Might as well make use of this space

[journeyman]

Do tell.

Stop stalling and back up your claim.

[Slug1]

So here's my thought.

We all agree that God Himself spoke to the children of Israel at Sinai.

So why should one listen to any person who claims to amend or otherwise alter said covenant? I don't care if that person is Jesus, Paul, or any of you fine people here.

Hey Fenris, I happened to read your op the other day and this comes to mind.

Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Just want to point out the last part where the Lord informs Abram that "in him" (Abram), that all families of the earth shall be blessed. What is "in" Abram that will someday, bless all families of the earth?

[journeyman]

Christians don't follow the vast majority of the bible's laws. Who abrogated them?

Not the Messiah,

Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? Jn.8:46

[journeyman]

A statement of belief with which you disagree is not an accusation.

It is when God is the speaker.

[Athanasius]

A statement of belief with which you disagree is not an accusation.

It is when God is the speaker.

No, not even when God is the speaker. And you, are not God. Now cut it out or I'll cut you out.

[journeyman]

No, not even when God is the speaker. And you, are not God. Now cut it out or I'll cut you out.

I'm aware of my need of God's mercy and my comments haven't been inappropriate. I'm perplexed by your caution to silence me.

[RabbiKnife]

You keep speaking as if you are the ultimate authority over interpretation

It gets tedious

[journeyman]

You keep speaking as if you are the ultimate authority over interpretation

It gets tedious

I'm no authority over interpretation, except where God has made it plain. What's tedious is having a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah but, believes Jesus contradicted God....and then have a believer in Jesus ask where an instance like that might be, and getting some sort of wonder why the believer is being unkind. Or threatened with detainment.

[RabbiKnife]

“plain,” like beauty, is in the eye of the interpreter

[journeyman]

“plain,” like beauty, is in the eye of the interpreter

Actually neither are. They're in the eyes of God.

[journeyman]

I'm compelled and would like to say that I'm grateful Jesus didn't decide to turn his tormentors into ash with a flamethrower that could engulf the earth. Is there any consensus with delight in this?

[Athanasius]

Sure.

I'm aware of my need of God's mercy and my comments haven't been inappropriate. I'm perplexed by your caution to silence me.

Fenris is engaging genuinely in this conversation. What you've written appears equally genuine, until we look closer.

The followers of the Messiah don't amend or alter the covenant at Sinai. We simply understand it correctly because of him...

This is a good point in itself: who says that Jesus, Paul, etc., are amending or altering the covenant, rather than bringing us to a better - or you say, correct - understanding of said covenant?

Fenris points out that Jesus, Paul, etc., aren't just bringing us to a better understanding of the covenant. That new covenant they offer abrogates the old covenant, even if not wholly.

To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.

"You know those laws we've been following since Sinai? It turns out that God doesn't want us to follow them at all".

Why should I do that? Because you said so? Because some guy named Paul or Jesus said so? Well, so what? God said otherwise...

...why am I hearing about this "new covenant" from a person and not God?

And then we read this:

To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.

Only if someone is wrong, but the Messiah is right.

So, no argument then? No substantial reply to Fenris' point? To your credit you do say:

I told you the law hasn't changed, only our understanding of it and God uses people to spread his message.

But I agree with Fenris: the law as understood in Christianity is not the law as understood in Judaism. They might look the same on paper, but the practical application is not.

Fenris then makes the following point:

Why is he "right"? Because you like what he said? I mean, that's fine and all but he's still a human being contradicting God. Given that dynamic, why should I believe the human being over God?

By 'contradicting God' He means the abrogation of the Mosaic law, which, let's face it, is something Jesus was about in the Gospels and John. The religious Jews of His day weren't getting riled up for nothing, or just because He was claimed to be God. He claimed to be God and then acted as such with respect to the application of the law.

You then reply to me, and Fenris replies to you:

According to Maimonides it's one of them.

Do tell.

Which is met with:

Stop stalling and back up your claim.

Earlier you had written:

You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.

That you're begging the question is neither here nor there at this point.

What we have throughout, as RK mentioned, is an exchange where you aren't engaging with Fenris as a peer, but as someone who knows better than he does. You write as if what you say is the truth, rather than argue for it. You have the understanding of Scripture.

The claim about Maimonides is unsubstantiated. Even if it was, it's well known that Jesus didn't adhere to the law as his contemporaries did. The law was made for humanity, and all the rest. There's an opportunity for fine lines of argument, and what we get is "cut the crap".

And then we have this:

I'm no authority over interpretation, except where God has made it plain. What's tedious is having a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah but, believes Jesus contradicted God....and then have a believer in Jesus ask where an instance like that might be, and getting some sort of wonder why the believer is being unkind. Or threatened with detainment.

You're not an authority over interpretation even where "God has made it plain". You've chosen to engage in a discussion with Fenris, who you knew going in is Jewish. You've stalled in demonstrating that Jesus didn't contradict God, but our understanding (the point you originally made). And so yes, I've asked you to be nice and warned you.

Oh, and that's to say nothing of the historically reported posts in your previous exchanges with other board members.

[Fenris]

Stop stalling and back up your claim.

You made some comment about Maimonides. What are you referring to?

[Fenris]

Hey Fenris, I happened to read your op the other day and this comes to mind.

Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Just want to point out the last part where the Lord informs Abram that "in him" (Abram), that all families of the earth shall be blessed. What is "in" Abram that will someday, bless all families of the earth?

First, it seems to me that it's common knowledge that many American Evangelicals invoke Genesis 12:3 when talking about Jews generally and the state of Israel specifically. So the verse can certainly be understood as referring to modern day Jews.

So far as the world being blessed through this people, this is actually an historical verifiable fact. Jews are a marvelously productive people. Jews make up less than 0.2% of the world's population, less than 2 people out of every 1,000. And yet they've changed the world in amazing ways. One simple metric: about 25% of all Nobel prizes ever awarded have gone to Jews. That's a crazy statistic. Think of what it means: That this tiny people have made so many award winning advances in medicine, making people's health better, in physics and chemistry, giving us the wonders of the modern world, in economics, giving us the wealth to subsist in this world, in literature, to edify our minds... This isn't trivial, it's incredible. And it's the literal fulfillment of the fact that in Abraham, through his descendants, the whole world has been blessed. In an actual and quantifiable way.

You may agree with this sentiment or you may not, but it is at least a logical way to look at it.

[journeyman]

Sure.
Fenris is engaging genuinely in this conversation. What you've written appears equally genuine, until we look closer.

This is a good point in itself: who says that Jesus, Paul, etc., are amending or altering the covenant, rather than bringing us to a better - or you say, correct - understanding of said covenant?

Fenris points out that Jesus, Paul, etc., aren't just bringing us to a better understanding of the covenant. That new covenant they offer abrogates the old covenant, even if not wholly.

No it doesn't abrogate the old covenant. It agrees with it 100%,

for this is the law and the prophets. Mt.7:12

To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.

"You know those laws we've been following since Sinai? It turns out that God doesn't want us to follow them at all".

Why should I do that? Because you said so? Because some guy named Paul or Jesus said so? Well, so what? God said otherwise...

...why am I hearing about this "new covenant" from a person and not God?

And then we read this:

To say that you "understand it correctly" is also to amend it.

Only if someone is wrong, but the Messiah is right.

So, no argument then? No substantial reply to Fenris' point? To your credit you do say:

I told you the law hasn't changed, only our understanding of it and God uses people to spread his message.

My point is, our Savior fulfilled the law, not annulled it.

But I agree with Fenris: the law as understood in Christianity is not the law as understood in Judaism. They might look the same on paper, but the practical application is not.

Fenris then makes the following point:

Why is he "right"? Because you like what he said? I mean, that's fine and all but he's still a human being contradicting God. Given that dynamic, why should I believe the human being over God?

By 'contradicting God' He means the abrogation of the Mosaic law, which, let's face it, is something Jesus was about in the Gospels and John. The religious Jews of His day weren't getting riled up for nothing, or just because He was claimed to be God. He claimed to be God and then acted as such with respect to the application of the law.

And who is making the claim that the Messiah abrogated the law? What passage are you referring to?

You then reply to me, and Fenris replies to you:

According to Maimonides it's one of them.

Do tell.

Which is met with:

Stop stalling and back up your claim.

Earlier you had written:

You're unable to cite any instance of the Messiah contradicting God, so cut the crap.

That you're begging the question is neither here nor there at this point.

What we have throughout, as RK mentioned, is an exchange where you aren't engaging with Fenris as a peer, but as someone who knows better than he does. You write as if what you say is the truth, rather than argue for it. You have the understanding of Scripture.

No, what we have here is Fenris saying Jesus contradicted his Father and me asking where? Then, Fenris inquiring about another statement I made, without citing any example where Jesus contradicted the old covenant.

The claim about Maimonides is unsubstantiated. Even if it was, it's well known that Jesus didn't adhere to the law as his contemporaries did. The law was made for humanity, and all the rest. There's an opportunity for fine lines of argument, and what we get is "cut the crap".

I have every intention of citing Maimonides belief, but any conflict between the Messiah and his contemporaries isn't the result of Jesus abrogating the law. Jesus did go against "tradition", but that's not the law.

And then we have this:

I'm no authority over interpretation, except where God has made it plain. What's tedious is having a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah but, believes Jesus contradicted God....and then have a believer in Jesus ask where an instance like that might be, and getting some sort of wonder why the believer is being unkind. Or threatened with detainment.

You're not an authority over interpretation even where "God has made it plain". You've chosen to engage in a discussion with Fenris, who you knew going in is Jewish. You've stalled in demonstrating that Jesus didn't contradict God, but our understanding (the point you originally made). And so yes, I've asked you to be nice and warned you.

I don't know what passage of the NT Fenris is referring to. How can I defend my disagreement without knowing what he's referring to? Do you have any examples?

Oh, and that's to say nothing of the historically reported posts in your previous exchanges with other board members.

I don't know what you're referring to, but this subject ihas become convoluted enough.