Gamera

[QUOTE=noah]Matthew 5: 17-20

17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18

Explain to us how Jesus can fulfil the law if it is perfect. Go into detail.

Matthew 25:35
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 36

Yep, Jesus's words, proclaiming salvation through faith in the gospel, will never pass away. What's your point?



Translated: if you obey the Law, making you a Jew, you'll be saved, and nobody else will. But you must ignore everything the NT teaches about how nobody can obey the Law. A very strange mismash of OT and NT misinterpretations.

But let's deconstruct your argument.



Nothing in Psalm 103 about obeying the Law, just God's mercy. I swear you seem to be worshippng the law and not God. There's a word for that.

Gamera

[QUOTE]Sure you do. If you can "prove" scripture is inspired by God, then there is no need for faith. You got proof. Of course your whole argument is silly from the start there is no apodictic proof of "inspiration" and cannot be. Just rhetoric on your point against Paul, which ironically circles back against the Law.

Go ahead, prove to me the Law is inspired.

It does if you depend on the Law and not on God. The Law cannot save you, as I've shown with reference to both the OT and NT. But you refuse to listen, apparently more committed to the Law than to God.

Gamera

[QUOTE=noah]So now you've not only nixed Paul and Hebrews, but John. Soon there will be no NT left, which I suspect is your agenda.

Yep, Jesus' words will never pass away. His words were salvation through grace. What's your point?

Gamera

[QUOTE=noah]Actually the better translation of the Greek is God's unique son, a reference to Jesus' divinity. But honestly, I'm not going to launch into an apologia about Jesus being God the Son. It is a matter of faith. If you don't accept it, that's OK. I can't convince you with argument. Only the gospel can convince, and since it's clear you've rejected the gospel, there's no reason for me to argue theology with you. I do however want to correct any misrepresentations you make about the actual text. So that's where my comments are directed.

Gamera

Here's the whole quote:

13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Now, if you're claiming you have no secrets and done no evil, you can rely on the law. The rest of us mortals have to rely not on our ability to perform our duty, but on God's mercy. My God is a God of love and mercy, not a God of judgment. Because I'm honest enough to admit that if God judges me based on my conduct, I'm doomed. Are you honest enough, or are you actually going to tell us you've earned salvation by never doing anything evil?

C'mon, dish.

Julian

Hmm, not really. The Greek in John 3:16 reads μονογενη which is best translated as only-begotten. Being only-begotten implies uniqueness in terms of lineage, of course, but to translate it that way would be tendentious and deviate from the spirit of the Greek.

Middle Liddell and Scott Entry

Julian

Gamera

The matter is in dispute. It depends on the root of monogenes. Does genes refer to kind or to birth. However, more recent scholarship rejects the "only-begotten" formulation and comes down on the side of "one-of-a-kind" son. Which frankly makes more sense. Only-begotten is a strange locution and doesn't make much sense.

Note that Hebrews 11:17 uses the same word to describe Isaac, who is unique, but not Abraham's only son, since Abraham had Ishmael first, but Isaac was a "miracle". This strongly suggests that monogenes can not mean "only-begotten."


http://www.bible.org/netbible2/index...ter=3&verse=16

noah

<edit> Putting words in my mouth and trying to falsely re frame the issue gets you nowhere. I never changed topics and you know it. That quote from me that you posted here was dealing directly with the issue of whether Paul was even inspired. I said he was probably not inspired and gave three proofs using Paul's own words to prove my point.

Now, Jesus does not rebut my claim. Jesus says that the Law was there for the hardness of your hearts which makes very little sense to me.
Since you don't seem to get waht it is I'm saying I will repeat my point. The Bible and your God say his Law is perfect. Not me.
And if you're trying to argue here that you xians are all a bunch of softies and full of love and that's why you get to disobey your God's Laws, think again. You only have to read the paper or turn on the news to see so-called xians committing crimes against their fellow men.

noah

Easy. The word fulfill is a blatant misrepresentation of the real word used in the verse. Fulfill makes no sense. Uphold is the obvious correct word to use in this verse.
Your own question here proves it. How can you fulfill a perfect law? Moreover, how can you fulfill any law? The idea is nonsensical. Laws don't get fulfilled. They get obeyed or broken. How on earth do you fulfill laws? It's like saying I don't have to take the bus anymore because bus-riding has been fulfilled. Hello?
So Jesus can't fulfill a law because the idea of fulfilling a law makes no sense at all.
The rest of that passage is the key to understanding that phrase where Jesus says fulfill. The rest of the passage is JC's unequivocal and unambiguous declaration that all his Laws apply forever and are the key to salvation.


Actually Jesus never makes that statement in the Synoptic Gospels; not in the Paulinian sense. In the Great Commission he commands his disciples to go and preach the Gospel. But as we know he says elsewhere in the Gospel over and over that salvation lies in obeying his commandments:

Mathew 5:17-20

Matthew 19:17
Matthew 12:50:
What was the will of his Father? You guessed it. Keeping the Commandments.
Even in John Jesus states you must obey his Father's commandments. He tells us that his will, his identity and that of his Father is one:

John 10:30John 8:28
And here's the kicker for you disobeyers and profaners of your God's Laws:

John 15:10 Nice try. Jesus was sent to save everyone my friend. Not just Jews and you know it.

Second the NT teaches that you can obey your God's Laws. Zacharias and Elizabeth did it:

Luke 1:5-6
The NT mentions the "righteous" or a "righteous man"numerous times.
Why would any mention be made of "the righteous" if there was no such thing?
Why would JC teach obeying his Father's commandments if it were impossible?
Why would Yahweh issue his Laws if they were impossible to follow?
There is no mention of a saviour anywhere in Yahweh's discussion of his laws.
Look at Matthew 13:17 JC seems to think there is such a thing as righteous men. He talks about them as historical fact:
Again in Mark 2:17 JC refers to the righteous as though they exist:
The OT mentions righteous people, for example Asa:
2 Chronicles 15 Noah was just and righteous. Noah lived before God issued his Laws but Noah would have been bound by Noachian Law. Second since we know the term righteous means you obey your God's Laws, I think it reasonable to believe that your God had already issued his Laws to noah but no one recorded it. Job was rightoeus. He was not a Jew but that just means he at least kept the Noachian Laws.

Too funny. Nothing about obeying your God's Laws?

Psalm 103:
Too funny.

noah

No idea what you're saying here. I am not a champion of your God's laws. I am asserting just like John did that you and other xians are only fooling yourselves if you think you don't have to obey your God's commandments.

Why?

[/QUOTE]
Guess what? I don't depend on your God's Laws. I'm not a Christian.
It is you who show no commitment to your God. You do not obey his perfect and eternal commands as you are supposed to Deuteronomy 4:40 Deuteronomy 5:29, Matthew 5:17-19 Matthew 12:50 , Matthew 19:17 Revelation 22:12.
Please show me one verse you have used to show that the Law can not save you. Make reference to the verses I have quoted above and in particular
Psa 119:106-118: