Simple mitzvot. Very understandable and expectable from an observant orthodox Jew.
Then He revealed Himself to Paul in miraculous fashion. I suppose we are left to speculate as to what sort of job Christ did in His revelation.
I don't know. I have difficulty believing that when He said "it's finished (accomplished)" He meant that St. Paul was supposed to add to His teaching because somehow it wasn't finished, that somehow He left his mission incomplete!
As for Revelation, was not Christ Himself the fullness of God's revelation? We needed Revelation on top of that? As if Christ didn't finish His mission?
Think about it, in Apostolic thinking Christ dying on the cross served as kind of a "nudge" to mankind. It made it possible for man to decide for himself whether to do good deeds and partake of the sacraments, etc.
That is "negative?" There were was no "nudge," just God's unlimited mercy that offered life to all those who would come to Him. And, yes, by destroying death, we believe He freed us to come to Him or to reject Him; The consequences of our choices are clear.
NOW, with Paul, the corollary would be that God gave Paul a "nudge"
Yes, to save the Church, not to do a sequel to Christ's ministry.
Kosta, you know me and my sneaky lawyer ways. :) So, I was very careful to say "This QUOTE was said BEFORE ..." The quotes of John 10 were SPOKEN in real life before the failure of the Jews to embrace Christianity (that you described). So, either my point (that John says that Christ's sheep never changed and were always given by the Father, including Gentiles) remains unaddressed, or John 10 has made up quotes.
But Acts Chapter 1 shows us that the Apostles did not know that, and one of then was St. John. Now, it doesn't mean that St. John lied when He wrote it, but that the full nature of Christ's ministry became known to the Apostles after the fact. Any cursory study of ancient manuscripts will tell you that ancient writers use quotes in a distinctly different manner then we do.
Ancient usage of quotes is not verbatim transcription of someone's utterances, but what the author believed that someone intended to say. This flies in the face of usage of quotes just as our terminology (coming from OT) is given Christianized meaning which differs from that in Judaism.
Isn't this the IDENTICAL argument you are having with Harley over who are "those" in Mark 16, except now it's reversed? :) I do realize it can go both ways, but I just thought it was funny enough to bring up.
No. In Mark 16 it says the believers will exhibit signs. It means all believers. If it were not all, then it would be preceded by some believers...In this case Christ coming for the lost sheep of Israel means all spiritually lost members of Israel, which doesn't include Gentiles as part of His ministry.
It always goes back to context
You bet!
If our observed experience does not match, then we can either declare the scripture wrong, or we can look for an interpretation consistent with the totality of scripture, i.e. that it is true and is God's revelation to us in conformity with 2 Tim. (at least). In addition, a belief that God's word is Holy is one of the presuppositions I have been talking about.
Oh, come on! :) You know the arguments over "many". OK, how do you explain this...what is the meat of your argument here? Were only SOME, but not all "affected" by Adam's sin? Was Christ sent to save some of the lost but not all, according to Apostolic theology? If He shows no favoritism then how were they selected? This falls apart so quickly....
Much a saying' about nothing, FK. What "some" means is that some will benefit from His sacrifice, but not all. Some will come to Him and be saved; other will reject Him and be lost. His intention was for all of mankind, but He also reminds us that not all will take advantage of His freely offered mercy.
I don't know. I have difficulty believing that when He said "it's finished (accomplished)" He meant that St. Paul was supposed to add to His teaching because somehow it wasn't finished, that somehow He left his mission incomplete!
Well, I suppose we have a great deal of disagreement over exactly WHAT was finished. Since I believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man, and none of the NT had been written yet when Christ died, I KNOW the "it" could not have referred to that. The "it" refers to Christ's complete, final, and total atonement for the sins of His elect. If true, then His death has meaning. If all Christ did with His life was make it possible for us to save ourselves by doing enough works, then I consider it a cheap death because not a single person enters Heaven JUST BECAUSE Christ died.
As for Revelation, was not Christ Himself the fullness of God's revelation? We needed Revelation on top of that? As if Christ didn't finish His mission?
I'm not sure what that means. The fullness of God's revelation could be expressed as Christ Himself, plus the Holy Spirit, plus the Scriptures, plus creation itself, and perhaps other things. (I think AG has said something very close to this before.) Anyway, the full revelation of God is certainly more than one group of men's interpretation of the Gospels alone.
Any cursory study of ancient manuscripts will tell you that ancient writers use quotes in a distinctly different manner then we do. Ancient usage of quotes is not verbatim transcription of someone's utterances, but what the author believed that someone intended to say. This flies in the face of usage of quotes just as our terminology (coming from OT) is given Christianized meaning which differs from that in Judaism.
That can't be. NT quotes of OT statements are VERBATIM. In the desert, Jesus quotes verbatim. It is satan who misquotes scripture, as he did when he lied to Eve about what God said. Under what you are saying your reverence for the Gospels would have to be thrown out if all it amounts to is the "best efforts" to remember specific conversations from decades earlier. Nobody could do that in such detail (on his own).