My friend, are you even trying to understand Sha'ul's point, or are you just looking for strawman arguments? I think you've got a hostility towards the Apostle that is blinding you to his point.
Sha'ul has just established through the preceding three chapters that no one can claim to be righteous, because everyone has broken God's Law: The Gentiles break the Law by violating their own consciences, while the Jews, who were given the Torah so that they might know God's requirements more clearly, still broke that, as the Tanakh professes. Therefore, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Therefore, no one gets into heaven by their own merits, but only by receiving the righteousness that God has made available to us in the Messiah Yeshua by trusting Him.
Here Sha'ul finds it necessary to counter-balance that truth briefly; just as chapters 4 and 5 build on the idea of salvation by faith that he establishes in 3:19-30, chapters 6 and 7 build on 3:31--"Do we then make the Torah of no effect through faith?" In other words, do we toss the Torah out the window because we are not saved by it, but by our faith in Yeshua? "Let it not be! But we establish the Torah."
The word "establish" (istumen) seems to be your stumbling block here. According to Thayer's Lexicon, while the word primarily means "to stand" or "to make stand," used in the context of Rom. 3:31 it means, "to establish a thing, cause it to stand, i.e., to uphold or sustain the authority or force of any thing," and it is used in this context in the LXX of Gen. 26:3, where God promises, "And I will establish (stehsu, a different tense of the same word) My oath, which I swore to Abraham your father." God wasn't establishing a new oath--He was upholding and sustaining the authority of the promise He had made to Isaac's father.
In the same way, we who are in the Messiah Yeshua are not to set aside the Torah, but are to keep it--upholding its authority--in faith. We are to trust the Messiah Yeshua enough to follow His example in keeping the Torah.
In fact, the law makes us slaves to sin, the Apostle says.
No, he states as a matter of fact that we were slaves to sin, and that sin took the Torah and made it death for us in the same way that HaSatan took God's commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and made it death to Adam and Eve. Sha'ul makes it clear that the weakness is not in the Torah, which is "spiritual" (7:14), "holy, just, and good" (v. 12), but in our own carnality, our own sinful inclination. Sha'ul delights in the Torah in his inmost self, but finds the sin in him leading him to disobey it (vv. 21-22).
The weakness is not in the Torah, but in us. Therefore, when God announced that He would make a new covenant, He specified that in addition to forgiving our sins, He would write His Torah on our hearts (Jer. 31:33) and by His Spirit make us able to keep His commandments (Ezk. 36:26-27). It doesn't happen all at once, but we see as we walk with Him in faith day-by-day that He changes us from the inside-out.
Oooh, that really makes sense, now! The holy and spiritual God's Law puts us under a curse?
Yes it does, as I've already quoted you. God's holy and spiritual commandment not to eat of a certain tree put the curse of sin and death on all Mankind, did it not? And why? Because we, in Adam, did not obey it. In the same way the Torah has blessings for those who obey it (Deu. 28:1-14) and curses for those who do not (27:15-26). Even in the Torah, God showed His grace by permitting those who broke the Torah--and we all do--to be atoned for by the priests' sacrifice, and by demonstrating through Abraham that ultimate righteousness was not obtained by perfect obedience, but by trusting Him (Gen. 15:6).
But nevertheless, the curse--the righteous punishment for transgressing the Law--remained over Israel's heads until the Messiah Yeshua took that curse, our just punishment, upon Himself at the Cross! Now for those who trust in Him, there is no curse for our failings, only the blessings of walking with Him.
Who is already saved? You will be judged for what you have done, says the Bible. There is no salvation on earth. Being saved here and now is a Protestant heresy. Salvation is in the world to come.
Salvation, like the Kingdom of Heaven, is one of those "already/not yet" issues in the Bible.
1) I am already saved from the penalty of my sin, for "Messiah has redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13) and "He who believes in Him is not condemned" (John 3:13).That's commendable, but what exactly won't you eat?2) I am being saved from bondage to sin, "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin" (Rom. 6:5-6) and "'He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.' But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive" (John 7:38-39).
3) I will be saved from this body of sin and death at the Resurrection, "for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed" (Rom. 13:11), "eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body" (8:23) and, "Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near" (Luke 21:28).
Non-kosher meats: Pork, shellfish, etc.
Did not +Peter have a 'vision' that says 'kill, eat' and that everything God gave us is good?
Already addressed back in post 7285, which I pinged you to, so you already know my answer to that one.
If anything, the OT makes sure everyone understands that NO ONE can atone for someone else's sins; yet that is the foundation of Protestant Christianity.
Hello? Lambs, bulls, and goats? And what about when Moses interceded repeatedly for the sins of Israel? "Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin'" (Exo. 32:30).
I would say the poor goat is rather innocent.
As would I. It's interesting how you contradict yourself in the space of two paragraphs. Methinks you are not thinking this out very thoroughly before putting fingers to keyboard.
Christ was not the Yom Kippur goat but the Passover Lamb that delivered potentially all men, not just believers, from certain death.
He is both, but unlike Passover, Yom Kippur is not yet prophetically completed. The High Priest has made His sacrifice for the people, and now stands within the true Holy of Holies making intercession for them. Yom Kippur will be completed when, like Moses returning from Mt. Sinai with the second set of tablets or the Levitical High Priest emerging from the earthly Temple with a red ribbon that turns white in the sight of the people, Yeshua HaMashiach, our great High Priest, appears with the sign that God's people Israel have been forgiven, and He has restored His covenant with them.
The Passover lamb has nothing to do with atoning for sins, but with deliverance from death.
Yes, and death is the penalty for sin, is it not? Moreover, the Passover Lamb was the means by which Israel was freed from the bondage of the Egyptians, just as He is the means by which we are redeemed from our bondage to sin and the 'Olam Hazeh, the World That Is.
The juridical approach to Christ's sacrifice is exactly where +Pauline Christainity begins to diverge form the rest.
On the contrary, "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). And how do we receive this life? "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up (referring to the Crucifixion), that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" (3:14-15).
If Yeshua was not sacrificed in atonement for our sins, then the entire Levitical sacrificial system is meaningless. Only the ultimate Sacrifice of the Innocent One gives the entire concept of the sin offering any sense.
I won't say that I am not wrong, but Didache was a little closer to the times when the events we are speaking of were taking place.
And Sha'ul's letters and the rest of the NT written closer still--and we see that the Apostles did not distance themselves from their people, but continued to function as fully Jewish.
Asked where he can stay?
Cute, but no. Read Acts 28:17-21.
Can you provide a link to that?
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stj06103.htm
As for Jerome's assertion almost 400 years after Christ, and a solitary one too, one must really take it with a grain of salt.
Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.The Pope did not fully agree with him, as you know.Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew
Isho'dad (850 CE) - His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.
Do you have a specific quote on that, or are you just making assumptions? And so what if he didn't? Jerome was the one who had actually done the research.
Isn't it funny that the Church Fathers who brought Christain canon into being did not find LXX quotes, or Greek as the original language objectionable?
There's nothing objectionable about Greek being the original language of most (not all--Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation are all definitely exceptions, though Yochanan probably translated Revelation himself) of the NT. And certainly, those who spoke Greek used the LXX, just like those of us who speak English use English translations. But anyone who thinks it was the original language of the Tanakh is just being stupid--Koine Greek wasn't even invented until after the closing of the Tanakh.
Nor do they mention any Matthew written in Hebrew until Jerome?
Already answered, but repeated here to demonstrate that you've not done your homework. Feel free to write me back when you have.
Sha'ul has just established through the preceding three chapters that no one can claim to be righteous, because everyone has broken God's Law
Wrong, because the Bible mentions many righteous people. One is righteous in the eyes of God, being acceptable to God (not juridically perfect). One is rendered righteous by repentance (King David), and unfailing trust in God (Job), etc. Not in the juridical sense.
Judaism does not believe that there are no righteous people. That is +Paul's construct.
"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23)
Ridiculous. Adam and Eve fell short of the Glory of God even before they sinned.
Therefore, no one gets into heaven by their own merits, but only by receiving the righteousness that God has made available to us.
No, we will be subject to judgment according to our deeds. Our intent will be judged.
According to Thayer's Lexicon, while the word primarily means "to stand" or "to make stand," used in the context of Rom. 3:31 it means, "to establish a thing, cause it to stand, i.e., to uphold or sustain the authority
More hyperboles. And just how are Christians to uphold the authority of the Law to which they are not subject? Remember, they are not under the Law.
God wasn't establishing a new oath--He was upholding and sustaining the authority of the promise He had made to Isaac's father
Really? "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. [Heb 8:6]
Sure sounds like a new oath to me!
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." [Jer 31:31]
It's not something new. It was foretold in the Old Testament, but wait — the promise God makes to make a new oath is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not with the Gentiles. Oooops!
Christ never preached to the Gentiles, nor did he sent His disciples to them. Instead, he specifically commands them to preach to the 12 tribes of Israel (curious, considering that he must have known that the Jews will reject the Church).
Actually, that is not how Judaism sees it. Judaism sees Satan as obedient God's servant, and Adam and Eve's transgression as a teaching lesson, that would make them mature.
+Paul specifically says "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace." [Rom 6:14]
God's holy and spiritual commandment not to eat of a certain tree put the curse of sin and death on all Mankind, did it not? And why? Because we, in Adam, did not obey it
No. Because Adam did not repent when God gave him a chance to do so. Instead, he blamed God for giving him Eve.
"Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" [Rom 2:4]
Already addressed back in post 7285, which I pinged you to, so you already know my answer to that one
Sorry I must have missed it. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.
"and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." [Act 10:12-15]
Apparently it makes no distinction between which 4-legged animal. The early Church apaprently interpreted this to mean no dietary restrictions. Dietary restrictions are part of the Law, so Christians being under grace and not under Law are under no obligation to follow Kosher habits.
Yes, I am aware of the symbolism but it is not exactly parallel. In the case of the Passover, it was the Spirit of God that was the "death" (Good Lord what a concept!), so the lamb's blood was protecting the Jews from God (as if God didn't know who was Jewish...but 'needed' a 'marker.').
But I can see the distorted idea that prevails in the West that just as the Lamb protected the Israelites from the wrath of God, so does the blood of Christ protect the Christians from the same wrathful and angry God!
In other words, God died to protect us from God, which makes God the source and cause of death, and since death is the consequence of sin, it makes God the author of sin!
Oh, western Christianity will deny that in a heartbeat, but everything about the juridical Christian concept of God speaks loudly that that's what's in the background.
That is an idea very foreign to Eastern Christianity. In fact, unrecognizable.
Your source is biased. Here is a more balanced overview of the Gospel of the Nazoreans
Buggman: Hello? Lambs, bulls, and goats? And what about when Moses interceded repeatedly for the sins of Israel? "Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin'" (Exo. 32:30)
Well, it's one of those yes/no/maybe things the Bible if full of like the salvation is already/not yet issue.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." [Eze 18:20]
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." [Deu 24:16]
Even the OT makes it clear that goats and bulls cannot atone for anyone's sins. Our sins are our sins. We must atone for them through our own repentance. +Paul came up with the doctrine of atonement. It is specifically left out in the Nicene and Niceano-Consatntinopolean Creeds. It was not taught by the Apostolic Church. It became the foundational theology of Luther' heresy and his followers.