Gamera

He lived before Moses. Hence before the law was given. Abraham wasn't under the Law, by definition.
Nope, I deny he was righteous by virtue of the Law, which Job wasn't under, since it hadn't been given. Kind of follows.


Yep, in the NT people are upright is they have faith, not because they follow the Law. The NT says that over and over again. So now who's denying the bible again?

I will indeed deny they were righteous by virtue of following the Law since Luke doesn't say that (he says they were blameless, whatever that means), and through the NT the authors state that righteousness comes through faith. Why do you deny these verses:

Luke 18:9 - He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others [ie. they trusted in their ability to follow the Law, not in faith]

Romans 1:17 - For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live."

Romans 3:10 - as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;

Romans 4:9 - Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.

Romans 4:13 - The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;

James 2:23 - and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.

Gamera

You got it. They were indeed not righteous. Jesus answers you directly:


john 8: The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10

As to the righteous being persecuted, yes they were righteous like Abraham, through faith, not through following the Law. You keep avoiding this assertion that is reiterated over and over again in the NT.

Just say you reject the NT teaching, that's OK. But don't say you are following the NT when the NT says explicitly that righteousness comes through faith, not works.

Gamera

Under Law, but accounted righteous not be following the law, but by faith. As the NT says over and over and over again. It's OK just to deny the NT. It's your choice. But don't misrepresent it.

Gamera

I don't know and I'm not very interested in escatology. What is clear from the passage is that the Law is imperfect and not intended as the final word on salvation, rebutting the claim made by noah and others (so they will now have to write Hebrews off their list of NT books, leaving I don't know what?)

Sheshbazzar

I beg your pardon of my slight alteration of your questions, that I might be placed in a better position to address them.
It is the belief and teaching of many Messianic congregations, That annual "Feasts of Yahweh" are a valuable component of the heritage of our Faith, and are to be kept, and observed for the edifying of the body (of Believers), that is for teaching purposes, not as a means of obtaining righteousness, (which is by His grace, imputed and accounted to ALL whom believe on Him)
Because I prefer that my position on these matters not be limited in scope to views held by any single congregation, I'll only suggest using your Search engine to go to the various "Assembly of Yahweh" or "Assemblies of Yahweh" sites and/or look up "The Feasts of Yahweh" for abundant information on the subject.
As ought to be evident by this threads contents, no man can rightly accuse me, or my doctrine of being "legalist" by any stretch.
Yet, as a member of the "Assembly of Yahweh" I have been present and have participated in many of these "Feasts of Yahweh", being in fact, baptized (immersed) into the Name of YAH-Yahoshua during "The Feast of Tabernacles" on Sept. 14, 1981. (although I had believed in Him and had fellowship with The Assembly since 1975)
What I write now, I write not as an obligation upon any that believe, but only as the observations of one who has participated in the keeping of "Yahweh's Feasts", (as they are "observed" by certain Gentile Believers nowadays) these I had kept through the years until in 1988, there was That Night that I carefully and in prayer observed "Le'l Shmorim" (or Le'la She'moreem", "The NIGHT of watching") in that place where YHWH had caused His Name to be honored, until the coming of the dawn (Exodus 12:42)
and every hour and "watch" I had accounted for from the first hour of the first day of that "month", reviewing and remembering each event of The Scriptures from both Old Testament and New, in its time and in its order, day by day, and hour by hour. (as I also had somewhat in the previous years)
- Doing so did NOT make me one wit more righteous than others, even those of my brethren who were at home asleep in their beds, - however in the so doing, I did become privy to many things, and much information that is not readily evident to anyone has not also engaged themselves in a similar effort.

Not surprisingly, like most things in life, anyone who is willing to cast aside doubts, and throw heart and soul into a matter, is profited in understanding .

Dark Virtue

I think a question that many of us have is why a perfect, loving God would demand man to follow an imperfect, unfollowable Law.

QRUEL

how could the law be imperfect if it was from god ?

and what about some of the people who could follow the law ? doesn't that negate that the law was imperfect ?

believers have to do so many verbal gymnastics to make all these crazy convoluted premises pan out to fit their faith / belief system it's absolutely mind boggling and quite amusing

Sheshbazzar

It has long been the observation of compassionate Believers, Jewish and other, that such laws as would require parents to stone their children, or to exclude certain members of society for circumstances of birth, disfigurement, or ethnicity, were never intended to be taken literally, or acted upon, but were written to arouse us to a higher and more noble concept of what is just and right.
"Breach for a breach, eye for eye..." literally? not likely; the higher and more noble concept has always been forgiveness rather than retribution.

sunspark

I have read and re-read what you wrote, and have not misrepresented anything:

Do you or do you not agree with Sheshbazzar: that the number of Christians that disagree, on at least this topic, is so small as to be statistically inconsequential?

That's an argument from incredulity. You don't know them, therefore they do not exist. But when they do, ah, then they're not really Christians, like Gamera's not really righteous "argument".

You still don't get it, do you? A reasonable discussion doesn't include "rallying the troops" or appeals to logical fallacy because you disagree. I shouldn't be surprised I 'spose. In my naivety I thought the fact that you're at IIDB was because you're interested in reason and bridging the gaps between believers and unbelievers. I see now how wrong this was. I still have no idea what your goal(s) are here, if any, but it's obvious you don't agree the principles and guidelines of this forum and it's purpose.

First it wasn't intentional animosity, now it is; at least now you're admitting the truth.

Exactly what my point is: not that every single person here is a non-theist, but that (which is even touched on in your "rebuttal", which is ironic):

IIDB Statement of Purpose

How you can use the fact that you're an invited theist guest as an excuse to bully a non-theist is really beyond me. No one said you have to agree, but you can certainly extend the same respect to others you expect from them, as human beings and adults. No, instead you slander, inject false motive, and when that fails it's "oh you're just mad because I won't condescend to your low level". Amazing.

:funny: Absolutely hilarious.

What? No he doesn't. Not only not directly, it was their admission (probably correct), and was not even about the same people. The best you can say is that this passages argues for the logical possibility that these people were just like these scribes and Pharisees, not without sin. But since the Bible says nothing of this, except that they were righteous, we're back to "they weren't really righteous".

So you finally admit that they were indeed righteous?!

I'm not avoiding it at all, I've been consistantly challenging your "no one righteous" assertion with what the Bible says, pointing to these fellows, which you have responded time and again with they weren't really/actually "righteous". Until, apparently, now, but I'm not hopeful.

What I reject is that pathetic strawman argument.

Never said I did, I've said what the Bible says. You just take issue with the theology drawn from it, to the extent that you can blissfully discard an argument by spouting such drivel.

Indeed:

:rolling:

Steven Carr

'blamelessly'.....

Still Gamara blames blameless people, even when his Holy Book declares them to be blameless.

Of course, Luke 1:6 makes clear that they were under the Law and obeyed the Law 'blamelessly' (Do you want to guess how many times that word will appear in this post?)

And Luke 1:6 says this is why they were upright.

It is good to know that Christians maintain that you do *not* need faith in Jesus to be righteous and obtain salvation.


Congratulations! You have found verses which contradict Luke 1:6. That the Bible contradicts itself is hardly news, although it is always pleasant to receive such obvious confirmation.

Luke 1:6 Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

Now, what does obeying all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly mean.

Does it mean that they obeyed all the Lord's commandments blamelessly?


By definition, 'sin' is disobeying one of the Lord's commandments. Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying a commandment of the Lord.