Unbeliever Struggles with a Biblical Truth.

[Goombah]

You claimed that the 10 commandments are categories.  Each of the 613 laws can be subsumed under one of these ten categories (the 10 commandments). 

I linked to this site which made that claim: http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm. You may recognize the organization as you also provided a link to it in one of your posts.

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others.


  List of the Aseret ha-Dibrot
1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.
4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.
5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."
6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."
7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.
9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).
10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."

You admitted your claim cannot be found in the bible and then I challenged you by simply giving you two laws that seemed to be impossible to be subsumed under one of the categories of the ten categories and you failed to meet my challenges.

I provided you with this from a Jewish scholar.

my response:

"It wouldn't be in the Bible.

There is no biblical reference to 613 commandments, although the later rabbinic leaders claimed that all 613 commandments are alluded to within the Ten Commandments. The first actual reference to 613 commandments is found in a lengthy Talmudic passage. There, Rabbi Simlai (third century A.D.) is quoted as saying, ?Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, ?and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts?? (b. Makkot 23b-24a; we will return to this passage at the end of this answer). Based on this comment, medieval Jewish scholars, sought to come to agreement as to the exact enumeration and delineation of the 613 commandments, since there is a good deal of ambiguity in counting. - See more at: https://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.vNE0yKlj.dpuf "

You may have noticed that the 613 commandments, according to Dr. Brown,weren't even referenced until the third century AD.It wouldn't have been possible to , as you put it:
"PLEASE GIVE ME A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS EACH OF THE 613 LAWS ARE "SUBSUMED" IN A CATEGORY UNDER ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?"

As I previously stated....IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE BIBLE.

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Well, I take that back.  I challenged you with the law that says a rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed and you said you have no idea but this law might be subsumed under the category of "coveting" or "stealing".  Now that is really funny Goombah!!!  Thanks for the laugh today!

You disagree with the categorization?They were educated guesses but I haven't looked into where the Rabbis would link that .My thought was based in part on this:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, For the abuse of his daughter; and besides this was obliged to give her her dowry also, as Philo (d) says, which is commonly said to be fifty more:

So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 

Take it up with the people who are making the claim .I'm just using them as references and saw no reason not to accept what they said.Here's another one:

By the first century of the Common Era, a number of Jewish texts interpreted the Decalogue as representing all of the commandments. Philo of Alexandria saw the Ten Commandments as inclusive of all of the mitzvot of the Torah (Decalogue 154).

The Ten Commandments loom large in rabbinic literature, where Shavuot is reinterpreted as a festival commemorating the revelation at Sinai. Following the pattern found in Philo and others, the Ten Commandments are often presented as the basis for all 613 commandments.


http://shma.com/2012/05/ten-or-613-the-commandments/

[Andy S.]

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Listen.  You have to understand that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  Is tithing one of the ten commandments?  The answer is no.  There is a reason why Jesus said the Pharisees "should" be tithing (Matt. 23:23).  It is because it is one of the many laws in the old testament. 
 

 

So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 

Take it up with the people who are making the claim .I'm just using them as references and saw no reason not to accept what they said.

Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   

[Goombah]

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :

?19)Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20)because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

How can one exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees?

22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;?

Listen.  You have to understand that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  Is tithing one of the ten commandments?  The answer is no.  There is a reason why Jesus said the Pharisees "should" be tithing (Matt. 23:23).  It is because it is one of the many laws in the old testament. 

Would NOT TITHING break one of the Ten Commandments?
  Malachi 3:
8)"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. 9)"You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me,......
 
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices.

So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 

Take it up with the people who are making the claim .I'm just using them as references and saw no reason not to accept what they said.

Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   

I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.

Can you explain the reason that commandment was given?The circumstances surrounding it?

If it involved preventing the Israelites from practicing the same religion as the Canaanites then the connection is obvious....

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

sexual immorality? equally obvious.

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

[Andy S.]

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.  John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

If he doesn't answer you, my guess would be just the ones in the old testament because just two verses earlier Jesus states in vs. 17, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets". 

Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I don't know if I told you my belief about the books and authors of the bible.  If I did then I'm sorry you have to hear it again. 

After careful consideration and investigation, my belief is that the bible is not inspired by a God but by men.  The bible is made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, for different purposes with different theologies.  I don't see any divine inspiration after my investigation.  It's a lot easier explaining all the contradictions and descrepancies in the bible with this belief.

So you might be able to give me a verse from a different author that points to it being impossible for people to keep the Law but I don't think the author of Matthew believed this.     

Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :

Well, if keeping the Law means "works" then the answer is yes according to the author of James.

James 2:24,25 states, "4 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

It seems like the author of Romans and the author of James would disagree on this.  The author of Romans (chap. 3) says, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" and the author of James would disagree and say "a man is justified by works".

Hey Goombah, I'm just wondering.  Is there a bible translation out there that says, "If you love me you will TRY TO keep my commandments EVEN THOUGH IT'S IMPOSSIBLE" (John 14:15).

How can one exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees?

Well, according to Matthew, one can exceed the righteous of the Pharisees by not "neglecting the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness" (Matt. 23:23). 

Listen.  You have to understand that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  Is tithing one of the ten commandments?  The answer is no.  There is a reason why Jesus said the Pharisees "should" be tithing (Matt. 23:23).  It is because it is one of the many laws in the old testament. 

Would NOT TITHING break one of the Ten Commandments?
  Malachi 3:
8)"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. 9)"You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me,......
 
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices.

I have a question Goombah.  You said the Pharisees turned 10 commandments into 613.  Would it be correct to say that the Pharisees should turn 613 commandments into 10?

Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   

I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.

This assumption of yours is wrong.  You think I "vetted" them because I linked to the same site???  I just got one of the 613 commandments off their site.   

Can you explain the reason that commandment was given?The circumstances surrounding it?

Would it matter?  God commands his people to not murder and then he commands them to murder.  Why would the circumstances surrounding it matter? 

If it involved preventing the Israelites from practicing the same religion as the Canaanites then the connection is obvious....

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

sexual immorality? equally obvious.

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

If you "prevent" by murdering then I'm sorry, this commandment to "not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations" goes against the commandment to murder.  Try again.

By the way, to not keep alive ANY INDIVIDUAL of the seven Canaanite nations means the murdering of children.  The category of belief in God, Prohibition of Improper Worship, and Prohibition of Sexual Immorality is just laughable.

If these are correct categories then you would have to explain why the women and children were sparred in Deut. 20:14 and not sparred in Deut. 20:16. 

Oh, and the reason why the children were not spared is alluded to in verse 18.  It is because God is scared that children will teach the Israelites  the detestable things which they have done for their non-existent gods.  Your God is scared of the influence of children on his people.  This God of yours that supposedly exists wants children murdered because of the things they have done for their non-existent god. 

In reading this wonderful story in Deut. 20, I was wondering what category of the 10 commandments you would put Deut. 20:11.  It says if the Israelites go into a city to fight against it and the city agrees to the offer of peace then you shall take all the people as "forced labor" and they shall "serve" them. 

What category of the 10 commandments would you put slavery under?   

[Goombah]

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.

You are using that scripture to make your point.I assumed you knew.

John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?

Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I agree with you Andy, to a point.. it seems as if we can keep any of the commandments we should be able to keep all of them...but we don't.I see here that the pharisees already blew it and more so later on in Matthew. for example:

Eight Woes

13 ?But woe (judgment is coming) to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow those who are [in the process of] entering to do so. 14 [d][Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you swallow up widows? houses, and to cover it up you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation.]

15 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert to Judaism), and when he becomes a convert, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16 ?Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ?Whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, that is nothing (non-binding); but whoever swears [an oath] by the gold of the temple is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].? 17 You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the sanctuary of the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 And [you scribes and Pharisees say], ?Whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, that is nothing (non-binding), but whoever swears [an oath] by the offering on it, he is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].? 19 You [spiritually] blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore, whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, swears both by it and by everything [offered] on it. 21 And whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells within it. 22 And whoever swears [an oath] by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.

23 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth (tithe) of your mint and dill and cumin [focusing on minor matters], and have neglected the weightier [more important moral and spiritual] provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the [primary] things you ought to have done without neglecting the others. 24 You [spiritually] blind guides, who strain out a gnat [consuming yourselves with miniscule matters] and swallow a camel [ignoring and violating God?s precepts]!

25 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and robbery and self-indulgence (unrestrained greed). 26 You [spiritually] blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the plate [examine and change your inner self to conform to God?s precepts], so that the outside [your public life and deeds] may be clean also.

27 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which look beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men?s bones and everything unclean. 28 So you, also, outwardly seem to be just and upright to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets and decorate and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and you say, ?If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have joined them in shedding the blood of the prophets.? 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the [allotted] measure of the guilt of your fathers? sins. 33 You [e]serpents, you spawn of vipers, how can you escape the penalty of hell?

I don't know if I told you my belief about the books and authors of the bible.  If I did then I'm sorry you have to hear it again. 

After careful consideration and investigation, my belief is that the bible is not inspired by a God but by men.  The bible is made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, for different purposes with different theologies.  I don't see any divine inspiration after my investigation.  It's a lot easier explaining all the contradictions and descrepancies in the bible with this belief.

So you might be able to give me a verse from a different author that points to it being impossible for people to keep the Law but I don't think the author of Matthew believed this.     

I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.
I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.

Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :

Well, if keeping the Law means "works" then the answer is yes according to the author of James.

James 2:24,25 states, "4 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

He doesn't discount being saved by faith; the verse previous states this:

23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ?Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness

James says... Faith alone, he isn't saying faith isn't required."Show me faith" how do you SEE faith? Works shows it to you.

It seems like the author of Romans and the author of James would disagree on this.  The author of Romans (chap. 3) says, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" and the author of James would disagree and say "a man is justified by works".

A living faith will be followed by works, it is evidence of it as James stated:

18 But someone will say, ?You have faith; I have deeds.?
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Hey Goombah, I'm just wondering.  Is there a bible translation out there that says, "If you love me you will TRY TO keep my commandments EVEN THOUGH IT'S IMPOSSIBLE" (John 14:15).

Not that I'm aware of but there are lots of them that say "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,:as well as "10) as it is written:

?None is righteous, no, not one;.

I have a question Goombah.  You said the Pharisees turned 10 commandments into 613.  Would it be correct to say that the Pharisees should turn 613 commandments into 10?

Perhaps.

For a fascinating passage in the Talmud that states that Habakkuk ultimately reduced the 613 commandments to one ? namely, Habakkuk 2:4, the just will live by faith ? (see Talmud, Makkoth 24a, - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Yes, the concluding comment is that the 613 commandments were reduced to one, as expressed in Habakkuk 2:4, ?The just shall live by faith?-a favorite text of Paul! (See Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11.) Of course, this is not to say that the Talmudic rabbis were Christians, but it is to say that when Paul boiled everything down to the just living by faith, he was in good company. - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   

I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.

This assumption of yours is wrong.  You think I "vetted" them because I linked to the same site???  I just got one of the 613 commandments off their site.   

Your # 601. THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

Their #601http://www.the613commandments.com/The-List-of-the-613-Commandments.html
601   Do not dwell permanently in Egypt
 

could we maybe do the whole 'evil God' thing at a later time? There are probably tons of threads like that in here already.
I'm hoping to resume our original conversation at some point.

[Andy S.]

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.

You are using that scripture to make your point.I assumed you knew.

Once again, your assumption is wrong.  If you read the last post.....I made an educated guess.

Why would Jesus say, "whoever keeps the commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" if it's impossible to keep them all?   

John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?

No, I didn't.  I am not a believer.  I just "ASKED" him to reveal this information to me.  He didn't.  One verse before John 14:13 states, "...he who believes..." and that's why I figured this passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY which is why I thought YOU should try asking your God for the answer.     

Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I agree with you Andy, to a point.. it seems as if we can keep any of the commandments we should be able to keep all of them...but we don't.I see here that the pharisees already blew it and more so later on in Matthew. for example:

So the Pharisees "blew it" right?  Were they not "living in faith"?  There is a line then between "living in faith" and NOT "living in faith" then.  What's that line?

I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.

Good.  I'm glad you accept.  If you start with the presupposition that different authors have different theologies then things make a lot more sense.....biblically speaking.

I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

   

I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

I'm open to being wrong.  I think the author of Matthew thought keeping the law justified people just like the author of James thought.  Do you have any scriptural evidence from the book of Matthew that shows otherwise?  I just don't see Matthew agreeing with the author of Romans as to the purpose of the crucifixion being that it was impossible for people to follow the law.           

Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :

Well, if keeping the Law means "works" then the answer is yes according to the author of James.

James 2:24,25 states, "4 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

He doesn't discount being saved by faith; the verse previous states this:

23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ?Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness

James says... Faith alone, he isn't saying faith isn't required."Show me faith" how do you SEE faith? Works shows it to you.

Listen. You claimed that the Law didn't justify anyone according to Rom. 3.  All I did was show you how the author of James disagreed with that notion.  Sure the author of James says that faith is required also.  So what?  I never said James requirement was NO FAITH.  It's faith + works.  Furthermore, Galatians 2:16 would also disagree with this: "...so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified".

James says people can be justified by works (+ faith) and Paul says people can't be justified by the works of the Law.     

I have a question Goombah.  You said the Pharisees turned 10 commandments into 613.  Would it be correct to say that the Pharisees should turn 613 commandments into 10?

Perhaps.

This is an answer where it is telling TO ME that you have no idea what you are talking about.  I was expecting a more dogmatic answer.  Sorry Goombah, I am not convinced AT ALL with the idea that 613 laws can be "subsumed" into 10.

For a fascinating passage in the Talmud that states that Habakkuk ultimately reduced the 613 commandments to one ? namely, Habakkuk 2:4, the just will live by faith ? (see Talmud, Makkoth 24a, - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Yes, the concluding comment is that the 613 commandments were reduced to one, as expressed in Habakkuk 2:4, ?The just shall live by faith?-a favorite text of Paul! (See Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11.) Of course, this is not to say that the Talmudic rabbis were Christians, but it is to say that when Paul boiled everything down to the just living by faith, he was in good company. - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Goombah, I hate to break it to you but Habakkuk 2:4 is not one of the 10 commandments unless there is a third set of 10 commandments I am not aware of.  I'm surprised you used this to support your claim. 

And if this is the case, you will have to explain why there are "weightier provisions" like justice and mercy ALONG WITH faithfulness.  It seems like if this is the case Jesus would have just said in Matt. 23:23, "why are you neglecting the most important provision of just living by faith"?

Furthermore, you would have to really figure out what "living by faith" really means.  In other words, are the Jews "living in faith" when they believe Samuel is telling them the truth when he gives the command from God to murder all the men, women and children of Amalek in 1 Samuel 15:3?  Or is a Jew "living in faith" if he does NOT believe Samuel because of one of the ten commandments that says "do not murder?

I see a looooot of gray area to this "living in faith" business.
 

Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   

I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.

This assumption of yours is wrong.  You think I "vetted" them because I linked to the same site???  I just got one of the 613 commandments off their site.   

Your # 601. THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

Their #601http://www.the613commandments.com/The-List-of-the-613-Commandments.html
601   Do not dwell permanently in Egypt

Who cares?  This law is classified as #597 on the website you provided.  Is it still one of the 613 commandments or not?

If you cannot answer then you should potentially have ONE reason to NOT accept what they say. 
 

could we maybe do the whole 'evil God' thing at a later time? There are probably tons of threads like that in here already.

I was just bringing up scripture.  If scripture makes you want to conclude that your God is "evil" then that is your prerogative. 

I was just wondering what category of the 10 commandments slavery would be put under but that's fine, you don't have to answer.  Maybe I'll get this answer at this "later time" you speak of.

I'm hoping to resume our original conversation at some point.

OK, I agree.

Like I said before, I'm surprised you even brought up this 10 commandment thing.  When pressed with follow-up questions it's obvious that you are stuck in a ditch and can't completely support the websites claim that the 613 laws are "subsumed" within the 10.

[RegalSin]

Wanna set the record straight on this

Jesus was the downfall of the Roman empire.
The Romans made a religion called Catholicism and thus
the Holy Roman Empire Church was created.

Rome was divided among people, and they separated based on many things. Primarily it was families and thieves no different then feuds and organized crime.

The baseline is that Rome was toppled by Religious god belonging to the Jews and Muslims.

Guess what? Even When Europe was peaceful they had a massive amount of Islamic worshipers who contributed to the construction of many of our religious and current day architecture.

Problem is that people forget about God, they forget about the Goths, they forget about everything. They blame everything on things not pointing the rational facts.

Jesus was and is real, because of the many recordings. So it must be proof. I am not talking about your X-religious books and writings. I am talking about History.

What happen during that time is only in few recordings but Jesus was real.

In my opinion just to agree with atheists. I could assume that mental asylums was not created, and thus free thinking was more abundant. Imagine a society were nutters had the money and the weapons, and was reproducing.

What went wrong? Why did mental institutions go up?
Because that way of living could not exist inside a decaying Roman empire.

What is sane, what is insane? I do not know. You know what I want to write, but I am not going to type it, since my fingers are becoming numb from thinking about it.

We had law and as time went by, we created the evil known as money. Without money we had bartering and thus sharing. So what was the problem. Nowadays we have innocent lambs of people being taken advantage of due to money.

[Andy S.]

Wanna set the record straight on this

Jesus was the downfall of the Roman empire.
The Romans made a religion called Catholicism and thus
the Holy Roman Empire Church was created.

Rome was divided among people, and they separated based on many things. Primarily it was families and thieves no different then feuds and organized crime.

The baseline is that Rome was toppled by Religious god belonging to the Jews and Muslims.

Guess what? Even When Europe was peaceful they had a massive amount of Islamic worshipers who contributed to the construction of many of our religious and current day architecture.

Problem is that people forget about God, they forget about the Goths, they forget about everything. They blame everything on things not pointing the rational facts.

Jesus was and is real, because of the many recordings. So it must be proof. I am not talking about your X-religious books and writings. I am talking about History.

What happen during that time is only in few recordings but Jesus was real.

In my opinion just to agree with atheists. I could assume that mental asylums was not created, and thus free thinking was more abundant. Imagine a society were nutters had the money and the weapons, and was reproducing.

What went wrong? Why did mental institutions go up?
Because that way of living could not exist inside a decaying Roman empire.

What is sane, what is insane? I do not know. You know what I want to write, but I am not going to type it, since my fingers are becoming numb from thinking about it.

We had law and as time went by, we created the evil known as money. Without money we had bartering and thus sharing. So what was the problem. Nowadays we have innocent lambs of people being taken advantage of due to money.

Hey RegalSin,

I think your fingers were "becoming numb" for no reason. 

What record were you setting straight?  I have no idea what claim you were even responding to. 

[Goombah]

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.

You are using that scripture to make your point.I assumed you knew.

Once again, your assumption is wrong.  If you read the last post.....I made an educated guess.

Why would Jesus say, "whoever keeps the commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" if it's impossible to keep them all?   

If you don't know what commandments Jesus was referring to do you know what the definition of "kingdom of heaven" in that verse is?

John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?

No, I didn't.  I am not a believer.  I just "ASKED" him to reveal this information to me.  He didn't.  One verse before John 14:13 states, "...he who believes..." and that's why I figured this passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY which is why I thought YOU should try asking your God for the answer. 

You are an unbeliever and the passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY and yet you still ASKED HIM
( God) for a revelation of scripture?

Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I agree with you Andy, to a point.. it seems as if we can keep any of the commandments we should be able to keep all of them...but we don't.I see here that the pharisees already blew it and more so later on in Matthew. for example:

So the Pharisees "blew it" right?  Were they not "living in faith"?  There is a line then between "living in faith" and NOT "living in faith" then.  What's that line?

They blew it for one thing because:

?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.

Good.  I'm glad you accept.  If you start with the presupposition that different authors have different theologies then things make a lot more sense.....biblically speaking.

Not for me it doesn't.

I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.


   

I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?

One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

[Andy S.]

If you don't know what commandments Jesus was referring to do you know what the definition of "kingdom of heaven" in that verse is?

Based on the context, I already made an educated guess as to which commandments Jesus was referring to.  Bottom line, it is evident that the moral of Matthew 5:17-20 is NOT that "a man is justified by faith and not by works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28).

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?

No, I didn't.  I am not a believer.  I just "ASKED" him to reveal this information to me.  He didn't.  One verse before John 14:13 states, "...he who believes..." and that's why I figured this passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY which is why I thought YOU should try asking your God for the answer. 

You are an unbeliever and the passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY and yet you still ASKED HIM
( God) for a revelation of scripture?

I thought this God, who may or may not exist, might make an exception.  I was wrong.

Did Jesus answer you?  What commandments exactly was he talking about in Matt. 5:19?

So the Pharisees "blew it" right?  Were they not "living in faith"?  There is a line then between "living in faith" and NOT "living in faith" then.  What's that line?

They blew it for one thing because:

?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 

I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.

Good.  I'm glad you accept.  If you start with the presupposition that different authors have different theologies then things make a lot more sense.....biblically speaking.

Not for me it doesn't.

I'd like to explore this more with you.  In addition to the works vs. faith contradiction, I'll give another example.  Did you know the author of John places Jesus' death on a different day than Mark (comp. Jn. 18.29,19.14 to Mk. 14:12, 15.25)?

I'm going to say it's because John changed the day Jesus died to make a theological point.  Why do you think John placed Jesus' death on a different day?

I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.

Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

Hell, not even a secular source mentions this story.  The bible could be "integrated to fill in details and explanations" but it seems some "details and explanations" are false.

I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     

One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL". 

[Goombah]

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

I believe there is more than one interpretations for 'kingdom of heaven" and agree with those that take the expression in verse 19 to mean the present "kingdom'...the Church and verse 20 to the afterlife, where I will get to see Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
I believe this makes more sense
I think I saw that the author of Matthew used the term 'kingdom of heaven' around 30 times.

How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 

greed1
/?r?d/ 
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:   avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity;  More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ? ? Oxford University Press

Since greed and covetousness are synonyms ,I'd say any amount will do.

Exodus 20:17King James Version (KJV)

17) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I'd like to explore this more with you.  In addition to the works vs. faith contradiction, I'll give another example.  Did you know the author of John places Jesus' death on a different day than Mark (comp. Jn. 18.29,19.14 to Mk. 14:12, 15.25)?

I'm going to say it's because John changed the day Jesus died to make a theological point.  Why do you think John placed Jesus' death on a different day?

Let's take that up at a later time if you like.It will only serve to confuse our present discussion even more.

I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

It's only 'telling if it wasn't covered elsewhere.I'm not an adherent to the 'each author has a different theology" theory.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

It shows me that the Holy Spirit included what He wanted , where He wanted it.

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.

Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

If every author included every detail the same you'd be crying COLLUSION!! by now.

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     

He introduces Jesus as the subject of the Isaiah 53 which includes


5But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Everybody's iniquity...nobody keeps the commandments in their entirety.

One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL".

ALL the commandments?He gave them?.That would make Him co-equal with the One True God of The Universe, then.

[RegalSin]

Everything that happen from the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of Catholicism is the end of the Biblical age. Everything after the hanging of Christ is human theater meant to devoid and mislead and abuse religion.

[Andy S.]

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

I believe there is more than one interpretations for 'kingdom of heaven" and agree with those that take the expression in verse 19 to mean the present "kingdom'...the Church and verse 20 to the afterlife, where I will get to see Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
I believe this makes more sense
I think I saw that the author of Matthew used the term 'kingdom of heaven' around 30 times.

What?  "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the Church" in Matthew 5:19 and one verse later the "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the afterlife"?  If this is true then Jesus is a crappy communicator. 

How would Jesus explain to us today that Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community?  Would he explain this to us by saying, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 

greed1
/?r?d/ 
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:   avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity;  More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ? ? Oxford University Press

Since greed and covetousness are synonyms ,I'd say any amount will do.

Wait....what?  Any amount of greed will exclude people from entering the "Kingdom of Heaven"?  Are you sure about this?

I'd like to explore this more with you.  In addition to the works vs. faith contradiction, I'll give another example.  Did you know the author of John places Jesus' death on a different day than Mark (comp. Jn. 18.29,19.14 to Mk. 14:12, 15.25)?

I'm going to say it's because John changed the day Jesus died to make a theological point.  Why do you think John placed Jesus' death on a different day?

Let's take that up at a later time if you like.It will only serve to confuse our present discussion even more.

What are you talking about?  Confuse the present discussion?  I gave you this AS AN EXAMPLE that different authors have different theologies.  I asked for your reasoning.  How can it confuse the present discussion when part of the present discussion includes exploring different author's different theologies?

This shouldn't be that hard for you to answer.

 

I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

It's only 'telling if it wasn't covered elsewhere.I'm not an adherent to the 'each author has a different theology" theory.

If you are not an adherent to author's having different theologies then answering my above question about the day Jesus died should not be that hard for you to answer.  You say answering this is only going to confuse the present conversation but I think you are hesitant to answer because you....yourself....are confused. 

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

It shows me that the Holy Spirit included what He wanted , where He wanted it.

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.

Ok.  Lucky for us we can actually test if you can be 100% sure on this.  Let me think of another contradiction.....ok.....got it.  That sure didn't take long.

Did Jesus command his disciples to take a staff or not on their journey (comp Mark 6:8-9 to Luke 9:1-3)?  If you can't answer this then can you be so sure that "the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations".?

Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

If every author included every detail the same you'd be crying COLLUSION!! by now.

Would I?  How can you be so sure that I would cry "COLLUSION"?

I would expect some historian in the first century to mention this incident if it were true.....including another biblical author.     

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     

He introduces Jesus as the subject of the Isaiah 53 which includes


5But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Everybody's iniquity...nobody keeps the commandments in their entirety.

How can you be so sure that the author of Matthew meant that all of Isaiah 53 should be attributed to Jesus?  It is evident that this author combed through the old testament and tried to shoehorn Jesus into texts. 

For instance, the author of Matthew said Jesus was the "son" in Hosea 11:1 (Matt. 2:15).  It is obvious that Israel should be considered the "son" in Hosea 11:1 and not Jesus.  Hosea used "son" to speak of Israel like the author of Exodus used "son" to speak of Israel (Ex. 4:22,23).  I mean, with your logic should I figure that Jesus is the subject of all of Hosea 11 and conclude that Jesus (the "son" = Israel) surrounds God with deceit (Hosea 11:12)?

This is just silly.  Furthermore, you can't be certain that the author of Isaiah even meant for the suffering "SERVANT" (Is. 53:11) to be the coming Messaiah.  There is good evidence that Isaiah equated "Israel" or "Jacob" to the "SERVANT" (Is. 41:8, 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, and 49:3).....NOT JESUS! 

It appears to me that the author of Matthew is just cherry picking out of the old testament.  Furthermore, you are cherry picking this verse in Matthew (8:17) and saying that the reason for the crucifixion is because "nobody can keep the commandments in their entirety".  However, nowhere in Matthew 8:17 does it say anything like this.  You are assuming this is what this author thinks of Jesus but, in all honesty, you have to go back and ask yourself what the "this" means in Matthew 8:17. 

The "this" in Matthew 8:17 has nothing to do with the crucifixion so what you are doing is reading too much into the text which means you can't be completely certain that the author of Matthew intended Jesus to be the subject of the entirety of Isaiah 53.  For all we know, Matthew cherry picked a verse in Isaiah just like he cherry picked a verse in Hosea.                 

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL".

ALL the commandments?He gave them?.That would make Him co-equal with the One True God of The Universe, then.

Wow.  You sure like to jump to conclusions.  According to Matthew, Jesus said for his disciples to follow the commandments of the old testament.  He told them he did not come to "abolish the Law" (Matt. 5:17). 

Let's say that I was hired where you work and you are my supervisor.  The CEO is your boss.  You tell me to follow the commandments of the CEO.  By your logic should I conclude that you are co-equal with the CEO?

[Goombah]

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

I believe there is more than one interpretations for 'kingdom of heaven" and agree with those that take the expression in verse 19 to mean the present "kingdom'...the Church and verse 20 to the afterlife, where I will get to see Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
I believe this makes more sense
I think I saw that the author of Matthew used the term 'kingdom of heaven' around 30 times.

What?  "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the Church" in Matthew 5:19 and one verse later the "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the afterlife"?  If this is true then Jesus is a crappy communicator. 

But the best you could do was venture a guess at the meaning.

Here the Kingdom of Heaven referred to:  "  47)Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48)Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49)So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Here the Kingdom allows for good and bad together...'til the end.Not so in the afterlife as the bad are cast away.That sounds like some don't make it into the " Kingdom of Heaven" that you guessed at or there is more than one interpretation of "Kingdom of Heaven"

How would Jesus explain to us today that Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community?  Would he explain this to us by saying, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

I'm not sure He would be speaking " American English" but  you seemed surprised that a phrase can have two different meanings a verse apart then demonstate how a single word can have three different meanings in the same sentence.

How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 

greed1
/?r?d/ 
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:   avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity;  More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ? ? Oxford University Press

Since greed and covetousness are synonyms ,I'd say any amount will do.

Wait....what?  Any amount of greed will exclude people from entering the "Kingdom of Heaven"?  Are you sure about this?

If greed and covetousness are synonyms then I'd say yes.


 

It shows me that the Holy Spirit included what He wanted , where He wanted it.

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.

Ok.  Lucky for us we can actually test if you can be 100% sure on this.  Let me think of another contradiction.....ok.....got it.  That sure didn't take long.

Did Jesus command his disciples to take a staff or not on their journey (comp Mark 6:8-9 to Luke 9:1-3)?  If you can't answer this then can you be so sure that "the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations".?

http://christianthinktank.com/nostaff.html

Someone wrote in:
Hi, glen--
I don't know how tough a question this is, but would appreciate your input. Regarding the sending out of the 12, could they take a staff (Mark 6:8), or not (Matt. 10:10; Luke 9:1-6)?

This was a GREAT question because it highlights one of the MAIN sources of 'mistaken contradictions'--morphological similarity.

The easiest explanation I could find quickly is that article.

Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Well you can hold any opinion you like Andy,but because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it can't make sense.

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

I think Matthew added it for a reason.Showing the resurrection of the saints is a pretty edifying inclusion for me.

.....  How can you be so sure that I would cry "COLLUSION"?

I would expect some historian in the first century to mention this incident if it were true.....including another biblical author.     

How do you know a historian didn't record it?Or several?We don't have everything written in ancient times.

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     

He introduces Jesus as the subject of the Isaiah 53 which includes


5But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Everybody's iniquity...nobody keeps the commandments in their entirety.

How can you be so sure that the author of Matthew meant that all of Isaiah 53 should be attributed to Jesus?  It is evident that this author combed through the old testament and tried to shoehorn Jesus into texts. 

Virtually every Biblical authority I've looked at attributes the servant in Is. 53  to either one person,( Messiah) or one nation(Israel) in its entirety.The author of Matthew would logically conclude the same thing...and he attributes Is. 53 to Jesus...the Messiah.
Is, 53 : 5 links Him to the two aspects of the prophesy about the Messiah,

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

For instance, the author of Matthew said Jesus was the "son" in Hosea 11:1 (Matt. 2:15).  It is obvious that Israel should be considered the "son" in Hosea 11:1 and not Jesus.  Hosea used "son" to speak of Israel like the author of Exodus used "son" to speak of Israel (Ex. 4:22,23).  I mean, with your logic should I figure that Jesus is the subject of all of Hosea 11 and conclude that Jesus (the "son" = Israel) surrounds God with deceit (Hosea 11:12)?

What I can conclude is that the author of Matthew believed Hosea 11:1 refers to Jesus.

This is just silly.  Furthermore, you can't be certain that the author of Isaiah even meant for the suffering "SERVANT" (Is. 53:11) to be the coming Messaiah.  There is good evidence that Isaiah equated "Israel" or "Jacob" to the "SERVANT" (Is. 41:8, 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, and 49:3).....NOT JESUS! 

Matthew's author took the prophesy to be about Jesus.There were many 'messianic references in the Old testament and Jesus mentioned that fact Himself.
Luke 24:25-27
25
o And he said to them, ?Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!
26
Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer* these things and enter into his glory??
27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL".

ALL the commandments?He gave them?.That would make Him co-equal with the One True God of The Universe, then.

Wow.  You sure like to jump to conclusions.  According to Matthew, Jesus said for his disciples to follow the commandments of the old testament.  He told them he did not come to "abolish the Law" (Matt. 5:17). 

He said to follow the commandment HE had given them.

Let's say that I was hired where you work and you are my supervisor.  The CEO is your boss.  You tell me to follow the commandments of the CEO.  By your logic should I conclude that you are co-equal with the CEO?

But that in not what we see happening here.You pointed out Jesus said to do all HE commanded them to do.Furthermore He takes it upon Himself to alter what the Old Testament Law even said...based on His own say-so...
one example:
Matthew 5:22

21"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
He makes His authority equal to the ceo(Law-giver) several times.

Andy ,I realize the time it's taking to respond is excessive. I fyou choose to close this conversation I would understand completely.
Goombah

[Andy S.]

Goombah,

I don't have the time to respond in depth.  I would like to respond to everything but your quoting abilities need some work.  You should really hit "preview" before you hit "post".  This last post of yours was a mess....to say the least.

The time of your responses have been extremely extensive as well.  I'm sure you are busy and my posts tend to be lengthy so I give you a pass on that. 

I don't think I want to continue this conversation mainly because I'm in over my head with work.  I will say, despite your inability to "quote" properly, that I have enjoyed this conversation.

I have really laughed a lot throughout this conversation.  For instance...like this last post of yours.  You say you are not sure Jesus would be speaking "American English" to you today.  That is really funny!  You are proving my point.  Your God, if he exists, is really a crappy communicator.

This really has been fun Goombah and I wish you all the best.  Oh yeah....what do you think the "This" means in my previous sentence?  Do you think it has been the conversation we have had or do you think it means something else?  The way you read the word "This" into Matthew 8:17 I have no clue what you think when I start a sentence that starts with "This".   

Listen Goombah, the "this" in Matthew 8:17 has nothing to do with the crucifixion so what you are doing is reading too much into the text which means you can't be completely certain that the author of Matthew intended Jesus to be the subject of the entirety of Isaiah 53.  For all we know, Matthew cherry picked a verse in Isaiah just like he cherry picked a verse in Hosea 11:1.

With all honesty, it has been fun Goombah and I do wish you all the best.  I look forward to seeing you on the forum in the future.  I just know for me and my work schedule, it won't be the near future.

   

[Goombah]

Goombah,

I don't have the time to respond in depth.  I would like to respond to everything but your quoting abilities need some work.  You should really hit "preview" before you hit "post".  This last post of yours was a mess....to say the least.

The time of your responses have been extremely extensive as well.  I'm sure you are busy and my posts tend to be lengthy so I give you a pass on that. 

I don't think I want to continue this conversation mainly because I'm in over my head with work.  I will say, despite your inability to "quote" properly, that I have enjoyed this conversation.

I have as well, thank you.

I have really laughed a lot throughout this conversation.  For instance...like this last post of yours.  You say you are not sure Jesus would be speaking "American English" to you today.  That is really funny!  You are proving my point.  Your God, if he exists, is really a crappy communicator.

The "American English" is a quote from the wiki article you posted:""Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in American English...
Seeing as how Jesus's ministry on earth would be centered in the Middle East ,I doubt "American English "would be His language of choice.
I think it proves my point, actually.You call Jesus a crappy communicator for using the same phrase in two different verses to mean two different things then proceed to show a 'single' word used in one sentence to mean three different things.I 'm of the opinion the problem lies in comprehension and not communication.

This really has been fun Goombah and I wish you all the best.  Oh yeah....what do you think the "This" means in my previous sentence?  Do you think it has been the conversation we have had or do you think it means something else?  The way you read the word "This" into Matthew 8:17 I have no clue what you think when I start a sentence that starts with "This". 

That identifies Jesus specifically with the "He" of Isaiah 53.
8:16 identifies Him as Isaiah's 'healer' and in Isaiah 53: 5 :But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.[/i]
not only shows Him as the healer but links Him in the same sentence as our substitute.

Listen Goombah, the "this" in Matthew 8:17 has nothing to do with the crucifixion so what you are doing is reading too much into the text which means you can't be completely certain that the author of Matthew intended Jesus to be the subject of the entirety of Isaiah 53.  For all we know, Matthew cherry picked a verse in Isaiah just like he cherry picked a verse in Hosea 11:1.

Virtualy every version of Is 53 :5 starts withe "but" ....it's a continuous thought.What rules of prophesy apply to Hosea 11:1 I'm not sure of but Isaiah is pretty plainly understood IMO.Every expert in the necessary disciplines take the prophecy to be about one person or one nation as far as I can find.

With all honesty, it has been fun Goombah and I do wish you all the best.  I look forward to seeing you on the forum in the future.  I just know for me and my work schedule, it won't be the near future.

Same here Andy, seriously.As a former 'world -class' backslider I always enjoy this type of conversation.I can relate on several different levels,and always learn from them.
Thanks again

   

[QuestionMark]

@Andy S.

If there are so many differing opinions concerning "soteriology" within the Christian faith it kinda seems like the study of salvation is....well....pointless.

How can unbelievers "struggle" with this "biblical truth" of salvation when Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is?

It seems like this "struggle" (past and present) is amongst Christians....not unbelievers.  Maybe Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements needed for salvation and completely agree on Christian soteriology before saying an unbeliever "struggles" with some "biblical truth" concerning salvation.   

The study of salvation is pointless if you think that difficult pursuits are pointless.

When you say Christians can't agree on what salvation really is, I think you are forgetting that Christians have no authority to say what salvation is. That's like, unfortunately, asking democrats what republicans think or republicans what democrats think, or people who like red what people who like pink think. A Christian's thoughts don't matter unless they are reasonable. So don't ask Christians what they think, look at what Christians have thought since the beginning. For that you go to the books. So if you know how to read, then trying to find out what Christians believed in the beginning is not pointless. It's really simple.

If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, you are in 100% agreement with the Bible. If you believe that he rose from the dead for your salvation, you are in 100% agreement with the Bible. If he rose from the dead for your salvation, then you have the most pointed part of salvation already figured out, the rest is details. So all you need to find out is if Jesus rose from the dead for your salvation. It's the only fact that matters, to start with. Everything else hinges on it and proceeds from it.

Did Jesus rise from the dead for your salvation?

Protip: If you can make sense of it, it's because God is helping you and it will actually be pretty easy.

[QuestionMark]

If this were true, then The Fall in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant; only A&E should suffer because of their sin (if one is to believe they sinned at all).  Then we don't need a Savior.

You don't suffer for Adam and Eve's sin, you may not even now suffer for your sin, but you will because that is just. God will not let the guilty go unpunished.

[QuestionMark]

So what it comes down to, which it always does, is that you need the "magic decoder ring" to know what the bible really says or meant. Fathers shall not be held accountable for others sins yet we all are held accountable for the apple trick.  Maybe it is time for the God thing to come back and give us a re-write so we can all be on the same page.  Kind of hard to play this God game with a whole bunch of different rules for playing.

No, you will be held accountable for your sin. In some cases, your sin is the same as your father's. In the case of Adam, we all do the same thing as Adam: We take the place of God, taking things that don't belong to us, neglecting our duties.

[QuestionMark]

opinions is all anyone has. I can say "Its the truth that God is real!" and you would say, " that is your opinion, you can not prove it!" I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!" Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!" Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does. If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration  instead of believing their wrong with out even truly listening to what they have to say, isn't that the whole idea of a  forum?

Opinions... can be correct or incorrect. A judge can have an opinion that some law violates the constitution. That judge can be wrong, or right, or the matter is not settled.

So we can all have opinions, but this opinion is right: Jesus is risen from the dead, for my salvation.

[80sChild]

opinions is all anyone has. I can say "Its the truth that God is real!" and you would say, " that is your opinion, you can not prove it!" I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!" Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!" Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does. If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration  instead of believing their wrong with out even truly listening to what they have to say, isn't that the whole idea of a  forum?

Opinions... can be correct or incorrect. A judge can have an opinion that some law violates the constitution. That judge can be wrong, or right, or the matter is not settled.

So we can all have opinions, but this opinion is right: Jesus is risen from the dead, for my salvation.

Nice! :)

[Andy S.]

A Christian's thoughts don't matter unless they are reasonable. So don't ask Christians what they think, look at what Christians have thought since the beginning. For that you go to the books. So if you know how to read, then trying to find out what Christians believed in the beginning is not pointless.

Well....this is weird.  I'd ask you what you "think" about John 8:24 but you say that I shouldn't ask Christians "what they think".  I have no idea if I have to believe that Jesus is the One True God in order to be saved or not according to John 8:24.  Christians interpret John 8:24 differently.  Some say you do have to believe that Jesus is the One True God and others say you don't. 

Just curious....what "books" are you referring to?  QuestionMark, I know how to read.  I'm surprised you haven't drawn that conclusion from this thread alone as there is really good evidence that I have read what people have posted and have responded to their posts.  It appears to me that you are not very good at looking at evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence.   

[QuestionMark]

@Andy S.
You pointed out that Christians disagree, and I am telling you that's not a problem if you want to find the truth because you have your own brain and you don't have to trust someone else to tell you what the truth is. If you want my opinion, I will try to make your search more efficient, but I can't make you believe or disbelieve, it's not in my power (and I would argue it is not even in your power). Read for yourself what John 8:24 says. Meditate on it, study the language, the different interpretations, study the faithfulness of the translation to the originals, study its consistency with the author and the author's cohorts, study whether the worldview is rational, study study study and when you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt then you will know. You won't need anyone's opinions, if you go hard after the truth that's all you can do.

Sometimes people can be helpful, so since you've asked my opinion I'll try to help you.

So he said to them again, ?I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.? So the Jews said, ?Will he kill himself, since he says, ?Where I am going, you cannot come??? He said to them, ?You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.? So they said to him, ?Who are you?? Jesus said to them, ?Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.? They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father. So Jesus said to them, ?When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.? As he was saying these things, many believed in him.

Taken on its own, this is not a pronouncement of the world, but only some Jews. So this does not mean that you personally will die in your sins. It also depends on whether you are a sinner, because if you are a Jew and not a sinner then you won't die in your sins.

Are you a Jew? Are you a sinner?

[Andy S.]

@Andy S.
Meditate on it, study the language, the different interpretations, study the faithfulness of the translation to the originals

Question Mark, thanks for your opinion but I can't take you seriously anymore.  I cannot believe you think there are "originals" out there of the New Testament.  QM, there is no "original" of any book in the whole bible.  All you have are copies of copies of copies to go off of.  You cannot even be 100% certain that John 8:24 (for instance) isn't an interpolation.  To say I should "study the faithfulness of the translation to the originals" is just laughable.  There are no "originals". 

Thanks for your opinion but in the end....it's just that....AN OPINION!  Even if I was to assume that John 8:24 was not an interpolation I couldn't even trust that you have the right interpretation.  You appear as someone who does not know much about textual criticism or even how the bible was put together....especially since you think there are "originals" out there.

Thanks for the laugh though! 

[QuestionMark]

I see.