If I Had Faked the Resurrection

Focus on the Family ^ | Wednesday, April 16, 2003 | Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler

[ET(end tyranny)]

Did Paul believe ALL the scriptures/OT? And how many covenants were there?

[Dataman]

Did Paul believe ALL the scriptures/OT?

What do you think? Do YOU believe them all? Why have the sacrifices stopped?

And how many covenants were there?

I already explained that. Why is it important for you to know?

[ET(end tyranny)]

I already explained that. Why is it important for you to know?

No, you didn't. You mumbled a bit, but didn't 'really' give an answer.

Did Paul believe ALL the scriptures/OT?

What do you think?

I asked you first.

[Dataman]

Did Paul believe ALL the scriptures/OT?

Let me help you:

Paul was a student of Gamaliel
Paul belonged to the Sanhedrin
Paul was a Pharisee, not a Sadducee.

Does that help?

[ET(end tyranny)]

As an aside, there were two primary [Jewish] Laws specified in the NT. The Law of Moses and "your law" as Jesus referred to it, the embellished, overdeveloped legalism that made the Law a burden.

Actually there were two sets of laws. Noahide and Mosaic. Within the Mosaic is where you find the two 'types' that you speak of. They are both within the Mosaic.

Jesus placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law. This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law. You have to remember that Jesus taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of exegesis (interpretation) in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. These variety of interpretations would clash daily. With the Pharisees, Jesus accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath. Grace was provided by God for those who needed to break the Sabbath for a higher ethic and moral law.

For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted halakhah (interpretation) by the Hillel Pharisees (of which Jesus belonged), but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the 'spirit of the Law' over the 'letter of the Law' one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Jesus. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt. Don't forget that the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law, and Jesus and the Pharisees did not. Luke 11:42 says:

Luke 11
42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws. Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.

For example, when leasing a house or car, there is usually an option to renew or replace the lease when the first lease expired. The new lease will not be identical to the old but will have some things in common with the old.

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Israel had to return to God and allow His Commandments to be written on their hearts and minds. Israel needed a Covenant Renewal of their Sinai Covenant. They needed to repent and return to God through obedience to His Laws thus being a witness and an example to the nations. Only by being such a righteous priestly nation, and example, could they hope to be the catalyst that merits the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and its King. Here it was promised that the spiritual infirmity of Israel would be helped by the intervention of God.

So yes, God allowed them to RENEW their 'lease'. But, this time, it was not written on stone, but written WITHIN THEIR HEARTS.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Let me help you:

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

As it is written. To what does Paul refer?

Isaiah 59
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Do you notice the difference?

[Dataman]

There's nothing contradictory if that's what you're trying to imply. We all know that the Septuagint was widely used back then.

[Dataman]

Jesus followed neither Hillel or Shammai. Neither did he subscribe to any Rabbi's interpretation of what was allowable. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. He created the Sabbath:

John 5:15ff Jesus, on the Sabbath, healed a man born lame and the Jews (meaning the Jewish leaders) persecuted him for it. They even wanted to kill him for it (v18). Jesus said he deserved worship (v23) and called himself the Son of Man- messianic title from Daniel 7.

Jesus placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law.

No disagreement from me on that.

In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws.

Then why aren't sacrifices being practiced. If it is because there is no temple, how has God dealt with sin since 70 AD?

[ET(end tyranny)]

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

As it is written. To what does Paul refer?

Isaiah 59
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Do you notice the difference?

There's nothing contradictory if that's what you're trying to imply.

Really???? They differ considerably in doctrine and content! One has the Messiah coming and 'cleansing' the sinner (Romans/Paul) and the other has the Messiah coming to those who have 'repented and cleansed themselves!'(Isaiah)

[ET(end tyranny)]

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath.

Yes, I already cleared that one up, earlier. That Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, thus the Sabbath IS the ONLY LORD'S DAY! Saturday.

Jews is very vague. At the time there were three groups vying for power. Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes.

The Sadducees emphasized a strict and literal adherence to the Laws of Moses and the cultivation of ethics.

The Pharisees aimed at the sanctification of the whole of daily life, and formulated new rules which extended the application of the Law to cover all contingencies.

The Essenes, determined to be even more faultless, formed close communities from which contamination and impurity could be excluded, and where the utmost simplicity of living and rigid discipline could overcome material and fleshly temptations.

The Sadducees are the ones that opposed Jesus.

Since you mentioned sacrifices:

Messiah's arrival will be accompanied by the following:

• Universal peace and freedom.
• Resurrection of God's people.
• Regathering of the clans of Israel.
• The Torah will go forth from Jerusalem.
• Rebuilding of the Temple
• Resumption of animal sacrifices in the Temple, and
• All nations will come to the land of Israel to observe Succoth.

Jesus came and afterwards....

• Instead of universal peace came the wars...of 66 c.e. and 135 c.e.
• Instead of a resurrection, over a million Jews were killed and thousands sold into slavery.
• Instead of a regathering, there was the scattering of the Jews in the diaspora.
• Instead of the Torah going forth from Jerusalem, the Torah was declared dead and replaced by the Greek New Testament.
• Instead of a Temple being rebuilt, one was destroyed.
• Instead of the continuation of animal sacrifices, they ceased.
• Instead of all nations observing Succoth in Jerusalem, the Holy day was prevented from being observed in Jerusalem and the Gentile church replaced the Biblical Festivals with their pagan holidays

Which explains why the law is still intact. All has NOT been fulfilled.

Matt 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[kkindt]

Great Post Diamond - you sure are not diamond in the rough but a diamond for truth and Christ.

[kkindt]

Many people who do not want to believe the accuracy of the reports about the Lord Jesus Christ have heard that writing down His words and His deeds didn't take place for many years after the event and the words. Is this what you have come to believe also? If so, read the Biblical Archeology issue of recent date that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that writing down the words of teachers was a regular practice in the days when Jesus Christ taught and performed His miracles.

[malakhi]

Was there any particular purpose in resurrecting this thread?

[Dataman]

Thank you, but I made a mistake in that post. The existence of Pilate wasn't in doubt, but the existence of the place where he condemned Christ, "The Pavement." That place has been found. Biblical critics apply a rule to the Bible that they do not apply to other ancient sources: The Bible is wrong until proven right. Ususally references to times, people, places and events are assumed correct until proven wrong. There is, however, more historical and archaeological evidence supporting the Bible than any other ancient document and the mountain of support continues to grow.

[kkindt]

If they do not believe there is a God who can communicate to us by having an accurate record written of His words and deeds they are not going to like a document that claims to be just that. Faith in our Lord is a gift and no one wants to believe in Him except He gives that gift. I was once one of those who challenged the Scriptures but by His grace no more am I numbered in their skeptical irrationality.

[kkindt]

I suppose it was to give you another opportunity to come to faith in the One who will resurrect you one day.

[malakhi]

I suppose it was to give you another opportunity to come to faith in the One who will resurrect you one day.

Coming from one of my Christian friends, this would mean something. Considering that you know nothing about me, it means nothing whatsoever. Kindly leave me alone.

[kkindt]

If you are a Christian then why do you not consider a Christian your friend?

[malakhi]

If you are a Christian then why do you not consider a Christian your friend?

When have I claimed to be a Christian?

As I said, you know nothing about me.

[kkindt]

You said you had Christian friends. My question is do these "Christians" count you as a friend or do you count them as friends? Interesting that you think Christians would be your friend if you are not a Christian? To be a friend in what sense of that word? Friend has various connotations. In one sense of that word a Christian can never be a friend to one who does not believe in Jesus Christ. Of course in another sense - the less deeper sense of the word - they could be - but normally when an English speaking person uses the word 'friend' they mean it in the deeper sense of that word and perhaps you should say you have Christian acquaintances. Then again those who tell you they are Christians may not be - claiming to be a believer in Jesus Christ doesn't make them such - isn't that right? So they may claim to be your friends, claim to be Christians but since you are not a Christian you are most likely not the best person in the world to judge whether they are Christians.