men indicate the contaminating influence sin had upon Man after the Fall."




No, I'd say that if you can't understand when something is being used as a symbol, then you just refuse to understand the basic meaning of things!But there's no evidence that the "symbol" means what you say it does. Literally none.




I don't think you represent "the Hebrews"--just your own Hebrew "neighborhood." I think Hebrews have all kinds of sense of perfectionThere isn't even a word in biblical Hebrew for "perfect". The idea didn't exist until Greek philosophers came along, which is well after God's communication at Sinai. Your ideas on this are completely anachronistic.




God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, and away from the tree of life for a *single sin.* Does that speak of "perfection" to you? Of course not. You don't recognize the sense in statements--just what is literally said, ignoring what the implications are.They were given one command and they disobeyed. I don't see how that follows that God expects perfection.




Christianity is a *Jewish religion.* It was created by *Jews.* It may not be *your Bible,* but it is a *Jewish Bible.* Mm. It's the Christian bible.


And so, Jews wrote the NT Scriptures in order to explain how the OT Scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah.mm. Lots of Jews have lots of opinions. It's up to us decide who's right. I choose not to follow those Jews, as is my right.




I'm not shocked that you draw *zero* conclusions that God placed in the Bible to understand not just what He said, but things about His nature, and about His moral character. But if it doesn't say anything directly about His moral perfection, that is beyond your scope!
Yeah, I'm not very bright, what can I say? Dropped on the noggin one too many times as a lad I suppose.

randyk
Mar 20th 2018, 04:30 PM
Sorry, I don't see anywhere in Genesis 1 where God says "The pristine state of man, in which he was created, is said to have been "very good."".



There's lots of explanations for that, none of which conclude that "That means to me that Adam and Eve were not designed for blood emissions and death. Touching a dead animal that died by some unknown cause is symbolic of the kind of drama that followed the Fall of Man. Blood emissions from women, and semen emissions from men indicate the contaminating influence sin had upon Man after the Fall."


But there's no evidence that the "symbol" means what you say it does. Literally none.



There isn't even a word in biblical Hebrew for "perfect". The idea didn't exist until Greek philosophers came along, which is well after God's communication at Sinai. Your ideas on this are completely anachronistic.



They were given one command and they disobeyed. I don't see how that follows that God expects perfection.



Mm. It's the Christian bible.

mm. Lots of Jews have lots of opinions. It's up to us decide who's right. I choose not to follow those Jews, as is my right.



Yeah, I'm not very bright, what can I say? Dropped on the noggin one too many times as a lad I suppose.

Completely irrelevant. The problem is that you seem to be ignoring, *as a tactic,* the normal meaning of words, in terms of their *connotations.* I see you doing this regularly, as a way of avoiding drawing conclusions harmful to your own religious presuppositions.

This is a perfect example of this tactic here. I've given you perfectly good explanations of how Adam and Eve were created "very good" in Genesis 1. And you simply claim you don't see that. Maybe the words, stripped of all connotation, do not mean a "pristine state of existence?" I can't argue with you if you're going to indulge in levity and dismiss serious arguments? Nobody thinks you bumped your head, and can't reason! ;)

Fenris
Mar 20th 2018, 05:36 PM
Completely irrelevant.

You add words that aren't there, based on I don't know what. You see symbols that aren't there. You introduce concepts that didn't even exist in biblical times.

When I point this out, you dismiss my argument as irrelevant.

verity
Mar 20th 2018, 08:37 PM
The first baptism was a dry baptism. This baptism involved the children of Israel. It was a baptism unto Moses. Their hope was the promised land. It is found in the OT. Paul mentions this here:

1Cor 10:
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Exodus 14:
19 And the Angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.
21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Neh 9:11* And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.*

verity
Mar 20th 2018, 09:15 PM
Today there is only one baptism:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:4-5)

The one baptism is spiritual. It is done without the hands of men:

In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

We have a baptism unto Christís death, burial, and resurrection. God reckons us as dead, buried, and risen with Him through our faith. This is HIS work for those who trust in Him. The hope is heavenly places.

ChangedByHim
Mar 20th 2018, 09:29 PM
Today there is only one baptism:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:4-5)

The one baptism is spiritual. It is done without the hands of men:

In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

We have a baptism unto Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. God reckons us as dead, buried, and risen with Him through our faith. This is HIS work for those who trust in Him. The hope is heavenly places.

And that has changed since Hebrews chapter 6 where it specifically references the "doctrine of baptisms"?

Walls
Mar 20th 2018, 09:52 PM
And that has changed since Hebrews chapter 6 where it specifically references the "doctrine of baptisms"?

The basic doctrines of Christ, from which we should move on, DO have BaptismS (plural). There is the doctrine about;

Israel's Baptism in 1st Corinthians 10 in the Red Sea
John's Baptism which sufficed for Israel but not for the Church
The Apostle's and Disciple's Baptism which we are commanded to teach and do
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost
The Baptism of Fire by the Lord Jesus (Matt.3:11)

All have their place and meaning. But what is interesting is that Hebrews 6 says that we should move on from these BASIC doctrines to other things. But here we are, still squabbling about these basic things. Seems like Hebrews 6 applies to us today. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

ChangedByHim
Mar 20th 2018, 11:00 PM
The basic doctrines of Christ, from which we should move on, DO have BaptismS (plural). There is the doctrine about;

Israel's Baptism in 1st Corinthians 10 in the Red Sea
John's Baptism which sufficed for Israel but not for the Church
The Apostle's and Disciple's Baptism which we are commanded to teach and do
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost
The Baptism of Fire by the Lord Jesus (Matt.3:11)

All have their place and meaning. But what is interesting is that Hebrews 6 says that we should move on from these BASIC doctrines to other things. But here we are, still squabbling about these basic things. Seems like Hebrews 6 applies to us today. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"
You forgot the baptism by the Spirit into the body.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.

Walls
Mar 20th 2018, 11:39 PM
You forgot the baptism by the Spirit into the body.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.

Gotcha! Thanks.

verity
Mar 21st 2018, 01:46 AM
And that has changed since Hebrews chapter 6 where it specifically references the "doctrine of baptisms"?

Yes, there is a change. The "doctrine of baptisms" in Hebrews and throughout Acts had to do with the restored kingdom on earth which was (then) expected soon. It was dependent on the repentance of Israel. (Acts 3:19-26) Other than a small remnant, this did not occur.

2 Baptisms during Acts- baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit:

Water baptism was unto the name of Jesus Christ: This baptism symbolized the washing away of sin.Water baptism was compulsory for the Jewish believers(Acts 2:38), but was not an absolute for the Gentiles.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit involved spiritual gifts (power on high) as signs that the kingdom was at hand First only to Jews at Pentecost. Beginning with the house of Cornelius, the gifts were also shared with Gentiles grafted in to Israel's hope.

Yes, I understand that Hebrews 6 is describing doctrine for "babes". Obviously, it is still misunderstood

ChangedByHim
Mar 21st 2018, 01:48 AM
Yes, there is a change. The "doctrine of baptisms" in Hebrews and throughout Acts had to do with the restored kingdom on earth which was (then) expected soon. It was dependent on the repentance of Israel. (Acts 3:19-26) Other than a small remnant, this did not occur.

2 Baptisms during Acts- baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit:

Water baptism was unto the name of Jesus Christ: This baptism symbolized the washing away of sin.Water baptism was compulsory for the Jewish believers(Acts 2:38), but was not an absolute for the Gentiles.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit involved spiritual gifts (power on high) as signs that the kingdom was at hand First only to Jews at Pentecost. Beginning with the house of Cornelius, the gifts were also shared with Gentiles grafted in to Israel's hope.

Yes, I understand that Hebrews 6 is describing doctrine for "babes". Obviously, it is still misunderstood

Ok. I disagree with that entire approach. No doctrine presented in the New Testament has changed in the time between the first century and the 21st.

randyk
Mar 21st 2018, 03:03 AM
You add words that aren't there, based on I don't know what. You see symbols that aren't there. You introduce concepts that didn't even exist in biblical times.

When I point this out, you dismiss my argument as irrelevant.

The Scriptures very plainly say man was made "very good." Most people with common sense recognize that God made man in a state of perfection. There was no sin. There was no judgment. There was no calamity or disaster or accident. The knowledge of God, and compliance with that knowledge, made everything perfect and beautiful...until sin entered into the picture.

I can't honestly say what conditions existed prior to man's fall. We just know from what followed that harsh conditions fell upon the earth as a result of human sin. So before human sin, nature was a beautiful place.

All that the Law indicates with respect to blood emissions are clearly symbolic of a change in how men see the world, with violence, greed, and envy in their hearts. Perhaps you can see a pack of wolves taking down an elk as a beautiful thing? But if you have blood lust in your heart, you will see it quite differently. And I think the Law insinuates that.

Frankly, I don't know anybody who sees blood as a beautiful thing, unless perhaps you're a surgeon and see blood as a source of healing! But your thinking that the concept of "perfection" isn't in the Bible takes me aback. The whole idea of the Law is about obedience. That involves perfection--a requirement to obey *all* the laws. Expecting perfection is one thing. But thinking there is no idea of perfection at all is just plain crazy! ;)

Let me ask you, Fenris? Do you think God is perfect? And by that I mean, do you think God is *sinless?*

randyk
Mar 21st 2018, 05:42 AM
Sorry, I don't see anywhere in Genesis 1 where God says "The pristine state of man, in which he was created, is said to have been "very good."".

There's lots of explanations for that, none of which conclude that "That means to me that Adam and Eve were not designed for blood emissions and death. Touching a dead animal that died by some unknown cause is symbolic of the kind of drama that followed the Fall of Man. Blood emissions from women, and semen emissions from men indicate the contaminating influence sin had upon Man after the Fall."

But there's no evidence that the "symbol" means what you say it does. Literally none.


Fenris, I'm going to assume you mean well, and don't intend to act "thick." I will give you that lots of things in the Scriptures are not "scientific" and "Greek" in their story telling.

But this doesn't mean we shouldn't look into the parables and understand the meaning. It is for the wise to discern, and for the ignorant to trip up over their own rationalizations.

Let's look, for a moment, at what eating from the tree of knowledge denotes. It doesn't spell out everything that happened to the human brain, psychologically. But we know a change took place, because the Bible says so, and gives an example.

One of the most notable examples of change in human psychology was guilt. Adam and Eve not only knew they had done wrong, and hid, but they also saw their nakedness as something embarrassing and humiliating.

Why this is we aren't told in much detail, except that we know it had to do with taking in a different, foreign kind of knowledge. Suddenly what was acceptable--nudity--became a bad thing--at least to Adam and Eve.

So let's extrapolate a little, since we are only given a few examples, and left to figure out the rest ourselves, that is, if we are even open to it. What if suddenly the world, in all its beauty, now looks to us horrific and violent? Perhaps it really is horrific and violent. But what looks to some as just the beauty of nature looks to others as unleashed violence in the world of nature.

So it is really this foreign knowledge that has changed us. And it has resulted not just in the appearance of violence, but it has erupted in human violence itself. We not only see things as bad, but we act bad as well.

I'm not surprised, therefore, that God used objects in the world to represent what we perceive as bad. We see bloodshed as a bad thing. Blood emissions don't look good to us. Sexuality is dirty. And knowing that the Canaanites not only saw things this way, but availed themselves of it, enabled God to use those things as symbols for the Israelis to avoid. This is the common sense use of symbolism.

Why else would people who touched the dead or women who issue blood have to be made ceremonially clean? It is because what they had is associated in the corrupt minds of men with uncleanness. And men actually committed sins in association with these symbols.

There were obviously some good health reasons for avoiding blood, dead animals, and mildew. There were good reasons for staying away from violent pagans, as well. But the real idea was to stay away not just from the symbolism, but to see in the symbolism the dangers of human sin itself. You may disagree, and think I'm reading too much into this. But that's just the way I read it.

Fenris
Mar 21st 2018, 02:22 PM
The Scriptures very plainly say man was made "very good." Most people with common sense recognize that God made man in a state of perfection.
Who are these "most people"? What are you talking about? Again, you decided on this idea and are defending it to the ends of the earth, even though there isn't one word in the bible about it. Maybe man is "very good" because we're the pinnacle of creation, the only being on the earth with free will and intellect.



All that the Law indicates with respect to blood emissions Indicates to who? Indicates what?



Frankly, I don't know anybody who sees blood as a beautiful thing, unless perhaps you're a surgeon and see blood as a source of healing! But your thinking that the concept of "perfection" isn't in the Bible takes me aback. The whole idea of the Law is about obedience. That involves perfection--a requirement to obey *all* the laws. No it doesn't. Again, there wasn't even an idea of "perfection" in the world at that time. God doesn't expect us to be perfect. He created us, and He knows were try and fall short. And that's fine. You pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and try again. It's the struggle that is of value.


Let me ask you, Fenris? Do you think God is perfect? God is God. He is beyond compare.


And by that I mean, do you think God is *sinless?*This question has no meaning. Only humans can sin.

verity
Mar 21st 2018, 02:23 PM
Ok. I disagree with that entire approach. No doctrine presented in the New Testament has changed in the time between the first century and the 21st.

The word is complete. We are complete is Him. I agree that nothing has changed in the time between the first century and the 21st century. However, there was a revelation given to Paul in the first century that was definitely new. It had been hid in God.

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

The mystery was not part of Paul's ministry during Acts. All that he said was limited to those things already written in Moses and the prophets.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the People, and to the Gentiles.

Fenris
Mar 21st 2018, 02:27 PM
Fenris, I'm going to assume you mean well, and don't intend to act "thick." I will give you that lots of things in the Scriptures are not "scientific" and "Greek" in their story telling.

But this doesn't mean we shouldn't look into the parables and understand the meaning. It is for the wise to discern, and for the ignorant to trip up over their own rationalizations.

Let's look, for a moment, at what eating from the tree of knowledge denotes. It doesn't spell out everything that happened to the human brain, psychologically. But we know a change took place, because the Bible says so, and gives an example.

One of the most notable examples of change in human psychology was guilt. Adam and Eve not only knew they had done wrong, and hid, but they also saw their nakedness as something embarrassing and humiliating.

Why this is we aren't told in much detail, except that we know it had to do with taking in a different, foreign kind of knowledge. Suddenly what was acceptable--nudity--became a bad thing--at least to Adam and Eve.

So let's extrapolate a little, since we are only given a few examples, and left to figure out the rest ourselves, that is, if we are even open to it. What if suddenly the world, in all its beauty, now looks to us horrific and violent? Perhaps it really is horrific and violent. But what looks to some as just the beauty of nature looks to others as unleashed violence in the world of nature.

So it is really this foreign knowledge that has changed us. And it has resulted not just in the appearance of violence, but it has erupted in human violence itself. We not only see things as bad, but we act bad as well.

I don't think eating from the tree was all bad. It gave us free will and gave our existence meaning.


Sexuality is dirty. But its not. It can be Godly. We get to create a new human being, in a partnership with God. It's only dirty as an act of self-gratification outside of a committed relationship.


Why else would people who touched the dead or women who issue blood have to be made ceremonially clean? It is because what they had is associated in the corrupt minds of men with uncleanness. This is an invention of yours. It isn't in the bible.


You may disagree, and think I'm reading too much into this.You are.

ChangedByHim
Mar 21st 2018, 03:52 PM
The word is complete. We are complete is Him. I agree that nothing has changed in the time between the first century and the 21st century. However, there was a revelation given to Paul in the first century that was definitely new. It had been hid in God.

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

The mystery was not part of Paul's ministry during Acts. All that he said was limited to those things already written in Moses and the prophets.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the People, and to the Gentiles.

So Paul wrote things that contradict what other NT writers wrote? Or is it just your misunderstanding that's causing the issue?

Pbminimum
Mar 21st 2018, 04:31 PM
John the Baptist first introduced the concept of baptism in the bible. At the time, sin offering and sacrifice were still in situ. Col 2:12 says we are buried with Christ in baptism...

1. How do we reconcile this statement with the baptisms that occurred while Jesus was still standing?
2. Why did Jesus need to be baptised when he was without sin?

1. He was to be the final offering for sin. He was showing the apostle's and us what we needed to do.
2. He didn't need to be. He chose to be an example for us.

Trivalee
Mar 21st 2018, 05:28 PM
The first baptism was a dry baptism. This baptism involved the children of Israel. It was a baptism unto Moses. Their hope was the promised land. It is found in the OT. Paul mentions this here:

1Cor 10:
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Exodus 14:
19 And the Angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.
21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Neh 9:11* And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.*

Thanks for the post, insightful...

Trivalee
Mar 21st 2018, 05:47 PM
The basic doctrines of Christ, from which we should move on, DO have BaptismS (plural). There is the doctrine about;

Israel's Baptism in 1st Corinthians 10 in the Red Sea
John's Baptism which sufficed for Israel but not for the Church
The Apostle's and Disciple's Baptism which we are commanded to teach and do
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit of Pentecost
The Baptism of Fire by the Lord Jesus (Matt.3:11)

All have their place and meaning. But what is interesting is that Hebrews 6 says that we should move on from these BASIC doctrines to other things. But here we are, still squabbling about these basic things. Seems like Hebrews 6 applies to us today. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

I should have a good laugh...because you're wondering why anyone would bother with the BASICS in scripture?:lol:

But you'll be surprised to learn that there are many who have been born again for over 20 years but are still drinking milk. Only the few who are able to chew bone are able to move on to mature stuff.

randyk
Mar 21st 2018, 05:59 PM
Who are these "most people"? What are you talking about? Again, you decided on this idea and are defending it to the ends of the earth, even though there isn't one word in the bible about it. Maybe man is "very good" because we're the pinnacle of creation, the only being on the earth with free will and intellect.


You're the one who suggests my idea of "perfection" is Greek philosophy! ;) From the universal Christian pov that at least used to exist in European civilization the idea of "very good" means that God is good, and as such, created things in conformity with His own goodness. The world was an expression of His art. This also is not explicitly stated in these particular words, but I digress.



Indicates to who? Indicates what?


The Law was given to Israel. They were to avoid conformity with pagan practices all around them.

So you just mindlessly obey God and use articles and elements with no thought to what they mean? The story of man goes back to the Genesis account. However, you fail to connect the dots between what happened in the Fall and why God put to use the things He did in the Law. In the Fall bloodshed began to be indulged in--see Cain and Abel. And woman began to give birth in great labor. The blood associated with giving birth is directly linked to the Fall. Therefore, ritual cleansing had to do with an acknowledgment of the dangers of disobeying God, and the need for spiritual purification. That means a penitent must put on a *new spirit.*

But people who just perfunctorily go through religious exercises seek to gain benefit simply from *doing* those exercises. It's as if they hope to gain strength in doing pushups or situps. But the exercises were never intended to grant value through repetition. Rather, they were intended to implant the lessons of spiritual reform. The more aligned we become with God, the more secure we are in our obedience.



No it doesn't. Again, there wasn't even an idea of "perfection" in the world at that time. God doesn't expect us to be perfect. He created us, and He knows were try and fall short. And that's fine. You pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and try again. It's the struggle that is of value.

God is God. He is beyond compare.

This question has no meaning. Only humans can sin.

This is remarkable to me. You think the sinless nature of God, or His *holiness,* has no meaning with respect to "perfection?" I'm not sure you're able to make the short trip from Hebrew meaning to English meaning? To you, English words are not Hebrew, and so are meaningless?

Trivalee
Mar 21st 2018, 06:08 PM
Yes, there is a change. The "doctrine of baptisms" in Hebrews and throughout Acts had to do with the restored kingdom on earth which was (then) expected soon. It was dependent on the repentance of Israel. (Acts 3:19-26) Other than a small remnant, this did not occur.

2 Baptisms during Acts- baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit:

Water baptism was unto the name of Jesus Christ: This baptism symbolized the washing away of sin.Water baptism was compulsory for the Jewish believers(Acts 2:38), but was not an absolute for the Gentiles.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit involved spiritual gifts (power on high) as signs that the kingdom was at hand First only to Jews at Pentecost. Beginning with the house of Cornelius, the gifts were also shared with Gentiles grafted in to Israel's hope.

Yes, I understand that Hebrews 6 is describing doctrine for "babes". Obviously, it is still misunderstood

Jesus recommend water baptism for ALL who comes to faith, it is not limited to Jews. Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Fenris
Mar 21st 2018, 06:09 PM
You're the one who suggests my idea of "perfection" is Greek philosophy! Correct, and humans aren't perfect. But we're the last thing that was created, and the most important. That was "very good".


From the universal Christian pov that at least used to exist in European civilization the idea of "very good" means that God is good, and as such, created things in conformity with His own goodness. The world was an expression of His art. This also is not explicitly stated in these particular words, but I digress.You seem to know a lot of things that aren't found in the text. Just an observation.




The Law was given to Israel. They were to avoid conformity with pagan practices all around them. Yes. And so?


So you just mindlessly obey God and use articles and elements with no thought to what they mean?
Mindlessly? No, it requires a lot of work and study to follow the law. That doesn't mean that going to impute things int he text that aren't there. Ritual impurity is ritual impurity, not sin.


The story of man goes back to the Genesis account. However, you fail to connect the dots between what happened in the Fall and why God put to use the things He did in the Law. In the Fall bloodshed began to be indulged in--see Cain and Abel. And woman began to give birth in great labor. The blood associated with giving birth is directly linked to the Fall. Therefore, ritual cleansing had to do with an acknowledgment of the dangers of disobeying God, and the need for spiritual purification.This isn't in the text and does not directly follow.


That means a penitent must put on a *new spirit.*That's true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous paragraph.


But people who just perfunctorily go through religious exercises seek to gain benefit simply from *doing* those exercises. One doesn't follow the law to "gain benefit". It's because we love God, and He asked us to follow the law. So we do.



This is remarkable to me. You think the sinless nature of God, or His *holiness,* has no meaning with respect to "perfection?" I don't understand what you're trying to say. God isn't "sinless". Only humans can sin. "Holy" in Hebrew has the root of being set aside or differentiated, not "perfect" for which there wasn't even a biblical Hebrew word.

verity
Mar 21st 2018, 07:28 PM
So Paul wrote things that contradict what other NT writers wrote? Or is it just your misunderstanding that's causing the issue?

No. Paul was given three commissions. He was given two commissions during Acts and and a third commission after Acts. The key to the two commissions given to Paul during Acts is found in Acts 26:16.

Acts 26:16
I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness BOTH of THESE things which thou hast seen, and of THOSE things in the which I shall appear to thee.

1. The first commission was to preach the kingdom of God. The things which he had seen were those things Stephen and the twelve were preaching. It came with a warning. Acts 13:Act 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent..40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;41* Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.*(quote from Hab 1:5)

2. The second commission was to preach the gospel of the grace of God. The Gentiles could partake of Israel's blessings without being under the law. Act 20:24* But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.*
*
3. The third commission given to Paul is found in Ephesians, Colossians, and the other epistles written by Paul post Acts. This commission given to Paul to make all men see what is found in Eph 3:7-9 and Col 1:23,24,26,28.

There are no contradictions, but the word is progressive. Some things are dependent on people's repentance and belief. When conditions were not met, Christ gave Paul a new revelation. All promises concerning Israel will be kept in the future, but now they are set aside.

ChangedByHim
Mar 21st 2018, 07:34 PM
No. Paul was given three commissions. He was given two commissions during Acts and and a third commission after Acts. The key to the two commissions given to Paul during Acts is found in Acts 26:16.

Acts 26:16
I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness BOTH of THESE things which thou hast seen, and of THOSE things in the which I shall appear to thee.

1. The first commission was to preach the kingdom of God. The things which he had seen were those things Stephen and the twelve were preaching. It came with a warning. Acts 13:Act 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent..40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;41* Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.*(quote from Hab 1:5)

2. The second commission was to preach the gospel of the grace of God. The Gentiles could partake of Israel's blessings without being under the law. Act 20:24* But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.*
*
3. The third commission given to Paul is found in Ephesians, Colossians, and the other epistles written by Paul post Acts. This commission given to Paul to make all men see what is found in Eph 3:7-9 and Col 1:23,24,26,28.

There are no contradictions, but the word is progressive. Some things are dependent on people's repentance and belief. When conditions were not met, Christ gave Paul a new revelation. All promises concerning Israel will be kept in the future, but now they are set aside.

So you believe the the NT is progressive in the sense that if James wrote his letter in 45 AD and Paul wrote Ephesians in 62 AD, then what Paul wrote has precedence? Hmmm.... I'll pass on that subscription.

There are different baptisms, all still valid; the main ones as follows:

- Baptism into Christ and the body of Christ at salvation
- Water Baptism as a testimony
- Baptism with the Holy Spirit for power for service

Trivalee
Mar 21st 2018, 07:48 PM
No. Paul was given three commissions. He was given two commissions during Acts and and a third commission after Acts. The key to the two commissions given to Paul during Acts is found in Acts 26:16.

Acts 26:16
I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness BOTH of THESE things which thou hast seen, and of THOSE things in the which I shall appear to thee.

1. The first commission was to preach the kingdom of God. The things which he had seen were those things Stephen and the twelve were preaching. It came with a warning. Acts 13:Act 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent..40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;41* Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.*(quote from Hab 1:5)

2. The second commission was to preach the gospel of the grace of God. The Gentiles could partake of Israel's blessings without being under the law. Act 20:24* But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.*
*
3. The third commission given to Paul is found in Ephesians, Colossians, and the other epistles written by Paul post Acts. This commission given to Paul to make all men see what is found in Eph 3:7-9 and Col 1:23,24,26,28.

There are no contradictions, but the word is progressive. Some things are dependent on people's repentance and belief. When conditions were not met, Christ gave Paul a new revelation. All promises concerning Israel will be kept in the future, but now they are set aside.

I don't believe that "progressive" is the appropriate term to describe the word of God because progressive suggests replacing the former with the better. No word of God irrespective of when it is revealed can be described as anything, but perfect. However, you're right that "some things are dependent on people's repentance and belief". IOW, it can be argued that some aspects of the word of God are given on a need-to-know-basis.

For example, God may withhold an information if he perceives that the beneficiary is not yet mature enough or ready for it.

dan p
Mar 21st 2018, 09:24 PM
John the Baptist first introduced the concept of baptism in the bible. At the time, sin offering and sacrifice were still in situ. Col 2:12 says we are buried with Christ in baptism...

1. How do we reconcile this statement with the baptisms that occurred while Jesus was still standing?
2. Why did Jesus need to be baptised when he was without sin?


Hi and when we look at the Greek text , the Greek word BAPTIZO is incorrectly translated BAPTISM !!

The Greek text is the word BAPTIZO / BAPTISMA and Baptisma means a BAPTIZER , PLACES ( THE Holy Spirit is the BAPTIZER HERE ) places all saved into His death , Rom 6:3 and in Rom 6:4 the word in the Greek text is also BAPTISMA !!

There are 22 instances where the Greek BAPTIZO / BAPTISMA is used in the NT !

The Greek word BAPTIZO is a transliterated word with 12 different interpretations !!

Jeusu was BAPTIZED to fulfill all righteousness of being a Priest after the order of MELCHISEDEC , Heb 5:1-10

dan p

verity
Mar 21st 2018, 09:42 PM
ChangedByHim and Trivalee,

Yes, "progressive" is an not the right word to use. A careful study of the epistles written after Acts reveals the beginning of a new and different calling to the members of the church of the body of Christ of which He is the head. There are unique blessings, doctrine, and sphere of hope.

The history of God's dealing with man changes according to time in some aspects. God dealt with individuals and then nations until the promise made to Abraham. There was then the time of God's chosen people, Christ's ministry on earth, the Acts period, the post Acts period, the future prophecy having to do with the millennium,the new heaven and earth, heavenly places. All God's plans for those who love Him will be wondrous. My point is that there are differences.

randyk
Mar 22nd 2018, 04:27 PM
Correct, and humans aren't perfect. But we're the last thing that was created, and the most important. That was "very good".


You think Man was created "very good" merely because he was the "last" of God's creation? And you think humans were created "imperfect?"

Oh, that's right--you don't understand what "being perfect" means! ;)



You seem to know a lot of things that aren't found in the text. Just an observation.


There are things that become more clear in the Bible when we walk with God and know Him intimately. Otherwise, what we're doing is just reading a document and speculating on the meaning. And the ultra-religious, like yourself, are afraid to read anything into the document.

But we do have a God who wishes to acquaint us with Himself. Enoch walked with God. Abraham was the "friend" of God. When we thus trust in who we know God to be, we can compare what we know about His nature to help us decipher what the Bible is saying. I'm not at all interested in going beyond what the Scriptures say is true!



Yes. And so?


My observation is that the Law consisted of the denial of practices that were related to pagan practices among the Canaanites. I'm not sure about all of the things the Canaanites did in their "world," but I think they probably utilized tatoos and body markings associated with immorality and spiritualism? In other words, the symbolism God utilized had its impact when viewed in association with the corrupt practices of the Canaanites.

Israel was not to even "look like" the pagan Canaanites. Common sense would tell you that taking a tatoo does not corrupt you inwardly. However, God did not want Israel to be associated with Canaanites, and thus be misconstrued as being *like* the Canaanites in their corruption.

Sewing two kinds of thread together, or things like that, are purely symbolic. Boiling a baby animal with his mother is clearly symbolic of the need for compassion towards human families. Animal symbols reflected human behavior. And God obviously wanted to use symbols to teach Israel internal righteousness in their behavior.



Mindlessly? No, it requires a lot of work and study to follow the law. That doesn't mean that going to impute things int he text that aren't there. Ritual impurity is ritual impurity, not sin.


There is a big difference between becoming scholarly in the application of the Law, and understanding the purpose of the Law. Lawyers utilize the law in their work. They don't even have to agree with it! ;)

Religious people, in their fear of misreading the application of the Law, might end up in Kabbalism, to mystically apply Scriptures without essentially changing its meaning. But Christians are able to understand the purpose of the Law, and change its application when conditions permit. And keep in mind, this "change" took place by *Jews* who were the first Christians. This was not an imposition upon Israel from outside of Israel--from the Gentile world!



This isn't in the text and does not directly follow.
That's true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous paragraph.


What? Cain and Abel, and the curse of Childbirth, aren't in the Scriptures?



One doesn't follow the law to "gain benefit". It's because we love God, and He asked us to follow the law. So we do.


You smugly deny what you embrace. You deny wanting to "gain benefit," because it is the "English language," corrupted by "Greek Philosophy." And yet that is exactly what you think you're doing in a "Hebrew sense!" If you "love God" without any sense of "benefit," you're just wasting your time! ;)



I don't understand what you're trying to say. God isn't "sinless". Only humans can sin. "Holy" in Hebrew has the root of being set aside or differentiated, not "perfect" for which there wasn't even a biblical Hebrew word.


You're saying that the "sinful nature" of men who sin cannot be viewed in the context of divine "holiness?" The mind boggles!

Fenris
Mar 22nd 2018, 06:03 PM
You think Man was created "very good" merely because he was the "last" of God's creation?Unless I'm missing something, no place does the bible say that the creation of man itself was "very good". Genesis one merely states that "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."


And you think humans were created "imperfect?"

Oh, that's right--you don't understand what "being perfect" means! Oh, that's so funny. It's a much better point that bothering to look up western philosophy and realize that the idea of abstract perfection was invented by the Greeks...




There are things that become more clear in the Bible when we walk with God and know Him intimately. I know. I was having a beer with God the other day, watching pre season baseball, and I asked Him if the Mets would have a winning record this year. He said to me, you know fen, we'll just have to see...


Otherwise, what we're doing is just reading a document and speculating on the meaning. And the ultra-religious, like yourself, are afraid to read anything into the document. We actually read a lot into the bible. But because we don't come to the same conclusions that you do, it'c considered worthless.


But we do have a God who wishes to acquaint us with Himself. Enoch walked with God. Abraham was the "friend" of God. When we thus trust in who we know God to be, we can compare what we know about His nature to help us decipher what the Bible is saying. I'm not at all interested in going beyond what the Scriptures say is true!And yet you "know" things that aren't even hinted at in scripture.




My observation is that the Law consisted of the denial of practices that were related to pagan practices among the Canaanites.So the law doesn't have any deep essential morals or ethics. It's just sort of an anti-Canaanite document. And you know this because...?




There is a big difference between becoming scholarly in the application of the Law, and understanding the purpose of the Law. Lawyers utilize the law in their work. They don't even have to agree with it! But we do agree with it. Why is that not sufficient? It's what God asks.


Religious people, in their fear of misreading the application of the Law, might end up in Kabbalism, to mystically apply Scriptures without essentially changing its meaning.
I know lots of religious Jews, not one of whom studies Kabbalah. Which is fine, I don't see the value in it.


But Christians are able to understand the purpose of the Law, and change its application when conditions permit. Jews also understand the purpose, in some instances. And sometimes it's just the inscrutable word of God.


And keep in mind, this "change" took place by *Jews* who were the first Christians. This was not an imposition upon Israel from outside of Israel--from the Gentile world!
It's not clear to me that modern Christianity looks anything like what it's first century practice. But that's not really a topic for this area.



What? Cain and Abel, and the curse of Childbirth, aren't in the Scriptures?Again, "ritual impurity" is not sin.




You smugly deny what you embrace. You deny wanting to "gain benefit," because it is the "English language," corrupted by "Greek Philosophy." And yet that is exactly what you think you're doing in a "Hebrew sense!" If you "love God" without any sense of "benefit," you're just wasting your time! You're being so clever that I have no idea what you're saying here.




You're saying that the "sinful nature" of men who sin cannot be viewed in the context of divine "holiness?" The mind boggles!
I don't know what you're saying here either, so I'll just repeat my past post.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. God isn't "sinless". Only humans can sin. "Holy" in Hebrew has the root of being set aside or differentiated, not "perfect" for which there wasn't even a biblical Hebrew word.

Trivalee
Mar 22nd 2018, 06:23 PM
ChangedByHim and Trivalee,

Yes, "progressive" is an not the right word to use. A careful study of the epistles written after Acts reveals the beginning of a new and different calling to the members of the church of the body of Christ of which He is the head. There are unique blessings, doctrine, and sphere of hope.

The history of God's dealing with man changes according to time in some aspects. God dealt with individuals and then nations until the promise made to Abraham. There was then the time of God's chosen people, Christ's ministry on earth, the Acts period, the post Acts period, the future prophecy having to do with the millennium,the new heaven and earth, heavenly places. All God's plans for those who love Him will be wondrous. My point is that there are differences.

You and I are not too far apart. Strangely, you have a knack of saying the right thing in a way that is at odds with your argument. For example, you said "The history of God's dealing with man changes according to time in some aspects." This is statement is true. But it doesn't make the word of God given in earlier times or generation any less; God simply responds to us according to our time, knowledge, understanding and faith.

Trivalee
Mar 22nd 2018, 06:56 PM
Unless I'm missing something, no place does the bible say that the creation of man itself was "very good". Genesis one merely states that "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

God saw that ALL that he had made, and it was good - isn't it the same thing? I don't believe God created anything that is less than perfect, do you?


Oh, that's so funny. It's a much better point that bothering to look up western philosophy and realize that the idea of abstract perfection was invented by the Greeks...

I thought the concept of "abstract perfection" rather started much later than ancient Greece? That is, from the Renaissance up to Enlightenment Age in the 1800s? Might be wrong, though:)


I know. I was having a beer with God the other day, watching pre season baseball, and I asked Him if the Mets would have a winning record this year. He said to me, you know fen, we'll just have to see...

Huh? :lol:


We actually read a lot into the bible. But because we don't come to the same conclusions that you do, it'c considered worthless.

Well, reading the Bible for theology or academic reasons is one thing, but allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and teach one is another. I suspect the latter is what Randy alluded to.


So the law doesn't have any deep essential morals or ethics. It's just sort of an anti-Canaanite document. And you know this because...?

You're right. The law among other things is a Hand Book of moral and ethical precepts. In it also, contains admonitions against idolatry.


Jews also understand the purpose, in some instances. And sometimes it's just the inscrutable word of God.

The Law is indeed the inscrutable word of God, but the difference between the Christain and the Jew is its application.


Again, "ritual impurity" is not sin.

There is a grey area here that needs qualification. To give it a blanket clean bill as "not sin" is incorrect. For example, an idolatrous sacrifice is sin and also makes the one making the sacrifice to be defiled and impure. Wouldn't you agree?

Fenris
Mar 22nd 2018, 07:45 PM
God saw that ALL that he had made, and it was good - isn't it the same thing? I don't believe God created anything that is less than perfect, do you?Again, I don't understand how this word fits in this context.




I thought the concept of "abstract perfection" rather started much later than ancient Greece? That is, from the Renaissance up to Enlightenment Age in the 1800s? Might be wrong, though:)Great, explain this to Randy, who seems to think the idea existed 3000 years ago.




Huh? :lol:What can I say, the Mets need divine intervention to have a good season.




You're right. The law among other things is a Hand Book of moral and ethical precepts. In it also, contains admonitions against idolatry.

Excellent. I love it when we can agree.


The Law is indeed the inscrutable word of God, but the difference between the Christain and the Jew is its application.

Or whether it is even in effect.


There is a grey area here that needs qualification. To give it a blanket clean bill as "not sin" is incorrect. For example, an idolatrous sacrifice is sin and also makes the one making the sacrifice to be defiled and impure. Wouldn't you agree?
Ummmm no. It doesn't.

Trivalee
Mar 23rd 2018, 04:28 PM
Again, I don't understand how this word fits in this context.

I was responding to your previous remark, vide: "Unless I'm missing something, no place does the bible say that the creation of man itself was "very good". And argued that "God saw ALL that he had made, and it was good Great" The passage says that *all* in reference to what God created. In my view, all therefore, includes man, doesn't it?


Great, explain this to Randy, who seems to think the idea existed 3000 years ago.

I doubt if the ancient Greeks could have understood abstract perfection in the way it was understood in the age of Enlightenment? Abstract Perfect influenced artists like Vincent van Gogh and to some extent, Pablo Picasso and others.


Or whether it is even in effect.

I don't personally support those who argue that the law is abrogated in entirety.

randyk
Mar 23rd 2018, 05:54 PM
Unless I'm missing something, no place does the bible say that the creation of man itself was "very good". Genesis one merely states that "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."


Yes, following mention of the creation of man, to summarize the 6th day creation, God said His creation was "very good."



Oh, that's so funny. It's a much better point that bothering to look up western philosophy and realize that the idea of abstract perfection was invented by the Greeks...


I'm not laughing. I was talking about the idea of "perfection" in the Bible, and you bring up "abstract perfection, invented by the Greeks?" The idea of a perfect God, a holy God, is clearly in the Bible!



I know. I was having a beer with God the other day, watching pre season baseball, and I asked Him if the Mets would have a winning record this year. He said to me, you know fen, we'll just have to see...


All you're demonstrating to me is that you don't know God very well, and have no conception of what that relationship involves. Again, Abraham was *friends* with God. And Enoch *walked* with God. For that matter, so do Adam and Eve. They walked with God in the garden, and talked with him. Moses knew God face to face. And your idea of friendship with God is having a beer with Him? ;)



We actually read a lot into the bible. But because we don't come to the same conclusions that you do, it'c considered worthless.

And yet you "know" things that aren't even hinted at in scripture.


Everything I know is supported by Scriptures. The trouble is, when the Scriptures speak of Moses knowing God "face to face," that can't be explained in detail. It is *experiential.* And if I experience God in this way, I would look extra-biblical, but I would only look that way to you because *you don't experience it.* You would see that "face to face" relationship with God as muted, and weak--far short of what Moses actually experienced. Worse, you would be denying it is valid, discouraging others from seeking that kind of relationship, when the truth is, God seems to be encouraging it!



So the law doesn't have any deep essential morals or ethics. It's just sort of an anti-Canaanite document. And you know this because...?


It is an anti-Canaanite document, and includes deep essential morals or ethics. Christians are able to determine the difference, based on a change in covenants.

My own view is that the Law was stilted and repetitious because Israel was a mixed people. There were good and bad people in Israel.

But the Law was fair to all, and offered the same blessings to all. And so, without requiring inward love for the Law it was given to all Israel so that in simply *doing* these things all could be blessed. I just believe that God wished for much more that could only be effective among those who are good, and who actually love God on the inside.

And so, I believe Christ established the Church to separate the sheep from the goats. He wanted to separate the good from the bad in every country, including Israel. This necessarily involved a change in covenants, since Israel had been disallowed from uniting with other nationalities. Good people created in all countries have no need of a partition between them!



But we do agree with it. Why is that not sufficient? It's what God asks.
I know lots of religious Jews, not one of whom studies Kabbalah. Which is fine, I don't see the value in it.

Jews also understand the purpose, in some instances. And sometimes it's just the inscrutable word of God.


It's not clear to me that modern Christianity looks anything like what it's first century practice. But that's not really a topic for this area.

Again, "ritual impurity" is not sin.


Israel was being discouraged, under the Law, from *appearing* to associate with things that *appeared* in the form of evil among evil peoples. They were not, for example, to take tattoos because foreign peoples took tattoos for bad reasons. I never said ritual impurity was sin!



You're being so clever that I have no idea what you're saying here.



I don't know what you're saying here either, so I'll just repeat my past post.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. God isn't "sinless". Only humans can sin. "Holy" in Hebrew has the root of being set aside or differentiated, not "perfect" for which there wasn't even a biblical Hebrew word.

You're talking about divine holiness. That is the same concept of "perfection" that I'm talking about--unstained holiness, or complete separation from evil.

Fenris
Mar 26th 2018, 01:50 PM
Yes, following mention of the creation of man, to summarize the 6th day creation, God said His creation was "very good."I can't believe that we're arguing this point. Gensis 1: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

All means all, not just the last thing He did.


I'm not laughing. I was talking about the idea of "perfection" in the Bible, and you bring up "abstract perfection, invented by the Greeks?" The idea of a perfect God, a holy God, is clearly in the Bible!The idea didn't even exist at the time. How could it be in the bible? It's only in the bible now because you're reading the bible through the lens of western civ.




All you're demonstrating to me is that you don't know God very well, and have no conception of what that relationship involves.Whatever.



Everything I know is supported by Scriptures. Like God being perfect, eh?



It is an anti-Canaanite document, and includes deep essential morals or ethics. Christians are able to determine the differenceBecause you're totally awesome!


And so, I believe Christ established the Church to separate the sheep from the goats. He wanted to separate the good from the bad in every country, including Israel. It's your religion, you are free to believe whatever you wish.




Israel was being discouraged, under the Law, from *appearing* to associate with things that *appeared* in the form of evil among evil peoples. They were not, for example, to take tattoos because foreign peoples took tattoos for bad reasons. I never said ritual impurity was sin!Well, this is new. You were saying it "represents" sin.




You're talking about divine holiness. That is the same concept of "perfection" that I'm talking about--unstained holiness, or complete separation from evil.
In Isaiah 45:7, God says that He creates evil too.

randyk
Mar 26th 2018, 02:13 PM
I can't believe that we're arguing this point. Gensis 1: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

All means all, not just the last thing He did.


I fail to see why you see this conversation as uninteresting? Personally, I like it. I like asking the question, "Why is it that *all* the creation becomes "very good" after mention of the creation of man? I believe it was because the rule of man tied the whole creation to the Kingdom of God.

But our discussion involves the idea that God made man perfect, which you deny is a biblical concept. So you are assuming that "good" existed in Adam and in Eve even though they were flawed? Certainly it is true today that men are flawed, and can still be viewed as "good." But my point is that human rebellion against God's word had not yet occurred, indicating that man had not yet sinned, and was thus in a state of "perfection." That is, man was in a state of compliance with God's word, without a trace of rebellion against it.



The idea didn't even exist at the time. How could it be in the bible? It's only in the bible now because you're reading the bible through the lens of western civ.


On the contrary, Christian Civilization in the West is built upon Judeo-Christian truth, as indicated in the Bible. The idea of "human perfection" is related to the sin, or to the sinlessness, of man. It is assumed that prior to Man's Fall, Man had been sinless. This state of sinlessness is the concept of "perfection" we are now discussing. I think you are backtracking on your own Bible!



Whatever.

Like God being perfect, eh?


I have no idea why you think the idea of divine perfection is unbiblical? If God demands absolute loyalty to Him, as a holy Deity, why would anybody think that excludes the idea of His perfection? Do you really think the Law of God itself was flawed?



Because you're totally awesome!
It's your religion, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Well, this is new. You were saying it "represents" sin.


No, nothing I'm saying here is "new."



In Isaiah 45:7, God says that He creates evil too.

He certainly created angelic beings and human beings who had the option of turning to evil. And "evil" is defined as turning away from a good God. The implication of that is that God is perfect, whereas those who turn away from Him are not.

Fenris
Mar 26th 2018, 03:36 PM
I fail to see why you see this conversation as uninteresting? Personally, I like it. I like asking the question, "Why is it that *all* the creation becomes "very good" after mention of the creation of man? I believe it was because the rule of man tied the whole creation to the Kingdom of God.Yes, you believe. Which is awesome. But not in the text.


But our discussion involves the idea that God made man perfect, which you deny is a biblical concept.Correct, it is not in the bible, which doesn't even say that God is perfect let alone His creations.


So you are assuming that "good" existed in Adam and in Eve even though they were flawed? Bible doesn't say that "good existed in Adam and Eve" either.


Certainly it is true today that men are flawed, and can still be viewed as "good." But my point is that human rebellion against God's word had not yet occurred, indicating that man had not yet sinned, and was thus in a state of "perfection." Again, this is not in the bible.


That is, man was in a state of compliance with God's word, without a trace of rebellion against it.
Because man had not yet made any choices.



On the contrary, Christian Civilization in the West is built upon Judeo-Christian truth, as indicated in the Bible. The idea of "human perfection" is related to the sin, or to the sinlessness, of man.Uh, no. Again, the whole idea of abstract perfection is a Greek idea and does not exist in Judaism.


It is assumed that prior to Man's Fall, Man had been sinless. This state of sinlessness is the concept of "perfection" we are now discussing.
Again, this is not in the bible.

I think you are backtracking on your own Bible!If you provided text to show this, it would be helpful.




I have no idea why you think the idea of divine perfection is unbiblical? ...because it isn't in the bible?


If God demands absolute loyalty to Him, as a holy Deity, why would anybody think that excludes the idea of His perfection? Loyalty to God has nothing whatsoever to do with "perfection", which isn't in the bible anywhere.


Do you really think the Law of God itself was flawed? Where did I say that?




No, nothing I'm saying here is "new."It's all new to me.




He certainly created angelic beings and human beings who had the option of turning to evil. And "evil" is defined as turning away from a good God. The implication of that is that God is perfect, whereas those who turn away from Him are not.
In Isaiah 45:7, God says that He creates evil too. Now you're ignoring the plain text of the bible.

randyk
Mar 26th 2018, 05:01 PM
Yes, you believe. Which is awesome. But not in the text.


If the story reads that the hungry wolf approaches little red riding hood in the woods, and the text does not say there is a danger, would you then conclude there is no danger because it is not explicitly in the text? Fenris, God said the whole creation was "very good" immediately following the creation of man and woman, with their appointment to rule over that creation. Draw the conclusions. It *is* in the text! You are just unable to interpret what the text is implying.



Correct, it is not in the bible, which doesn't even say that God is perfect let alone His creations.


The text of the Bible indicates God is holy and utterly unlike any of the pagan gods. That is, the *implication* of the text is that God is utterly opposed to sin and corruption of any kind. In other words, He is *perfect* in terms of human morality.



Bible doesn't say that "good existed in Adam and Eve" either.


The text indicates they were created, along with all creation, "good." As moral agents, created in the image of God, they were, like God, moral agents expressing God's holy character.



Again, this is not in the bible.


You are utterly unable to draw reasonable conclusions. Not every fact has to be spelled out for it to be "in the text!" To say that Adam and Eve transgressed God's Law and got thrown out of the garden implies that while they were still in the garden they *had not yet transgressed Gods' Law!*



Because man had not yet made any choices.


And yet here you are, making dogmatic statements that are not in the text! But on the contrary, the implication is that Adam and Eve had indeed been making choices. God made many fruit trees for food. You seem to conclude that while man was yet alone, before Eve was made, Adam was busy naming innumerable animals and never ate a thing in the garden?



Uh, no. Again, the whole idea of abstract perfection is a Greek idea and does not exist in Judaism.


This is why I prefer original "Judaism" over Rabbinic Judaism, because Rabbinic Judaism denies what is in the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible plainly portrays God as holy, and His Law as perfect.



Again, this is not in the bible.
If you provided text to show this, it would be helpful.



...because it isn't in the bible?

Loyalty to God has nothing whatsoever to do with "perfection", which isn't in the bible anywhere.

Where did I say that?


You imply that there is zero conception of God's Law as *perfect* in Judaism. And yet the implication of God's perfection as the source of human morality is clearly there.



It's all new to me.

In Isaiah 45:7, God says that He creates evil too. Now you're ignoring the plain text of the bible.

Not at all. God as a holy God is not responsible for the evil He creates. He created the conditions by which free moral agents could choose against His own authority. The idea of "evil" therefore was His idea. But He did not *do evil!* Saying God is the author of *evil acts* is a horrible thing to accuse God of! Are you now going to prosecute Him, and pass judgment on Him? Of course, that is what God expected Israel to do with hardened sinners, right?

grams
Mar 26th 2018, 05:10 PM
We no longer need to be baptized .........

We are now all gentiles , things have changed a lot... re - reading the N.T. & paying close
attention to some of the verses will prove this....... but you really need to read it. For the full explanation
on this.....

A time past
but now

Ages to come....... if you understand this then you can figure it out !

Trivalee
Mar 26th 2018, 05:20 PM
We no longer need to be baptized .........

We are now all gentiles , things have changed a lot... re - reading the N.T. & paying close
attention to some of the verses will prove this....... but you really need to read it. For the full explanation
on this.....

A time past
but now

Ages to come....... if you understand this then you can figure it out !

Not sure what you are saying. I thought you would provide the passages showing the prohibition of Baptism?

Fenris
Mar 26th 2018, 05:58 PM
If the story reads that the hungry wolf approaches little red riding hood in the woods, and the text does not say there is a danger, would you then conclude there is no danger because it is not explicitly in the text? Fenris, God said the whole creation was "very good" immediately following the creation of man and woman, with their appointment to rule over that creation. Draw the conclusions. It *is* in the text! You are just unable to interpret what the text is implying.
Obviously I'm not as smart as you.



The text of the Bible indicates God is holy and utterly unlike any of the pagan gods. That is, the *implication* of the text is that God is utterly opposed to sin and corruption of any kind. In other words, He is *perfect* in terms of human morality.
You keep using different words to come to the same conclusion. But your conclusion isn't supported by the words.



The text indicates they were created, along with all creation, "good." As moral agents, created in the image of God, they were, like God, moral agents expressing God's holy character.God said that creation was good, not that the people were good. They had free will and were capable of making choices that were not "good".




You are utterly unable to draw reasonable conclusions. Again, I'm not as smart as you.


Not every fact has to be spelled out for it to be "in the text!" To say that Adam and Eve transgressed God's Law and got thrown out of the garden implies that while they were still in the garden they *had not yet transgressed Gods' Law!*They hadn't made any choices, period.




And yet here you are, making dogmatic statements that are not in the text! But on the contrary, the implication is that Adam and Eve had indeed been making choices.

We don't know. All we know is what the bible says, which is that their first choice was not a good one.


This is why I prefer original "Judaism" over Rabbinic Judaism, because Rabbinic Judaism denies what is in the Jewish Bible. As opposed to you, who finds things that aren't even there.



The Jewish Bible plainly portrays God as holy, and His Law as perfect."Holy" doesn't mean "perfect".




You imply that there is zero conception of God's Law as *perfect* in Judaism. And yet the implication of God's perfection as the source of human morality is clearly there.It is God's will. It is what he expects of mankind. Is it "perfect"? I don't know what that means in this context.




Not at all. God as a holy God is not responsible for the evil He creates. He created the conditions by which free moral agents could choose against His own authority. The idea of "evil" therefore was His idea. But He did not *do evil!* Saying God is the author of *evil acts* is a horrible thing to accuse God of! Why? God himself said in the text that He creates evil.


Are you now going to prosecute Him, and pass judgment on Him? No, because we can't hold God to human standards of justice. He is God, not man. He is good, yet He also creates evil. Which is actually good, but to our limited minds it appears evil.

randyk
Mar 27th 2018, 02:16 PM
Obviously I'm not as smart as you.


This isn't personal, Fenris. It's a debate.



You keep using different words to come to the same conclusion. But your conclusion isn't supported by the words.

God said that creation was good, not that the people were good. They had free will and were capable of making choices that were not "good".


You say that "creation was good" and that people are not said to be "good." What are you saying, that people are not part of God's creation?



Again, I'm not as smart as you.
They hadn't made any choices, period.


The hypocrisy of your position here is that you claim to avoid reading things into the Scriptures. But here you are, claiming that people had not made any choices prior to the Fall!



We don't know. All we know is what the bible says, which is that their first choice was not a good one.
As opposed to you, who finds things that aren't even there.


Where does the *text* say that the Fall of Man was their "first" choice? It may very well have just been the first choice examined?



"Holy" doesn't mean "perfect".


"Holy" implies perfection when applied to God. People may avail themselves of His holiness without being perfect themselves. But the idea is that holiness belongs to a perfect God. And He is the source of righteousness for men.

The Bible plainly says that God's Law was perfect. Naturally, you ignore that to focus on whether we can, as imperfect men, avail ourselves of God's holiness in our own lives. Saintliness is the application of God's perfect attributes in our lives, without the necessity of being perfect ourselves. In other words, we can put on God's character.



It is God's will. It is what he expects of mankind. Is it "perfect"? I don't know what that means in this context.


Well, here is one of the big differences between your position as a Jew and mine as a Christian. I see God as "perfect" because He is the source of a perfect character. He does not expect perfection of us. But He does expect us to put on His character in our behavior.

We don't just obey His laws, but we put on His character. It is not enough to conform to practices without an essential conformity of heart to the heart of God.

To put on His character we need to not only obey God's laws, but we must also put on His character. In fact, obedience to God's laws implies a change in character.

One cannot show respect for foreigners without adopting a heart attitude in opposition to bigotry and racism. One cannot turn inward and self-centered and still have respect for others.

This is a change in self-centered human nature. It is putting on the character of God.



Why? God himself said in the text that He creates evil.


There are two ways to apply the statement that "God creates evil." You seem to imply that God actually *is* evil, because one who does evil *is* evil.

But the other way to apply this is to recognize that God gave free moral agents the choice to obey His laws or not. Those who disobey His laws He defined as "evil." Thus, God created the capacity for evil, and the inevitability of evil if the wrong choices are made.



No, because we can't hold God to human standards of justice. He is God, not man. He is good, yet He also creates evil. Which is actually good, but to our limited minds it appears evil.

This kind of argument for the "transcendence" of God, that God can contradict Himself and "be evil" is an escapist mentality. It ignores the contradiction and chalks it up to something "beyond human understanding." But in reality, it is a complete contradiction, and I don't believe God's word is irrational. Sorry, it doesn't wash for me!

Fenris
Mar 27th 2018, 03:31 PM
There's no common ground to be had here. I don't even think it's a Jewish-Christian thing, it's a you-me thing.

verity
Mar 27th 2018, 05:02 PM
Here is a different perspective about the meaning of the verse referenced in Isaiah:

Isa 45:7* I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.*

"Evil" spoken of here is the correction and chastisement and adversity that God brings upon those who forsake His ways and fail to heed His word. God is "excellent in power and in judgment". His way is perfect.

The word translated "evil" in Isaiah is variously translated calamity, adversity, affliction, trouble, grief, etc. God is a righteous judge.

Pro_15:10* Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

In Isaiah 44:7, "peace" is contrasted with "evil."

Isa_57:21* There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

Isa_26:3* Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

Fenris
Mar 27th 2018, 05:09 PM
The word translated "evil" in Isaiah is variously translated calamity, adversity, affliction, trouble, grief, etc.

Ask a native Hebrew speaker. That isn't what the word means.

verity
Mar 27th 2018, 06:29 PM
7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).

(Strong's Hebrew and Greek Concordance)

Fenris
Mar 27th 2018, 07:34 PM
Awesome, now go ask a native speaker.

ChangedByHim
Mar 27th 2018, 07:49 PM
Awesome, now go ask a native speaker.

Can we ask an 8th century BC speaker? Otherwise, it's not apples to apples. Additionally, this would be the case if I asked a present day Greek speaker what Paul meant in 2 Corinthians.

God did not create "evil."

Fenris
Mar 27th 2018, 07:52 PM
God did not create "evil."

But the bible says that He did. Now you're busy looking for an alternate definition for the Hebrew word. But it means "evil".

Your theology should conform to the words of the bible, not the other way around.

ChangedByHim
Mar 27th 2018, 08:51 PM
But the bible says that He did. Now you're busy looking for an alternate definition for the Hebrew word. But it means "evil".

Your theology should conform to the words of the bible, not the other way around.

My theology conforms to the whole Bible, not a single word taken out of context. The word has alternate meanings, which you've rejected. In your theology God is not perfect. In mine, He is and He does not create evil in the same sense that He created everything else listed in Genesis 1.

Fenris
Mar 27th 2018, 08:54 PM
In your theology God is not perfect. In mine, He is and He does not create evil in the same sense that He created everything else listed in Genesis 1.

In mine, God created everything in Genesis 1. Including evil. Just as the bible says.

ChangedByHim
Mar 27th 2018, 08:55 PM
My theology is smart enough to realize that a 1611 translation may not always have the best English word rendered.

NIV I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
ESV I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.
NASV The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 01:47 PM
Notice that these are all Christian translations. They're all making the same mistake. Their theology is determining what is in the bible, when it should be the opposite. Weirdly enough, as you point out, the KJV alone gets it right.

ChangedByHim
Mar 28th 2018, 02:15 PM
Notice that these are all Christian translations. They're all making the same mistake. Their theology is determining what is in the bible, when it should be the opposite. Weirdly enough, as you point out, the KJV alone gets it right.

The Christian Bible is the only correct Bible. Your personal commentary is just an opinion. As for the KJV, I have no idea what your reference is about.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 02:29 PM
The Christian Bible is the only correct Bible.What does this mean? They are all translations, and even the translations don't agree with each other.

As for the KJV, I have no idea what your reference is about.The KJV translates that word in Isaiah 45:7 correctly: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

ChangedByHim
Mar 28th 2018, 02:56 PM
What does this mean? They are all translations, and even the translations don't agree with each other.
My point is that the only correct Bible has both the Old and New Testaments.


The KJV translates that word in Isaiah 45:7 correctly: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”You say it’s right because it agrees with your theology. Being Jewish doesn’t make you an expert in all things Biblical Hebrew.

randyk
Mar 28th 2018, 03:56 PM
There's no common ground to be had here. I don't even think it's a Jewish-Christian thing, it's a you-me thing.

If you reference me, I agree. You claim the high ground with respect to the text. And yet you're completely unable to draw any implications from the text unless it conforms with Rabbinic Judaism and its prejudices. If Judaism has originated these texts one would think Jews were in a better position to interpret them?

But I don't find that to be true in some ways. The majority Jewish position has an "axe to grind," in avoiding Christian interpretations. And these Christian interpretations also began with Jews, who interpreted the texts with Christian implications.

So your arguments lack merit, and are based on bias. In fact the texts do have implications beyond the constraints that Rabbinic Judaism has imposed for centuries and which are based on a tradition designed to exclude Christian interpretation.

There is indeed no common ground here. You must look beyond your own bias to objectively consider other views. Otherwise, you never intended to honestly discuss any subject in a Christian discussion group.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 05:37 PM
My point is that the only correct Bible has both the Old and New Testaments. Perhaps, but not relevant to the passage at hand.


You say it’s right because it agrees with your theology. Being Jewish doesn’t make you an expert in all things Biblical Hebrew.
I'm more inclined to trust the people who safeguarded the bible in it's original language over a Christian translation.

Trivalee
Mar 28th 2018, 05:44 PM
Notice that these are all Christian translations. They're all making the same mistake. Their theology is determining what is in the bible, when it should be the opposite. Weirdly enough, as you point out, the KJV alone gets it right.

Deut 18:15 was translated by Jewish scholars from ancient Hebrew into Koine Greek. Are you also accusing them of bias?

ChangedByHim
Mar 28th 2018, 05:46 PM
Perhaps, but not relevant to the passage at hand.
You made it relevant when you asserted that my interpretation was based only on my Christian theology.


I'm more inclined to trust the people who safeguarded the bible in it's original language over a Christian translation.But you aren't the only one who can read Hebrew. Many, many Hebrew language scholars recognize that there is more to that word than the KJV rendering of "evil."

And... I wouldn't trust every Greek-speaking person I met to interpret the New Testament for me.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 05:48 PM
If you reference me, I agree. You claim the high ground with respect to the text. And yet you're completely unable to draw any implications from the text unless it conforms with Rabbinic Judaism and its prejudices.

Just using that word implies negativity. You're assuming that any Jewish understanding is automatically wrong. "Prejudiced".




If Judaism has originated these texts one would think Jews were in a better position to interpret them? Judaism does. It's just that the text alone is sometimes woefully short of details. I could provide many examples. So it implies another body of knowledge that existed outside the written text, dating back to Sinai.


The majority Jewish position has an "axe to grind," in avoiding Christian interpretations.The majority Jewish position is that Christianity is irrelevant to Jews. We have our own understanding of the bible that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Judaism is a robust faith, and it would be so whether Christianity existed or not.


And these Christian interpretations also began with Jews, who interpreted the texts with Christian implications. It's really not clear to me what the early church believed, nor do I consider it relevant. The Sadducees were also Jews, and also clearly wrong.


So your arguments lack merit, and are based on bias. I could say the same of you. Really.



In fact the texts do have implications beyond the constraints that Rabbinic Judaism has imposed for centuries and which are based on a tradition designed to exclude Christian interpretation. As I say, they have nothing to do with Christianity, and never did.


There is indeed no common ground here. You must look beyond your own bias to objectively consider other views. Otherwise, you never intended to honestly discuss any subject in a Christian discussion group.

I am perfectly content to agree to disagree. You as an avid follow of Luther are probably less willing.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 05:51 PM
Deut 18:15 was translated by Jewish scholars from ancient Hebrew into Koine Greek. Are you also accusing them of bias?

Is the translation of Deuteronomy 18:15 under dispute here?

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 05:52 PM
You made it relevant when you asserted that my interpretation was based only on my Christian theology.Not "your" interpretation, but that of Christian bibles sure.


But you aren't the only one who can read Hebrew. Many, many Hebrew language scholars recognize that there is more to that word than the KJV rendering of "evil." Shrug. And they're wrong. :)


And... I wouldn't trust every Greek-speaking person I met to interpret the New Testament for me.
Would you trust a devout and faithful Greek speaking person who studied the bible for decades?

Trivalee
Mar 28th 2018, 06:11 PM
Is the translation of Deuteronomy 18:15 under dispute here?

Well, it is as you refuse to acknowledge that Moses referred to a specific individual prophet...

Fenris
Mar 28th 2018, 06:25 PM
Well, it is as you refuse to acknowledge that Moses referred to a specific individual prophet...

That's a separate discussion in contro, let's keep it there.

ChangedByHim
Mar 28th 2018, 08:44 PM
Not "your" interpretation, but that of Christian bibles sure.
Shrug. And they're wrong. :)
Yes I realize that's your purpose here... to tell all us Christians that we are wrong. My guess is that after 40,000 posts you haven't made one convert. That's because our Savior rose from the dead and His Spirit is alive within our hearts.



Would you trust a devout and faithful Greek speaking person who studied the bible for decades?
It would take more than him being some random dude on the internet. But then again, I have multiple advanced degrees in Theology and have studied the Word for 35 years. So, just because someone says something doesn't make me change what I know from my own studies.

randyk
Mar 29th 2018, 02:18 AM
Just using that word implies negativity. You're assuming that any Jewish understanding is automatically wrong. "Prejudiced".


Not at all. The Christian Bible was written by *Jews!* And those Hebrews who wrote the Jewish Scriptures were also people I would trust. Furthermore, I think there is much that Jewish scholars in the NT era can offer in the way of interpreting the Scriptures, assuming they don't begin with the idea that they must exclude anything outside of Rabbinic Judaism.

Even Christians are willing to admit when they get a Scripture that may have been added or corrupted, to conflict with conventional Christian understanding. Christians are having to tackle false Christian traditions and errant doctrines within the Church every day.



Judaism does. It's just that the text alone is sometimes woefully short of details. I could provide many examples. So it implies another body of knowledge that existed outside the written text, dating back to Sinai.


Not at all. Some of it may date to Sinai. Some may date to other places. Some may be our own unwillingness to look outside of our own narrow perspective, to see a broader context. For example, I find many Christians look at the Bible with a very poor view of the patriarchal promises. Without understanding what God promised Abraham, and Jacob, all of the particulars of biblical prophecy do not fit very easily together.



The majority Jewish position is that Christianity is irrelevant to Jews. We have our own understanding of the bible that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Judaism is a robust faith, and it would be so whether Christianity existed or not.


Just the way you say "you" sounds exclusive. Are observant Jews domesticated, and all non-Jews reptilian? As I said, *Jews* founded our faith.



It's really not clear to me what the early church believed, nor do I consider it relevant. The Sadducees were also Jews, and also clearly wrong.
I could say the same of you. Really.
As I say, they have nothing to do with Christianity, and never did.

I am perfectly content to agree to disagree. You as an avid follow of Luther are probably less willing.

No, I can agree to disagree. I do like Luther, though I disagree with the way he dealt with the Jews, and with some of his beliefs.

Fenris
Mar 29th 2018, 01:50 PM
Yes I realize that's your purpose here... to tell all us Christians that we are wrong. My guess is that after 40,000 posts you haven't made one convert. That's because our Savior rose from the dead and His Spirit is alive within our hearts.I'm here to have a discussion. I have no intention or desire to "convert" anyone. I have said, numerous times, that according to my understanding Christians are fine with God as is. What I would like to do is explain the Jewish belief system. It seems fairly obvious that most Christians knowledge of Judaism comes from the NT which is (to put it mildly) not flattering. Ideally, Christians here would come to understand that Jews are not engaged in some vast conspiracy to delete references of Jesus from the bible. We are not unaware of chapters like Isaiah 53. We simply understand the bible in a very different way, which is completely consistent with the text of the bible. We should be able to agree to disagree without thinking less of each other. Obviously that doesn't always happen, heck in this very discussion people have accused Jews of having an "ax to grind". But it should be the end goal.



It would take more than him being some random dude on the internet. But then again, I have multiple advanced degrees in Theology and have studied the Word for 35 years. So, just because someone says something doesn't make me change what I know from my own studies.
So here we are.

Fenris
Mar 29th 2018, 02:06 PM
Not at all. The Christian Bible was written by *Jews!* And those Hebrews who wrote the Jewish Scriptures were also people I would trust.
Of course you trust them, you agree with them. Not deep.


Furthermore, I think there is much that Jewish scholars in the NT era can offer in the way of interpreting the Scriptures, assuming they don't begin with the idea that they must exclude anything outside of Rabbinic Judaism. I see. And tell me, do Christian scholars exclude Christian beliefs in their discussions? No? Why not?


Even Christians are willing to admit when they get a Scripture that may have been added or corrupted, to conflict with conventional Christian understanding. Christians are having to tackle false Christian traditions and errant doctrines within the Church every day.Great, Jews do the same thing.




Not at all. Some of it may date to Sinai. Some may date to other places. Some may be our own unwillingness to look outside of our own narrow perspective, to see a broader context. I find it amusing that you're calling for broader context. You were supportive of Luther lobbying to kick the Jews out because they believed differently. So when you say people should look at the broader context, you mean me, not you.




Just the way you say "you" sounds exclusive. Are observant Jews domesticated, and all non-Jews reptilian? As I said, *Jews* founded our faith. Yes, Jews are a very creative and productive people. That doesn't mean every new thing Jews invented was good. Communism, for example. GJ Marx!




No, I can agree to disagree.
Awesome. That might be a good place to part.

ChangedByHim
Mar 29th 2018, 02:51 PM
I'm here to have a discussion. I have no intention or desire to "convert" anyone. I have said, numerous times, that according to my understanding Christians are fine with God as is. What I would like to do is explain the Jewish belief system. It seems fairly obvious that most Christians knowledge of Judaism comes from the NT which is (to put it mildly) not flattering. Ideally, Christians here would come to understand that Jews are not engaged in some vast conspiracy to delete references of Jesus from the bible. We are not unaware of chapters like Isaiah 53. We simply understand the bible in a very different way, which is completely consistent with the text of the bible. We should be able to agree to disagree without thinking less of each other. Obviously that doesn't always happen, heck in this very discussion people have accused Jews of having an "ax to grind". But it should be the end goal.


So here we are.

Well... I really don't mean convert, like adding one to the Judaism fold, but simply to prove us wrong and show the error of our ways. As Christians we see the OT through the filter of the NT because that's Basic Doctrine 101: One understands the symbol by studying the fulfillment. You don't accept the NT so our views on much of the OT will never mesh. As brash as we may come across at times (and I confess my guilt), you also have the tendency to treat us like intellectual inferiors when it comes to understanding the OT.

And while you may not be trying to convert us, I'd say that the majority of Christians on here would love to convert you to Christianity because we care about you and your soul. So, indeed, there we are :).

Fenris
Mar 29th 2018, 03:02 PM
Well... I really don't mean convert, like adding one to the Judaism fold, but simply to prove us wrong and show the error of our ways.
Hmm. Well, if you pay attention to the topics I discuss, I'm not critical of Christianity as a faith. I've said that large parts of it are obscure to me, and not personally important. But those areas that juxtapose Judaism are very important. If I'm going to demonstrate that Judaism is an independent faith based on a different understanding of the bible, then we have to get into the weeds on those areas.


As Christians we see the OT through the filter of the NT because that's Basic Doctrine 101: One understands the symbol by studying the fulfillment. You don't accept the NT so our views on much of the OT will never mesh. And that's fine. I see where you guys are coming from. Now I'm asking you to see where I'm coming from. Where we are coming from.



As brash as we may come across at times (and I confess my guilt), you also have the tendency to treat us like intellectual inferiors when it comes to understanding the OT. If I have been rude, then I apologize. Please forgive me.


And while you may not be trying to convert us, I'd say that the majority of Christians on here would love to convert you to Christianity because we care about you and your soul. So, indeed, there we are :).
Aha!

ChangedByHim
Mar 29th 2018, 03:14 PM
Hmm. Well, if you pay attention to the topics I discuss, I'm not critical of Christianity as a faith. I've said that large parts of it are obscure to me, and not personally important. But those areas that juxtapose Judaism are very important. If I'm going to demonstrate that Judaism is an independent faith based on a different understanding of the bible, then we have to get into the weeds on those areas.

And that's fine. I see where you guys are coming from. Now I'm asking you to see where I'm coming from. Where we are coming from.


If I have been rude, then I apologize. Please forgive me.

Aha!

I don't think you've ever been rude to me. Maybe superior (but you likely are) :).

I actually appreciate many of your insights.

Fenris
Mar 29th 2018, 03:16 PM
I don't think you've ever been rude to me. Maybe superior (but you likely are) :).

I actually appreciate many of your insights.
As I appreciate yours, and your patience with me. Thank you and God bless. :)

randyk
Mar 29th 2018, 04:10 PM
Of course you trust them, you agree with them. Not deep.

I see. And tell me, do Christian scholars exclude Christian beliefs in their discussions? No? Why not?

Great, Jews do the same thing.

I find it amusing that you're calling for broader context. You were supportive of Luther lobbying to kick the Jews out because they believed differently. So when you say people should look at the broader context, you mean me, not you.

Yes, Jews are a very creative and productive people. That doesn't mean every new thing Jews invented was good. Communism, for example. GJ Marx!

Awesome. That might be a good place to part.

No, you don't get to throw the "Luther" thing at me, and then try to part amicably! ;) To say nothing gives the impression we agree on that. As I've said repeatedly I don't agree on the way Luther treated the Jews. I do agree that he had every right, as a theologian in a Christian country, to defend the Christian position.

Whether you recognize it or not, subversive views in a religious country can be disruptive, and even a threat to the morality of the people. I just don't believe that the Jewish people and the Jewish leaders could've imposed such a threat. They have as much in agreement with Christian morality as they do disagreement with Christian theology.

I married into a family with a couple of step-sons. They were not in the least Christian, and they hated any Christian rules I tried to impose. I never forced them to go to church or to be Christians. What I did require is a commitment to respect for our Christian beliefs and observance of basic Christian morality, such as we see in the 10 Commandments. That partly worked, but had lots of problems as well.

You and I will have problems, but I think it's good to major on the commonalities rather than throw around insulting comments like "Luther's your guy." I have great respect for Luther. But he wasn't perfect. Jews have not been perfect either. And they have long tried to drive Messianic Jews out of their social group, and perhaps even out of their community. We are human, and try to put God first.

Fenris
Mar 29th 2018, 04:26 PM
And let's leave it there. Happy Easter, and God bless.

keck553
Mar 29th 2018, 05:12 PM
And to you Fenris...

chag Pesach kasher vesame’ach