Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I awoke in the night, so here I am. I am thankful for being able to read your post in plain black-wnd-white, because those colored letters send me into grizzemhoffenbaddles <- a made up word for I can't read them because they kick in both my dyslexia and ADD!
Oh, opps! They are still too hard to read because of all the commands!
Okay. I think you only mentioned the time when Peter was embarrassed when he was confronted by the presence of the Circumcision, and he was caught eating with Gentiles? He was over there DOING what the vision had told him to DO, but he was obviously not over there eating ham sandwiches. He was simply embarrassed to be doing what G-d had commanded him to do when the Circumcision walked in. Paul was calling him to be settled in doing what was right and to not hide it from the Circumcision.
The Circumcision within the early Judaism that followed Messiah could be hard on people, and obviously, Peter knew that. He was obviously there when the Circumcision first raised the question about whether or not the Gentiles could be believers when they did not yet know enough to follow Torah.
That is only half of what the above passage says ... Pauls also found that Peter was commanding the gentiles to observe the law. Since you cannot read the passage i quoted, i will quote the verse that show this by itself ...
Galatians 2:11-13 starts out as you said, explaining out James had sent some Christian Jews to peter at Antioch. Peter became afraid because of the Jews and so he separated himself from the Gentiles and would not eat with them, as if they were unclean, and even though God had commanded him not to prefer the circumcision. And in so doing, he causes others to stumble and be led astray into his error with him, along with even the apostle Barnabas ...
Then in the very next verse, Galatians 2:14, Paul sees what Peter has done and rebukes Peter in front of them all for his sin, and says ...
"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
So we see in Verse 14 that Paul plainly states that Peter himself lived like a gentile lived and not like the Jews lived. Meaning that Peter did not himself observe the law.
Then Paul asks Peter, "So why do you command that the gentiles live like the Jews and observe the law(observe Jewish customs)?" ...
This plainly shows that Peter did not himself observe the law, but when confronted by other Jewish Christians, he pretended to act as if he himself did observe the law by commanding the gentiles to also observe the law.
So we see that these verses prove that both Peter and Paul, who were Jews themselves, did not follow Jewish customs, or live by observing the law of the old testament.
I don't know how you can miss this ...
The point is that this passage plainly proves that the Apostles did not observe the law of the old testament.
Peace ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 09-29-2010 at 11:04 AM..
Before I start telling you why I have no problem with the G-d Who made such laws, let me ask you some questions, because depending upon your answer, your questions about the Scriptures above may or may not be worth answering!
My answers are in blue ...
Do you believe there is one G-d?
Yes
Do you believe that the G-d in the beginning 2/3 of the Bible is the same G-d of the latter 1/3 of the Bible?
Yes, he is the same God, though his character is misrepresented many times by the use of certain antropopathisms.
Do you believe that the G-d of Genesis is the same one and only G-d of our world today?
Yes
Do you believe that the Torah was written under the authority of the same G-d who is G-d today?
I believe that God inspired the writers of the old testament. However it seems that the scribes may have added words to the old testament which were not inspired, when they transcribed the old testament, which misrepresented God to the people of Israel, and this is why Jesus rebuked the scribes along with the Pharisees.
Or do you believe there were different gods?
No i do not believe they were different Gods. But i do believe that Jesus provided for us a true example of who the true God is, and of his true nature. And the example Christ gave of the true nature of God conflicts with much of how the old testament represents God in many places. That is why the Jews did not receive Christ as their messiah, because he commanded them not to observe many of the laws, such as the stoning of the adulterous woman, even though the old testament law clearly states that the people must kill her.
Qualifications for Messiah in the Hebrew bible are quite specific and as you will find below, Jesus didn't even begin to qualify let alone fulfill, in his lifetime, what the Jewish Messiah was supposed to accomplish.
The following are the only Jewish scriptures that Jews consider to be Messianic in nature:
Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14
You are claiming that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy through adoption. There are two major problems with this claim:
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)
Christian apologists will claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four major problems with this claim:
a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.
b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
Now, since I've provided you with what you asked for perhaps you, or anyone else who would like to, can attempt to provide me with what I've asked for:
Based on what is taught by Christianity regarding that we are all born in the sin of Adam. I'm curious how do Christians get around that fact that Jesus was born of Mary, a sinner??? If Jesus was born of a sinner (which Mary definitely was based on Christian teaching)...then he is also a sinner and could not possibly be born sinless...for he would also carry the sin of Adam through his mother.
Concerning the Genealogy of Christ, i am not a scholar of the genealogies, but there are many on the internet that you could study and compare ... It is obvious that at the time of Christ, his genealogies were sufficient to convince many people that he had legitimate claim to the throne, or else he would never have been accepted by the apostle Paul, who was himself an educated pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin ...
Here are a few studies on the genealogies of Christ, if you want answers they are better qualified then I am where the genealogies of Christ are concerned.
Now i must say that you have not proven that the kingly line cannot be inherited by an adopted son. Even if a Levites adopted son of from another tribe cannot become a priest, that does not necessarily mean or prove that an adopted son cannot become king if his Parents genealogy are in line for the throne. And Christ was not adopted from "another tribe". As both his parents could trace their lineage to David, despite your claim that Mary's line does not descend from David. Many scholars would disagree with you on that ...
Also, I do not see how the scriptures you posted in any way disqualifies Nathan as a legitimate ancestor in line for the throne. Perhaps it is the use of the word Olam, translated as forever that has you confused? I myself, along with many others, have already shown that the word olam does not mean forever, and we have proven by many scriptures which use the word in reference to many things that obviously did not last for ever. The word olam simply means a very long time, or literally "beyond the horizon" ...
Now, if you ask me, and i am no one, the very fact that Jesus could trace his ancestry back to David through both his natural mother and his adopted father, and then fact that he was the only begotten son of God, gives him a very legitimate claim to the throne of David. Does not the only begotten son of the God of Israel have legitimate claim to the throne of David whom his father the God of Israel established?
Now concerning whether or not Christ was born a sinner or not, i believe the only argument that is necessary to prove that he was not is the fact that he was immaculately conceived. And that is even if the doctrine of inherited sin is true, which i have not yet conceded, as i have not yet found enough evidence on either side of the argument to draw a final conclusion myself, but i am still researching that matter.
Now, if we are to continue this discussion, let us start a new thread. I do not want this thread closed because we have drawn it off topic ...
Concerning the Genealogy of Christ, i am not a scholar of the genealogies, but there are many on the internet that you could study and compare ... It is obvious that at the time of Christ, his genealogies were sufficient to convince many people that he had legitimate claim to the throne, or else he would never have been accepted by the apostle Paul, who was himself an educated pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin ...
Here are a few studies on the genealogies of Christ, if you want answers they are better qualified then I am where the genealogies of Christ are concerned.
Now i must say that you have not proven that the kingly line cannot be inherited by an adopted son. Even if a Levites adopted son of from another tribe cannot become a priest, that does not necessarily mean or prove that an adopted son cannot become king if his Parents genealogy are in line for the throne. And Christ was not adopted from "another tribe". As both his parents could trace their lineage to David, despite your claim that Mary's line does not descend from David. Many scholars would disagree with you on that ...
Also, I do not see how the scriptures you posted in any way disqualifies Nathan as a legitimate ancestor in line for the throne. Perhaps it is the use of the word Olam, translated as forever that has you confused? I myself, along with many others, have already shown that the word olam does not mean forever, and we have proven by many scriptures which use the word in reference to many things that obviously did not last for ever. The word olam simply means a very long time, or literally "beyond the horizon" ...
Now, if you ask me, and i am no one, the very fact that Jesus could trace his ancestry back to David through both his natural mother and his adopted father, and then fact that he was the only begotten son of God, gives him a very legitimate claim to the throne of David. Does not the only begotten son of the God of Israel have legitimate claim to the throne of David whom his father the God of Israel established?
Now concerning whether or not Christ was born a sinner or not, i believe the only argument that is necessary to prove that he was not is the fact that he was immaculately conceived. And that is even if the doctrine of inherited sin is true, which i have not yet conceded, as i have not yet found enough evidence on either side of the argument to draw a final conclusion myself, but i am still researching that matter.
Now, if we are to continue this discussion, let us start a new thread. I do not want this thread closed because we have drawn it off topic ...
Did you miss this somehow: Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30) Joseph doesn't qualify according to the Hebrew scriptures...no matter how one spins it.
Dismissing or ignoring the people, who actually wrote the scriptures, and what they have to say about them as well as dismissing the actual scriptures in the Hebrew bible itself that are completely contradictory to the Christian agenda is just standard practice and par for the course...this is seen time and time again, so there really is no further point in continuing this discussion until you are willing to examine these things critically and unbiasedly.
Peace Out!!!
Last edited by ChristyGrl; 09-29-2010 at 12:43 PM..
Did you miss this somehow: Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30) Joseph doesn't qualify according to the Hebrew scriptures...no matter how one spins it.
Dismissing or ignoring the people, who actually wrote the scriptures, and what they have to say about them as well as dismissing the actual scriptures in the Hebrew bible itself that are completely contradictory to the Christian agenda is just standard practice and par for the course...this is seen time and time again, so there really is no further point in continuing this discussion until you are willing to examine these things critically and unbiasedly.
Peace Out!!!
You are unbiased? I think not ... You are obviously influenced by anti-Christian material, and so you disregard any Christian apology out of hand. That is fine, but don't pretend that you have no bias ... We all have bias, according to how we are influenced either spiritually or otherwise by worldly influences.
If you do not want to continue this line of conversation, that is fine, it will end here. However if you do want to, we really should start another thread on the topic ...
Peace ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 09-29-2010 at 01:41 PM..
You are unbiased? I think not ... You are obviously influenced by anti-Christian material, and so you disregard any Christian apology out of hand. That is fine, but don't pretend that you have no bias ... We all have bias, according to how we are influenced either spiritually or otherwise by worldly influences.
If you do not want to continue this line of conversation, that is fine, it will end here. However if you do want to, we should really start another thread on the topic ...
Peace ...
You are wrong...I look at ALL sides of the equation before I make a decision...I go only where the irrefutable evidence takes me. Are you saying that the Hebrew bible is anti-christian material? When push comes to shove....you can't refute what the Hebrew scriptures state regarding Messiah. There are very specific Hebrew prophecies regarding Messiah....and Jesus doesn't qualify in any way shape or form...he didn't accomplish anything the Jewish Messiah was supposed to accomplish during his lifetime. Now....if you think you can interpret the Hebrew scripture better than they can...please convince me....I'm sincerely all ears.
OH BTW....Insane did start a thread on "Original Sin"....and the same question I asked you is being completely ignored...but I pretty much figured it would be.
Last edited by ChristyGrl; 09-29-2010 at 01:16 PM..
You are wrong...I look at ALL sides of the equation before I make a decision...I go only where the irrefutable evidence takes me. Are you saying that the Hebrew bible is anti-christian material? When push comes to shove....you can't refute what the Hebrew scriptures state regarding Messiah. There are very specific Hebrew prophecies regarding Messiah....and Jesus doesn't qualify in any way shape or form...he didn't accomplish anything the Jewish Messiah was supposed to accomplish during his lifetime. Now....if you think you can interpret the Hebrew scripture better than they can...please convince me....I'm sincerely all ears.
OH BTW....Insane did start a thread on "Original Sin"....and the same question I asked you is being completely ignored...but I pretty much figured it would be.
Well, perhaps another thread should be started on the legitimate claim of Christ to the throne of David where genealogy and prophecies are concerned, as that is a whole other topic as well ...
Well, perhaps another thread should be started on the legitimate claim of Christ to the throne of David where genealogy and prophecies are concerned, as that is a whole other topic as well ...
Peace ...
What would be the point...Christians seem to ignore the threads where the really hard questions are asked...it's OK....because we do understand why.
What would be the point...Christians seem to ignore the threads where the really hard questions are asked...it's OK....because we do understand why.
Generally i would agree, but i guess i am an exception to the rule as i have, to the best of my ability, answered your questions in this thread as well as in the new thread on "Original Sin" started by InsaneInDaMembrane ...
If you have not seen my response to that OP, which is an answer to your question in this thread regarding how Jesus could have been without sin, you may want to review that thread again as i have only recently posted my response therein.
Yea but with hard work u can stop altogether eventually...thats only after you've found God tho and most Christians haven't actually found Him...i found Him last year wen my back was against the wall and i had nobody to turn to...an i felt a weird energy that felt like all Love an i felt sooo good an ACTUALLY heard a voice talkin back to me...
Ever since then i barely sin at all an when i do i ask for forgiveness RIGHT AFTER and try not to do it again an He comes back to me....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He was simply embarrassed to be doing what G-d had commanded him to do when the Circumcision walked in. Paul was calling him to be settled in doing what was right and to not hide it from the Circumcision.
