John 5:18 Accusers Refuted

[cj]

Alright, cj. How do you ask Vic to "forgive you", and then turn around and do the same thing again that he has to "forgive" you for?

Do you think "forgive me" changes the rest of the content?

Ahh, the forgive me was for what may seem like a confrontation with him.

Wavy,... honestly, I believe you didn't even know the true meaning of antisemitic, and just used it to try and strengthen your point.



But lets move to what you say below....

Anyway, you obviosuly missed the point of everything, and still associate Torah with "Judaism" (which is wrong).

No, I don't think so. I'm very clear on what the Torah is and what Judaism is.

And I understood clearly what you were attempting to do. Your first tactic was to try and associate the negativity associated with the word antisemitic with the belief that what you and others call "keeping" the law is false.

Fact is its not. Understanding your actions of "keeping" the Torah as foolish is in no way antisemitic, for even the present-day Jews think of you in the same way.

Being antisemitic is holding to the belief that persons of Hebrew heritage are of a lower humanity tha others. I doubt any on these boards are this way. And yet you would seek to suggest such an ugly thing in order to support your stand.

Really, I was actually restrained in my comments to you about your "antisemitic" speaking.


As far as associating what you foolishly define as "Torah" as being Judaism, I don't, and never did.

Judaism is a religion, the Torah is the five books of Moses, also called the Pentateuch, containing the foundation of Jewish law and practice.

The word “Torah†comes from the Hebrew root Hey|Reish|Hey, which means “to teach.†The Torah contains the basis and history of Judaism. The Torah is comprised of two components: The Written Torah and the Oral Torah. According to Jewish learning, they were both delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai. The Written Torah is comprised of the Five Books of Moses. Each book is called a Chumash, and depending on the context, Torah refers to either the chumash or the entirety of Jewish scripture and oral tradition. Strictly and commonly speaking, Torah is defined as "law" and refers to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament. More broadly, it may refer to the whole Old Testament or the whole of Jewish religious writing both ancient and modern.

You skipped the content to do the usual: talk, talk, talk...

I've skipped nothing Wavy,.... on the contrary, I'm just getting started.

Sorry, O cj, if things are running the way you designed them in your world...

Another of your nothing comments.



In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

Being antisemitic is holding to the belief that persons of Hebrew heritage are of a lower humanity tha others. I doubt any on these boards are this way. And yet you would seek to suggest such an ugly thing in order to support your stand.

I'm not stupid. I know what it means. And I did not say anyone here was this way. So instead of actually looking at the entirety and content of the message, you make false accusations.

Antisemitism is only one of the many factors that contribute to antinomian thinking as it is applied to the bible.

Anyway, why waste my time? I'll just place you on ignore.

 

[wavy]

1. I propose that the "law" as penned in the OT does not really reflect God's specific intent. For example, I understand that there is a law (and I willingly stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than I) to the effect that a woman who is raped may be forced to marry her attacker (Deut. 22:28). I propose that the "law" reflects a very imperfect revelation from God to man. The law, in a sense captured God's holiness but with some mistakes. "Seeing through a glass darkly", the OT authors really only captured the general truth that God is holy and that sin in general is real. However, there were some mistakes. As you can plainly see, I am not an inerrantist by any stretch.

I always understood Deuteronomy 22:28 as seduction (the man seduces the woman and she concedes). But anyway, as far as not being an inerrantist, does this concern only the old or new testament?

2. Even if the "law" as written down indeed reflects the true intent of God, Jesus tells us (e.g. in Matthew 12:1-14) that "law", as specifically manifested by a set of "rules", is really only an approximate guide to human behaviour.

Exactly. Which is why we need the "knowledge of Elohim" as Messiah was saying in that passage by quoting Hosea 6:6. Nothing written down can possibly tell us what to do in every situtation. Not in all the bible, old or new testament.

3. The overarching principle that should guide all our actions is the so-called "great commandment": "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Indeed.

So in the end, we really have to rely on the admittedly vague "principle of love" to guide our actions.

Well, I'd say in cases where Torah is silent.

 

[Drew]

Hello Wavy:

I am interested in a couple of things. First, why do you think that most Christians think that we are no longer under the law? Do you think it is because we simply do not want to place ourselves under such exacting demands and therefore try to rationalize our way out of it? Or do you think that many modern Christians simply cannot come to accept that such harsh penalties are truly merited (e.g. being put to death for homosexual practices: " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (from Leviticus)?

In a "technical" sense, do you believe that the Scriptures are really quite clear that the law is still in force, or do you think that a case can be made for both sides?

I must say that I am inclined to think, based on my limited study of the Scriptures, that you are probably correct if you argue that the Scriptures are pretty clear that the Law is still in force. The reasons I say this are the following.

First, there is the rather "hard to escape" content of the "jot and tittle" saying: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Second, in the preceding verse, Jesus seems to clearly state that He has not come to abolish the Law.

And now a question for those who hold the view that the Law need no longer be followed: How can you justify such a position in light of Matthew 5:17-19? Do you have an argument that the word "fulfill" (or the original greek word) justifies such a position. Viewed as an isolated item of text, Matthew 5:17-19 seems to me to clearly say that the law is still in force. What other arguments do you have that it is not?

By the way, in answer to your question, I am inclined to think that both Old and New Testaments contain some "errors".

 

[cj]

..... I'm not stupid. I know what it means. And I did not say anyone here was this way. So instead of actually looking at the entirety and content of the message, you make false accusations.

Antisemitism is only one of the many factors that contribute to antinomian thinking as it is applied to the bible.

As a final nail,... I mean note on Wavy's opening remarks, compare what he says above regarding, "And I did not say anyone here was this way."


With the below speaking taken from his opening post.....

This is recommended to read for those who know about the truth of Torah, especially, as well as those who hold the views I oppose. Please consider and have an open mind. I believe this is supported by scripture. I'll leave that to you to judge.......... Now I know that.... not all on here..... believe that Yahshua broke any part of the Torah given to Moses by Yahweh (probably most of you, I would guess)......... However,.... we..... do have those people who are so anti-semitic and so passionate about disregarding everything associated with Jews and "Judaism".... (although Torah is not "Judaism") and hate Yahweh's Torah so much, that they are willing to go to the lengths of claiming that Yahshua openly and blatantly broke Yahweh's commands!!!....... They.... need a few lessons in interpreting the scriptures correctly the way it ought to be understood.

See Wavy, I never said you were stupid, but I firmly believe you may think, and worse, suggested, that some here on these boards are stupid enough to not see your ugly attempt to paint some with a antisemitic brush.


Your words alone are proof of your intent Wavy.

Anyway, why waste my time? I'll just place you on ignore.

"You running and you running and you running away,..... but you can't run away from yourself,... oh no, you just can't run away from yourself." - Bob Marley


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

First, why do you think that most Christians think that we are no longer under the law? Do you think it is because we simply do not want to place ourselves under such exacting demands and therefore try to rationalize our way out of it? Or do you think that many modern Christians simply cannot come to accept that such harsh penalties are truly merited (e.g. being put to death for homosexual practices: " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (from Leviticus)?

Well, I think it's because of what's been taught and placed inside the head by whoever taught you what you know (pastor, church, parents etc...).

I believe it's a combination of all of it. It's foreign and seems just a "Jewish" thing that was in the past. The Messiah is now the guy that has turned us away from that "primitive" way of ancient life. I think the Messiah taught now and the NT we read is interpreted, unconsciously I would guess, to fit more modern times. It seems less "religious".

And again, it supposedly takes away "freedom". Not because it's wrong or anything like that, but mainly because it's inconvenient. It eliminates a lot of things that you want to do. Not many are willing to take up such a committment.

I used to love fried porkchops. Had to let them go...

But really, we should be glad to do it if we love Yahweh.

In a "technical" sense, do you believe that the Scriptures are really quite clear that the law is still in force, or do you think that a case can be made for both sides?

From the Tanach/OT, yes. From the NT it may not always be so clear. But in some cases it is, and if we use logic it has to be. Like, how can Paul advocate "no law" yet say it is established in Romans 3:31 and say the doers of it are justified in Romans 2:13 and say the carnal mind is NOT subject to it in Romans 8:7?

How can he advocate Torah keeping in Acts 21 and yet turn around and call it "bondage" and "old" and "weak and beggarly" in Galatians 4:9? Why is he not even attempting to tell believing Jews that they don't need Torah, yet calling gentiles "foolish" for doing it? I thought there was no such thing as Jew or Gentile in Messiah...

How can a Jewish Rabbi argue with some one like David who wrote a whole 170+ verse Psalm about how perfect, righteous and just Torah is (Psalm 119)? And even worse, how can Paul go against the words of Yahweh himself who says the Torah is good (Deuteronomy 30:10-20)?

How do you justify the inevitable conclusion that Yahweh took Israel OUT of Egypt where they were SLAVES only to enslave them again with the big, bad Torah?

And how can Paul contradict Messiah? Messiah said he didn't come to destroy the Torah but to fulfill it, yet Paul supposedly says he blotted it out in Colossians 2:14 and abolished it in Ephesians 2:15? Not necessarily the definition of "fulfill".

How can Torah be good (Romans 4:12) and spiritual (Romans 2:14) and yet be enmity in Ephesians 2:15? Why is it good at one point (but only because it was shadow of Messiah and "had its purpose" as many Christians reason) but "flawed" and bondage and just a "bunch of rules and regulations" at another point? Why is it good for "moral" aspects only, but all the other "Jewish" stuff is of the flesh?

How can it be good in one aspect, but bad in another? Can something that is "done away with" and just a "mere shadow" be a shadow of MESSIAH KING??? Since when does something bad foreshadow some one good and perfect? Why is Messiah's shadow not reflecting something perfect like himself, but instead a monster with a whip in his hand to make you do these oh so horrible practices? Why is Yahweh playing mind games?

Why does Paul contradict himself and expose himself as a liar and a hypocrite all over the bible by sending these mixed messages?

We are left with two options: reevaluate the letters of Paul or throw him out.

First, there is the rather "hard to escape" content of the "jot and tittle" saying: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Second, in the preceding verse, Jesus seems to clearly state that He has not come to abolish the Law.

Exactly. You are right. But this is usually reasoned away, as far as I've heard, by saying that the Torah is still preserved in it's entirety. The actual letters haven't disappeared. But this doesn't mean we have to actually keep it though... :roll:

But this idea is disqualified by "whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments..."

 

[wavy]

Man, I used to know the bible pretty well!




Thanks,
Eric

 

[Veritas]

You seem to know it well still. If there is some knowledge you've lost, I'm sure it would come back quickly. ;)