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.
When Christ came, the law was written in our hearts. Before that, it was an outward form. Altho they were to follow God with all their heart, yet if they just kept all the rules and sacrifices, they were ok. In the OT, they went through a priest. Now we go through Jesus. In the OT, "thou shalt not kill", thou shalt not commit adultry". Now, Jesus said we shouldn't call our brother "a fool", and don't look on a woman to lust after her. It's a heart matter. Before, they had to know all the rules... now we follow the Holy Spirit. Those are some results of Jesus fulfilling the law.
No, I don't think that at all. I think this is a topic that any sincere Christian has to come to grips with at some point in their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
On the one hand you have Jesus speaking directly in Matthew 5:17-20 and on the other hand you have a letter from Paul.
All things being equal I'd choose the words of Jesus over the writings of Paul. That doesn't mean I literally follow the laws of the OT. I'm just saying that in regards to this topic it would make more sense to follow the actual words of Jesus compared to the writings of Paul. (Getting late and my mind is getting tired so if what I just typed doesn't make sense I'll clarify tomorrow)
I'd choose Jesus' words over Paul too. While it's all scripture, I can't help but put more 'weight', if you will, on the words of Jesus. That's why I take all of the Gospels so serious ("I am THE way, THE Truth, and THE Life","No one comes to the Father but through me","If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", etc) I take all of those things very seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
Concerning my faith.. I think I've made it fairly well known that I'm a fairly liberal Christian if I had to compare myself to others and I honestly don't have a clue regarding the place I should hold the OT.
I feel like "Jesus fulfilling the promise" is so esoteric that it's more a convenient explanation than a black and white explanation. Does that make sense? I'm don't disagree with your explanation.. I just don't fully buy it 100%.
I understand and honestly, I'm just a normal guy with an opinion, ya know? I'm not a scholar or theologian. I've never been to any kind of religious college. All I've got is God, my bible, and my knees and I hope I've followed the promptings of God on this matter.
Let me try and explain a little more.
Jesus did not do way with the Law and the Prophets in a physical sense. The law and the prophets are still there. In other words, the actual texts, scrolls, scriptures are there. We need them. Why do we need them? Because they point to Jesus. If the law and the prophets had been 'done away with' (the way I think Jesus meant) we would not have the prophecy and the documentation to verify Jesus as the Messiah. All of the Old Testament points to Jesus.
kaykay was dead on with that Galatians. I read chapter 3 this morning in an NIV and I'd urge you to also. It was really, really awesome.
I'd like to add, that Jesus brought a new covenant. One of the gospels has the phrase 'the law and the prophets was until John (the baptist)' It's there in scripture, big thirsty. Jesus set us free from the old law but if the old law had been 'done away with', we'd have no way of knowing what exactly we'd been set free from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
I don't have an issue with views like yours.. The only difficult thing for me to understand is..
Matthew 5:17-20 is from the word of Jesus
Galatians and Romans were from the word of man (however inspired)
but its late.. and I'll re-read this post tomorrow to see if what I just typed makes any sense whatsoever..
I think it made sense. I mean if someone is genuinely searching for an answer, a peace on this, it's there. I'd never try and 'tear down' the Word of God. I just don't think there's a way for any of us to fully understand all that Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross, but I am sure He accomplished setting us free from the law. Otherwise, I gotta get a priest to look at this mole on my face!
I would just like to comment on the Jesus' words and Paul's words thing. A few months ago, one poster said that "Paul contradicted Jesus." Well, I just think we need to understand that if (and I realize some Christians don't) we believe the entire Bible is inspired of God, then God has also "authorized" so to speak the words of Paul to be His words. I think it is also noteworthy that Paul claims to have received his revelation of the gospel directly from Jesus, not man. Therefore, Paul does not contradict Jesus nor Jesus contradict Paul. If it appears that this is the case, I would suggest that we don't have the proper or complete interpretation. That's my .02 anyway.
I would just like to comment on the Jesus' words and Paul's words thing. A few months ago, one poster said that "Paul contradicted Jesus." Well, I just think we need to understand that if (and I realize some Christians don't) we believe the entire Bible is inspired of God, then God has also "authorized" so to speak the words of Paul to be His words. I think it is also noteworthy that Paul claims to have received his revelation of the gospel directly from Jesus, not man. Therefore, Paul does not contradict Jesus nor Jesus contradict Paul. If it appears that this is the case, I would suggest that we don't have the proper or complete interpretation. That's my .02 anyway.
I agree with that and I don't think they are contradictory. I was just saying that my human nature makes me look at the words of Jesus with a little more weight than Paul's. But, again, I don't think the two ever disagree.
I agree with that and I don't think they are contradictory. I was just saying that my human nature makes me look at the words of Jesus with a little more weight than Paul's. But, again, I don't think the two ever disagree.
No, I didn't think you and Bigthirsty were advocating that and I almost said so to avoid confusion. But I just wanted to bring that out because I have heard that kind of sentiment expressed on this forum several times. And I think you kinda have to decide whether you believe ALL of the Bible... or not. And again, I know some Christians decide they don't believe all of it. I'm obviously not in that camp as most of you know that have been around here any time.
When I was a young Christian (many moons ago) I thought that if it wasn't "written in red" (the words of Jesus) I didn't have to be concerned with it at all! The Lord, I believe, showed me differently. In fact, at the time, I think He actually convicted me that I wasn't even obeying the "red.!"
Perhaps this passage from Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles will be helpful:
"...some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c]
19'It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.'"
Perhaps this passage from Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles will be helpful:
"...some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c]
19'It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.'"
Thanks for posting that, Bellinghamite. I had thought about that scripture in Acts but didn't bring it up because I wasn't sure where it was. You have some good Biblical insight for an atheist! You are an atheist, right? I haven't got you confused with someone else on here? (It's exceedingly rare, but kaykay can actually be mistaken!)
When Christ came, the law was written in our hearts. Before that, it was an outward form. Altho they were to follow God with all their heart, yet if they just kept all the rules and sacrifices, they were ok. In the OT, they went through a priest. Now we go through Jesus. In the OT, "thou shalt not kill", thou shalt not commit adultry". Now, Jesus said we shouldn't call our brother "a fool", and don't look on a woman to lust after her. It's a heart matter. Before, they had to know all the rules... now we follow the Holy Spirit. Those are some results of Jesus fulfilling the law.
1) Moderator cut: English only please
Devarim (Deuteronomy) 6:5 And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
Pretty sure that covers your holy spirit or whatever.
2) Ceremonies may have been run by the kohanim but services were run by anyone. Even today, the rabbi doesn't run the services but rather the congregation does (in the orthodox). For example, I've run services on numerous occasions where I lead the Shemonah Esrei.
3) It's not thou shall not kill, it's lo tirtzach or Thou shall not MURDER. Big difference.
Moderator cut: personal attack
Last edited by Alpha8207; 10-25-2007 at 11:16 AM..
I think it is also noteworthy that Paul claims to have received his revelation of the gospel directly from Jesus, not man.
As I understand it Paul has never met Jesus. He could very well be referring to James the Just whom he considered the brother of the Lord.
Quote:
Paul of Tarsus in Galatians 2:9 (KJV) characterized James as such: "…James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars…" He is described in the New Testament as a "brother of Jesus" and in the Liturgy of St James as "the brother of God" (Adelphotheos)
Paul further describes James as being one of the persons the risen Christ showed himself to (1 Corinthians 15:3–8); then later in 1 Corinthians, mentions James in a way that suggests James had been married (9:5); and in Galatians, Paul lists James with Cephas (better known as Peter) and John as the three "pillars" of the Church, and who will minister to the "circumcised" (in general Jews and Jewish Proselytes) in Jerusalem, while Paul and his fellows will minister to the "uncircumcised" (in general Gentiles). (2:9, 2:12). These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominant, however it is an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who no longer circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who had converted to Judaism and were thus circumcised. James the Just - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I understand it all correctly it was James who was inspired by Jesus.
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.
Well, I just think we need to understand that if (and I realize some Christians don't) we believe the entire Bible is inspired of God, then God has also "authorized" so to speak the words of Paul to be His words. I think it is also noteworthy that Paul claims to have received his revelation of the gospel directly from Jesus, not man. Therefore, Paul does not contradict Jesus nor Jesus contradict Paul. If it appears that this is the case, I would suggest that we don't have the proper or complete interpretation. That's my .02 anyway.
) I thought that if it wasn't "written in red" (the words of Jesus) I didn't have to be concerned with it at all!
It was James the Just who was inspired by Jesus?
If I understand it all correctly it was James who was inspired by Jesus.
