Metacrock

No he doesn't! Show me where he says that the rest are objects of wrath?





That says the oppossite of your position, it says he didn't reject his people.







He doesnt' say the rest are condmened; you are reading that in. You are also reading it like a Calvinist. He's not talking Calvinist predesitination. the Jews had a doctrine of predestinatino of sorts in the intertestamental period. But he's not saying the other Jews are condmend. The Jews never recognized Grace as a method of salvation anyway (nor was salvation a big thing for them).






He says specifically they have not fallen away! He says their stumbling was worked for good and God used it to bring salvation to the Gentiles (which was the plan all along since several OT passages say Israel is to be a light to the gentiles). But he doesn't not say God is kicking the rest of the Jews out of Israel!







Some branches broken off, he doesnt' say all of them. Obviously he's going to think some are broken off since he was so persecuted and rejected by Jews at that point.



NO he doesnt'! Not all unbelieving, only those who totally refuse to extend the basic acceptence of a fellow Jew to Jesus.







Of course one can. Becasue he's not a Calvinist. He believes in Free will and in the direction of the heart. So if you accept or reject God in the heart that's what determines it, not some divine election you can't change.


Of course a jew can accept Paul's doctrine. In Israel four years ago there was a list of 70 Rabbis published in the New Paper who are orthodox Rabbis still serving orhtodox congregations but whom agree that Jesus was Messiah.









Those guys were beating up Christian preachers and refussing to let them into Synagouges and calling Jesus evil. Obviously he was see them as broken off. He never says all Jews are broken off if they aren't christians, and you are reading that in because you want to see it there!




Your analysis is so self serving to your thesis it's just missing all the points. You are just reading in to every passage the phrases you wish were there but are not!

(1) what is it that makes one a Jew? It's not rejecting Jesus! It's following God in the tradition of the patriarchs and keeping the law of Moses. He never says they Can't keep it, he just says they can't teach that you have to keep it to be saved. Most modern Jews agree! The Reformed and liberal versions certianly do!

(2) Accepting Jesus is in no way giving up being a Jew:

a) Many Rabbis accept Jesus, I know at leasst 2, and as I say there was a letter singed by 70.

b) accepting Jesus does not require the breaking of any Kosher law.

c) Trinity doctrine is not belief in more than one God.

d) there is no law in Judaism that says you can't think a particular person is the Messiah.

e) The messianich Jews are not liked and are made fun of in Israel but they are accepted as Jews! Many Israelies have told me this; no one will ever say they are not Jews, and if they did they would have to say the Lubies aren't either. they wont do that.





Well look what he went through. He was one of their most brilliant Rabbis, they reject him and beat him up and seek to kill him. He's out of the road with no way to make a living and no money, cold and hungry and they turn him away form the synagogue (which they are not suppossed to do) treating him like an absolute enemy for what? Not because he belives in jesus, lots of people were said to be messiah in Jewish history and no one kicked them ouyt of the Synagouge. He's being rejected for taking the Gospel to the Genitles!







He did! that's the point I made earlier. The requirements changed. First century Jews had a different understanding of what Messiah would do, and it reflected perfectly what Jesus did! It was changed in the following centuries to distance them from Christainity so Jews would stop converting.






I believe you are being dishonest with yourself. You're reading in what you want to see there.




I still don't understand what doctrine you think would remove their Jewishness? I think that's a real inadquate understanding of what being a Jew is. Jeremiah says there be a new covenant, so this is it!


1st century Messianich Expectations
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20.../Messiah1.html

how these expectations fit Jesus' life
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...h/Fulfill.html

Metacrock

No you are the one who is confussed about ethnicity and religion. Paul was committed to the God of Judaism. He didnt' just give up his belief in one God and take on another God in Jesus. Obviously he thought there was a connection. It's just not even reaosnable to assume otherwise. So for him he was not asking anyone to give up being a Jew, even in a religious sense, he wa asking them to fulfill the prophecies of the faith.

You seem to forget the frist century Jews did not understand Messian the way Jews do today. What they saw as the mission of Messiah is expactly what Jesus did in his life:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...h/Fulfill.html

Boro Nut

Metracock!! Is that you? Where have you been you old tart? I can't tell you how I've missed your amusing posts. It would be fibbing.

Boro Nut

Amaleq13

That is untrue. Maccoby, for example, argues otherwise and, unless you are appealing to a no true Scottsman-like fallacy, he certainly qualifies as a "serious scholar".

The fact that it tends to give greater credibility to his arguments on the Law is a rather obvious benefit from the claim. The fact that his arguments either involve a misreading of the extant text or, as you would have it, reliance upon some other version, seems sufficient to raise some doubts on the part of anyone lacking sufficient faith.

Metacrock

hey good to see you again. are you still having those dreams?

Metacrock

It's not a socttsman thing to demand that scholars have credentials. To me a sholar is a professional academic with credentials and doing the scholarly work. WE get to the point where having a degree is no better than not having one then we just have no civlization left. So I insist upon credentials. What are his?

anyway, I just ment most. mabye some do, but most dont ok?




Again, have ever read the Talmud? Go read the way Rabbis deal with midrash before you try to make this judgement. it's crazy, you wont know what worldl you are in.

But Paul calimed to sutdy under Gamaliel. He was the Grandson of Hellial and very important Rabbi of his day. This would be like me trying to tell you I studied with Karol Sagan at Cronell. He couldn't pull that off, they would see in a minute that he didni't know enough to be a Rabbi, especially when he went to Jersusalem to deal with James.

Metacrock

he's a Jew, but recieves most of his support from Moslims in London.



http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/jes-paul.htm


(1) he has a motive to see negative things of Paul

(2) he has no expertise academically in understanding NT or its theology.

Amaleq13

That does not appear to be a false statement and seems like a much more reasonable position. I'm glad you included that link because your ad hominem attack and negative personal opinion about Maccoby's scholarship don't qualify as rational arguments against his thesis.

My comment was based on your suggestion that Paul was reading a different version of Scripture.

Paul makes no such claim. The author of Acts makes this claim about Paul.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock, if you are going to discuss Paul, you need to know about Maccoby. Period.

Vorkosigan

johntheapostate

I don't want to derail this thread into a debate about free will, but yet again the claim has been made that Paul believed in free will and not predestination.

I can show from Romans that Paul went to great lengths to formulate a doctrine of predestination in his letter to the Romans and that he did so directly preceding his assertion that god himself had hardened the Jews in unbelief.

Romans 7:7-8 "What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened,"

Paul does not say that they themselves hardened their hearts but that they were hardened, indicating an outside factor. He then specifically names that outside factor.

"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so they could not see and ears so they could not hear, to this very day

My study Bible justifies the hardening of the Jews by god, insisting that they themselves had initiated the hardening by there rebellious nature, but even this is a far cry from the absolute free will of man which Christians are so fond of. It also is in contradiction to the absolute sovereignty of gods will over the actions and fate of man that Paul had articulated only a few paragraphs before.

here is a repost of what I wrote in the Calvinist thread.


Originally Posted by johntheapostate
I have gone through these passages before, but I would like to go through them again in order to clarify how believers in absolute predestination can integrate the many instances where god condemns and punishes individuals for choices they have made.

The passages from 2 Samuel 24 come to mind, where god is seen to be inciting David and at the same time condemning and punishing Davids actions

If one were not compelled to believe that god would not do such a thing, an idea that it was possible for god to be the instigator of certain behavior and at the same time condemn and punish the individual for that behavior could be justified in the plain reading of the text.


And it is just this conclusion that Paul expresses in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 9:16 ' It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

It is interesting that Paul immediately follows his message of god's mercy with an illustration from scripture that depicts god's lack of mercy in the case of Pharaoh and his people

In Paul's mind it is it is critical that he convey to his readers that god was responsible for initiating all human behavior, good or bad. In fact in these passages he explicitly places the fate of Pharaoh directly after his assertion of the absolute sovereignty of the will of god over the actions of man

We have the assertion that it was god who initiated the actions that led to death and destruction in Egypt. We also are informed of the motive. God initiated the series of event in order to glorify himself in the eyes of the Israelites and of the whole world.

To further illustrate that it was this he intended to convey, Paul adds the passage which show god taking ownership over the actions of men.

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"

Paul shows that god does this only on the basis of his good pleasure, and to enforce that this is the case he anticipates and answers the objection that would only arise if this was so.

" One of you will say to me, Then why does god still blame us? For who resists his will"

This is a question that confirms Paul's intended message. For by his choice of words Paul affirms that yes he is intending that we are to understand that he believes that god will judge us for actions that god himself initiated.

And here we have the crux of the predestination answer to those who insist we must have free will and through this we are able to act in ways contrary to gods will and by which he is justified in imposing condemnation.

One can simply understand that even in those cases where it appears a choice is given and condemnation and punishment are the result, god is still the initiator of those actions.

In his choice of words " Why does he still blame US " Paul shows that he considers everyone to be subject to the doctrine he has just outlined and not just historical figures such as Pharaoh

To any reasonable person a god such as this has no basis in logic and reasonable behavior and we would expect some form of justification for this behavior. Paul supplies the answer to the objection .

" But who are you O man to talk back to god? shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this?"

Again Paul enforces his intended message. We are the product in every way, positive and negative of the intent of god. Paul reinforces his doctrine in the next passages.

" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use"

Again in his choice of words Paul hammers home his doctrine. In the form of question Paul explicitly defines the role of man and his destiny as having the same relationship as a lump of clay to a potter. To further enforce his point that we have no more influence over our destiny than an inanimate object Paul continues.

What if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction"

Here Paul clearly defines the reprobate as no more than an object, not preparing himself for destruction, but being prepared by god for destruction.

But why would God do such a thing? Paul could again have answered that we do not have the right to question the motives of god. But as a concession to his readers and a revelation of his personal belief, he elaborates further.

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us whom he also called."

And in this passage Paul reveals the justification for all god's actions. In the same way as the reprobate is an object prepared for destruction, the elect is simply an object of mercy prepared for glory. Both objects inherit there fate as a matter of god's good pleasure. And in the same way as god brought death and destruction on to the Egyptians in order that he might be glorified in the eyes of the Israelites and the world, he will also inflict eternal destruction on the reprobate so that he may be glorified in the eyes of the elect in that in comparison to the destruction of the reprobate the elect may be made aware of gods great mercy to them that received there blessing only at gods discretion and not on any merit in themselves.