Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 04-27-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Job 1:1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright;

Luke 1:5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

What does 'blameless' mean?

Or 'upright'? (yashar in Hebrew, dikaios in Greek)

Zechariah and Elizabeth obeyed 'blamelessly' all the commandments that they knew about.

Were they to be blamed for not obeying commandments they did not know about?

Whatever blameless means (and I don't know the semantic range of the Hebrew word) it doesn't mean righteous (I suspect it means something like "a good guy"), and since Job is generally believed to be associated with the timeframe of Genesis (it's part of the Poetical Books of the Hebrew Canon) Job certainly isn't blameless for following the Law, since it wasn't given yet!

So again no OT verse showing anybody to be righteous for keeping the Law.

As to Zechariah and Elizabeth, here's the verse from Luke 1

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7

Two distinct words here, one for righteous, one for blameless. I can get the Greek for you, but it hardly matters. Righteousness in the mouth of a NT writer means rigtheous through faith.

Are you really arguing that Elizabeth and Zechariah never violated one single commandment or ordinance. Nonsense. They did, but their faith made them righteous, despite their failings. Just as it did for Abraham, who failed miserably over and over again.

Gamera · 04-27-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

"And it shall be our righteousness, IF we observe to DO ALL these commandments"..... (Devarim / Deuteronomy 6:25)

Psalm 14:1-4
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no Elohim.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,
There is NONE that does does good.
YHWH looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek Elohim.
They are ALL gone aside, they are all together became filthy: There is NONE that does good, no, NOT ONE
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up MY people as they eat bread, and DO NOT call upon YHWH" (Tehillim / Psalms 14:1-4)

A few lines from Psalms and Deuteronomy noah, with a little commentary.
IF you observe to DO ALL of these commandments, it shall be your righteousness.
Problem is NO man has ever done "ALL" of these commandments;

You, in your earlier posts have proved by the record, that the Man from Galilee did not obey, keep or "DO" ALL of these commandments.

And I, in my earlier posts have also proved that Moshe himself did not obey, keep or "DO" ALL of these commandments; in the preventing of ALL of the millions that went into the Wilderness, and all of them born therein, for the next 40 years, from being under the Covenant of the Law, (for whoso is not circumcised in his foreskin IS outside of, and -EXEMPT- from That Covenant. (Gen.17: 9-14), an
"everlasting covenant" (v. 13) which Moshe did NOT not obey, DO, nor permit to be DONE.

It is said "Moses The Lawgiver", but Scripture bearing witness, I say to ALL, "Moses The Law Breaker", Is he that also bears witness against them under The Law, As it is written; "If you had believed him"
But on your own testimony you have not believed Moshe, nor any Scripture.
Have you not said in your heart, "There is NO Elohim"?
Have you not heard, nor understood that YHWH the Holy One of Israel has promised that HE WILL HAVE MERCY, forgive, cleanse, and pardon (-exempt-) ALL peoples out of all the nations, who believe on Him, and call upon Him?
You choose to abuse His words to condemn those that believe on Him,
yet "DO NOT CALL UPON YHWH" (Psalm 14:4)
You delight yourself in your skillful "intellectual" argument, but not in Him.
(Psalms 37:4, Proverbs 19:10)
But back to your profession that ALL must keep the Law of YHWH to be accepted of YHWH.
Your "JC" ( I say "your", because both your conception of Him, what He taught, and name for him is not mine, but yours) did not obey ALL the commandments.

Your "Moses" (I say "your", because your conception of him, and of what he taught, is yours, and not mine) DID NOT obey ALL the commandments.

Your "YHWH" (I say "your", because your conception of Him, and what He is DOING, is yours, and not mine (or my fellow believer's) is one without pity, unmerciful, unforgiving, unloving, in condemning and in cursing all who cannot read, or who are simple-minded, or who were hung (even those innocent, who were hung by the guilty) or whom, through no fault of their own, were born in the "wrong place" or to the "wrong parents" or in the "wrong circumstances".

My YHWH, says; "I will have mercy, I will forgive them their trespasses, I will cleanse them, and I will pardon their iniquities".
But you think the Law is the way? Bring forth then, that man that you think is obeying and keeping the commandments, that he may be questioned, and that the truth of such thing may be proved.
Your eye would allow only a few strict legalists to find favor with YHWH.
(we that believe are persuaded, so "few" that the number is actually "0" or "none")

I and my brethren hold that the will of YHWH is the deliverance of an innumerable and mixed multitude out of every nation, and kindred and tongue, including the mamzer and the eunuch and the illiterate, and the deaf, the blind, and the mute, the simple-minded, and the infant that perished from his mothers womb;
NOT as in those former days, when He delivered but seven, or a few hundred, or a few million, but in that Day, a mixed multitude beyond numbering (by men), gathered from all of the generations of man.

THEN, He shall teach us His ways, and we shall walk in them, NOT as formerly, nor as today, when men yet walk in the council of men, saying; "Thus says YHWH..." and man contends with man as to WHAT it is that YHWH says.

Well supported Shezbazzar. This was my point. All the OT is contingent in its claims that those that follow the ALL the law will become righteous. It's true, but nobody can follow the law, as both the OT and NT shows.

That's the point: if we try to earn our righteous, we fail. Thus we need a saviour and the gift of God's mercy. And it is in accepting that mercy that we put aside our pride and selfishness and can become the loving persons God intends us to be.

That's the gospel message. And it is consistent with the OT.

Gamera · 04-27-2006, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE=noah]

Quote:

Well then you have a number of problems don't you. Jesus said obey all his commandments that they were the key to salvation; see Mathew 5:17-19 Matthew 19:17 and Revelations 22:12 for example. While you're there check out Revelations 22:14

Mathew 5:17-19

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. 17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18

Hoisted on your own petard -- if the Law is perfect and complete, how could Jesus "fulfil them." He can because he fuilfil's the purspose of the Law, the realization that we need a savior, because we cannot save ourselves through the Law.

Matthew 19:17

And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" 17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20 The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. 23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24

Again, hoisted on your own petard.

The man claims he's followed the law perfectly (query whether Jesus beleives him and query whether Jesus' rendition of the law actually reflects it -- where's this stuff about loving your neighbor in the Law?) Then Jesus adds to the Law, requiring him to give away his wealth. The man refuses. So, either Jesus adds to the Law, reinterpreting its meaning radically, or the man has failed to follow the Law. Either way, you lose.

Actually there's a simply explanation, Jesus is talking to a practicing Jew, before his death and resurrection. Jesus give him the party line: follow the Law. The man lies and says he has. So Jesus raises the bar and says in essence that the meaning of the Law requires you to give away all your wealth, something the man can't do because he essentially a greedy SOB who lies about how righteous he is. It's a perfect story to rebut your claims!

As to Revelations, the commandments refered to there are Jesus' commandment to love one another, and not the Law

Nuwanda · 04-27-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Virtue

Can you tell me where the Holy Days fit into the whole thing?

Also, how do you distinguish between what is a "principle" law and what isn't? If Christ did away with the 10 commandments (and replaced them with two general ones) then A) why don't people actually follow them (number 4 comes to mind) and B) why is there such a stink to post the 10 commandments in public buildings?

And thanks again, I appreciate your answers!

The Holy Days, or feasts of Israel, had a two-fold purpose. They were to instruct Israel how to worship God and to keep the nation in rememberance of His deliverance past, present, and future. They were also pictures or shadows of realities that Christ would fulfill (such as the day of Pentecost).

Principle laws are easy to recognize because they are not 'Israel' specific. The 10 commandments work for nearly any society - Do not lie, steal, murder, etc. Law codes concerning dietary codes, dress codes, feasts, etc are specific to the group (the Hebrews) that God wanted to make different from the surrounding nations.

Why do Christians push the 10 commandments? I'm not sure. I think recently, in America, it has been more about fighting the liberal 'attack' on religion that many religious people believe is happening. Personally, I don't think there is any harm at all in posting the 10 commandments, but I wouldn't personally join the push.

Take it easy, I'm going on vacation for a few days.

You all be nice to Noah while I'm gone. :wave:

Dark Virtue · 04-27-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuwanda

The Holy Days, or feasts of Israel, had a two-fold purpose. They were to instruct Israel how to worship God and to keep the nation in rememberance of His deliverance past, present, and future. They were also pictures or shadows of realities that Christ would fulfill (such as the day of Pentecost).

Principle laws are easy to recognize because they are not 'Israel' specific. The 10 commandments work for nearly any society - Do not lie, steal, murder, etc. Law codes concerning dietary codes, dress codes, feasts, etc are specific to the group (the Hebrews) that God wanted to make different from the surrounding nations.

Why do Christians push the 10 commandments? I'm not sure. I think recently, in America, it has been more about fighting the liberal 'attack' on religion that many religious people believe is happening. Personally, I don't think there is any harm at all in posting the 10 commandments, but I wouldn't personally join the push.

Take it easy, I'm going on vacation for a few days.

You all be nice to Noah while I'm gone. :wave:

Thanks again!

But couldn't an argument be made that the Holy Days were not Israel specific? Shouldn't Christians observe them to remember the things that God has done, just as Israel did? Are those pictures you spoke of just as important today as then?

Dark Virtue · 04-27-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Let's quote it here to rebut noah and the rest. They tend to ignore the actual verses of the NT that don't suit them.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. 10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Are you under the assumption that this time has already come?

One of the factors here is that God said ALL shall know him. That is most definately NOT the case today. What am I missing here?

sunspark · 04-27-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Something seriously lacking in this "quotation" sunspark, its called "context" If you had quoted the entire paragraph, rather than your chosen snippet, it would be evident that following the action and example of Moses, who has first hand Scriptural authority is better than....following vain opinions, that noah happens to be an unbelieving and Scripture twisting atheist is only incidental.

Oh come on now. You said what you said, you think context makes it vanish? Hardly, the longer version makes it worse, it does not vindicate you. And for the record: I snipped to keep my post short, not because I wanted to paint you badly by making you appear to say something you didn't really say. Maybe you don't believe that, I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In this case, when one of those "two people" is Moses himself, Yahweh's chosen Leader of all of the Hosts of Israel,
It is a far better thing to follow the teaching and the example of Moses, who acted under YHWH's authority, than give heed to the worthless opinions of a Scripture twisting atheist.

If it is "incidental", why say it all? You know very well this forum is made up of non-theists. It is not an argument to equate your interpretation to be equal with the authority of Moses versus noah's, the "worthless opinions of a Scripture twisting atheist".

Interpretation is opinion (call it "divinely guided" or no), it can't be anything but. You agree on what is yours (and perhaps Gameras?) and other Christians' opinion of what Scripture means. "noah" points out a clear argument what he thinks follows and that other Christians believe (though RPS seems to think these people don't exist, that somehow Christians all magically agree on this or any topic, for that matter, ironic considering the Catholic-Protestant schism, for instance).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

Relative to what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

To other men...

We agree on that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I don't think you are trying to understand but rather are quibbling with my clear meaning.

We can go round and round with that crap but that's hardly edifying. Why seek out false motive? You don't know me to make that kind of conclusion. You're being extremely vague, I'm asking clarification. That's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Nobody is called righteous in the OT, except Noah, and that in an ironic sense "righteous in his time" a time so bad that God had to destroy the world, a backhanded compliment if there ever was one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

Actually, yes there was: Ezekiel 23:45, Amos 2:6, Amos 5:12, Habakkuk 1:4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Try again, these don't refer to actual persons, but merely the idea of the righteous man, the factious concept of a man who keeps the entire law.

Excuse me? Not actual persons? The women of Ezekiel 23 were going to be judged by non-existent persons? There weren't really any righteous people being abused in Amos 2 and 5? And apparently justice isn't perverted because there are no "righteous" for the wicked to surround? God's a vague kinda guy, handing out specific punishment for crimes for which there wasn't really a victim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The New Testament also confirms Lot's righteousness, and Lot was most certainly under Law: 2 Peter 2:7-9.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You can't have it both ways. Under the NT righteousness comes by faith, not the law, and the NT conceptualizes the FAITHFUL of the OT as being righteous, which is imputed to them by faith, not by keeping to the law. The NT specifically asserts over and over again that salvation is through faith (with righteousness imputed through Jesus sacrifice).

Have what both ways? As I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark, emphasis added

However, you do mean pre-Christ's resurrection, not OT, otherwise you pop off people into nothingness, in neither one "covenant" or another: Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6), Joseph (Matthew 1:19), the other Joseph (Luke 23:50), John (Mark 6:20); all accounted as "righteous" while under Law.

These people: were they or were they not under Law? Were they or were they not "righteous"? Or are you suggesting they were partakers of some kind of mysterious hall pass that no one really knows or understands which appears at some time but nobody really knows when? :huh:

Steven Carr · 04-27-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Whatever blameless means (and I don't know the semantic range of the Hebrew word) it doesn't mean righteous (I suspect it means something like "a good guy"), and since Job is generally believed to be associated with the timeframe of Genesis (it's part of the Poetical Books of the Hebrew Canon) Job certainly isn't blameless for following the Law, since it
wasn't given yet.

Job lived before Abraham?

This is one reason why debating with Bible-deniers is pointless. If the Bible says somebody is righteous, they will deny that that person was righteous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Two distinct words here, one for righteous, one for blameless. I can get the Greek for you, but it hardly matters. Righteousness in the mouth of a NT writer means rigtheous through faith.

Are you really arguing that Elizabeth and Zechariah never violated one single commandment or ordinance. Nonsense.

More Bible-denying.

I shall quote the Bible again, and Gamera can deny it again.

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

No matter how clearly Luke writes that the two were righteous, and observed *all* the Lord's commandments *blamelessly*, Gamera will deny what the Bible says, because it does not suit him to believe that Luke actually might mean what he wrote.

RPS · 04-28-2006, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

You agree on what is yours (and perhaps Gameras?) and other Christians' opinion of what Scripture means. "noah" points out a clear argument what he thinks follows and that other Christians believe (though RPS seems to think these people don't exist, that somehow Christians all magically agree on this or any topic, for that matter, ironic considering the Catholic-Protestant schism, for instance).

Please re-read what I wrote so you can avoid misrepresenting me next time. My point related to Noah's highly idiosyncratic methodology and interpretations. I never claimed that Christians are unanimous on anything.

Sheshbazzar · 04-28-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In this case, when one of those "two people" is Moses himself, Yahweh's chosen Leader of all of the Hosts of Israel,
It is a far better thing to follow the teaching and the example of Moses, who acted under YHWH's authority, than give heed to the worthless opinions of a Scripture twisting atheist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

Oh come on now. You said what you said, you think context makes it vanish? Hardly, the longer version makes it worse, it does not vindicate you. And for the record: I snipped to keep my post short, not because I wanted to paint you badly by making you appear to say something you didn't really say. Maybe you don't believe that, I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

If it is "incidental", why say it all? You know very well this forum is made up of non-theists.

OK, I' address these points one by one.

1. The main statement I made was (and is);

Quote:

"In this case, when one of those "two people" is Moses himself, Yahweh's chosen Leader of all of the Hosts of Israel,
It is a far better thing to follow the teaching and the example of Moses, who acted under YHWH's authority, than give heed to (the) worthless opinions.."

It shouldn't be to difficult to determine that it is simple common sense for Believers to follow the "example" of The Teacher and giver of The Law, whom the Scriptures cite as having The Authority, above the opinions of any others, regardless of what they may call themselves, (but particularly opinions of them who admittedly do not believe in either that Teacher (Moses), or in the account that he gave.)
The point being made was that us, that ARE Believers, are to follow a proven example rather than opinions, in other words, even if it was some "professed Christian believer" who was quoting The Law and insisting that we "needed to be circumcised and keep The Law", (as we do have examples of in the NT), his opinion would also be rejected.(as it was and still is.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

If it is "incidental", why say it all?

It is being stated because that is exactly what us Believers participating in this thread agree that noah has been engaged in from the beginning. It is not a particularly concealed matter that our respective positions are adversarial.

2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

...You know very well this forum is made up of non-theists.

Actually, No, this Forum, and as the posts in this thread prove, is made up of posts made by the "non-theists", and by the Believers who are guests here. If all of us Believers actual beliefs and positions were to be excluded, then you would only be left preaching to your own choir, whom would amen you in your errors.
Non-theists in their posts here often misunderstand, and misrepresent what it is that various Believers actually believe, and also "interpret" and abuse The Scriptures words in ways that are not supported by careful examination of the text.
This, we that Believe have an ethical duty to resist, both for the sake of our faith, and for the sake of honest scholarship, and finally as a humanitarian service to you, in revealing your sometimes flawed and prejudicial opinions for what they are.
.
3.

Quote:

It is not an argument to equate your interpretation to be equal with the authority of Moses versus noah's,

Moses did what Moses did, and Moses DID NOT DO, what Moses DID NOT DO, in this case the Scriptures are clear as to what it was that Moses DID NOT DO.
Does noah have an interpretation, explanation or even an opinion as to why Moses DID NOT DO and WOULD NOT DO, which would serve to support his interpretations argument?

4.

Quote:

Interpretation is opinion (call it "divinely guided" or no), it can't be anything but. You agree on what is yours (and perhaps Gameras?) and other Christians' opinion of what Scripture means.

Then let noah state what his interpretation, explanation, and opinion is for Moses and all the millions under his leadership, NOT OBEYING The Law, and The Sign of The Covenant, Circumcision "in the eighth day".

Quote:

"noah" points out a clear argument what he thinks follows and that other Christians believe

Three parts here
(a) That kind of "clear" argument is based exclusivly on the extracting individual verses from the greater context of the teachings of The entire Scripture. This is called "proof texting" and or "quote mining". It is a defective practice whether engaged in by believers or by non-believers.

(b)

Quote:

....and that other Christians believe

This could almost pass as a joke! just how many "Christians", out of all of the millions worldwide will support noah's argument that "Christians" are bound to obey ALL of the Law's in the Old Testament?
Perhaps he (or you) would care to provide the evidence of a substantial number of subscribers to back-up this claim.
(My own congregation, one of the very strictest of "Law Keeping" Messianic groups that I am aware of, does not even hold such a view.)

(c)

Quote:

(though RPS seems to think these people don't exist,

So RPS, (May YHWH bless him), is not aware of the opinions of some very small few, whom comprise less than one millionth of one percent of all (allegedly) NT believers, This hardly invalidates the common facts of the beliefs held in common by the other 99.99999+% of NT Believers.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.