Political Crossfire Forums

[Jonah]

John wrote: psholtz wrote: Jonah wrote: Two great points. Regarding the first one... better to leave it to Jesus and and just accept his righteousness imputed when we "believe on" him.
Righteousness is *never* imputed in this manner..

In fact, it's almost criminal to believe that it could be.

Quote: This motivates us to want to obey him and fulfill the perfect law of love for God and towards others. That we love one another as Christ loved us.
I don't see how building your house on a pile of sand could possibly motivate you in this manner.



Dude...quit voting for yourself. :lol:

:rotf:

[psholtz]

John wrote: psholtz wrote: Jonah wrote: Two great points. Regarding the first one... better to leave it to Jesus and and just accept his righteousness imputed when we "believe on" him.
Righteousness is *never* imputed in this manner..

In fact, it's almost criminal to believe that it could be.

Quote: This motivates us to want to obey him and fulfill the perfect law of love for God and towards others. That we love one another as Christ loved us.
I don't see how building your house on a pile of sand could possibly motivate you in this manner.



Dude...quit voting for yourself. :lol:
That is pretty funny, actually... :lol:

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: The point is to understand that sin is forbidden because it's bad...not bad because it's forbidden.

In that case, I am not getting something here.

As I understand it from our prior conversations, Jesus came and what was forbidden before became allowed.

But if sin is forbidden because it is bad, rather than bad because it is forbidden, then what changed with Jesus? Did he change the nature of sin? Did he make it from bad to good (or neutral)?

Basically, you are saying that eating pork with shrimp sauce was forbidden because it was bad. I understand (well, not really, but whatever) how you say that Jesus removed the prohibition by fulfilling the law, atoning for your sins, etc. But I never heard that he made what was previously bad (sin) into something good. So as far as I understand, sin should still remain bad, because it is.....bad, not because it was merely forbidden.

So when you say that Jesus died for your sins and fulfilled the law, so now you can eat shrimp, I don't agree with that logic, but I understand it.

But when you say that sin was forbidden because it is bad, then unless Jesus somehow made it into good, I don't understand how Christians can rationalize eating pork or transgressing any of the other prohibitions...

Rituals serve a purpose...when the purpose is fulfilled...it's foolish to reject the substance for the ritual.

[Jonah]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: The point is to understand that sin is forbidden because it's bad...not bad because it's forbidden.

In that case, I am not getting something here.

As I understand it from our prior conversations, Jesus came and what was forbidden before became allowed.

But if sin is forbidden because it is bad, rather than bad because it is forbidden, then what changed with Jesus? Did he change the nature of sin? Did he make it from bad to good (or neutral)?

Basically, you are saying that eating pork with shrimp sauce was forbidden because it was bad. I understand (well, not really, but whatever) how you say that Jesus removed the prohibition by fulfilling the law, atoning for your sins, etc. But I never heard that he made what was previously bad (sin) into something good. So as far as I understand, sin should still remain bad, because it is.....bad, not because it was merely forbidden.

So when you say that Jesus died for your sins and fulfilled the law, so now you can eat shrimp, I don't agree with that logic, but I understand it.

But when you say that sin was forbidden because it is bad, then unless Jesus somehow made it into good, I don't understand how Christians can rationalize eating pork or transgressing any of the other prohibitions...

Perhaps the word bad is too crude a word to be used in this context. Jesus declared that what you eat does not make you "unclean" spiritually speaking, but we know that eating pork or shrimp may not be the healthiest things to eat, so in that sense they're bad. Definite practicality to a lot of those laws. Some, maybe not. :-D

[Duchifas]

:rotf::rotf::rotf::rotf::rotf::rotf::rotf::rotf:

John wrote: Rituals serve a purpose...when the purpose is fulfilled...it's foolish to reject the substance for the ritual.

That doesn't even remotely address my question. You said that sin is bad because it is bad, not becuase it is forbidden. Let's say ritual law served its purpose (or showing you that you need G-d/Messiah). Did it then become good to eat pork? Did sin transform from being bad into good or neutral?

John wrote: Perhaps the word bad is too crude a word to be used in this context. Jesus declared that what you eat does not make you "unclean" spiritually speaking, but we know that eating pork or shrimp may not be the healthiest things to eat, so in that sense they're bad. Definite practicality to a lot of those laws. Some, maybe not.

Oh, comon, Jonah. :) Lighting fire is ok on six days of the week, but unhealthy on Saturday? Linen and wool are unhealthy?

I really don't buy the idea that kashrut laws are there to keep us healthy. Billions of Gentiles and non-observant Jews eat pork and shrimp and frankly, they often appear healthier to me than the average yeshiva student.

[John]

Quote: That doesn't even remotely address my question. You said that sin is bad because it is bad, not becuase it is forbidden. Let's say ritual law served its purpose (or showing you that you need G-d/Messiah). Did it then become good to eat pork? Did sin transform from being bad into good or neutral?

No...it didn't become "good' to eat pork....but it became bad to miss the Messiah BECAUSE of something like pork. I don't have to eat pork. But I don't have to continue to act out a ritual that has been fulfilled in my life just for the sake of the ritual.

I don't have to use a pencil (like I HAD to in kindergarten) now that I've learned to write. Ink works just fine. But I understand the reason why they had a rule of using pencil back then.

If you wanna stay in kindergarten...then use the pencil...but you can't graduate school if you never leave kindergarten.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: That doesn't even remotely address my question. You said that sin is bad because it is bad, not becuase it is forbidden. Let's say ritual law served its purpose (or showing you that you need G-d/Messiah). Did it then become good to eat pork? Did sin transform from being bad into good or neutral?

No...it didn't become "good' to eat pork....but it became bad to miss the Messiah BECAUSE of something like pork. I don't have to eat pork. But I don't have to continue to act out a ritual that has been fulfilled in my life just for the sake of the ritual.

I don't have to use a pencil (like I HAD to in kindergarten) now that I've learned to write. Ink works just fine. But I understand the reason why they had a rule of using pencil back then. [<-- which was????]

If you wanna stay in kindergarten...then use the pencil...but you can't graduate school if you never leave kindergarten.

Bad analogy.

A more accurate analogy would be that you didn't use your pen was because your teacher told you that pens are BAD. Really bad. REALLY BAD. And that if the teacher ever saw you using a pen, you'd be punished.

And then the next day that very same teacher tells you that it is perfectly OK to use pens.

Now, I can easily imagine an inconsistent teacher. Met plenty of those in life.

But I have trouble imagining an inconsistent G-d.

So, I personally think that at least one of your ideas is patently false. Whether it's the idea that ritual sin is somehow inherently bad or the idea that Jesus changed something is up to you to decide. :)

[sLiPpY]

Jonah wrote: Mailech wrote: I know the shpeil:
Jesus died for your sins. You need the blood of his sacrifice to atone for you. This was accomplished by sacrifices in the Temple, but it is no longer necessary since you have the sacrifice of Jesus.

Now my question. I've read on this forum that when people before Jesus was crucified died they went to a holding pen until then and then Jesus preached to them and then they went to heaven. But what about the people who lived with the temple and brought sacrifices for thier sins, they would not need Jesus to enter Heaven right?

And what about people that G-d punished for thier sins like Moshe and Aahron for example. They recieved thier punishment, does that not atone for them? Why then would they need Jesus to enter Heaven

Howdy, Mailech.

The whole enchilada is faith, not keeping the law. That is, keeping the law might keep you out of trouble with God, but you cannot be deemed righteous in God’s eyes by keeping it. Is this a problem? Yes. Those who only keep the law, but don’t live by faith in the Messiah won’t enter Heaven. Even those before Jesus walked the planet!

Jesus himself said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. You might say, “Wait a minute, how can I ever obey the law as good as a Pharisee or teacher of the law, much less exceed them?” Only one way: faith in Messiah.

Jesus mentioned that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be in heaven. Abraham and his sons believed in Messiah. How so? Jesus said “Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day, he saw it and was glad.” Abraham saw Messiah’s day though eyes of faith. Faith in what? Faith in God’s promise to him that his offspring would be as numerous as the stars in the sky… His offspring were and are given through the Messiah. How’s that?
Christians refer to Abraham as the “father of faith.”: “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” So, everyone who believes in Messiah is the offspring of Abraham, as God sees it.

Romans 1:16-17 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel (good news about Jesus): for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, “But the righteous shall live by faith.””

Finally, Paul confronts Peter in his hypocrisy of dining only with Jewish believers and says, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be attained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

A thought:
Isaiah 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.”

Ah, but Jonah...the NT indicates that the Jesus person kept Mosiac law, however took a "Liberal" approach. Is it not the Paul of Tarsus character who created the religion of Christianity, seperating Jesus who was a follower of the law, from Judaism?

[John]

Quote: A more accurate analogy would be that you didn't use your pen was because your teacher told you that pens are BAD. Really bad. REALLY BAD. And that if the teacher ever saw you using a pen, you'd be punished.

That's basically what she said. :lol:

And she didn't explain why...she just said do it. Because I wasn't at a level that debate would be in order.

[John]

Quote: And then the next day that very same teacher tells you that it is perfectly OK to use pens.

Now, I can easily imagine an inconsistent teacher. Met plenty of those in life.

Wasn't the next day....it was about five years later if I remember correctly...and by then it wasn't inconsistent...I understood why the pen would have been "bad" to use before I had come to the proper development of my education.

Can you imagine how silly I would have look whining about the "inconsistentcy"....heck no...I was happy to use the pen, thankful even. Writing with the pencil made my hand hurt.

[John]

Quote: or the idea that Jesus changed something is up to you to decide.

Jesus didn't change anything. You can try and keep the Law without Him if you wish...you'll be judged to it's standard...that's your choice. Good luck with that.

Jesus gave us more revelation into the plan of God with mankind....He gave us insight into the purpose of the Law. The purpose of the Law is to get us to see Him and that we need Him.

[Jonah]

Duchifas wrote:

Oh, comon, Jonah. :) Lighting fire is ok on six days of the week, but unhealthy on Saturday? Linen and wool are unhealthy?.

No, but working yourself to death and never taking a break is unhealthy.
I mean, you cannot deny that preventing yourself from being a work-a-holic and setting aside one day each week to honor God, focus on Him and commit it more or less soley to worship is a good thing.

Wool is unhealthy if you're allergic to it. :lol:

I agree that this linen and wool mixed together thing has no practical value, to my knowledge. So, not all the laws are practical for the Jew. In the context of the law, this would be sin, because God says it is. Why did he say it was? I feel that I know full well why he said it was. I don't think you'll receive my answer, because you can't see the picture. (respectfully)
It's like you said before about sin... I understand the logic, but I don't agree.

But here's the answer: the law is a huge, fabulous picture of Messiah in all his righteousness, holiness, purity, majesty, etc. That's why some of the laws make no "practical" sense. If and when you can receive this, you will have already received Him. :wink:

Duchifas wrote:
I really don't buy the idea that kashrut laws are there to keep us healthy. Billions of Gentiles and non-observant Jews eat pork and shrimp and frankly, they often appear healthier to me than the average yeshiva student.

Disagree. Of course we know that pork, shrimp, etc. can contain parasites if not cooked properly, and that in itself is not a horrible answer.
But the bottom line is, they contain toxins that cooking cannot remove. I am very convinced about this. I cannot site a source, but when I think about how pigs process the food in their multiple stomachs - the fact that it's not digested nearly as well as cows, sheep, fish, birds stomachs do, and the fact that they will eat ANYTHING... poop, corpses, etc., and the fact that shrimp eat poop among other things, and the fact that I've gone to a seafood restaurant more than once, eaten shrimp/mussels/clams/crab/lobster that were fully cooked but felt weird for hours afterward, I'm led to believe that there are unhealthy toxins in them.

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: Now, I can easily imagine an inconsistent teacher. Met plenty of those in life.
Like I said above (and like you've been ignoring), God is *not* inconsistent.

Jewish Law? Christian theology? those may be inconsistent, but not God..

So let go of those things the Christians are saying which are obviously absurd. If it sounds absurd, chances are it probably is.. And you're correct, what "Christians" try to pass off as their creed and doctrine is quite inconsistent..

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Wasn't the next day....it was about five years later if I remember correctly...and by then it wasn't inconsistent...I understood why the pen would have been "bad" to use before I had come to the proper development of my education.

Thank you. See, it wasn't too hard to agree with me, was it? :)

In your former statement, sin was forbidden "because it's bad." Clearly, the pen in your analogy here is not "bad." You just didn't know how to use it. Thus, the teacher forbade you to use it. Not because the pen was "bad" but because you had problems using it.

Thus, to work backwards from your analogy -- sin is not forbidden because it is "bad." People can eat shrimp and pork and be just fine, thousands of years of human experience proves it. I never heard of someone dying from wearing wool+linen, nor is there a higher incidence of burned buildings on Saturdays.

Sin is not forbidden because there is something bad about pigs. Pigs are just forbidden.

Look, you wanna say that these ritual laws/sins served some purpose to show the beauty of the Messiah, and now that he is here for you, there is no need for them -- ok, I don't buy it for a second, but there is some logic to it. When you say that there is something bad about a pig, then you shouldn't eat it (along with all the other laws), because while Jesus may have changed a lot of things when he came, I highly doubt that he changed the biology or nature of pigs.

I think that fundamentally, there is just an issue of Trust here (I don't mean to offend). You can't seem to believe that G-d would prohibit/mandate something, unless you can rationalize it. Thus you keep your steadfast belief that there is something bad about those poor pigs and crabs (we should really move on to other examples). Now that's one level of trust, you believe in what G-d says because you can rationalize and it makes sense to you. A higher level of trust, as per Judaism, is to put trust in G-d ahead of your limited logical and reasoning capacities. Just because He is G-d.

Incidentally, I see this phenomenon in many of your threads. From trying to fit Daniel's prophesies into exact dates, to squeezing Jesus into organized neat patterns everywhere in the OT, to proving that trinity is "logically necessary." Etc. Everything gotta be rationalized.

Comon man, logic is logic, it is limited and it has its place. I am not saying you gotta abandon it. But sometimes you gotta go transcend it. Supra-logic.

Dude, you just gotta.......BELIEVE! ;) [Meant nicely]

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: Now, I can easily imagine an inconsistent teacher. Met plenty of those in life.
Like I said above (and like you've been ignoring), God is *not* inconsistent.

I didn't ignore, I saw it. I am trying to convey this to John.

Quote: Jewish Law? Christian theology? those may be inconsistent, but not God..

I know.

Quote: So let go of those things the Christians are saying which are obviously absurd. If it sounds absurd, chances are it probably is.. And you're correct, what "Christians" try to pass off as their creed and doctrine is quite inconsistent..

Obviously, I can let go. So can you. But I enjoy the discussions. As do you, else you wouldn't be here.

BTW, there is a little present waiting for you in the ME forum.

[Duchifas]

Jonah wrote: Duchifas wrote:

Oh, comon, Jonah. :) Lighting fire is ok on six days of the week, but unhealthy on Saturday? Linen and wool are unhealthy?.

No, but working yourself to death and never taking a break is unhealthy.
I mean, you cannot deny that preventing yourself from being a work-a-holic and setting aside one day each week to honor God, focus on Him and commit it more or less soley to worship is a good thing.

True. I don't feel like working when I bbq. Why not on Saturday?

Quote: Wool is unhealthy if you're allergic to it. :lol:

I agree that this linen and wool mixed together thing has no practical value, to my knowledge. So, not all the laws are practical for the Jew. In the context of the law, this would be sin, because God says it is. Why did he say it was? I feel that I know full well why he said it was. I don't think you'll receive my answer, because you can't see the picture. (respectfully)
It's like you said before about sin... I understand the logic, but I don't agree.

But here's the answer: the law is a huge, fabulous picture of Messiah in all his righteousness, holiness, purity, majesty, etc. That's why some of the laws make no "practical" sense. If and when you can receive this, you will have already received Him. :wink:

Yeah, I understand what you are saying (without agreeing). Laws were there to show something, Jesus came, no longer needed.

But that's not the same as saying that laws were there because pigs have parasites. Pigs had parasites before Jesus and they have them after Jesus. Thus, Jesus's coming should not have made eating pig any less sinful than before (if the rationale for sin is badness, which is what John is saying).

Quote: Duchifas wrote:
I really don't buy the idea that kashrut laws are there to keep us healthy. Billions of Gentiles and non-observant Jews eat pork and shrimp and frankly, they often appear healthier to me than the average yeshiva student.

Disagree. Of course we know that pork, shrimp, etc. can contain parasites if not cooked properly, and that in itself is not a horrible answer.
But the bottom line is, they contain toxins that cooking cannot remove. I am very convinced about this. I cannot site a source, but when I think about how pigs process the food in their multiple stomachs - the fact that it's not digested nearly as well as cows, sheep, fish, birds stomachs do, and the fact that they will eat ANYTHING... poop, corpses, etc., and the fact that shrimp eat poop among other things, and the fact that I've gone to a seafood restaurant more than once, eaten shrimp/mussels/clams/crab/lobster that were fully cooked but felt weird for hours afterward, I'm led to believe that there are unhealthy toxins in them.

Ok. But Jesus did not remove the toxins. If the toxins are the rationale for not eating pigs, then Christians shouldn't eat them just like we don't. [Along with all the other laws).

[John]

Jonah wrote: But here's the answer: the law is a huge, fabulous picture of Messiah in all his righteousness, holiness, purity, majesty, etc. That's why some of the laws make no "practical" sense. If and when you can receive this, you will have already received Him.

Exactly.

[John]

Quote: Ok. But Jesus did not remove the toxins. If the toxins are the rationale for not eating pigs, then Christians shouldn't eat them just like we don't. [Along with all the other laws).

The ritual shadow Laws are fulfilled in accepting Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is constantly washing us spiritually clean. There is no need in acting out the ritual when you can accept the reality.

If would be like sacrificing a bull to the Lord when you've already accepted His sacrifice which it the ultimate eternal sacrifice. It would be like saying, "Well...I don't really believe in who You are Lord and what you did".

[John]

Quote: But that's not the same as saying that laws were there because pigs have parasites. Pigs had parasites before Jesus and they have them after Jesus. Thus, Jesus's coming should not have made eating pig any less sinful than before (if the rationale for sin is badness, which is what John is saying).

Can't things have levels of importance? Can't both be true? It's a known fact that pork isn't the healthiest thing...especially if it is kept and prepared wrong.

And it can be part of a ritual that gives us insight into the person of Messiah.

It's still good advice to avoid pork, but it isn't a spiritual issue anymore because God has revealed more of His plan and gives people the opportunity to graduate to the next level of understanding.

It’s like the concept of studying Torah in Heaven. Why would you do that when you have access to the living Torah; the Almighty God?

It would be like Isaiah refusing to speak to God because he was reading Torah.

[John]

Duchifas,

If God can redeem the spirit of a Gentile; how much less of a deed is it for Him to make pigs clean?