Testimony

Prove to me that by using biblical evidence only that DNA is made up of Nucleotides. Yet we see manupulation of genes by Jacob. Biblical evidence has its limitations. For instance that passage I quoted

There is no biblical evidence to suggest that a happy go lucky party isn't occuring here save the context of the discourse. What was really happening? With out understanding Judaism you wouldn't understand that these people were shomerim and some were professional wailers, eulogizers, and flute players accompanying the body. However these are guided by Mitzvah. But you can't get that from the text. What you get is there is a party going on outside the house with music and some might even draw a correlation between that and an Irish wake. Cultural context is very important. Again in Jewish history haggadah and torah are interchangeable used by the term law. lets look at what jesus says here.

Is this referencing torah moses' seat or haggadah? And why is the seat important? Note from a Jewish perspective

So lets look at it. Romans is a personal letter to the roman community. Unlike Pauls letters to the Galatians or even the Corinthians, its not a polemical work. However, that is often how you use that letter. Also Does Paul argue against James? It would certainly seem that way.

 

>There is a vast difference between saying baptism saves us LITERALLY and saying baptism saves us in FIGURE.

There is a vast difference between saying believing in Jesus, (regeneration, conversion) saves us LITERALLY and saying believing in Jesus, (regeneration, conversion) saves us in FIGURE. Only Predestination to salvation saves us LITERALLY. There is no objective test for any of these potential spiritual states.

> . . . the only relationship faith has is "IN" God's provision for justification.

Of which there is no objective test.

 

You all are confusing haggadah, tora, and tanakh


Haggadah of Pesach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Aggadah.

Illuminated Haggadah for Passover (fourteenth century).


The Haggadah (Hebrew: הגדה‎, "telling") is a Jewish religious text that sets out the order of the Passover Seder. Reading the Haggadah is a fulfillment of the scriptural commandment to each Jew to "tell your son" about the Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt as described in the Book of Exodus in the Torah. ("And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the LORD did for me when I came forth out of Egypt. " Ex. 13:8)

 

The Scriptures speaks directly and explicity to the traditions of the elders and makes a clear distinction between such and the Law of Moses. The Scriptures do not speak directly and explicity to DNA! The scriptures do not identify the passage you quoted as "the law of Moses" or "Moses" "the law." Again, pure speculation without a shed of BIBLICAL evidence.

If we were trying to establish Jewish history you would have a point. If the Scriptures did not distinguish clearly between the "traditions" of the elders and Moses and the Law you would have a point. However, we are studying the Biblical writings and the use of terms by Biblical writiers not Jewish history. However, both Jesus and Paul as well as Peter clearly distinguish between Moses and tradition or Moses and teachings by the elders or of the Fathers so you have no case.

The term "seat" is used in scriptures as a metaphor for those in a position of authority (Psa. 1:1) as teachers of God's Word. It is their abuse of that position they are being rebuked for by Christ in this passage. They replaced God's word with traditons of the elders. So again, you have nothing to sustain your theory in regard to the manner of how BIBLICAL writers used the terms "Moses" and "law."

It is no such thing! Romans 1:7 clarifies exactly who "all" is addressed to -

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The same issue Paul is refuting in Galatians is the same issue he is refuting in Romans 1:8-3:20 - justification by the deeds of the law. A polemical writing is a writing that attempts to refute or argue against another idea not merely against specific named individuals with ideas. This is one of the most polemical books in the entire New Testament. Paul systematically puliverizes the false doctrine of justification by works in Romans 1:19-3:20. Paul systematically pulverizes the false doctrine of antinomianism in Romans 6-8. Paul addresses specific problems in Romans 13-15. There is not another book in the New Testament more polemical in nature than Romans.


You are building a doctrine on non-biblical literature and non-biblical usage of terms. The New Testament writers completely refute your theory as they clearly distinguish between Moses, the law of God and non-canonical writings and oral traditions of the fathers/elders:

Mt 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.


Mt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mt 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition[/U].

Mr 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.


Paul makes the same distinction and NOT ONCE does he ever refer to non-canonical writings as "MOSES" or "Law." He calls the "traditions of the elders" the law "of the fathers" NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE


Ga 1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

This clear distinction by Biblical writers repudiates your theory completely.

 

True enough.

 

So what you've in effect have done is thrown out the cultural context in which the bible was written as if it were not important. Words have context in which they are used direct translation especially over a 2,000 year period can be easily taken out of context.

Not at all. Here in 2nd Corinthians we see Paul's inclusion of haggadah in the mention of moses

They are not always seperated out as just traditions. Like I said the Jews often used them interchangably. We can see how they viewed it in Deut.

However, I think this is the problem with your application of taking the bible out of its cultural context

Which is problematic with your view.

That doesn't change its not a polemic and that its a personal letter to that community.

You misunderstand the nature of the bible. The bible is literature of the style in use when it was written. Also cannon wasn't established in Jesus day so your point about canon is out the window. Scriptures were more fluid at that time as can be seen by the Qumran find.

What is my theory that it has repudiated it?

 

See that mate.....told you ya had to be Reformed!

 

You will make a good Calvinist yet (oops, almost said Presbyterian but you didn't see this)raying:

 

Here is the problem with your line of thinking. Your mixing apples with oranges in order to obtain potatoes. Romans 2-4 is a very precise doctrinal passage where Paul is drawing fine theological distinctions and contrasts in order to draw the correct conclusions. Hence, precise termonlogy is absolutely necessary if his point is going to be made and clearly understood.

Both Christ and Paul as well as Peter in other theological contexts where contrast between canonical scriptures and non-canonical oral or written Jewish authorities are found, clearly distinguish them from each other, by designating the non-canonical as "traditions of the elders" or some other obvious designation.

However, you go to a non-doctrinal, and obvious cultural context, to illustrate Jewish traditions are found in the scriptures, as in the case of the funeral, and draw the conclusion, that this is a credible hermeneutical basis to not merely suggest, but demand, that the highly doctrinal context concerning justification in Romans 3-4, and the words "the deeds of the law" and "the law", as contrasted to "faith" are to be defined as the non-canonical Jewish traditions, instead of the canonical law of Moses, when in every other doctrinal contrast between non-canonical Jewish teachings and Moses, the precise doctrinal descriptives of the non-canonical is always "traditions" or some other obvious terms and NEVER "the deeds of the law" or "the law"???????????????????

Hence, your line of logic is to entirely dismiss the apples of all other doctrinal contexts where technicl distinctions are made clear where non-canonical authorities are always called "traditions" and NEVER "the law" or "the deeds of the law" but then take the oranges of the obvious and clear cultural contexts where doctrinal definitions are not under consideration and yet demand that such cultural contexts INFER Jewish traditions and thus that is sufficient evidence to produce the potato interpretative basis to demand that the terms "the deeds of the law" and "the law" in a highly doctrinal context of Romans 3-4 means Jewish traditions?????????????????

Can anyone else but me see the complete nonsense of this kind of hermeneutic rationale???????????????????????

 

NO, not I said the "compadre"

 

No wonder you have theological problems!

 

You just are not able to come down to earth with your magnificent pride, arrogance and attitude of "know it all" can you?

 

If you cannot see the obvious problem with that kind of rationale, then, your living in some other world but reality?

 

:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

You seem to think the door is a lot wider than it should be for salvation. Jesus said "I am the door,BY ME if any man enter in he shall be saved". Jesus was saying this in John 10 where the religious sect "the Pharisees" was like the modern Roman Catholicism today. I too have a testimony of God's deliverance from the false teaching of Catholicism. Thank you Jesus!

 

To be sure, there are many within the ranks of catholicism who probably lack a personal and intimate relationship with God through Christ, but that could also be said of most "denominations" including protestant faiths. I simply do not think it the "proper" thing to do to make wide and sweeping claims about the salvation status of catholics in general, irrespective of the doctrinal (sometimes considerable) differneces one has with catholics. When one does this repeatedly, it almost de facto appears that "you" (general usage, not personal) have the "mind of god" and know the status of mens hearts. I have several friends who worship God as catholics and yet have a very real and vibrant life altering faith.

 

now Quantum you will be branded & sent out to wander the desert with all those catholic souls you will carry & their sins. Baaaad goat Baaad goat!

 

:tonofbricks::tonofbricks:

 

You miss the point. Sure there are lost people in other denominations....but teaching heresy like Roman Catholicism is what PREVENTS them from being saved. Apples and Oranges.

 

QF, the position of Thinkingstuff is that in Romans 2-4 and Galatians 2-5 where "the law" is being contrasted to "faith" in regard to justification is that the phrases "the deeds of the law" or "the works of the law" or "the law" refers only to the non-canonical oral traditions of the Jews. If that is true then the satisfaction of "the law" in those same contexts by Christ (Rom. 3:21-31) must be the same law. Thus Christ died only to pay God's wrath against violating the non-canonical oral traditions???

Let's read it that way. I will put in "TRADITIONS" beside the word "law" or "deeds of the law" everywhere it found in Romans 3:19-31 and Galations 3:10-13:

19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law [TRADITIONS] saith, it saith to them who are under the law: [TRADITION that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law [TRADITIONS] there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [TRADITIONS] is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law [TRADITIONS] is manifested, being witnessed by the law [TRADITIONS] and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works [TRADITIONS]? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law [TRADITIONS].
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law [TRADITIONS] through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law [TRADITIONS].

Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law [TRADITIONS] are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law [TRADITIONS] to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law[TRADITIONS] in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law [TRADITIONS] 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 [TRADITIONS], being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So this is how you read it? Can you see any problems reading it that way??? I didn't know the oral traditions of the elders were given to reveal the knowledge of sin? I didn't know that Christ satisfied God's wrath for sinning against the oral traditions of the Jews?

Are you sure this is the position you want to defend as rationale?