Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Drew]

Is it a coincidence that Jesus describes Himself as "coming on the clouds" when that phrase is used in the OT to describe one who gets a seat in Heaven adjacent to that occupied by God alone?

No, it is not a coincidence. He will fulfil Daniel's prophecy. He sits at the right hand of God (adjacent to the Father), from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

Since you agree that it is 'adjacent to', and not 'identical with', then you have no case for equality or otherwise.

I do not think you have dealt with the force of the argument, although I am partly responsible by not getting into enough detail.

You seem to think that a "Son of Man" that sits adjacent to God Himself can be seen as something other than divine. Well, I cannot prove that this "adjacency" implies divinity, but it is indeed strongly implied. And the way you frame your objection clearly begs the question - you seem to think that the only basis for seeing Jesus as divine is to establish identity with God:

Since you agree that it is 'adjacent to', and not 'identical with', then you have no case for equality or otherwise

This is a methodological error - you presume that the only "mode" for Jesus to be divine is for Him to be "identical" with the Father. Well, you cannot make that assumption - it begs the very question at issue.

And now for a key piece of my argument that I left out. Note what is predicated of the Son of Man figure who is given a throne next to that of God:

And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

Now what has Jesus been doing over and over and over again in his ministry? He has been announcing that, yes, the Kingdom of God is being ushered in by His (Jesus') own actions. Caiaphus knows this all too well and when Jesus places Himself in the position of the Son of Man character who gets installed as the monarch over an eternal kingdom through the allusion to Daniel 7, Caiaphus will surely get the implication - it is Jesus who is in the "God" position in the context of the announcement that the "kingdom of God" is here.

Once more, you need to "explain away as coincidence" something Jesus says that places Him in the "God role".

By itself, Jesus' repeated announcement of the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God through His (Jesus') own ministry might not be particularly compelling evidence that Jesus sees Himself as divine - one could argue that He sees Himself as a mere agent that brings about a kingdom over which God presides.

However, Jesus' true belief, so scandalous to Caiaphus, is revealed by the careful, cryptic allusion to Daniel 7. Again: the Son of Man character is Himself the king in the Daniel 7 passage! This clearly rules out the possiblity that Jesus sees Himself as a mere agent bringing about God's kingdom. No - He is declaring in carefully coded language that He (Jesus) is the very head of the Kingdom of God.

How can this not be taken as a claim of divinity?

 

[Drew]

Is it a coincidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples? Has He accidentally given the reader the impression that, like God alone, He has the right to re-constitute Israel?

He chose 12 disciples because He had a role in mind for them at the proper time:

Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now 11 or any other number would have messed that up, wouldn't it?

This does not really undermine the general point I am making. I could, and quite possible will, quibble with you over "who" the twelve tribes of Israel are here - I suggest that this is an allusion to re-constituted Israel (that is, the church), not the "original 12 twelve tribes".

And if I am right, your response becomes problematic, since you would need to explain precisely why Jesus has decided to see the church as a new Israel, thereby strongly evoking the right of God alone to re-constitute Israel.

But let's forget the number 12. The more general point is this: Through many of His teachings and actions, Jesus is clearly sending the message that He is in the business of re-constituting the nation of Israel:

1. He challenges the legitimacy of the temple and suggests Himself as the "true" temple. It was God who established the temple and the temple cult. When Jesus claims to have authority over it, He is either an imposter who does not speak for God at all, or He is very clearly setting Himself in the same position of authority of the Temple as God;

2. As I have pointed out (despite your objections, which I will get to), at several places Jesus challenges / overturns the Law of Moses. Let's be clear: Jesus very clearly asserts that no food makes the Jew unclean (Mark 7 and parallels). This directly contradicts the Law of Moses. Jesus would be understood as setting Himself in the position of one with authority over the Law. And who gave the Law? God. His listeners would (and did) get the point.

3. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus intentionally places Himself in the position of one who gets to "tweak" / expand the Law of Moses ("you have heard it said x, but I say y......"). Again, one need not be a genius to conclude that Jesus is representing Himself as having authority over the Law. And who is the only person the Jew understands as having that authority? God, of course.

4. Jesus claims the authority to forgive sin, again the province of God alone;

And there are other arguments. The point, again is this: those who deny the divinity of Jesus have two choices: (1) to construct elaborate and implausible theories as to why it would be a massive coincidence that, in so many different senses, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament role reserved for God alone; or (2) sweep all the narrative evidence for Jesus being in the "God-role" under the rug and try to make this an issue about concepts - how, for example, a divine son cannot be "less than" a divine father. In so doing, they are appealing to a vague general notion of God that has no real Biblical connection. Of course they do this - if they grounded their "God concepts" in the Bible, they would be forced to see God as:

1. Law-giver;
2. Constitutor of Israel;
3. One who promised to return to the temple,
4. etc.

All things, of course, are things Jesus does.

 

[westtexas]

3. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus intentionally places Himself in the position of one who gets to "tweak" / expand the Law of Moses ("you have heard it said x, but I say y......"). Again, one need not be a genius to conclude that Jesus is representing Himself as having authority over the Law. And who is the only person the Jew understands as having that authority? God, of course.

4. Jesus claims the authority to forgive sin, again the province of God alone;

Outstanding points Drew!

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes, let's look at the context:

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"

You haven't observed, have you, that they wilfully misinterpret His statement?

He said: Abraham rejoiced to see my day (which, obviously, was a thousand years or more in the future).

They said: ...Have you seen Abraham?

Not quite the same thing, is it?

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV

)

Clearly Jesus is claiming to be the I AM,

You are also wilfully misinterpreting His statement. You have inserted the word THE into the statement, which is a completely unjustified and unjustifiable action, and results in a very serious error.

which is a state of being, which is to say, he has always been. The thought here is that of time, seen in verse 57. They are saying Jesus isn't even 50 years old, so there is no way he could have seen Abraham.

You are making the same mistake that they did. If He has always been, then God cannot be His Father. And all those claims in this chapter that God WAS His Father, are false.

Jesus replies with a statement that Yahweh made in Exodus 3:14. For this seeming blasphemy, the Jews wanted to stone him.

We now get to the nitty gritty of the passage.

You do recall, don't you, the use Jesus made of that passage? What was it? Here:

Mt 22.31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

He uses it to establish the fact of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, He is doing the same here, not saying something deep and philosophical as you're trying to make out.

Here's the proof:

This row begins in the treasury.

20 These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man took him; because his hour was not yet come.

21 ¶ He said therefore again unto them, I go away,

[He is speaking of His death and resurrection]

and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin

[because either I will not raise you, or I will raise you to condemnation]:

whither I go, ye cannot come.

[Into the presence of the Father, after His death and resurrection]

22 The Jews therefore said, Will he kill himself, that he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come? [No, they were going to kill Him].

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

[Dying in their sins means 2 things. 1. Their sins would not be forgiven and

2. They would either not be raised, or raised to condemnation. In either case, they are dead in their sins].

25 They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.

[Note, 'the beginning' is the start of His ministry - NOT the beginning of creation.

Who did He say that He was? The Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. He NEVER says He was God, much as they would have liked Him to say, so they could get Him on a blasphemy charge].

26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.
27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.

28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he,

['Lifted up' = crucified me.

How could crucifying someone reveal that He was exactly who He said he was? ie the Son of God?

It couldn't. It was the resurrection from the dead that did that.
Rom 1.4: declared to be the Son of God with power...by the resurrection from the dead.]

and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

[Another denial of equality with God].

[...]

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

The only time we read of Abraham rejoicing, is in Gen 17:

17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

It may well be that at this point he thought that God was going to appoint Ishmael to be the Messiah.

18 And Abraham said unto God, Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!

God tells him no, he personally was going to have a son of his own, not the Messiah, but a type of the Messiah who was certainly going to come.

In this way Abraham saw the coming of Christ, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

[The Jews, true to form, now twist His words, and seek to put the most dangerous construction on them].

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The sentence is as ungrammatical as you can get, and is clearly calculated to throw them into colossal confusion.

Some versions say, before Abraham was born, before Abraham came into being and similar.

[Clearly, the 'I am...' requires an object or a descriptor. In the context, there are several possible objects and descriptors:

12 I am the light of the world:
16 I am not alone,
18 I am one that bear witness of myself,
23 I am from above:
28 I am he (who is going to be lifted up and raised from the dead)
53 and 54 carry the clearly implied answer to their question 'art thou greater than our father Abraham' - Yes, I am 'greater than Abraham'

The number of references

1 to the resurrection of Christ Himself,

2 and of anyone who believed in Him,

3 to the non-resurrection or resurrection to damnation of those who didn't,

4 plus the reference to I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

6 proving the fact of the resurrection, shows that that is exactly what was in Jesus' mind.

you really need to stop referring to Rev 3:14 as though it proves that Jesus can't be God.

I'm sorry Free, but the 'beginning of the creation of God' cannot be God by any stretch of anybody's imagination, like it or not.

No, actually they're not. You are once again sticking with a particular meaning that suits your errant theology. Monogenes, which is translated as "begotten" also means "one and only," or "unique."

Now who's sticking to errant theology? It's painfully obvious that Jesus is God's only Son, only-begotten Son in every sense of the word.

Therefore He cannot be the begetter Himself. Isn't that obvious?

Once again, I have no idea what you're getting at. You seem to be agreeing with me yet saying that you are proving me wrong. My meaning of "firstborn" stands and does absolutely nothing to what is being said in Col 1.

As I said, your understanding that 'firstborn' is a TITLE, a transferable title, is correct.

Israel was God's firstborn - it says so in Ex 4.22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, my firstborn:

That title was to be transferred to Christ because of Israel's wickedness.

Ps 89.26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27 I also will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

Do you notice the will make him there? That means, does it not, that He was NOT YET the firstborn at the time the Psalm was written?

As you can see, that cannot possibly be anyone else but Christ.

But if ISRAEL was God's Firstborn in Ex 4.22, then AT THAT TIME, Jesus WAS NOT.

That simple fact alone ruins your whole construction.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

So you're saying that Jesus changed the Law and then fulfilled the Law he changed? How about rather than that, Jesus gave the true meaning of the Law that already existed. If Jesus changed the Law, then he's no better than the Pharisees. And we're believing a lie.

FC

 

[Elijah674]

B.L.
It will do no good to be logical because 99.9% of them have never sat down and read the Bible, like it was the Book that it is. And it likely true that 98% have never sat down on Saturday or Sunday afternoon and read one of the 66 books through in the manor it was meant to be read. Over the past 16 years of Computer Ministry I have been informed, over and over again, that I was crazy, nuts and I could not be so foolish/stupid as to believe that the Bible, from ¨In the beginning...¨ through the very last Amen of Revelation 22 was of one context.


What you have here, on the web, and in the Church are Pew Whales! they just sit and cry out ¨Feed me, feed me,¨ never even attempting to walk with God in the cool of the evening every day. They are far to busy diging that hole straight down for any of that stuff!

Very sad!but it did make me kind of smile.2
But here is my belief. (and I am not one that you discribe)
Psalms 2

[7] I [will declare the decree:] the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; [this day have I begotten] thee.

Acts 13

[30] But God raised him from the dead:
[31] And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
[32] And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that [the promise] which was made unto the fathers,
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, [this day have I begotten thee.]

Heb. 1

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days [spoken unto us by his Son,] whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also [he made the worlds;]

[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
[4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
[5] For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

[6] And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
[7] And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

[8] But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[9] Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
[10] And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
[11] They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
[12] And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
[13] But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

But not so with God/Christ or God/Jehova! + the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost/God! Gen. 3:22 with both having an IMAGE! Gen. 1:26

Rom. 4:17's last part of this truth is Eternally foreknown by the Godhead...

[16] Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
[17] (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

And that is exactly what Inspiration has told us that the Godhead has & had done. Of the Three, God/Christ was to become Christ the Son.

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

Drew

So you're saying that Jesus changed the Law and then fulfilled the Law he changed? How about rather than that, Jesus gave the true meaning of the Law that already existed. If Jesus changed the Law, then he's no better than the Pharisees. And we're believing a lie.

FC

I am saying this:

1. The Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel in order to accomplish something very specific in God's plan of redemption (I will not get into what I think this was in the present post - people generally do not like my view on this, which is shamelessly co-opted from British theologian NT Wright);

2. Jesus' ministry functions to "complete" the goal for which the Law was given;

3. Since the goal was completed by Jesus, the Law has "done its job" and is no longer needed. So it is abolished.

You seem to think that it would be somehow inappropriate for Jesus to "change" the Law. Well, my argument is that it is precisely because He is God, and only for that reason, that it is indeed appropriate for Jesus to declare that the Law has come to an end. An honourable end, but an end nonetheless.

I do agree that Jesus does talk about a "true eternal Law" that in some sense undergirds the Law of Moses. But this does not mean that there is anything "wrong" with the Law of Moses coming to an end.

 

[Asyncritus]

And that is exactly what Inspiration has told us that the Godhead has & had done. Of the Three, God/Christ was to become Christ the Son.

Elijah

All that your quotes have done is to convince anyone with a reasonably open mind that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

I fail to see how that sentence above follows from anything else that God wrote, and which you copied so correctly.

BTW, you're back to the flashing neon lights again!

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Even if Jesus changed the Law, of which there’s on indication, there was no reason to do so. And if Jesus changed the Law, then he was no better than the Pharisees who did the same thing. As Jesus himself pointed out. Jesus brought back the original intention of the Law. It was the Pharisees in their Traditions of men that changed the Law.

Was the Law abolished? Are the ten commandments no longer true. We no longer have to Love God? We can commit murder at will and commit adultery with anyone we please? Do we know better than God about the dietary laws, that they are no longer true and we can eat whatever we want? Is that what Peter learned from his vision, even though he himself said it meant something else entirely one chapter later?

Paul said the Old Covenant with physical Israel was replaced with the New Covenant with Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel that includes the Gentiles. That the Tabernacle ritual, a type concerning salvation in Jesus Christ, was fulfilled by the reality of Jesus Christ and of being in Jesus Christ.

Nothing was changed except that which was fulfilled. And that didn’t change either or we wouldn’t recognize that the Tabernacle ritual looked forward to what Christ would accomplish.

FC

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah

All that your quotes have done is to convince anyone with a reasonably open mind that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

I fail to see how that sentence above follows from anything else that God wrote, and which you copied so correctly.

BTW, you're back to the flashing neon lights again!

You miss the old post intirely 'me' thinks?(just kidding! 'i' spin my weels ofter) But what 'i' said matters to me! OK?

OK: In ETERNITY that IS IMMORTAL.. God/Christ, God/Jehova + GOD/HOLY SPIRIT (Holy Ghost) make 3 of the Godhead United family. (that was a good choice of words)

Two have an Image that Adam & Eve were created in the likeness of. And the Holy Spirit has NO Image, yet is an Individual of [ONE] as are Jehovah & Christ. They are Immortally Eternal in all directions.

They have Eternally had the Plan when it was known to be needed as they knew that it would be as an Eternally Knowing Godhead. And they decided to have God/Christ to become a Son in human form. (still God/Man, but now Christ/Son/God/Man) The plan is seen in Prophecy of Prov. 8 even down to verse 30-31 with Christ/God/Man 'Rejoicing in the habitable part of the [earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.'

And the purpose of the Plan was for Christ as perfect/Man the second Adam to be the sacrifice as well to prove for all of eternity that their creation from Luciffer on through Adam were not flawed. And of course salvation was offered to as many as they knew would mature 'IN' the Plan to be safe to save. Nah. 1:9

Anyhow, Psalms 2:7 says that.. ['I wll] declare the decree: The Lord said unto me, Thou art my son; [this day] have I begotten thee.'

And then in Acts 13:32-33 came the past/tense Promise!

Which Heb. 1:3-6 Documented.

--Elijah

 

[Asyncritus]

Anyhow, Psalms 2:7 says that.. ['I wll] declare the decree: The Lord said unto me, Thou art my son; [this day] have I begotten thee.'

Yeah, so it does.

But doesn't that prove that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, not God the son?

 

[Levi]

Drew

Even if Jesus changed the Law, of which there’s on indication, there was no reason to do so. And if Jesus changed the Law, then he was no better than the Pharisees who did the same thing. As Jesus himself pointed out. Jesus brought back the original intention of the Law. It was the Pharisees in their Traditions of men that changed the Law.

Was the Law abolished? Are the ten commandments no longer true. We no longer have to Love God? We can commit murder at will and commit adultery with anyone we please? Do we know better than God about the dietary laws, that they are no longer true and we can eat whatever we want? Is that what Peter learned from his vision, even though he himself said it meant something else entirely one chapter later?

Paul said the Old Covenant with physical Israel was replaced with the New Covenant with Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel that includes the Gentiles. That the Tabernacle ritual, a type concerning salvation in Jesus Christ, was fulfilled by the reality of Jesus Christ and of being in Jesus Christ.

Nothing was changed except that which was fulfilled. And that didn’t change either or we wouldn’t recognize that the Tabernacle ritual looked forward to what Christ would accomplish.

FC

Not one stroke or dot of the law has passed away.

Jesus completed the law, he fulfilled all it requirements in one fowl swoop!

The law calls for death to the transgressor. He gave it!

The weightier demands of the law call for justice, mercy and faithfulness. It was given in Him

 

[Former Christian]

Levi

So, what is the Law to a Christian? Do Christians follow it or not? You seem to imply that the Law means nothing to a Christian because Jesus fulfilled it. Sounds like you’re saying Christians are no longer under the law...for anything. If that’s the case, what do Christians need the Old Testament for? It’s based on the Law. Christians claim to already know Christ, so they don’t need the OT to tell them about Christ. Is the OT just a filler, filling in some abstract points about Christ that Christians wouldn’t know about otherwise? Is the Gospel Lawless?

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

This is a serious question FC.

Could you please comment on the following:

Gal 3.11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Rom 6.15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Rom 3.31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

 

[Levi]

Levi

So, what is the Law to a Christian? Do Christians follow it or not? You seem to imply that the Law means nothing to a Christian because Jesus fulfilled it. Sounds like you’re saying Christians are no longer under the law...for anything. If that’s the case, what do Christians need the Old Testament for? It’s based on the Law. Christians claim to already know Christ, so they don’t need the OT to tell them about Christ. Is the OT just a filler, filling in some abstract points about Christ that Christians wouldn’t know about otherwise? Is the Gospel Lawless?

FC

Quite the contrary, As I stated 'not one stroke nor dot of the law will pass away' The first part of this saying of Jesus was this:

"so long as Heaven and earth remain not one jot nor tittle of the law shall be removed"

The law remains, but in Christ we are creations of the new Heaven and earth. Here and now our physical bodies are subject to the law of this current creation.

Our bodies will die according to the law of sin and death.

We will still suffer if we transgress the laws of righteous behavior.

and guess what? If we break the law of the land we could be punished as with anyone else.

God is more concerned with the law of the Spirit in our lives, to live by the weightier demands of the law, mercy justice and forgiveness.

But all and all the Christian shall be delivered from the consequences of the law 'death' because of his union in Christ who has paid the eternal penalty for our transgression of it.

"the second death shall not harm him"


God will destroy this current creation and anything that is proven to belong to it.

Save yourself, Repent and believe on the one whom God sent, be baptized in His name for the remission of sins.

The law calls for justice, it will be done!

A saying for you:

The OT is Christ concealed

The NT is Christ revealed.

"If a man does not believe Moses (the law) and the profits then he will not believe in me, for Moses and the profits all testified about me" Jesus.

The volume of the book is about Him, in fact it is Him! Jesus is the Word of God.

We need all of the scripture because it all speaks of Him, from beginning to end, all scripture is usefull for gaining knowledge, edifying one another and reproaching error.

God desires that we live a good useful and Holy life, we can find what this means between both the old and the new. The new completes the old, The new covenant (or testament) sealed in the blood of Christ completes the old covenant administered by the blood of goats and bulls (the law or old testament). He is the fulfillment of the law.

 

[Former Christian]

Levi

Good answer and I quite agree.

FC

 

[Drew]

Drew

Even if Jesus changed the Law, of which there’s on indication,...

The evidence that Jesus "changed" the law is compelling.

Here is one of several arguments for this (this argument anticipates the common objection that Jesus was simply critiquing abuses of the Law, not the Law itself)

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates abandonment of the Law of Moses in favour of man-made laws must not be seen as His only point in the whole chapter. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with the Law of Moses itself, not man's distortions of it.

This may seem incoherent – if Jesus criticizes the substitution of man-made laws for Torah, surely he must be affirming Torah, mustn’t He? The answer is no. It is entirely coherent for Jesus to offer an historical critique – telling the Pharisees that they tossed aside God’s laws and replaced them with human ones – and yet go on to declare the abolition of Torah itself, as He so clearly does here. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees does not endorse the continued applicability of Torah – He is critiquing their attitude to it in the time of its applicability, which, interestingly, comes to an end in His very declaration that all foods are indeed clean – a clear overturning of Levitical food laws themselves.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

“In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:
15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)â€

What can I say. Since you’re determined to believe that we both operate according to the principle of Biblical interpretation, all I can say is that my interpretation of that passage is different from yours. So why bring up the Bible at all? It really isn’t relevant to a discussion among Bible interpreters. It’s the interpretation that’s important, not the Bible. And since that’s true, I’ll put in my lot with the greatest Bible interpreters of all time, the Catholics. Of course, they’ve had a long time to practice. Even the Orthodox can’t compare with them. That is, I would if I were still a Christian that is a part of Christianity. In which case, I would agree with your interpretation “all foods clean†because it’s the same interpretation as the Catholics, and most Protestants for that matter.

Those Dietary Laws you claim that Jesus changed, and others claim that God himself changed though an interpretation of Acts 10-11, I keep them to the letter in hopes that I might have a healthy life. That to me is the wisdom referred to in,

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

Because the only way to understand Proverbs is in the context of what is most important in the Old Testament, the Law as it is given to us by God in the Torah. To not keep any Law is a sin. Whether it be murder of a person, or whether it be eating of a person. The ten commandments weren’t changed by Jesus Christ. There is no intimation that he changed the ten commandments. He only showed that perfect love, not emotional love of the world, but the love that was the cause behind the Father sending the Son to redeem humanity; it is that which sums up the ten commandments.

To fulfill is not to be understood as annihilation. It is to be understood as fulfill. It is to be understood as realization. Some Laws we don’t need to keep anymore because the reality of these Laws have been fulfilled in Christ. Specifically the Tabernacle ritual. The health Laws on how to live a healthy life, the social Laws on how to treat one another as we should, the laws on how we should treat God as our Creator; these Laws are still just as much in effect as they ever were. Why else keep an Old Testament that only is related to the Law. We keep the Old Testament because we are still just as much under the Law for everything that’s in the Law, including being in Christ in whom is our life.

Paul made it clear that we aren’t under the Law for justification because Christ fulfilled the Law for our justification and we are justified in Christ. And Paul in Hebrews (yes, I’m one who thinks that Paul is the human author of Hebrews) shows that it’s the Tabernacle ritual that we’re no longer under for salvation, because the reality of that ritual is in Christ. If we’re no longer under the Law, then we’re no longer under the ten commandments. And we are free to do whatever our conscience tells us.

Jesus has taught me just as much out of the Old Testament as the New Testament. And the only reason he would do that is because the Law, the center of the Old Testament is still in effect. Only the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant wherein we have life in Christ and forgiveness through that life. Instead of forgiveness through the Tabernacle ritual of the Torah, as it was under the Old Covenant. I find it hard to believe that there are Christians who claim that when Jesus returns he will reinstate the Tabernacle ritual. Why? He himself fulfilled and is the reality of that ritual.

Rats. Well, this took me pretty far afield from the subject of the Trinity. But maybe some reader will benefit.

I believe that Jesus Christ kept the Law as it was originally given by God in the Torah, kept that Law according to the spirit of that Law, and fulfilled that part of the Law that pertained to himself. If he changed that Law, then he kept and fulfilled a different law than what was in the Old Testament and thus couldn’t be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

That’s my interpretation, if that’s how you want to look at it. And I will do my best to respect your interpretation, even though I don’t think it’s correct.

FC