[arcura]

Interesting
Oh, I remember a history clip I read which said the a Roman general (whose name I have forgotten) said that the Jews were an angering nation for they have given their laws to the rest of the world.
In those days of the Roman empire I can see how frustrating that might be to some.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[InfoJunkie4Life]

So you don't believe the Decalogue (10 commandments) are binding?

I am not sure. I am sure, that when it comes to the studies of the Bible, that there are points where we will never agree, and we can both submit our view points and never come to any conclusion. Anyway, I really haven't come to any sufficient conclusion on the matter. After reading Romans 2 (specifically 12 to 14ish) it would seem to me that what I posted prior is closest to what is written in the Bible, but I am still unsure of the interpretation of this passage. There are other parts of the Scriptures that seem to confirm this while I have read others that don't wholly support it. That is not to say they are in contest with each other, but I am currently incapable of coming to a conclusion.

Here's what I am seeing:

There are two things that discern sin, the Law and conscience. The Law was put into writing as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation and to show a clear difference between what is right and what is wrong. Conscience is a matter of the heart. Even before the Law people had conscience, and it is by the heart which we can see true motives. It would seem unjust to judge people by the Law if they are not part of the Jewish covenant or if they have never heard of such a thing (I will admit that things aren't always as they seem, this statement isn't a supporting factor, just a supposition). Thus, it seems necessary for God to judge people by their own conscience when they are not applicable to the Law.

Because of the nature of the Law, there in still a clear boundary as to where sin and righteousness lie. So, the Law, even in the above described circumstances, is not nullified but rather just not a playing factor in judgment. There will still be a judgment based on the law which said person sees morally, i.e.. Conscience. I also would to say that no matter how it turns out it will be perfectly just in the way God judges men of all circumstances.

I think our side conversation is getting a bit off topic, maybe it would be wise to start a thread more specifically concerning the matter.

[dwashbur]

So you don’t believe the Decalogue (10 commandments) are binding?

I don't know how far back the tradition goes, and it's probably impossible to tell, but modern Judaism doesn't consider them binding on Gentiles. They have what they call the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah, and those are the only laws Gentiles are required to keep in order to get on God's good side. My favorite Rabbi used to say that when a Gentile comes to him and wants to convert to Judaism, he would reply, "Why? Are you a glutton for punishment?"

[JoeT777]

I don't know how far back the tradition goes, and it's probably impossible to tell, but modern Judaism doesn't consider them binding on Gentiles. They have what they call the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah, and those are the only laws Gentiles are required to keep in order to get on God's good side. My favorite Rabbi used to say that when a Gentile comes to him and wants to convert to Judaism, he would reply, "Why? Are you a glutton for punishment?"

That’s true, they don’t encourage conversion; I’ve heard similar stories. I’ve also heard that some don’t believe in heaven and hell in the same way Christians do.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

That’s true, they don’t encourage conversion; I’ve heard similar stories. I’ve also heard that some don’t believe in heaven and hell in the same way Christians do.

JoeT

That's what the Rabbi told us. When we asked him what "salvation" means he said "living in harmony with God, with others, and with yourself." Nice and vague!

[JoeT777]

I am not sure. I am sure, that when it comes to the studies of the Bible, that there are points where we will never agree, and we can both submit our view points and never come to any conclusion.

But, you should come to the same conclusions as I do (there is but one Truth - God isn't schizophrenic, at least insofar as I know), and if that conclusion seeks objective truth I am forced to agree.

There are two things that discern sin, the Law and conscience. The Law was put into writing as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation and to show a clear difference between what is right and what is wrong. Conscience is a matter of the heart. Even before the Law people had conscience, and it is by the heart which we can see true motives. It would seem unjust to judge people by the Law if they are not part of the Jewish covenant or if they have never heard of such a thing (I will admit that things aren't always as they seem, this statement isn't a supporting factor, just a supposition). Thus, it seems necessary for God to judge people by their own conscience when they are not applicable to the Law.

Because of the nature of the Law, there in still a clear boundary as to where sin and righteousness lie. So, the Law, even in the above described circumstances, is not nullified but rather just not a playing factor in judgment. There will still be a judgment based on the law which said person sees morally, ie. conscience. I also would to say that no matter how it turns out it will be perfectly just in the way God judges men of all circumstances.

I think our side conversation is getting a bit off topic, maybe it would be wise to start a thread more specifically concerning the matter.

I don’t think we’re as far apart as you might think.

St. Chrysostom seems shed the best light on the Law found Romans 3:31. The purpose of the law is to make man righteous. But, a law held externally, is that done simply out of rote, habit, or fear has no power to make man righteous. We can burn all the flesh in the land, wash our hands from minute to minute till they’re raw, or burn incense until every man, women, and child has inflamed sinuses with little effect of making us holy. This was what Christ was telling the Pharisees; simply following one of these LAWS isn’t redemption. However, faith can do just that, the law is the effect of faith. Once faith takes hold, it establishes the LAW; it establishes it in the heart. “Faith is not opposed to the Law,” rather the law is ‘perfected’ in faith.

… For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the Law, even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he says, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets), so here this establishes that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? He would say. What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. For all, it says, have sinned: but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this has it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law. For since the chief cause of perplexity to the Jews was this, that the faith seemed to be in opposition to it, he shows more than the Jew wishes, that so far from being contrary, it is even in close alliance and cooperation with it, which was what they especially longed to hear proved.( Source: St. John Chrysostom, On Romans, Homily 7 CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom))

Yes we who believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church hold the faith that Christ came to fulfill (to make complete, or to perfect) the LAW. Do away with THE LAW, and you’ve done away with Christ, his sacrifice, and our redemption through him. THE LAW looks to the authority of THE LAW GIVER, so too does our faith. Thus Paul rightly says, “Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.”

Gal 3:23-24-25 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. KJV

There is a certain security in the Law, being ‘kept’ under the Law. St. John Chrysostom likens being kept as the walls of a fortress form a ‘KEEP’, keeping us confined in a comforting fear and hate used to keep the world out. So, the law forms right reasoning as a tutor forms the mind of the student of physics. The physics teacher enumerates, laws from Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, etc. to students, bound to their desks, fearing to venture into the ‘real world,’ remaining comfort, i.e. kept. (By the way – that once described no. 1 son – but we got him over that – we cut of the funds – works every time.) But, now – on graduation day – there is the realization our faith is can and will operate in the world, and quite well under the Law too. This doesn’t mean the laws of Newton or Einstein no longer work – what goes up continues to come down after graduation. (This works especially well with egos; when my ego is inflated upward, some jerk always comes along to deflate it! I learned that on graduation day). Similarly, the student in Christ graduates receiving faith learns from the Law to operate his faith in the real world day by day. What goes up with faith comes down with salvation. (Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom) )

Scripture must always be in harmony with itself and that of Apostolic Tradition which in turn must be in harmony with scripture and be in harmony with itself. That is to say is that God is not schizophrenic. He doesn’t tell you one thing and me something else.

But now in Christ Jesus, you, who some time were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh: Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees: that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace, Eph 2:13

The Law was given by God to the Israelite who used it to build up a wall of self-identification. The Law was a means to keep out by fear those on the other side of the wall who worshiped idols, building a wall roundabout the world as till it closed in on itself. A battment, “a middle wall, no longer establishing them in security, but cutting them off from God. Such then is the middle wall of partition formed out of the hedge. And to explain what this is, he subjoins, the enmity in His flesh having abolished, the law of commandments.” St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5 (Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 5 on Ephesians (Chrysostom) ). He transforms us from our disposition of fear towards the commands of the Law to a position of charity in the Body of Christ.

I say then: Have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid! But by their offence salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them. Rom 11:11.

Rendering the Law dead makes an apparent contradiction in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Failing to understand the primary thrust of Paul’s message to the Roman’s we fail to see the confining externalization of the Law termed Judaizing. "Know you not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law) that the law hath dominion over a man as long as it liveth? For the woman that hath a husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband: so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ: that you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead that we may bring forth fruit to God. Paul considers the un-baptized Jew as being “married” to the Mosaic Law and is ‘bound’ to it for life. The only way to escape the former ‘binding of the Law’ is to be resurrected into the body of Christ. The Law lives in Christ; “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.” God rules through the law of the Prophets.


But Pope Paul VI sums it best:

“Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believes in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. “Pope Paul VI, NOSTRA AETATE, OCTOBER 28, 1965

JoeT

[dwashbur]

But, you should come to the same conclusions as I do (there is but one Truth - God isn't schizophrenic, at least insofar as I know), and if that conclusion seeks objective truth I am forced to agree.

The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion.

One thing a lot of folks have trouble facing is the fact that there are actually words and terms in the Bible that we don't understand and aren't likely to any time soon. Example: the famous passage Micah 6:8, "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." The word "humbly" is a best-guess. This is the only place in the entire Old Testament where that word appears, and it seems to have some superficial relationship to a word for "humility" so we go with "walk humbly." The translators of the Septuagint thought differently: it reads "do justice, love mercy, and be prepared to walk with your God." Which is right? Is either one right? We have no idea.

For me, that's one of the things that keeps Bible study interesting, and not having all the answers really doesn't give me a problem. Your Mileage May Vary, and that's okay, too.

[JoeT777]

The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion.

One thing a lot of folks have trouble facing is the fact that there are actually words and terms in the Bible that we don't understand and aren't likely to any time soon. Example: the famous passage Micah 6:8, "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." The word "humbly" is a best-guess. This is the only place in the entire Old Testament where that word appears, and it seems to have some superficial relationship to a word for "humility" so we go with "walk humbly." The translators of the Septuagint thought differently: it reads "do justice, love mercy, and be prepared to walk with your God." Which is right? Is either one right? We have no idea.

For me, that's one of the things that keeps Bible study interesting, and not having all the answers really doesn't give me a problem. Your Mileage May Vary, and that's okay, too.

Then why bother? How can you discern which “Truth” is correct without an authority that guides you? Do you think God reveals a subjective truth; a sort of one word ‘fits all beliefs’ type thing? You might say, ‘Catholic Truth is for Catholics, the Methodist get another Truth (similar but non-the less different); and then of course Luther gets his Lutheran Truth. Is that the way it works?

JoeT

[dwashbur]

Then why bother? How can you discern which “Truth” is correct without an authority that guides you? Do you think God reveals a subjective truth; a sort of one word ‘fits all beliefs’ type thing? You might say, ‘Catholic Truth is for Catholics, the Methodist get another Truth (similar but non-the less different); and then of course Luther gets his Lutheran Truth. Is that the way it works?

JoeT

When did I say anything even remotely similar to that?

[JoeT777]

When did I say anything even remotely similar to that?

When you said, "The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion." I assumed you meant to say that biblical revelation was a matter of who interprets it.

[dwashbur]

When you said, "The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion." I assumed you meant to say that biblical revelation was a matter of who interprets it.

You assumed wrong.

[JoeT777]

You assumed wrong.

Interesting.

Do you mean that this is the first time I've ever been wrong?

[dwashbur]

Interesting.

Do you mean that this is the first time I've ever been wrong?

I wouldn't know. I'm not that familiar with you. I can only speak to this instance.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

But, you should come to the same conclusions as I do

As long as your conclusions are the truths that God has established, then yes. However, there is always room for error in all of us.

There can be only one truth, and this "everybody can be right" attitude the world has these days is very disappointing from a philosophical standpoint. It seems the quest for the "truth" has lost its roots to selfish desire and the longing to be right.

Scripture must always be in harmony with itself and that of Apostolic Tradition which in turn must be in harmony with scripture and be in harmony with itself. That is to say is that God is not schizophrenic. He doesn’t tell you one thing and me something else.

Agreed...

There is no doubt of the harmony of the word here, and by no means any saying of the law being torn down.

Thank You Joe.

[arcura]

InfoJunkie4Life and Joe,
I agree with both of you on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[inthebox]

Religiously speaking? I take this to mean in regards to OT law, as has been discussed. Not a socio-political construct that arbitrarily defines liberals as "tolerant" and conservatives as "intolerant" or any other worldly defininition.

On the one hand he is super conservative - they had all these lawful reasons for divorce, but He hates divorce. Lusting is adultery! Hate is murder! Follow me and leave the dead to bury their own? Adulteress forgiven [ not condemned = liberal ] but told to "sin no more" [ back to the law and super conservative here ] I think all to point out that following the law to gain righteousness is basically impossible; and to point out that He is the fulfillment of the law.

On the other He is liberal - that is broke the OT law. Healing on the sabbath, socializing with the unclean - lepers, tax collectors, samaritans, adulterers, women etc.- He tells the one thief that he will see him in heaven! This guy had no time to really repent or be sanctified?

And beyond:

love your enemies
mercy not sacrifice
what is in you is clean or unclean, not what you put in
eat of my flesh and drink of my blood?


So in the end I think he is neither "conservative" [retentive law follower ] or "liberal." [ no need to follow the law ]

He is "unique" as other have stated.
He is the law maker and He fulfills the law. Without the law there is no reason for Him to bother with us. Yet he desires our love and obedience. Confused? So am I, but I'll trust in what He tells us.





G&P

[arcura]

inthebox,
That is well thought out.
Thank you.
I go by my definition of liberal or conservative which many others have. It is not what political parties have made of it in these days.
A conservative is one who wants no changes he/she wants things to remain as they were.
A liberal on the other hand is one who does want some changes and most of them are for betterment of some folks such are good reasonable wages and equal pay for both males and females.
Food of the hungry, shelter for the homeless, healing for the sick are all a part of that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred