[This post was created from a comment (#3450) in the The Virgin Birth dilemma thread.]
THE PROMISED POST:
Ok. I was a Christian until I was 29. I was raised by Christian parents, who came out of the Presbyterian church. My parents ended up joining the 4-Square denomination when I was very young. I went to a Christian school for 3 years, then another after a year in public school. Then I went to a prominent Christian school, Westminster Christian Academy, in St.Louis. For my senior year, my Grandparents put me into one of the 10 top Christian schools nationwide, Cono Christian school.
Basically, these experiences contributed to the type of Christian I became, a very realistic, truth seeking individual. A true Christian, a SERIOUS Christian, has ONE basis for his faith, and ONE basis for his doctrine, written scripture. (Or what he believes is written scripture.)
As a Christian, I was taught that the Bible was the INFALLIBLE word of God, I was taught that it was INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit, I was taught that every doctrine was based on written scripture, I was taught these things by Christian pastors, and my parents. The whole concept of “Faith” was also something that I learned, and it has also been a very large part of my Christian upbringing. But, as important as faith is, at the same time, you cannot believe in something on 100% faith, there absolutely HAS to be more to it than that, there HAS to be something ELSE to base that faith upon, and for Christians, that thing is written scripture, the Bible. Period.
On a scale of 1 to 10, taking into account scriptural knowledge, spiritual ambition, and the ability to defend my faith well, I’d have to say that at the time I left the church, I was about an 8. A 9, would be some lesser pastors, and the most prominent Christians in a congregation, a 10 would be a good pastor and associate pastor. Maybe, just MAYBE, I was a 7, at the least. Now that that intro is done, here’s the story:
A friend from my church, left and joined some strange group. I didn’t know much about it, but I still let this friend come to my trailer and we would watch movies here and there. He had a car accident years before, and his brain was badly damaged. He could still look after himself fortunately, but his communication skills were seriously lacking, due to his lack of processing information at normal speeds, like the rest of us. Sometimes, he just couldn’t communicate his ideas or thoughts. But he did his best to explain to us what this group was about, and he didn’t explain properly, but we had the basic idea. It was a group that believed that Gentiles WERE required to still keep the Law from the OT.
Also, this group practiced a good range of Jewish customs, and I was not interested in the slightest, but my friend started to invite me to “Shabbat”. I said no for a good 2 weeks, at least every other day, a couple of times for 2-3 days in a row. He was not going to stop until I went, so I thought, “This is insane, I have 0 interest in his wannabe group. But I’ll go to get him OFF my back. I won’t like it, then he’ll leave me alone.” So I went, on October 30, 2000. I entered this house, and recognized some of the people. But, I chose to stay uncomfortable, and to distance myself from too much small talk. Finally the leader came up to say HI. He began to lightly grill me about some minor topics, and I countered anything I disagreed with right away.
I didn’t realize it, but he was sizing me up. Then the meeting officially began, and the leader started saying some stuff about the Law, and I immediately challenged. We argued back and forth for about 40 minutes. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t claim to know everything about scripture, and when I learn something different, if it is truth, I adjust my beliefs accordingly. When I was a Christian, a man once told me the proper interpretation of a teaching Jesus gave, and MY understanding was WRONG! For YEARS, I was WRONG, just because everyone else was IGNORANT of the true meaning of that passage. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus teaches that if someone hits you, you are to turn the other cheek, right?? I was taught that it meant if someone comes up to punch me in the face, I let them, because I am not to fight, or show violence. I am to love my neighbor, even my enemy. But this man, taught me that th passage specifies your right cheek. Well, for you to hit MY right cheek, you’d have to be left handed, and since 95% or more of people are RIGHT handed, how can their right hand hit my right cheek? This man explained to me, that Romans often backhanded Jews it they didn’t like them, or the way they dressed, whatever reason, and it was an insult. Jesus was telling THEM, Jews BACK THEN, to turn the other cheek, even though they were angry. Even though they wanted to strike back. Why? Because if they struck back, they would be punished harshly, possibly executed. I changed that doctrine after a small bit of research.
Anyway, this group’s leader started explaining to me, why I needed to keep the Law. I actually had ALOT of passages that I used against him, and I’d throw a passage at him and he’d turn it around on me by showing me the true interpretation. A couple of times, I decided to try a different route. He kept saying why we should still keep the Law, so I focused on one specific Law, and something that Paul said about it. One of the Commands (The Law) says not to eat meat from a pig, because it is unclean. How you cook it is not the point, it eats it’s own excrement, and basically, pigs are trash eaters, just like most of the other “unclean” animals, crabs, lobsters, etc. . But I knew that the Law said not to eat Pig, so I remembered a passage that I thought would stump this guy, I mean, did he think I didn’t know what I was doing? I knew scripture!! Colossians 2:16-17 is the passage I used against him. Sure, the Law says not to eat pigs, but this passage says that you should not judge me for what I eat or drink, right? Well, he didn’t even tell me the right interpretation. Instead, he just asked me a bunch of questions, one after the other. Whos speaking? Paul. Whos being spoken to? Colossians. Any Colossians or a specific group? Well, a specific group. Which group? Converted Collossians. Converted to what???? JUDAISM!!!! I read the passage again, and realized that the food and drink, and the feasts, all those things were different customs in Judaism, most of it was commanded from the Law! Even I, a CHRISTIAN at that time, knew that JUDAISM was the religion being taught to the GENTILES!!! In the book of ACTS, all these leaders of “the faith” got together to discuss a common problem they were having- the GENTILE converts were having trouble, KEEPING THE LAW!!! The faith, was Judaism. And, by the way, in the NEW Testament, there are multiple places where the disciples, and others still offered SACRIFICES at the TEMPLE, AFTER Christ was GONE. So OBVIOUSLY, the “allowances” in Acts15:5-21 were NOT directed to Jews, So Jews are still saved today then, RIGHT? They can’t possibly still be required to keep the Law by scripture, yet be required to follow Christ, besides, Paul said that if you try to keep the Law, you are trying to EARN your salvation, and Christ’s sacrifice won’t cover you!! So, the Jews must be plain DOOMED.
Anyway, after over 40 minutes of arguing, I ran out of passages to throw at this guy, and I just asked questions, ALOT of them. I decided that I needed to hear everything he had to say, before making any descisions about how to proceed. I ended up joining the group. Another passage I learned that evening, was Hebrews 10: 26-29. I want you to stop right now, and read those 4 verses. Right now. Now, tell me, what was that saying???? Read it again. What was it saying? It is scripture, right? Infallible?? This is what it meant: If you sin, knowing beforehand that it will be sin, and doing it anyways, Christ’s blood will not cover that sin. PERIOD. THAT sin, whatever it was, is the unforgivable sin. You might as well walk up to Jesus and slap him in the face as hard as you can, because you are done. “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, he will be thought worthy, who has trampled the blood of the Son of God underfoot??” Here is the irony: According the the Law, there is no animal that you can bring to the Temple that will cover ANY of your intentional sins!! The ONLY type of sin covered by ANY animal you can bring for you or your family, is UNintentional sin, or, accidental. So, Jesus sacrifice, according to that Hebrews passage, falls hand in hand with what the actual animal sacrificial system did. Does Jesus sacrifice cover all sin? NO! Only when you first join the “faith”, once you are already a Christian, you are expected NOT TO SIN!!! If you do, you REMAIN GUILTY!!! So, if Jesus won’t forgive that sin, how do you know what sin is so as to avoid it?? YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE LAW- which reveals sin, directly from the hand of GOD.
Our group continued on, and every single month, we discovered some MAJOR problem with Christian doctrine we didn’t know of before. But a year down the road, we discovered some serious issues with the Virgin Birth, and the group split. Now, the other half is gone, and we are 7-10 strong, and we follow Judaism. So, that is the story about how I came to be a follower of Judaism. But I know your New Testament quite well, and if you still want to debate, as long as we remember that we are discussing our various opinions, and we don’t let things get out of hand, then let’s have some fun!! I personally love these types of debates! And if you want to strengthen your own resolve, debating me, and succeeding, is definately the way to go- cause I’ll give you a run for your money! (Even if you aren’t giving your money……)
Re: NinjaHound's story
NinjaHound - thank you for your story. We always make ourselves a bit vulnerable by sharing part of our lives, and your story deserves a response. I’m personally convinced that behind all the contributions to this site there are personal needs for recognition, affirmation, love, even, driving the words that are so carefully crafted. In that sense, I’m probably a number one contender for what I’m observing in others.
There’s something I was looking for in your Christian experience, which I didn’t find. Along with this person who rigorously contended for the faith of the bible, based his whole faith on the bible, I didn’t see a person who enjoyed communion with God, loved to spend time in His presence, loved to worship Him. I didn’t see the things to which the bible, in the end, only testifies - the reality of the peace of God ‘which passes all understanding’. You must understand, this isn’t a criticism, only an observation. Growing up in a Christian home, especially a pastor’s home, attending a Christian school - there is always the possibility, however sincerely held your views may have been, that what you had was, at the end of the day, something borrowed, not something which you had necessarily experienced the good of personally.
If I were that kind of person, and discovered a small group of people, supportive to each other, enjoying a kind of intimacy of fellowship which may have been lacking in my previous experience of the faith, I would be very influenced by what they had to say, and would have some grounds for adopting their beliefs and views.
This is constructing a story which may or may not be true of your life. The only thing I can say is that the view of the faith for which you are now so rigorously contending is most certainly not that of the New Testament; not the view of the Paul who just about at every conceivable point resists the idea that Torah observation is to be imposed on an experience of God which rests on the faith of the New Testament. It’s clear everywhere the issue arises, and is summarised in Galatians: "Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or believing what you heard?" - 3:2.
The law takes its place in our lives: it brings consciousness of sin - Romans 2:20; it increases the trespass - Romans 5:20; it imprisons us until we are released by faith - Galatians 3:23; it is a schoolmaster (or pedagogue) to drive us to faith - Galatians 3:24; when faith comes we are no longer under its supervision - Galatians 3:25; it is made "for lawbreakers and rebels - - - for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" - 1 Timothy 1:9-11; it is actually "the law of sin and death" from which "the law of the Spirit of life set(s) me free" - Romans 8:2. It is, in itself, "holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" - Romans 7:12.
But Paul is unequivocal - as far as Christian experience is concerned, the law is ‘the slave woman’, and: "What does the scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son’ " - Galatians 4:30. The scripture, and Paul, can say this, because it is the role of the Spirit to supply, in our experience, what the law could never supply - ‘the fruit of the Spirit’: "Against such things there is no law" - Galatians 5:23. The law which came with glory is "fading": "how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!" - 2 Corinthians 3:11. The law is the "veil" which is taken away whenever anyone turns to Christ - 2 Corinthians 3:16.
Those who attempt to reintroduce Torah observation nullify faith in Christ - Galatians 5:2 - and are obligated to obey the whole law - Galatians 5:3 - which places them under the curse of the broken law - Galatians 3:10.
You might also like to read what Galatians 4:17-18 says about the motives of those who try to reintroduce Torah observation to those who have already been set free from it.
I love the written ‘word of God’; I love to talk to others about it, study it, debate it, pursue new angles on it. It is a cornerstone - but it is not, in itself, the faith - it only points the way to faith and introduces us to faith. Faith itself is completed when there is a living experience of the God to which it provides access - if you like, when we enter into His story. And yes, faith always rests on evidence; but its work is completed when we respond to the evidence which it places before us, and put our trust, like little children, in the one to whom it guides us. Faith is never something just intellectually held - it is not an intellectual conviction of the things we contemplate: it is an appropriation of the good of those things.
Thank you for sharing part of your life and your story. To me, it raises issues of the profoundest importance, and deserves recognition.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Thank you, Peter.
That was a really great response, and I liked it alot. I understand what you’re seeing in my story- and alot of it may be pretty accurate. (My dad isn’t a pastor though- didn’t mean to imply that.) You are right about one thing- I have never truely experienced the emotional aspect of the “Holy Spirit” being involved in my life. But from a Christian perspective, there is no particular “level of clarity or emotional acceptance” required for one to be born-again. The truth is, that many Christians are like you, and feel God’s love in a powerful way, and there are also many like me, who’s faith is more “logic” oriented. But that doesn’t make one any less of a Christian, or less “saved”.
To use a marriage between a man and a woman as an analogy, as scripture does often, a husband can be very emotional, and a wife can definately appreciate a man who has that quality. But that state, that “emotional” state, as good as it is, will not guarantee the future of the marriage. True love, is properly shown through action, and sometimes through personal sacrifice. A less emotional man can still be as deeply loved by the wife, as a man who shows greater emotional attachment for his wife. The only time a lack of emotion in a husband becomes a danger to a marriage, is when the husband is more concerned with his wants and desires, and pays less attention to his wife’s. But an emotional man can also have this fault.
One problem with the reply you made, in my opinion, is that every passage you chose to reveal to me, was from Paul, except one that was from Timothy- who happens to be one of Paul’s followers. From your passages, I know what Paul has to say about the Law, but his ideas and philosophy are directly contrary to Jesus’ words regarding the Law: Matthew 5:17-20 : (NKJV):
Also read Deutoronomy 6:24-25 :
OK- the first passage. Jesus, not Paul a man, but Jesus the Lord, says to keep the Law. Untill ALL is accomplished, and there is a sign given in the passage of when this would take place: when the heavens and earth pass away. UNTIL the heavens and earth pass away, he tells us in that passage to keep even the smallest of the commands!! Are you a follower of Paul, a man, or Jesus, whom you believe to be God??
The next passage states that keeping that law, is your righteousness. Righteousness, is “doing right”. Now, another point is this- if the law reveals sin, IE: “Thou shall not kill”, which we both believe is Murder, right? If that law is revealing that Murder is sin, then you need to keep that law to abstain from the sin, and likewise with the rest of the laws. You are telling me, that Paul is saying that you no longer need the law, and if you attempt to keep it, you nullify Christ’s sacrifice. That is like saying that you have no choice but to sin intentionally, to recieve Christ’s forgiveness. You keep the law, you abstain from sin in doing so. You are following the law’s advice to not do something it claims is a sin. Therefore, if you abstain from keeping the law, (because Paul, a man, tells you so) you are committing those sins. Paul’s take on the law contradicts Jesus’ teachings to keep it.
Finally, read Hebrew’s 10:26-29.
That passage is saying that if you sin intentionally, with intent, or premeditation, or- if you sin, but knew before doing it that it would be wrong, Jesus’ sacrifice can’t cover that sin. Then it says that it is like trampling Jesus’ blood under your feet. The only way to avoid committing sin, is to know what sin is, and the only way to know what sin is, is through the law, therefore, to avoid, or abstain from sin, you HAVE TO KEEP THE LAW. Paul is plain wrong. OR- you are misinterpreting what Paul is trying to say.
Maybe you are better at worshipping than I, maybe in that emotional sense you are somehow closer to God than I, Maybe I am following the letter of the law too closely. But if you are right, I’ll still be righteous, the Deutoronomy passage says so in so many words. But if I am right- your eternity is in grave jeopardy.
Re: NinjaHound's story
NinjaHound - thank you for reading my comment and responding so graciously. There is a distinction between receiving the gift of the Spirit and a purely emotional response to God. There are different interpretations, but my view is that the Spirit is given when a person believes in Jesus. I’d go further, and say that the Spirit was at work creating faith in the person who believes in Jesus - who responds to the message of the Jesus in obedience by yielding their life to him. The mark of this kind of faith is an inner assurance, accompanied by many other evidences in the life of the person who had made that response of faith. Like you, I am more logical than emotional, but the residing influence of the Spirit is deeper than logic or emotion.
I don’t see any divergence between the teaching of Paul and Jesus - but what Paul has to say takes into account the events in Jesus’s history following his earthly ministry - his death, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit, etc. But in any case, I had the impression from a previous post that your group took into account Paul’s teaching in its views?
Matthew 5:17-20 has been subject to a great deal of discussion and interpretation. On the face of it, it seems very straightforward, and to support your position. The only problem is that Jesus himself qualified the apparent straightforwardness of the statements by his actions - eg in reinterpreting the meaning of the sabbath, and in his criticisms of the Pharisees for their own hypocritical reinterpreting of the law. The fact is that everyone was interpreting the Torah - it wasn’t as straightforward as it might have seemed.
Paul was by no means dismissing the law/Torah. He claimed to be upholding it - Romans 3:31. But he was providing an interpretation of the whole purpose of the law - described in some of the passages I mentioned in the previous post. He was doing no more than taking OT prophecies such as Jeremiah 31:33-34, and Ezekiel 36:26-27, and showing how these had been fulfilled by the coming of Jesus and the giving of the Spirit. Again, in Galatians 5:22-23, Paul points out that it is the work of the Spirit inside the believer to produce those moral aspects of righteousness in our character, to reproduce the character of Jesus within us, by which the moral requirements of the law are fulfilled.
The meaning of ‘righteousness’ goes much further than this however, and is to do with the fulfilment through Jesus of God’s covenant faithfulness, not only to Israel, but through Israel to reverse the consequences of primeval sin, to put into effect his plans not just for creation but the entire cosmos. The Torah was, according to this view, only ever part of this wider purpose.
The Hebrews 10 passage again finds its fulfilment through the giving of the Spirit, which is the key now, rather than the law, to a sanctified life. Incidentally, I think this passage needs careful interpretation in the light of the NT as a whole. The kind of intentional sin which it describes, I would see as the continued, wilful, provocative rejection of the messiah and his offering for sin. I think if anyone was excluded on the basis of one intentional sin after having given their lives to Jesus as Lord, there wouldn’t be a follower of the messiah left!
Shalom!
Re: NinjaHound's story
Peter,
Sorry so late in responding, yesterday after work my couch consumed my evening. Your approach on this post sounds very "pentecostal". My parents have always held to those spriritual ideals, the gifts of the spirit, speaking in tongues. I have to say, I really disagree about what you said of the Spirit "creating" faith within the believer, I never believed the Spirit had anything to do with faith, and even though I no longer believe in the Holy Spirit, I still believe strongly that God has nothing to do with creating, or fostering, or even "nourishing" our faith. Faith is just a word, and the definition is very simple, very easy to understand, you make it seem like faith is some complex spiritual experience of some kind, it surely is not. FAITH, is TRUST combined with BELIEF and HOPE in something OR someone. You have faith your car will get you to work each day, and THAT faith is identicle to your faith in GOD. The ONLY difference, is that your faith in your car is stronger, because you KNOW about your car, you KNOW how it runs, you KNOW it’s quirks, you have a HISTORY, and a past, where you and your car have often been DIRECTLY connected. So, your faith in your car is partially based upon fact, knowledge you have. You don’t have that strong a link with God, though you would like to have. Your faith in God is NOT based on knowledge, but total TRUST, and HOPE. Belief, Trust, and HOPE, that is what faith is, nothing more. No philosophy behind it.
About our group and Paul: No, not really. We actually believe Paul, or his writings, but for sure the writings, are heretical. Almost all of the numerous contradictions our group has discovered in the NT, are where PAUL contradicts Jesus, or James, or Peter, etc.
You said that "Paul was by no means dismissing the Law, or the Torah", then you gave Romans 3:31, where Paul obviously claims just that. You talked some more about the whole issue, but instead of responding to each point, all I really need to address is this one simple issue, that honestly, I am shocked that you can’t see it. So I’ll endeavor to simplify my point:
We’ve been discussing the Law, and whether or not we are supposed to follow it. Paul says that he upholds the Law, yet he says we cannot keep the Law, since we’d be "BOUND" by the Law, whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. Just like the definition of the concept of FAITH- the definition of the concept of the LAW, is incredibly simple, there is NO PHILOSOPHY clogging the definition, NONE. ALL the Law is, is what GOD HIMSELF, considers IMMORAL, what GOD HIMSELF, considers a "NO-NO", and a "YES-YES". There are Laws we are required by God to act upon, and Laws that we are required to abstain from. We are to honor His Sabbath. We are not to murder. By resisting murder, REGARDLESS OF MY MOTIVATIONS FOR DOING SO, I keep the Law. If I am Islamic, and abstain from murder, I am keeping the Law of Moses. If you’re not breaking it, you’re keeping it,whether you’re trying to or not. It is that simple.
God tells us what SIN is, through the Law. avoiding the sin, is automatically keeping the Law, there is no way around it. Paul says that we cannot intentionally keep the Law, because that would nullify Christ’s sacrifice for us personally, if we did. But that literally means, that we would have to INTENTIONALLY SIN AGAINST EACH LAW GOD MADE ON SINAII-613 of them!!! The only way to avoid keeping the Law, is to invite sin into your life, ALL sin.
And what was the part you said about the Spirit in believers causing them to fulfill the "moral requirements" of the Law? "Moral Requirements"?? Even if that imaginary concept is in the NT, it was edited in. If there is an AMERICAN Law, that states that you can not steal someone else’s property, there is not a "moral requirement". You either keep that Law by not stealing, or you break it by stealing. It is exactly the same with GOD’s Law. Exactly. You either obey, or you do not.
Matthew 7: 21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the WILL of my Father in heaven. "Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?’ "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’
That last word, "lawlessness", look up the greek root. What was it? What did the Greek word mean? "Anomia" was the word. In Greek, it describes those in general, who disregard the Law of Moses, and yes, that word’s definition describes the Law of Moses. It is pretty clear then, not only in English, what Jesus is saying in that passage, but even if you try disecting it, you still find the truth beneath. Jesus rejects those who 1) Prophesy in his name, 2) they also cast out demons in his name, and 3) they do many wonders in his name,but yet disregard God’s Law. Then, the real reason they are rejected, is for not keeping the LAW. Christianity comes to mind! What you need to ask yourself, is where your loyalties lie- and there are 2 possibilities:
1) Your loyalties lie with Jesus/Paul.
2) Your loyalties lie with TRUTH, whatever that may be.
If your answer is #1, then nothing I ever say will have any impact.
If your answer is #2, then you MUST always keep your options open, for you have no garantees that your past contained all truth, you MUST at least be open-minded to honestly exploring other possibilities.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Ninjahound: thanks very much for your response. From your final paragraph, which sets Jesus/Paul against ‘the truth’ - do I take it that Jesus as well as Paul is in your list of proscribed heretics?
Just to pick up your points - one by one.
Faith - yes, everybody in every way exercises faith. In that sense, it has no supernatural or spiritual overtones whatsoever. But faith in Jesus is both a matter of applying the evidence of his life and message to the mind, and engaging with supernatural realities. For instance, Jesus says:
"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me will live, even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." - John 11:25
"Whoever believes in me, as the scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive." - John 7:38-39
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:44
So we are looking at faith which is something more than simply surveying the evidence with the mind, and believing it. It is a means of access to supernatural realities, and something which is supernaturally inspired.
Judaism and Christianity are both pentecostal, in the sense that historically they both looked for a supernatural outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as described in Joel 2:28-29, and frequently in Isaiah, also Ezekiel and Jeremiah. The difference is that the latter believe this has already happened, on the day of pentecost as described in Acts 2:1-4, and has been happening continuously ever since, while the former are looking for something which has not yet happened - and in my opinion never will, in the way they saw it.
Law (or Torah) in the OT means at least four different things, and you focus on one: the apodictic law, or ten commandments. So I want to suggest two important approaches.
The first is historical. At the time of Jesus, Israel knew they were a nation still suffering under the consequences of having broken the Law, which had led to their exile. Although they were back in the land, they were still in exile in the sense that they were under pagan oppression, the glory of God had not returned to the temple, the Spirit had not been poured out, the resurrection of the righteous dead had not taken place, and the Davidic king had not been restored to the throne. So the issue was: how were these things to be brought about?
In Israel, religion and politics were never seen as separate issues. Their view of the future was as much political as religious. So the Pharisees and the Zealots had the same aim in common: to restore to Israel her promised destiny. For the Pharisees, this was to be achieved by rigorous adherence to the Torah. It was hoped that this would bring about the desired forgiveness of sins, the sins which had sent Israel into exile, and the sins which were holding back her God-given destiny. Israel could not fulfil the requirements of the Law, because she was still under the curse of the broken Law. I suggest that unless you connect with this story, you are inventing your own version of Judaism which has little to do with the Judaism of the bible.
It is in the context of this story that we see the relevance of Jesus. For over and above all of the expectations and hopes of Israel already mentioned, there was the hope of one who would come and battle for Israel on her behalf. This was Simeon’s hope in Luke 1:25. He prophetically saw that Jesus was ‘the Lord’s Christ’ - Luke 1:26-32. But precisely what kind of Christ, or messiah, Jesus was is the subject of the gospels and the rest of the NT.
So we come to ‘anomia’ / lawlessness. If any were attempting to put right the wrongs of the broken Law (and Law in its widest sense does not just mean commands, but the covenant between God and Israel), it was the Pharisees. Yet Jesus reserves for them his strongest criticisms, accusing them of the ‘anomos’ which they saw as his own most offensive characteristic - eg Matthew 23:28.
Paul has a much better understanding of the Law than you do. He understood the historic significance of broken Law in Israel’s history much better than you, and saw that the breaking of the Law in Israel’s history, and in its widest sense this meant breaking covenant with God, could not be resolved by ‘works of the Law’ - or attempts to put things by right by returning to the strictest possible observance of the Law. Which is why he is able to say of Israel (and yourself, as far as you are continuing in this misunderstanding):
"Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God, and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to the righteousness that comes from God." - Romans 10:1-3
The Law, in respect of its commandments, was never simply a matter of external observation, and Jesus underlines its significance as inner observation, in the same way as Paul. Murder is what takes place in the heart before it is an action, likewise adultery. There is a moral dimension to the Law, which you have actually conceded when you said: ALL the Law is, is what GOD HIMSELF, considers IMMORAL, what GOD HIMSELF, considers a "NO-NO", and a "YES-YES".
So there is a double bind: the Law bears down upon actions and behaviour - and Israel was already standing, historically, in the shadow of the curses invoked by by this aspect of broken Law. Anyone who tries to reintroduce the Law today is placing themselves under this curse. Nobody is able to fulfil the Law’s requirements. For instance, the entire sacrificial system has not been observed for nearly 2000 years. Sacrifices for sin can no longer be made. (This would require a priesthood, which no longer exists, and a temple, which no longer stands).
But the Law goes further, and bears down upon character. This was its overriding purpose - which Paul clearly understood. This is why he can boldly say that the Law was given for lawbreakers, or the lawless - anomos - in 1 Timothy 1:9; and he spells out in graphic detail what this means. There is a moral requirement in the Law which nobody has been able to fulfil. The requirement points back to the sin which was introduced by Adam. Jesus, as ‘the last Adam’ provided, once for all, the solution to that problem - for everybody who believes in him. He fulfils and completes the Law’s purpose. The giving of the Spirit is the practical, and only means of fulfilling the Law’s requirements in us. It is not a question of what we can do for God, but what He can do in us, to satisfy His Law’s demands. God’s purpose was always that through the covenant, he would remain faithful to His people, and deal with sin. That he did through Jesus, by giving the Spirit, to bring about in our character that conformity to moral character which the Law required. This entailed a radical change in human nature. The nature of the change is nowhere better described than in Galatians 5.
As for your final comment - you also need to keep your options open, and be open-minded to honestly exploring other possibilities.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Hey again Peter, Great response.
You got me on several counts. About the first, the definition of Faith, what I didn’t like is how you classify faith with "engaging in supernatural realities". You make it sound like faith is some kind of doorway to magic, or some nonsense. Any supernatural realities that may be out there, are in no way dependant on your faith, to be truth, or to exist. If there are supernatural realities, they are REALITIES, and your beliefs are IRRELEVANT in making them a reality, if the ressurection will be a reality, then it does not matter if I believe, it will happen when it’s time comes, REGARDLESS of my personal "faith".
About Paul and Jesus both being heretics in my view; you need to understand, that I do not accept the New Testament any longer. I believe that the entire document, has been "doctored", changed, by Rome. Specifically, by the Vatican, from long ago. I believe there is ALOT of truth in the New Testament, but some of it has been integrated in, and is based on someone else’s philosophies, not those who actually wrote the NT. I believe Paul’s writings have been messed with more than Jesus’, however.
You got me in one instance, a little, when you said that the law means at least 4 things, and I focused on one, apodictic law. You are right, when saying that I only focused on one, but you were wrong in saying the ten commandments. The ten were merely the first given, and they were the laws God intended Israel to keep IMMEDIATELY. But there are other TYPES of law as well, and they are all in the same body, the law. One portion of the law was only for the priesthood. One portion for the king. One portion for women, one portion for the making of the Mishkan in the wilderness, one portion for the origional temple, etc. There are laws in the OT that govern women during their monthly cycles as well! Many of the laws deal with "uncleanness", and others deal with how to be purified after becomming unclean. Then there are the laws that deal specifically with immorality, the aspect of the law I was focusing on in the last post.
There is one law, Leviticus 5:2, that says not to touch the carcas of a dead animal. He who does, even if he is unaware of it, becomes unclean, and he is guilty. GUILTY? Of what? Breaking the law. SO, his INTENT is irrelevant, his HEART CONDITION, is irrelevant, whether he breaks the law LITERALLY or not, is the only thing that matters.
Which, of course, brings us to Paul. But like I said, I do not believe the NT, and I think that stuff about "the heart" and what people are "THINKING" about doing or not, is HOOEY. There is NO mention of this in the OT, not at all, so it is BUNK. God never made an allowance in the law, for hating someone, as Paul and Jesus seem to point at. Therefore, since "hating" is not IN the law, it CANNOT be AGAINST the law. Lusting after a woman may be immoral to a degree, but since it is not IN THE LAW, it is not BREAKING th law, to lust after a woman. What the law says, is that if you are caught having SEX, and she is married to another guy, you both get stoned to death, because ADULTERY is against the law, not "LUST". Not "HATING" someone. And that NT concept that I’ve committed adultery just because I checked out some girl’s legs, that is so retarded. Here is what the law (The "sin" part of the law) is about :Obedience. The purpose For the law, the reason God gave it in the first place, was because he CHOSE Israel to be HIS people, and as such, they were required, BY HIM, to live RIGHTEOUSLY. But HE had to tell them what sin WAS, so that they could live OUTSIDE of sin, by following that LAW. AND, when they did sin? Were they forgiven? How? The truth is, they had the law, so that they knew what sin was, so they could avoid it. Also, they had the animal sacrificial system, incase they sinned without knowing it. (Like touching the carcass of a dead animal and not even knowing it.) The animal sacrifices covered "unintentional" sin. Leviticus 4, then chapter 5, and so on, explain what the different type of animals are, that can be used in a sin offering, and EVERY TIME, it is UNINTENTIONAL SIN. There is only ONE sacrifice, that can be used for INTENTIONAL sin, and that specific sin is a NATIONAL sin, of turning from God. The animal, interestingly, is a FEMALE lamb. (Is Jesus REALLY the "lamb of God"?)
Anyway, the real point, is that if you continue reading, it eventually starts talking about intentional sins, like stealing from your neighbor, and you are NOT REQUIRED TO RECIEVE FORGIVENESS FROM GOD, you are required to pay restitution to the person you stole from. That is it. There is no animal sacrifice that covers that sin. No sin sacrifice will cover personal intentional sin. Then there is the Hebrews 10:26-29 passage, as I’ve pointed out, which seems to take Jesus’ sacrifice, and show it’s parralels to the original animal sacrificial system. Apparently, Jesus sacrifice also only covers UNINTENTIONAL SIN! Now- about keeping the law in the NT, in ACTS 15, who was keeping the law? Everyone who was a believer. When did things change? When the GENTILE CONVERTS began having problems, with keeping 613 laws, and circumcision. What was the answer? Supposedly, according to Christian doctrine, the GENTILES were opted out of having to keep the law. BUT- THE JEWS STILL DID, and were still expected to by the council. Peter- do YOU personally keep the 4 laws mentioned in that passage, that Gentiles were STILL REQUIRED TO KEEP???? WHAT was the point of those 4 laws?? WHY? What about VS 21?? So, Gentiles were not required to keep the law, but they WERE required to keep 4 interesting laws, AND, though they were not required to KEEP the rest of the Law, they WERE required to LISTEN as it was given on EVERY SABBATH, in a SYNAGOGUE. Does that make any sense to you? Well, not really with your interpretation.
My interpretation: The law was 613 commands, a large number of which were to be followed by each individual, plus circumcision for the men. circumcision may have been an issue with some of the guys, and I can certainly understand it. BUT, if I was to join a faith, which I believed, would I whimper around about being circumcized, or am I a MAN, and ABLE to handle a little discomfort to join my cause? MOST men would not have been PUSSIES, so I don’t think circumcision was the issue, keeping over 100 commands IMMEDIATELY was the issue, that would be ALOT of effort. So a descision was made, they HAD to keep 4 laws, this would ALLOW THEM ACCESS into a synagogue, and they could hear the law weekly, and begin keeping th Law at THEIR OWN PACE. That makes perfect sence. Then a generation or two later, they saw the writings differently, the gentiles that is, and they turned into Christians instead. (With PAUL’S help of course.)
You trust Paul as if he was GOD himself. You Trust Paul’s writings as if he were perfect himself, as if there were no way he could be wrong. "There are none righteous, not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That is just part of a quote of Paul’s, I challenge you, find the passage he’s quoting, (is it just one??) and then read them in context, then tell me how YOU can accept PAUL’S interpretation of the quotes he is pulling out of their context.
Just remember this, even if Paul was legitimate, Paul was just a man. Paul was not a "prophet". He CLAIMED to be the "Apostle" of Christ, but one way or the other, as a believer of Christ, you should be leaning toward Jesus’ writings moreso that some man’s writings. But seriously, I want to know what you think about that quote of Paul’s in Romans, and tell me what is going on in the quoted passage.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Ninjahound - thanks again, and for more clarity about your own religious position. So have you gone over to Judaism lock, stock and barrel (as we say here in the quaint UK)?
Just on one or two points: the three examples of faith I gave from John’s gospel show that faith in Jesus does provide access to ‘supernatural realities’, and was intended to be seen as such. There is access to resurrection of the body, access to the supernatural life of the Spirit, and access to Jesus (as the purveyor of these realities) through a supernatural drawing by God the Father. This is not some new religion, but a fulfilment (or the beginnings of fulfilment), of the promise to Abraham, that through his seed (the messiah), all the nations of the earth would be blessed - a blessing, incidentally, which comes through sharing in the faith of Abraham, not observance of the Law. That blessing is all to do with forgiveness of sins - Isaiah 53:5-6, sharing in the life of the Spirit - Joel 2:28-29, experience of the eschatological kingdom promised to David - 2 Samuel 7:12-13, resurrection from the dead - Daniel 12:2, and ultimately new heavens and new earth - Isaiah 65:17.
On the Law and the condition of the heart: I find, looking through the OT (Hebrew scriptures or however you like to describe them) that God constantly looks beyond outward observance of his commands to the heart: in the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (5th book of Moses) - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart - soul - strength"; 1 Samuel 16:7 - "Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart" (David was also somebody who broke the levitical commands by eating the showbread); 2 Chronicles 16:9 - "For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him"; Isaiah 29:13 - "These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me"; Joel 2:12-13 - "rend your hearts and not your garments".
So Jesus was right in saying that observance of the Law went further than actions, and Paul when he said "A man is not a Jew if he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, not by the Spirit, not by the written code." - Romans 2:28-29
You are right that Acts 15 deals with instructions to gentile believers, but it’s equally clear from Galatians 2:11-21 that when Peter withdrew from the gentiles to eat separately with Jews, Paul opposed him over the larger issue of retreating into Jewish practices, customs and identity. There was clearly a big issue in the early church over how much Jewish Christian converts were expected to continue to observe the Torah. For Paul, the answer was clear, which he argues with unanswerable logic: there is no obligation any more to observe Jewish practices, and if these are mixed with the gospel as part of its requirements, the result is a ‘different gospel’ which is an anathema.
My citing of Paul here is not because he is God, but because his arguments are more penetrating. Here I’m going to have to refer you back to my previous post, because historically, Paul highlights the common awareness at the time that Israel was still under a curse because of the broken Law which had led to the exile. Israel was still looking for all the things which she felt would come with ‘forgiveness of sins’, but which had simply not yet been given. All of Israel’s expectations were fully met in Jesus, central to which was ‘forgiveness of sins’ - but they did not come in a way she recognised or, in the end, wanted.
So from Paul’s point of view, anyone who tried to rebuild the Law, having experienced the freedom from the curse of the Law brought by the sacrificial death of Jesus, placed themselves under that curse again. When Paul says, "Get rid of the slave woman and her son", it does not leave room for an interpretation which says that Jews may/should continue to observe the Law. Everywhere Paul argues that the Law and its requirements were completely fulfilled in Jesus, and in the lives of his followers who fulfil its requirements through the life of the Spirit. Bear in mind that the whole point of the Law was to mark out the covenant requirements of a relationship with God. The whole point is that with the coming of Jesus we have the ‘new covenant’ promised by Jeremiah, in which loyalty to God is marked out by what He had always promised: the gift of the Spirit.
This argument is even more relevant today, since it is impossible for Jews anywhere to obey the Torah, because the sacrificial system which lay at its heart is inoperable and defunct. If you return to Judaism, you are placing yourself in a system which no longer has the bible as central to its beliefs and practice, but the Mishnah and Talmuds. Maybe you are OK with that - but you are missing much of the point if you want to use the bible to press your case.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Hello again Peter.
About your query if I’ve joined Judaism ‘lock, stock and barrel’, You have to remember that there are many ‘sects’ today, the Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox, Conservative, Kaarites, etc. I don’t wear a black hat with long curly tufts of hair hanging down the sides of my head, or have a long thick beard. (I’m the only one in my group without a beard though.) But the answer is yes, I’ve joined lock stock and barrel. I have not "officially" converted, because I don’t know what specific group I should join to, but most of the men in my group have joined Conservative, mainly because that way they will be accepted religiously into Israel when they are able to go there. I’m interested in going to Israel too, but not quite as enthusiastic as they are, but I’m not going to join a group (Conservative) just to get into that country. I feel that the Kaarite group fits our group’s belief structure closer, but I haven’t joined them, because then it would be near impossible to be accepted in Israel religiously.
I eat Kosher, no Pork, Crab, or other "bottom-dwellers", in fact the only seafood (meat-wise) I eat is fish with both fins AND scales. Beef and Chicken and Turkey are the main meat dishes I accept, though Quail, lamb, Buffalo, and a few others are Kosher as well. But I basically follow the law, as I believe it is interpreted properly, I don’t just follow some generally accepted idea of how to keep the law, unless I agree with that interpretation. For example, Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox don’t eat any meat during a meal where they are using any dairy products, and vise-versa. They don’t even store meat and dairy in the same refrigerator. There is ONE command that deals with that topic: "You shall not COOK a KID in it’s MOTHER’S milk." So how am I in danger of breaking that law by having CHICKEN and BUTTER in my fridge?? How am I in danger of breaking that law if I have BEEF and MILK in the same fridge? I’m not. I know that beef comes from a cow, and I know that milk (99% of the time) also comes from a cow, so I shouldn’t cook that beef in that milk, because it is possible, that the beef was from the kid of the mother that the milk came from. But what are the magnanimous chances of that? But I would not do that, just to be on the safe side. But I’ll eat the kid and have a glass of the mother’s milk, ain’t a thing wrong with that.
About the whole issue about God looking at the heart, you made your points well, again. And I understand where you are coming from. I certainly didn’t mean to sound like God ignores that aspect of someone in regards to sin and repentance. (And I sound a bit like I’m covering my ass here, I suppose!) I just go more along the lines of the book of James, which my group believes is a direct rebuttle to Paul. James clearly states that WORKS are the needed ingredient to our belief structure, and that those works are AS NECCESSARY as the faith itself. And if your ideas about keeping the law are correct, based on all those things you pointed out in Paul’s writings, then WHY, did James, Peter, and the other disciples of Christ CONTINUE to keep the LAW after Christ was GONE???? There are plenty of hints throughout the NT that they never changed that aspect of their religious duties. You’re right about the issue with there being no temple, and therefore we can’t keep the whole law. But the problem with your entire arguement about the "curse of the law" and soforth, is that you are still taking Paul’s ideologies to be 100% FACT. I have discovered that there are many problems in Paul’s writings, some of which are quite serious, for example, the issue I challenged you about from Romans 3: 10-18. If you read that chapter, then go back to those verses, and backtrack that quote, and read the quote in THEIR proper contextS, then you discover that Paul desides to take a sentence from here, a sentence from there, and formulate an interpretation of the sentences in the form he creates them in. In other words, he takes these tiny quotes out of their contexts, and TWISTS their meanings so he can claim that scripture supports his personal doctines. There is none righteous, no not one. There is only ONE proper interpretation for that sentence within the context of Romans 3: Out of all mankind, throughout all human history, there is none righteous. AND, out of all mankind, throughout all human history, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Obviously he is not speaking of Jesus as a part of mankind in this passage.) But when you read Psalm 14, the passage that contains those 2 parts of Paul’s quote, and a bit more, you discover that it is NOT "out of all mankind throughout human history", but God is looking OUTSIDE the nation of Israel, in DAVID’s day, at a specific point in time/history, to see if anyone ELSE is righteous, outside of the nation of Israel, AT THAT POINT IN TIME. Paul’s writings are twisted, and I pay NO attention to them. No, I can’t follow the entire law, but how would God want me to live my life, under THESE circumstances, assuming I was right, and Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and there were no temple?? As you said, I believe He’d look at my heart, and he would be proub of me for choosing to keep as much of the law as I could, under the circumstances. There is no "curse" tied to the law. It is God’s covenant between us and Him, and we can follow him by keeping it, or not. As I said before, keeping the law for the mostpart means ABSTAINING from SIN. If you believe that you are to avoid sin, then explain to me how you are doing that, withOUT keeping the law?? By living the way you live as a Christian, you ARE keeping the law, ALOT of it. And you CHOOSE to live without committing adultery or fornication, RIGHT?? You CHOOSE to abstain from murder, RIGHT?? And many other "sins". But why do you choose to abstain from those things? Because you believe they are sins. What gives you that idea? "The Bible tells you so". Where?? THE LAW!!!!! You are keeping the Law just by your lifestyle.
But I urge you, research the above situation with Paul’s quote and the Psalm passage on your own, I want to hear your response.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Again, thanks very much Ninjahound - for a bit more on your own story, and some really good questions. I may not be able to answer the questions in the length or depth which they require.
I do think Paul suffered and suffers from many misinterpretations - and this was as true in his own time as it is today. But his habit of gathering a number of scripture passages out of context, and running them together around a single theme, is entirely in line with the orthodox Jewish practice of his day, though it may seem odd to us.
Your point about Psalm 14 and Romans 3:10-18 is a good one. Looking at Psalm 14 - I’m not sure it is, as you say, meant to be a contrast between Israel as ‘righteous’, and the surrounding nations as ‘unrighteous’. Israel’s history bears out Paul’s point, made elsewhere in Romans, that there was always a distinction within Israel between the believing and unbelieving portion - always a ‘remnant chosen by grace’ - as in Elijah’s time. So at the very least, the psalm seems to me to be talking primarily about Israel.
So the question arises as to how Paul is using this psalm, and the other scripture passages in Romans 3:10-18, which, as I’ve asserted, reflects orthodox practice in his day. A fuller answer might be found by asking how orthodox practice intended such collections of verses to be read and understood. In one sense, there might seem to be a use of scripture which runs directly contrary to accepted practice of good interpretation today, which says that a scriptural passage cannot mean something different from what its authors intended it to mean. But can wider meanings, not intended or envisaged by their authors, emerge from placing scriptural passages in different contexts? Questions such as these cannot be answered simply on a website forum like this.
It’s also true to say that elsewhere in the NT, one can find passages which seem to say the opposite of Paul - that there were righteous people in Israel in Jesus’s day: like Zechariah, Joseph (the father of Jesus) and Simeon.
So in what sense might Paul be using the quotation from Psalm 14 - and the other passages? I don’t think he was saying that people like Zechariah, Joseph, Simeon were not seekers of God, or that ‘their throats were like open graves/their mouths full of cursing and bitterness’. At least, not in a wooden, word for word understanding. But I think Paul was making a rhetorical point, that in the broad sweep of history, Israel had shown herself not to be a righteous nation. Surely we can see that from the Hebrew scriptures? Despite occasional movements to the contrary, the general progression, from Judges through the Kings to the exile was inexorably downwards.
And in another sense, Paul was making a rather profounder point, which can be compared with what Isaiah experienced when he had a revelation of God’s holiness, Isaiah 6:1-5. I don’t suppose Isaiah was a particularly profane man, but when he had an experience of the holiness of God, he saw profanity in himself, and Israel, to a depth and extent which he had never experienced before.
Quite simply, if the bar is my own standards of what is good enough for God, and how I arrange my interpretation of the scriptures around this, then I may well feel that I can satisfy God with my own meagre efforts. But when I am measured up against a holy God, and this takes revelation of His holiness to understand, then like Isaiah, and Paul in his summary not just of Israel but humanity in general, there is a depth of unholiness that I had never seen before. Paul makes this point rhetorically, but pursues it rigorously throughout his writings.
Paul also adds an understanding of history - which you do not seem to have. Israel had reached the point as a nation in his time where the accumulated weight of all her previous history was bearing down on her. You cannot extract the Law as a timeless system from this - the Law was a covenant which had a context in history. It had been broken more or less continuously, and in many ways, by Israel as a nation. Jeremiah and Ezekiel could then say that a new covenant was needed, and prophesied its coming. Paul has all this in view - and is saying, basically, that the prophesied time had come. It was too late to go back and attempt to repair the damage done by the broken covenant. God was not going to allow that. The time had come for a new covenant - the one that was ushered in by Jesus, and born in his followers, as the reconstituted Israel.
You are quite right in saying that sin is a central issue (largely ignored on this site, incidentally), and that choices need to be made to avoid sin. The law gives a framework of what God regarded as sinful, what not. But even the Law was not an exhaustive account of everything that God regarded as sinful. The ten commandments are representative, not exhaustive. Paul never denies that choices have to be made, but he goes much deeper than this in looking at the very heart and origin of sin in our lives - which consistently undermined the Law. We have an inheritance within us that goes back to Adam - and addressing this was the purpose of the old and new covenants. In brief, the new covenant is telling us that only in relation with God’s Spirit can we avoid sin and live a righteous life. The Spirit produces the fruit which the Law required but was unable to deliver - as far as a righteous people is concerned. It is useful to have the Law in the form of the commandments to give us some idea of what God considered to be His holy requirements, but essentially, the Spirit’s task is to communicate God’s holiness to us on the basis of a life lived daily. But the key point it this: the boundary marker which identifies the people of God has changed. At one time it was the Law. Now it is the Spirit. And there is no going back.
There is indeed a curse attached to the Law. There is the historical curse of Israel’s failure - which God has not revoked, in the sense of what Israel was hoping for - in the light of her history recorded in her scriptures: forgiveness of sins, return of JHWH to the temple, defeat of her enemies, restoration of the Davidic monarchy, resurrection from the dead, outpouring of the Spirit. All these things have happened through Jesus and those who believe in him - there is no future occurence which by-passes what God has already provided.
There is also the curse on those who use the Law as an attempt to reverse the consequences of Adam’s failure - which is the wider framework of the scriptures and Israel’s history. All those who attempt this will discover greater depths of personal failure than they had ever been aware of. If we are looking for how such a reversal may come about, Paul’s writings start to make very good sense, and provide very good solutions.
Re: NinjaHound's story
Good Morning Peter-
It’s 6:46 am and it looks like rain. Conveniant that I have WORK in it today! Anyway, that last post was pretty interesting. You connected Paul’s twisting of scripture with the Jewish Orthodox of his day, apparently in an attemp to justify his position, but if you’ll remember from my last post, I very largley take issue with Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews, their views are very narrow, and over-strict part of the time, and the other part of the time they do their best to find ways of making scripture support their twisted lifestyles. (Much like Paul does.) The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were (I believe) of that very Orthodox persuasion. And they were proven wrong over and over, their views, their accusations, their very means of interpreting scripture was obviously one of their larger flaws. It is interesting that you would compare them to Paul.
Next you point to Psalm 14, and say that you are not sure that it is a contrast between Israel being righteous, and the rest of the world in that day. But let me explain how it is. According to vs 4, the people in question, the unrighteous, are described as those who "eat up MY PEOPLE as they eat bread". This first of all, is not talking about canabalism, but war. Second, who is "my people" in the passage? ISRAEL! Then in vs 5 God says "For God IS with the generation of the righteous." At this point in her history, during king David’s time, Israel WAS righteous, regardless of future circumstances. It is obviously a passage dealing with a specific point in history, and Israel was righteous at that time, and God, as you and I both know, was with Israel then. Not in the sence of the shekinah glory inhabiting the temple, but God blessed Israel greatly at that point in time, and they won battles that were impossible for them to win, over and over again.
So, in light of the issues I just explained, you can see how it is not possible that the wicked in this passage are another part of Israel, as you suggested that the passage was primarily talking about Israel. This cannot be, if the wicked of the passage, are "eating up my people as they eat bread." If you were right, then David would surely have been more specific about the wicked also being Israel. But his words clearly indicate that all Israel is at war, constantly, with wicked nations all around them.
"In one sense there might seem to be a use of scripture which runs contrary to accepted practice of good interpretation of today, which says that a scriptural passage cannot mean something different than what it’s original authors intended it to mean. But can wider meanings, not intended or invisaged by their authors, emerge from placing scriptural passages in different contexts?" Are you throwing some bizarre hypothetical philosophy out there, or do you actually believe that bunk?? Do you honestly think it is right, to twist and turn scripture any which way, just to suit your doctrines??? That is exactly what you are suggesting here. The answer is NO, you cannot put passages out of their proper contexts and then make some lame doctrine out of them. They are in their contexts for a reason, and thy only have one proper interpretation. It is possible that you can glean additional meaning from a passage IN IT’S CONTEXT, and use that meaning to enhance your spiritual life, I suppose, but this is not the norm. It says what it says.
I wish I could comment on the rest of your post, But I’ve got to JET. So have a great day at work, and I’ll look forward to your next. I just want you to know that I am enjoying our debates alot! And the Mishna is bunk too!