Starboy

Fascinating that you should place in the same sentence doctors and nutritionists and "filth they choose to spew forth.". It is also interesting that you equate what a scientist or doctor might say with what you refer to as "truth". You appear to suffer from a common misconception. That "truth" some how equates to reality. Since scientists, doctors and nutritionists are all making claims about reality. They all understand that a complete understanding of reality has not been achieved so rather than lie about it as is so common among Christians they do not call it "truth" but simply the best scientific understanding to date. Now I could see how someone who is convinced that somehow they have come by the absolute "truth" about reality might get ticked off by these plodders who restrict themselves to objective observation, verification, reason and consistency instead of the obvious short cut of religious revelation but what can you do. Those pesky scientists have actually been able to control parts of the universe instead of just wishing, hoping and praying about it so as a result there are many that give them credibly because they can make things happen rather than having to explain failure and then whipping humanity for its sins and shortcomings. The latter may seem at first glance to be very attractive but I am of a more pragmatic bent and actual results hold more sway, not so say that the self loathing might in my darkest hours seem appealing.

Why Muse, you must be blind and deaf. We are in the midst of a religious war as we speak for the hearts and minds of men. It is this wish of yours to inflict all this loving help on others that may be the downfall of all of us.

Gee, Muse. You speak as if I have not heard this before. There will come a time when the shoe is on the other foot and you will be pestered to the point of contemplating violence because of all the loving well meaning people in the world that do not agree with you as to the "truth".

Starboy

funinspace

Ok, I have danced enough, and have clearly made my points. Since you choose to do what I find so distasteful in most literal inerrantist, I will quit debating. Literalists are some of the most evasive people I ever meet. Funny how that works. The onlookers from the side can see who was forthright. I realize you have tried to subtly switch, Jesus' sacrifice as the "till all be fulfilled" without quite saying it. But that is hardly all, since I assume you expect his return. The "till all be fulfilled" is most obviously aimed at the "heaven and earth pass"ing. Else he would have alluded to his coming resurrection for things passing. "convenantal and progressive framework" doesn't change what words mean, so the idea of "be in perfect agreement" is comical. Enjoy your fantasy. Look Buz, an alien....

DK

Javaman

I'm not sure to whom this was directed but I'll make the assumption that it was in regard to my post.

We have the following passages:

Matthew 5:17-19 Wherein Jesus says that he has come to fulfull The Law but it won't happen "until heaven and earth disappear"

Galatians 3:23-25 Wherein Paul says you don't have to follow The Law

Romans 2:12-13 Wherein Paul changes course a bit and says if you know of The Law, YHWH will judge you by it. Perhaps Paul only meant that Jews that decided to follow Jesus still had to follow The Law. Now you just have to figure out who used to be Jewish 2000 years ago.

So, the score is:
Jesus - "Follow The Law until I return"
Paul (1) - "You don't have to follow The Law"
Paul (2) - "You really should follow The Law"

So, Rev., could you clarify your reasons for rejecting Jesus?

Javaman

Biblically, are not all men Jews? Did not all descend from Noah and his sons? How does one un-Jew themselves? How did gentiles arise? Further on in Romans, Paul thinks all Jews (which would include himself if he is telling the truth about his past) dishonor God by breaking The Law:

Romans 2
23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

Which implies that you honor God by keeping The Law... should not all Christians try to keep the Law?

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

For clarification, the "spew filth" was meant to apply to those who not just use, but abuse, the first amendment for justification to say anything they they want, no matter how obsene, vulgar, etc.; ... I did not intend for it to apply to the earlier examples in the sentence such as scientists and nutritionists. In this, I imagine some might suggest that I want to be the judge of men's speech, but that is not the case. It's not just the religious, but even the general standards of society that find distasteful what some are doing in the name of freespeech. I don't believe the original framers meant for obsenity, vulgarity, nudity, etc. to be justified and approved for all public settings through their actions. Regardless, Paul sets forth the better way, saying: whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, what ever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things."

Next, I'm glad to state up front that I do not try to "FORCE" my lifestyle on others, neither should any Christian. Although there have been accusations toward Christians in this area, I do not know what context they come in. At the same time that I have said that only the Holy Spirit is lord of man's conscience, I do say that God calls his people to proclaim the truth and in so doing to set forth unrighteousness that others might see and understand and turn from it. In addition, he calls for his people to uphold righteousness, justice and fairness in all spheres of life, including one's personal life, one's participation in society, and in one's public witness. If this is thought to be "forcing one's lifestyle on others", I'm sorry but that's not the case. As a Christian, I seek to use all lawful means to spread the truth. Whether unbelievers want to hear it or not is not the ultimate question, it's a matter of being obedient to God's commands. Even in this setting, which is not always the best for communicating the message (because it separates personal relationship from the discussion), my aim has been to set forth what I am convinced is truth, not to offend anyone. If the gospel itself offends, that's a different story... but as a believer, it is not my intention to be offensive.

Thanks for the additional information on Matt 5:17-18. I wasn't trying to be evasive or elusive, but I felt those who originally asked this question were presenting a legitimate difficulty they had in accepting the gospel... and for this reason, I sought to seek to provide an apologetic defense of the gospel through presenting the clear meaning of the text.

You say in Matt 5:17-18 that Jesus says that he has come to fulfill the law, but it won't happen "until heaven and earth disappear." But that is not what the text says. The text says: Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. The point is this: It does not say that Jesus will not fulfill the law until heaven and earth disappear, but that the law itself will remain in effect (for the purpose it was giving) and will not disappear, until heaven and earth disappear.

Jesus fulfilled the law through his active (perfect righteousness in doing the will of the father) and passive (submitting to the father's will such as the cross) obedience. Even though he has fulfilled the requirements of the law, and that on behalf of those who would believe in him, the law remains a "schoolmaster" to show men their unrighteousness that they might be led to Christ. This use of the law will remain in effect until the time Christ returns (until heaven and earth disappear). It MUST remain in effect because the Spirit continues to work until the last of God's children come to faith.

On the other hand, since Christ has met the requirements of the law on behalf of his people, the law no longer serves as an "accuser' (in condemning them) or a "schoolmaster" to lead them to Christ, but serves as a guide that we might walk in the ways of the spirit. Christians are to walk in the ways of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control... and against such things there is no law). A good example is this: If I were guilty of a speeding ticket, and my brother went in and paid my fine such that my record were cleared, the law would have nothing to condemn me. The judge would not come to me and say - U STILL owe money. It's the same with salvation, Jesus has paid the price of my sin, by substitutionally giving his life for mine, since the wages of sin is death, and he did not deserve to die, but gave his life as an atoning sacrifice for mine. In the example of the speeding ticket, even though the law would not condemn me after my brother paid my fine, it would remain in effect for those who remain under the law, ... or those who violate it but have not provided for their penalty. There is one weakness in this illustration in that the civil law still applies to me (if I broke the law again, a ticket would be issued and I would owe more money); but spiritually, Christ has paid for all my sins - past present and future, so that as Paul says: There is now NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

In this light, Galatians 3 makes sense! Verse 23 speaks of one's life BEFORE becoming a believer - "BEFORE this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Verse 25, however, speaks of the person AFTER coming to faith in Christ - "Now that faith has come, we are NO LONGER under the supervision of the law." The same understanding applies to Jesus' view of the law, Paul's view in Romans, etc.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Christians DO try to keep the law, but not because we continue to be judged by it, but because while under a condition of grace, it remains a guide of righteousness, and by keeping it we honor God! It is not out of a sense of obligation (in the sense of the law being our taskmaster) that we keep the law; but out of a sense of obligation (in the sense that GOD is our Taskmaster, and it is our joy and duty to serve him, the ways of which are inspired by his Spirit, with guidance being found in the delineation of the law)

Starboy

Muse, all this sounds very familiar. Let me see 1944, Nazi Germany, "I was only following orders." God says you must do it so you must follow orders.

Starboy

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Which is better?

Being found to be a faithful servant when the Master returns,...OR,
Being found unfaithful and rebellious when the Master returns?

(By the way, logic shows, if my God does not exist, then there's no harm in my following Scripture's instruction, because there is no ultimate accountability and ALL is vanity. Here, Christians have nothing to lose, and all to gain because God does exist and rewards those honor him; and unbelievers have nothing to gain and all to lose because the end for all in their scheme is simply the grave.)

Starboy

This is fascinating. Morality doesn't enter in to it. It is all about following orders. Well I wasn't brought up that way. If god does exist and it is an SOB, I would rather take the consequences then give in to the offer you can't refuse. Tyranny is tyranny. Christianity is the religion of a slave society.

Starboy

King Rat

Non Servinus.