Posted on 04/10/2009 10:32:45 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Is it your assertion that this is a "different" new covenant than the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah and Hebrews?
Interpreting Jesus through the vague foreshadowing of the OT is not likely to lead one to accurate theology. In fact, those who do prove that point quite well.
The first part is an amazing statement for a Christian to make. We ONLY know Jesus because of these "vague" foreshadowings. If we didn't have these "vague" foreshadowings Paul, or anyone else, could never have proven that Jesus was the Christ. Apollos for example:
Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
So I feel no shame about using these "vague" foreshadowings of the old testament to interpret Christ. None at all.
Paul is saying that the Gentiles were included to make Israel jealous and that the trees are those of God; nowhere does he say that they are Israel only.
Yes, the gentiles were grafted into Israel in part to cause jealousy. There are many trees. However, the only tree cultivated by God IS Israel.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
The word translated "good olive tree" is "kallielaiosa". It's Strongs number G2565 and it means "cultivated olive tree, that is, a domesticated or improved one".
This tree, Israel, was planted, tended and cared for by the Lord.
There are other olive trees. The wild trees. The wild nations. Gentiles. The analogy is that these are trees which grew wild, which were not cultivated and tended to by God as Israel was.
God broke off some of the branches of Israel and grafted on some branches of the gentile trees. Pauls gives a warning to these wild branches:
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
Rom 11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Paul’s point is that Israel was the only people who knew God; now Jesus brings everyone to God. He does not say that they are now Jews.
You're correct. The Jews by this time had morphed far from their roots and instituted rules and traditions that eventually caused God to break them off the tree of Israel. You seem to be having a tough time understanding the distinction between "Jews" and "Israel". Jews, those who are from the tribe of Judah, are part of Israel. I would study in the old testament how Judah and Israel split into two kingdoms.
It is absolutely breathtaking how some will reject
the Blessed Trinity and deprecate the Holy Spirit by
denying He is third person of the Blessed Trinity
and all this in the name of pretentious Judaicisms.
***And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
Interpreting Jesus through the vague foreshadowing of the OT is not likely to lead one to accurate theology. In fact, those who do prove that point quite well.
Is it your assertion that this is a “different” new covenant than the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah and Hebrews? ***
Our understanding of it, yes. Same as the understanding of the OT God was very imperfect; Jesus is the same God, yet we understand His message significantly different as Christians, than did the Jews in the OT.
***Interpreting Jesus through the vague foreshadowing of the OT is not likely to lead one to accurate theology. In fact, those who do prove that point quite well.
The first part is an amazing statement for a Christian to make. We ONLY know Jesus because of these “vague” foreshadowings. If we didn’t have these “vague” foreshadowings Paul, or anyone else, could never have proven that Jesus was the Christ. Apollos for example:
Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
So I feel no shame about using these “vague” foreshadowings of the old testament to interpret Christ. None at all.***
Yet again, your post is beside the point. I speak about theologies from Jesus Christ and you speak about how the person of Jesus is proven in the OT. One is not the other. The theology of Jesus is significantly different than Mosaic Law; remember that Paul writes that the Old Law is obsolete. Do you pick and choose Paulian verse as well?
***Paul is saying that the Gentiles were included to make Israel jealous and that the trees are those of God; nowhere does he say that they are Israel only.
Yes, the gentiles were grafted into Israel in part to cause jealousy. There are many trees. However, the only tree cultivated by God IS Israel.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
Rom 11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Ah, the point is proven. You quote from Acts and Paul and the OT in order to indicate understanding of Jesus; you do not quote Jesus to indicate understanding of Jesus.
***Paul’s point is that Israel was the only people who knew God; now Jesus brings everyone to God. He does not say that they are now Jews.
You’re correct. The Jews by this time had morphed far from their roots and instituted rules and traditions that eventually caused God to break them off the tree of Israel. You seem to be having a tough time understanding the distinction between “Jews” and “Israel”. Jews, those who are from the tribe of Judah, are part of Israel. I would study in the old testament how Judah and Israel split into two kingdoms.***
That may be correct, but again it is beside the point. Jesus created His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. The Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost. The Church has the authority of God and has had so since Pentecost, not any milkmaid. It had the authority to name Scripture and it did so; I see that you quote Paul - under whose authority was Paul included in Scripture? Under whose authority was Revelation and James included? I’m not sure if you include the Gospels or not in your scripture, but remember that there were 60 gospels floating around in the early Church that we know of and another 20 alluded to in various writings. The Church, not any Judaizer or self appointed theologist, created the Christian Bible; created the Catechism, and wrote Christian theology which is different than Jewish theology.
You may worship as you please, but, as in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Latter Day Saints, please do not call yourself Christian if you are not. If you are not Christian, then why are you even posting to this Good Friday - Easter Sunday thread at all?
Paul's letters were already considered scripture in biblical times. He didn't need a stamp of approval.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Notice that Peter knew that Paul's letters would be twisted and perverted. And he grouped them with "other scriptures".
But here's the point: Paul defended the charges by affirming this:
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Paul kept the holy days of the Lord. He preserved them and defended them. The traditional church has strayed far from what Paul believed and defended.
You have yanked Acts 24:14 from its context and placed upon it a burden of meaning which it cannot—nor was meant to—support.
******Paul’s defense is to say that HE believes what is written in the only scripture he had, the books of the old testament, the law and the prophets. St. Paul does not add to that “and nothing else.”*** St. Paul also has no clue that some of his letters and other attributed to him will wind up as Scripture as a decision by the Church 250 years later.
Paul’s letters were already considered scripture in biblical times. He didn’t need a stamp of approval.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.***
When was 2 Peter written? Most scholars put it between 100-160 AD, which means that Peter was long dead at this point. This letter was written and approved by the Church as a means to bridge the gap between the followers of Peter and the followers of Paul; to bring the Jews and Gentiles closer together.
Paul’s writings were not considered to be scripture while Paul was still alive by anybody. And how were they amassed from all the points in civilization that he wrote them to and copied out? There was no Gutenberg press or emails in that time. Letters that were copied out longhand took a long time. Journeys were weeks or months long. Knowledge did not travel as you see it travel today. It is ridiculous to believe that the Bible was published and bound in leather by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and copies left beside beds everywhere.
But the writer was correct in warning against misinterpreting Paul. The world is full of those misinterpretations. And I still notice that you are still not using the words of Jesus in order to understand Him. Is there a particular reason for this course of action?
***But here’s the point: Paul defended the charges by affirming this:
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Paul kept the holy days of the Lord. He preserved them and defended them. The traditional church has strayed far from what Paul believed and defended.***
The fledgling Church had to make a lot of decisions; mostly in response to external threats including heresies which threatened the developing doctrine. The Church largely formulated its beliefs in written form at the Council of Nicea in which it, among other things, formalized its doctrine of the Triune God.
***You have yanked Acts 24:14 from its context and placed upon it a burden of meaning which it cannot—nor was meant to—support.***
Thanks, Petronski.
I guess that we are going to have belabour the point that what the Jews considered heretical here is what the Christians came to believe. You cannot use text indicating Jewish heresies to support anything regarding Christian heresies either way.
Imagine using a chapter in which St. Paul specifically says he did NOT go to synagogue to support the notion that St. Paul continued behaving as an observant Jew.
I don't devalue scripture so much as to believe a letter from Peter to be a fraud. Those who believe in the authority of scripture believe what it says:
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Most scholars who believe this is genuine know that it was written somewhere between 65 and 68 AD.
Sorry, I don't accept your view that God would allow lies.
The fledgling Church had to make a lot of decisions; mostly in response to external threats including heresies which threatened the developing doctrine. The Church largely formulated its beliefs in written form at the Council of Nicea in which it, among other things, formalized its doctrine of the Triune God.
Again thank your for affirming that man centered decisions and tradition "developed" doctrine in the traditional church as opposed to relying on God's written record.
MarkBsnr’s words do not define what happened then, rather, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, did so.
***Imagine using a chapter in which St. Paul specifically says he did NOT go to synagogue to support the notion that St. Paul continued behaving as an observant Jew.***
When a romantic notion of theology is all you have, then Scriptural cherry picking is all you’ve got. I notice that there STILL is no reference to Jesus except second or third hand. I wonder if our friend considers himself to be Christian. So far, he has declined to say.
***When was 2 Peter written? Most scholars put it between 100-160 AD, which means that Peter was long dead at this point. This letter was written and approved by the Church as a means to bridge the gap between the followers of Peter and the followers of Paul; to bring the Jews and Gentiles closer together.
I don’t devalue scripture so much as to believe a letter from Peter to be a fraud. Those who believe in the authority of scripture believe what it says:
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: ***
Are you claiming to be sola scriptura Judaizer but only when it suits? I notice that you declined to comment for the most part on that partial list from Leviticus that I presented you with a short time ago. This seems to me to be like talking to a devoted Calvinist or Latter Day Saint - in form, rather than specific belief, let me say - in that only portions of Scripture are used and the rest ignored.
***2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Most scholars who believe this is genuine know that it was written somewhere between 65 and 68 AD. ***
Ah, ah, ah. How does one pass from belief to knowledge in this case? Proof, please. How does this tiny band of select scholars know that it was written at this time?
***The fledgling Church had to make a lot of decisions; mostly in response to external threats including heresies which threatened the developing doctrine. The Church largely formulated its beliefs in written form at the Council of Nicea in which it, among other things, formalized its doctrine of the Triune God.
Again thank your for affirming that man centered decisions and tradition “developed” doctrine in the traditional church as opposed to relying on God’s written record.***
I notice that you don’t use the words of Jesus anywhere. Are you Christian? And let us see what is meant by God’s written record.
What is it? God didn’t write 2 Peter. Neither did He write Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. Nobody now knows who did. So we have two letters that the Church included in Scripture that we have no knowledge of actual authorship. But the Church chose to include them. And you used them in your proofs which indicates that you do defer to the Church - when it suits.
So what is God’s written word in your opinion?
Our friend is seemingly still creating his own neo Judaizing version of Christianity whilst studiously avoiding the words of Christ.
Fascinating discourse. But of course Jeremiah has a much more accurate description of Jesus and his teachings than any of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or indeed all of them put together.
remember that in the Jewish calendar the day started with the evening, not the morning. Therefore Sunday started at sundown Saturday night.
The Jewish reckoning was the new day started at sundown. Therefore He was crucified on Friday (day 1) Saturday started at sundown on Friday (day 2) and Sunday started at sundown on Saturday (day 3).
Having said that, I’m not sure it really matters which day of the week, I have seen many arguements both ways. What matters is that He died and the third day was raised, just as He said.
Once again you deny the truth of scripture. For starters they were not brought under the dietary laws -
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
As far as keeping Jewish holy days - Show me where outside of the Gospels where it shows that gentile believers in Christ were required to keep the holy days? I've already shown you where they were specifically freed from those things by Paul. Go ahead, be blue in the face - you are setting yourself against scripture.
However, the first Christians kept and preserved things such as the holy days and the food laws. Historically you can trace when traditional Christianity officially outlawed sabbath keeping and other so-called "Jewish" customs. Mostly it had to do with anti-semitism and from a desire not to resemble Jews.
I'm sure you could - but the fundamentals were already in place, with believers already meeting on the first day of the week in recognition that it was the day of His resurrection.
Sorry, if you haven't noticed I'm trying to carry at least 3 different conversations at the same time. I've told you multiple times (I think) that there are classes of laws in Leviticus. Some of these laws are impossible to keep because they have to applied on a civil or national scale. All relating to the Levitical priesthood are not applicable under the new covenant. Likewise with sacrifices. Let me know if you have a specific question about a verse and I'll answer as best I can.
I notice that you don’t use the words of Jesus anywhere. Are you Christian? And let us see what is meant by God’s written record.
I'm sorry if I haven't used enough scripture to satisfy you. I'm glad to use words and examples of Jesus. On what issue did you want me to do so?
So what is God’s written word in your opinion?
Unfortunately we don't have the original writings which would be completely inspired. However, God has caused most of his word to be preserved in the books of the bible that most non-Catholics use.
Sad for you to say this Doug. Paul often referred to himself as a Jew, guess he was broken off. Jesus was a Jew - was He broken off too?
Our friend has postulated a factually incorrect hypothesis based on the fact that I've been busy answering at least 3 different posters and didn't use certain scripture. I assure you that scripture is consistent and I'm not avoiding the words or actions of Christ.
Let me answer this because it's come up a couple of times and I've neglected to do so.
Those who wish to argue that gentiles do not have to honor the Lord by observing his holy days often turn to Acts 15:
Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
They say that these are the only things that gentiles coming into Christianity were obligated to do. A little logic will the fallacy of this traditional view.
If these are the ONLY things, then one must assume that gentile Christian were free to murder, rob, lust, covet, dishonor their fathers and mothers and commit a whole host of other sins. Clearly these are NOT the only things expected of gentiles Christians.
So what was the reason for these instructions? Remember, most gentiles were coming out of pagan worship. It just so happens that the things listed in the letter were primary facets of pagan worship. The council at Jerusalem expected pagans coming into the church to immediately cease these things and that they would learn the rest. And that's why most traditionalists will leave out the following verse:
Act 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
This is an odd statement to make. The only logical thing to conclude is that they new gentiles would be attending services every SABBATH and learning more of the way of God as time went on.
As far as keeping Jewish holy days - Show me where outside of the Gospels where it shows that gentile believers in Christ were required to keep the holy days?
I can show you plenty of times where they did:
Act 13:42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I've already shown you where they were specifically freed from those things by Paul.
Where was that again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.