Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schriverja · 07-12-2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Acts 21 shows that Jesus must not have taught the obsolescence of the Jewish customs, otherwise the Jewish-Christians like James and the others wouldn't have required Paul to do anything. They would have backed him up. Since they didn't, Jesus must not have taught what is taught in Romans.

You'll notice that the Jewish understanding of James and the others dovetails much more cleanly with the plethora of statements made by Jesus to keep the commandments. It lines up much more cleanly to the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) that the Jewish Law/customs were a permanent arrangement. It dovetails nicely that Jesus himself followed the Jewish customs. Paul is the odd-man out regarding his understanding.

Over time, as the momentum of early Christianity shifted away from the Jewish understanding (as I have stated before, I think the Ebionites probably were more consistent with Jesus and his 12 disciples than what became Orthodox), Paul's influence gained more sway.

I simply present, in its own terms, what the NT says on the matter. That I have done.

Overcoming your objections is not my purview.

You aren't presenting what the NT says. You are putting your own, incorrect interpretation onto the text.

You have made the claim that in the Luke 24 passage Jesus must have instructed the disciples that they were no longer under the obligation of following Jewish customs.

The passage in Acts disproves your hypothesis. That is what the text says.

dockeen · 07-12-2011, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Overcoming your objections is not my purview

Then why are you here?

Zenaphobe · 07-12-2011, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Quote:

Overcoming your objections is not my purview

Then why are you here?

If he was doing what he continually claims to be doing, he would quote the texts in question and offer no comments whatsoever about how they can be reconciled.

If text "a" says the sky is red, and text "b" says the sky is blue, the texts are speaking in their own terms, even if Simon doesn't like to admit that those terms show them to contradict each other.

He keeps getting caught with his hand in the apologetic cookie jar and keeps insisting that he isn't doing apologetics.

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Acts 21 shows that Jesus must not have taught the obsolescence of the Jewish customs, otherwise the Jewish-Christians like James and the others wouldn't have required Paul to do anything. They would have backed him up. Since they didn't, Jesus must not have taught what is taught in Romans.

You'll notice that the Jewish understanding of James and the others dovetails much more cleanly with the plethora of statements made by Jesus to keep the commandments. It lines up much more cleanly to the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) that the Jewish Law/customs were a permanent arrangement. It dovetails nicely that Jesus himself followed the Jewish customs. Paul is the odd-man out regarding his understanding.

Over time, as the momentum of early Christianity shifted away from the Jewish understanding (as I have stated before, I think the Ebionites probably were more consistent with Jesus and his 12 disciples than what became Orthodox), Paul's influence gained more sway.

I simply present, in its own terms, what the NT says on the matter. That I have done.

Overcoming your objections is not my purview.

You aren't presenting what the NT says. You are putting your own, incorrect interpretation onto the text.

You have made the claim that in the Luke 24 passage Jesus must have instructed the disciples that they were no longer under the obligation of following Jewish customs.

The passage in Acts disproves your hypothesis. That is what the text says.

Your confusing of two different issues, regarding law keeping in the passage in Acts, has been addressed at least three times.

The issue of law keeping for the sake of expediency/social acceptance involved in the passage in Acts, has no bearing on the issue of law keeping for the sake of righteousness (salvation), where in Lk 24:44-48 Jesus explained to his apostles the meaning of all the OT Scriptures relating to him.

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Quote:

Overcoming your objections is not my purview

Then why are you here?

To examine texts for any actual contradictions among them, and to show what is being misunderstood regarding those "contradictions."

Whether one continues to misunderstand, or not to misunderstand them is outside my purview.

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Quote:

Overcoming your objections is not my purview

Then why are you here?

If he was doing what he continually claims to be doing, he would quote the texts in question and offer no comments whatsoever about how they can be reconciled.

Says who?

Quote:

If text "a" says the sky is red, and text "b" says the sky is blue, the texts are speaking in their own terms, even if Simon doesn't like to admit that those terms show them to contradict each other.

Not if another text reveals that one of the observers was wearing colored glasses.

Quote:

He keeps getting caught with his hand in the apologetic cookie jar and keeps insisting that he isn't doing apologetics.

Apologetics does not deal with texts, it is based in the logic and reasoning of argument.

dockeen · 07-12-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Whether one continues to misunderstand, or not to misunderstand them is outside my purview.

So, your assumption is that, whatever you present is correct. If the other person
thinks their arguments is correct, then that is their misunderstanding.

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

I simply present, in its own terms, what the NT says on the matter. That I have done.

Overcoming your objections is not my purview.

You have debated on this thread before, at what point did you decide to limit your participation and attribute it to a "purview"?

Both of us know your are not limited. You present what the NT says applying it to argue against the claim that the Bible is logically inconsistent. You are debating. Your "Overcoming your objections is not my purview" is not believable, because we can see what you do page after page of the thread.

If anyone's objection is overcome, it is by the facts of the argument. If you choose not to accept what is presented, there is nothing more for me to do. That's where my purview ends.

Davka · 07-12-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

You aren't presenting what the NT says. You are putting your own, incorrect interpretation onto the text.

You have made the claim that in the Luke 24 passage Jesus must have instructed the disciples that they were no longer under the obligation of following Jewish customs.

The passage in Acts disproves your hypothesis. That is what the text says.

Your confusing of two different issues, regarding law keeping in the passage in Acts, has been addressed at least three times.

The issue of law keeping for the sake of expediency/social acceptance

Unless you can demonstrate that the text speaks of "expediency" and or "social acceptance" with regard to the Law, this is outside your purview. Please show us where the text uses these terms.

Quote:

involved in the passage in Acts, has no bearing on the issue of law keeping for the sake of righteousness (salvation),

Where does the text use the phrase "law keeping for the sake of righteousness"? Where does the text equate righteousness with salvation? If it's not written in the text, this is outside your purview.

Quote:

where in Lk 24:44-48 Jesus explained to his apostles the meaning of all the OT Scriptures relating to him.

This opens up yet another can of worms, because BibleJesus says

"Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Luke 24:46,47

But none of these things are written anywhere in the OT! :huh:

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Quote:

Whether one continues to misunderstand, or not to misunderstand them is outside my purview.

So, your assumption is that, whatever you present is correct. If the other person
thinks their arguments is correct, then that is their misunderstanding.

Each gets to decide for himself.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.