Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 04-19-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

Sheshbazaar is missing or ignoring the following points. All of which add up to the fact that JC/Yahweh's Laws must be obeyed as the key to salvation and that Paul's doctrine of faith in JC as a human blood sacrifice is demonstrably false:

So those we keep the law are better than those who don't, and have "earned" their salvation, and thus can boast about it.

But what, God despises the proud and boastful.

You find yourself on the horns of a dilemma.

Also, do you know anybody (besides yourself) who has kept the law perfectly. If not, they are condemned by its own terms.

James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it.

TomboyMom · 04-19-2006, 03:56 PM

Noah--your argument is powerful, clear and well-spoken.
Shezz:

Quote:

Think not that you have a quarrel with brother Paul alone,

You talk funny. Is talking in KJV English supposed to make you sound more convincing? Cuz it doesn't.

Gawen · 04-19-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdcanam

No, they were not. Abraham's actions were counted to Him as righteousness because he followed God by faith with no written set of guidlines.

I phrased that badly, my fault. What I meant is that Judaism is a faith based religion.

Chris Weimer · 04-19-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

I phrased that badly, my fault. What I meant is that Judaism is a faith based religion.

But wouldn't the belief in a god make any religion "faith-based"?

Sheshbazzar · 04-19-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Think not that you have a quarrel with brother Paul alone,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Shezz: You talk funny. Is talking in KJV English supposed to make you sound more convincing? Cuz it doesn't.

Yes, admittedly I do "talk funny". For anyone who is concerned about the matter of my sentence structure, I provide this explanation.
I have been reading and studying using the Hebrew texts of The Torah, The Nabi'im, and The Kethub'im (The Tanaka), and Hebrew language versions of The B'rith ha' Kadsha. (literally "The Covenant, The New") for around 30 years now.
These books being otherwise known to you who are not learned in reading Hebrew, respectively as "The Old Testament" and "The New Testament"
Having employed chiefly these, and the corresponding KJV English, it does affect my compositional structures, just as the underlying Hebrew text affected the sentence structure employed when translating The KJV.
What you refer to as being "KJV English", came into being through the translating of The Holy Scriptures, the underlying Hebrew sentence structures became virtually the backbone of our written English language.
It is possible that without the existence and influence of The Holy Scriptures you would still be completely illiterate and still signing your name with an X.
So, No, that others are ignorant of these things, is not sufficient cause for me to disrespect, to change, or to be ashamed of speaking and writing in a manner consistent with sentence structure, the idioms, and the phraseology employed by those men of faith whom have gone before.
Truth be told, I despise most "modern English"-"Versions" of The Scriptures, everyone of which under the guise of 'translating' impose upon, and add to and diminish from, the older forms of The Holy Bible.
These "modern English"-"Versions" may be more easily read, but are also usually less accurate in remaining faithful to the underlying texts.
O yes, But I am a believer, and it therefore would not be a strange thing if my speech should reveal me. (least the allusion should fly completely over your head, Matt.26:73, Judges 12:6)

Sheshbazzar

tdcanam · 04-20-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

I phrased that badly, my fault. What I meant is that Judaism is a faith based religion.

No problem, I phrase stuff wrong all the time. I work nights and post in the morn. (prolly full of spelling errs)

noah · 04-21-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The Law says; "Your eye SHALL NOT pity..." you have stated here repeatedly noah, that the "Jews" and "Rabbis" DO observe, keep and obey The Law, so the pregnant question here is noah, have not the "Jews", and The "Rabbi's" actually caused this Law to be no longer obeyed, both nullifying and reversing its requirements?
Please provide us with your examples of Judaism actually invoking, applying, carrying out, and DOING this mitzva within the last thousand years.
Either they are obeying and DOING it, or they are not.

How you think hiding behind questions of Rabbis' alleged reversal of Laws helps your case here is beyond me. The issue is whether you obey JC/Yahweh's Laws. This question is a smokescreen. You're trying to change the subject and it won't work. Nothing Rabbis do or don't do has any bearing on whether you obey the Law. The Laws are there for you to obey. They stand unadorned in pristine condition in the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. Go see for yourself and obey them.

noah · 04-21-2006, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux Interior

Where does the repeal of polygamy fall? It was seemingly tolerated, if not precisely welcomed, up until Rabbi Gershom's pronouncement, right? I'm afraid the gradations of Jewish law leave me scratching my head, but isn't polygamy to be tolerated (again if not to be precisely welcomed) under the Penteteuch?

As loathe as I am to give shishkebab (or whatever his name is) any talking points, its always struck me as something akin to the way Mormon elders get special revelations to repeal embarassing doctrines, just about the time said doctrines fall under public scrutiny. I look forward to having my ignorance dispelled. I'm learning more from reading you in this thread than I have in quite a while.

Having multiple wives is not one of the 613 mitzvot. It is neither approved or disapproved by G-d.

The fact is that many Jews in Torah had multiple wives, and others didn't. Abraham had only one wife at a time (Hagar was a concubine until Sarah died, when he married Hagar). Jacob had two wives. And so on.

But please look for the mitzvot from G-d which dictates that one MUST have multiple wives, or just one. It doesn't exist.

About 1000 years ago an Ashkenazi Rabbi (Gershom) instiuted a minhag (a rabbinical ruling) banning polygamy for European Jews. This was done for their own safety as the Xians were killing them for having multiple wives.

The Sephardim never instituted such a ban. Just fifty years ago when the Yemenite Jews immigrated to Israel, many of them had more than one wife (the Israeli government, which forbids polygamy, made an exception for those Jews who arrived with more than one wife).

Even most Sephardic Jews are monogomous because they live in societies where polygamy is not socially (and/or legally) acceptable.]

noah · 04-21-2006, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

This is YOUR answer and false conclusion, and is contradicted by the express statements of belief, and practices of the over 2,000,000 Believers presently living, and by the witness of countless millions more who have died through the ages holding fast this same conviction.
Although there is some controversy among the various sects and denominations on other matters, on this subject they all speak with a virtually unanimous voice, and hold that NO, "xians" or other NT believers ARE NOT "under the Law", nor bound to DO all the things written within The Law. (called by all of these, "The Old Testament", as one being superseded by a "New" and "better" one, based upon better promises.

I hold that it is a commandment and obligation for a believer to uphold the doctrines and teachings of the Elders and Teachers in their congregation, (whatever name or title they may choose to call themselves by) to the greatest extent that maintaining a clear conscience will allow.
Thus it is not right or kosher that any believers should receive their interpretations of, or opinions on The Law, from the reasoning of, or by the authority of men who are outside of the household of faith.
You, noah, a confessed unbeliever say it is your understanding that "xians" ARE under The Law;
But all of the Preachers and Teachers of our New Testament faith, who are confessed believers would say that you are wrong in your understanding and interpretation of our texts.
No believer stands alone, we are all part of a greater organization, there is no reason that any believer should abandon their fellow believers to follow the teachings of anyone who admits to being an unbeliever, as you have.

Yeah that's right Sheshbazaar. Don't let the facts get in the way of your theology.
You have yet to adduce any scripture in suppport of your Pauline denial of Jesus' word.

noah · 04-21-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

So those we keep the law are better than those who don't, and have "earned" their salvation, and thus can boast about it.

But what, God despises the proud and boastful.

You find yourself on the horns of a dilemma.

Sorry I missed that dilemma. Don't put words in my mouth. The point is that those who keep the Law honestly are "saved". Those who don't lose their lives. No boasting involved. I urge you to actually read God's Laws before you go on like this.

Quote:

Also, do you know anybody (besides yourself) who has kept the law perfectly. If not, they are condemned by its own terms.

James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it.

I don't keep the Law Gawen. I recommend reading my posts if you want to comment on them.

The big problem here of course is that the object of the Law was never to keep it perfectly. The object of the Law is to try to keep it as best you can. As long as you try you are fine with God. He never demanded perfection. The fact that you miss this suggests you should at some point read what God actually said about his Laws.
James is either mistaken or he is taking a very literal legalistic understanding to the importance of keeping God's Laws.
Again I urge you to read what JC/Yahweh said about his Laws.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.