religious conversions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
80sU2isBest said:

Great info, Dreadsox. I knew all of it (and I don't say this to be bragging, or proud; just stating a fact), but I don't see how any of this refutes my position that the law was created as a pointer to Christ, and that no one's actions under the law meet the perfect standard of God.

The Galatians passage I included earlier sums it all up:

Galatians 3: 21-24
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

My hangup is not with the Law being a pointer to Christ. In context, the entire Chapter 3 is not about God creating Law so that man can fail. The Law according to Chapter 3 is about identifying sin. The fact that God's covenant was with Abraham, who achieved righteousness without the LAW, but through FAITH. FAITH in Christ and in God's promise to Abraham is what entitles the new converts to becoming part of the covenant.

I guess what I am saying is that when I read this, I believe that Paul is saying that RIGHTEOUSNESS existed in people like Abraham before the LAW, and that Christ came to bring us back to that point.

I am not trying top refute your saying the Law points to Christ. I just do not believe that God set man up for failure for thousands of years. I guess maybe I am saying is tough luck for those that tried to live up to the law for thousands of years?


80sU2isBest said:

I'll ask you this: Do you believe that God knows man's heart and knows the future? If so, then he knew when he gave the law that no one would be able to fulfill it. Why would he tell people to obey teh law when he knew they couldn't, if the purpose wasn't to show them how unholy they are in their own flesh, and to point at the coming Messiah as their only hope for salvation?

I would say that yes God knows man's hearts, did he not create them? When I build robots with my students, we know how they operate, and move. YEt, the robots do not have free will. If he gave us free will to choose to obey or disobey, doesn't that mean EVERYONE could chose something that God did not expect? I think of Judas for some reason. If he was predestined to betray Christ, is he responsible for his actions?

Maybe I am way off track now.
 
I wasn't offended, Dreadsox, not at all. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to portray God as someone who plays Game.

Mary had original sin, but she did not pass it onto Jesus, because original sin is passed on by the male, not the female, and Jesus had no earthly father.
 
Dreadsox said:


(1)I guess what I am saying is that when I read this, I believe that Paul is saying that RIGHTEOUSNESS existed in people like Abraham before the LAW, and that Christ came to bring us back to that point.

(2)I am not trying top refute your saying the Law points to Christ. I just do not believe that God set man up for failure for thousands of years. I guess maybe I am saying is tough luck for those that tried to live up to the law for thousands of years?

I would say that yes God knows man's hearts, did he not create them? When I build robots with my students, we know how they operate, and move. YEt, the robots do not have free will. If he gave us free will to choose to obey or disobey, doesn't that mean EVERYONE could chose something that God did not expect? I think of Judas for some reason. If he was predestined to betray Christ, is he responsible for his actions?

Maybe I am way off track now.

1)Pre-Christians like Abraham didn't actually have righteousness of their own accord. The Bible says their faith "was reckoned to them as righteousness", which means that God said "I will count your faith as righteousness", which is his form of "grace" for those before Christ who loved the Lord. But notice that it never said these people went to Heaven. I believe that the Bible says they went to the place of the dead, or sometimes called "the bosom of Abraham". I believe that this is the reason Jesus preached to the people in hell, to tell these people, "whose faith had been reckoned as righteousness" that the victory was complete, and that he had fulfilled the law. My belief is that their belief in him at that point is what gave them what Christians have now, a regenerated spirit - rebirth, which allowed them to enter Heaven and be with God.

2)Not tough luck. As you said, their faith was reckoned as righteousness, and when they died, their spirits went to the place of the dead, waiting for that day when Christ would descend and tell them the victory was complete.

3)Free Will is always a tough one. Yes, man has free will. Though God knows what they are going to choose, he doesn't make them choose it. So no, Judas didn't have to betray Christ, in my opinion.
 
Dreadsox said:
I would say that yes God knows man's hearts, did he not create them? When I build robots with my students, we know how they operate, and move. YEt, the robots do not have free will. If he gave us free will to choose to obey or disobey, doesn't that mean EVERYONE could chose something that God did not expect? I think of Judas for some reason. If he was predestined to betray Christ, is he responsible for his actions?


Volumes have been written on this subject. There is, however, a difference between God knowing what we will do and God controlling what we do.

Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, but still gave him opportunities to choose otherwise.
 
80sU2isBest said:


1)Pre-Christians like Abraham didn't actually have righteousness of their own accord. The Bible says their faith "was reckoned to them as righteousness", which means that God said "I will count your faith as righteousness", which is his form of "grace" for those before Christ who loved the Lord. But notice that it never said these people went to Heaven. I believe that the Bible says they went to the place of the dead, or sometimes called "the bosom of Abraham". I believe that this is the reason Jesus preached to the people in hell, to tell these people, "whose faith had been reckoned as righteousness" that the victory was complete, and that he had fulfilled the law. My belief is that their belief in him at that point is what gave them what Christians have now, a regenerated spirit - rebirth, which allowed them to enter Heaven and be with God.

Isn't this basically what Galatians Chapter 3 in its entirety is all about?
 
nbcrusader said:



Volumes have been written on this subject. There is, however, a difference between God knowing what we will do and God controlling what we do.

Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, but still gave him opportunities to choose otherwise.

SO why bother giving him opportunities to choose otherwise? What is the point? If he knows that someone is going to betray him, it is predestined, why give opportunities to choose otherwise when you know the outcome?
 
nbcrusader said:
80sU2isBest

You've done a great job, always prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks. 1 Peter 3:15

I agree...I have thoroughly enjoyed the line of discussion.

Peace
 
Dreadsox said:


SO why bother giving him opportunities to choose otherwise? What is the point? If he knows that someone is going to betray him, it is predestined, why give opportunities to choose otherwise when you know the outcome?

Think that is tough to understand, try election. God gives us the choice to believe, but we are drawn to Him (so we cannot, with pride say "look what a smart choice I made") and God knows who will believe and who will not.


Picture a door with John 3:16 on one side and Ephesians 1:4-5 on the other side.

Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world
 
There will be no answer to this issue, because this is a defining issue between liberal/Catholic and conservative/fundamentalist Christians. Heck, this is merely a rehashing of the debate between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile (Pauline) Christians. To me, at least, Jewish Christianity died around A.D. 300 and resurrected with the Reformation. Quite simply, I cannot agree with these pro-Mosaic Law interpretations in light of this knowledge.

I would suggest people read an academic book on Christian history, because you get to see where a lot of these interpretations and philosophies on the Bible originated. More often than not, they are inventions of the past few hundred years, rather than something that has existed for the past 2000 years.

Unfortunately, I can only lead a horse to the water, but I can't make it drink it.

Melon
 
Last edited:
melon said:


Unfortunately, I can only lead a horse to the water, but I can't make it drink it.


And in light of what you stated about 'recent' changes..
some were not without principle but I still don't think it is right to create a law out of your own personal interpretation and project it at others simply becasue they will believe you as a religious figure head...take the tradition about eating fish on Friday; I believe it was created to stop an illness caused by a deficiency that eating fish provided. What I see is manipulation of a tradition and a law created by a religious figure for the betterment of others, except it is still that ...a manipulation of words to suit a purpose and the followers did not question it for many years becasue it was a law, not the original intention of the words.
I am not intending this to make light of catholicism...just using it as an example.
 
therulz said:

...take the tradition about eating fish on Friday; I believe it was created to stop an illness caused by a deficiency that eating fish provided. What I see is manipulation of a tradition and a law created by a religious figure for the betterment of others, except it is still that ...a manipulation of words to suit a purpose and the followers did not question it for many years becasue it was a law, not the original intention of the words.
I am not intending this to make light of catholicism...just using it as an example.

Do youhave any evidence of this? I do not doubt your sincerity in your belief. I am curious where this comes from.

AS a Catholic, the early church looked upon this as a sacrafice, and Friday was the day that was chosen to commemorate Good Friday and Christ's Sacrafice on the cross.

Catholics, and many are probably not aware of this, are supposed to do some act of charity on Fridays to commemorate Christ's Sacrafice because it seems to make more sense than just eating fish and in my mind is a better way to honor the price paid on the cross. I fail to see the manipulation here, although 1,000 years ago the fish idea maybe sounded pretty cool.
 
Some evidence in my mind that the LAW was not intended to cause man to fail.

"My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt.11:30 NKJV

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:3 NKJV

And according to Moses:

"Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us." Deuteronomy 6:25
 
Last edited:
I don't think I actually said that the law was intended to cause people to fail. I said it was intended to show people the depth of their sin, and that they can't succeed in their own power.

In Matt. 11:30, the "burden" Jesus is speaking of here is not the law. In fact, Jesus is actually contrasting taking rest in him with the burden of living under the law, which is anything but "easy and light"

Deut. 6:25...I agree that a man would be righteous if he could observe all the commandments. Only problem is that man can't keep all the commandments. In fact the Word tells us that if a man has broken the law in one part, he has broken the entire law.

1 John 5:3...well, to be honest this is difficult. But there are a lot more verses that do refer to the law as a burden than verses like this. Mayeb the use of the word "burdensome" is different here, I don't know. But I will look it up for sure.
 
80sU2isBest said:
I don't think I actually said that the law was intended to cause people to fail. I said it was intended to show people the depth of their sin, and that they can't succeed in their own power.

Thank you for clarification. I have been kind of hung up on this quote from you and quoted it earlier in the thread.

[Q]What this means is that when God created the law, he never had any notion that man could actually live up to the law. It was a representation of God's own holy nature, and was given to man so that man could TRY to live up to it, and fail, and thus realize that man can never live up to God's holy standard. [/Q]


80sU2isBest said:
In Matt. 11:30, the "burden" Jesus is speaking of here is not the law. In fact, Jesus is actually contrasting taking rest in him with the burden of living under the law, which is anything but "easy and light" [/B]

The word Yoke is used twice in matthew 11: 28-30.
I would say to you that we differ greatly here. I see the opening verse to be a direct challenge to the Yoke of the man-made laws(1st use) and the 2nd use would be in comparison to God's Law. I will grant some leway here, the Catholic Bible I looked it up in makes note about this being a difficult translation.

80sU2isBest said:
Deut. 6:25...I agree that a man would be righteous if he could observe all the commandments. Only problem is that man can't keep all the commandments. In fact the Word tells us that if a man has broken the law in one part, he has broken the entire law. [/B]

If I am understanding you correctly, modern Jews are not able to get to heaven? I am asking for clarification.

However, when asked what is the greatest Comandment, the response is nothing like Paul's saying the "Law is a curse". The Word says "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the Greatest commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Jesus seems to be in conflict with Paul's assertions about the Law.

80sU2isBest said:
1 John 5:3...well, to be honest this is difficult. But there are a lot more verses that do refer to the law as a burden than verses like this. Mayeb the use of the word "burdensome" is different here, I don't know. But I will look it up for sure. [/B]

I think 1 John Chapter 5 takes what Paul was saying, that FAITH is what gives us victory. Those who have FAITH keep the Commandments. 1 John is the Bridge or maybe even the Band-Aid if you will that repairs what may have been a rift between the Gentile Converts and the Jewish COnverts.

Melon is correct, we are discussing something that was debated thousands of years ago and we will probably not come to any agreement over it but I am learning a lot and enjoying the conversation.

The passages you have chosen to make your case are all associated with Paul either written by him or by Luke, his assistant. Are there other places from the Bible that you can make your case?
 
Dreadsox, thanks for pointing out my error, because that gives me teh chance to clarify. I see that I didn't type it the way should have, based on what I actually meant it to say. Since I believe the Law is a representation of the Holy nature of God, I should have written

"When the law was given to man. God knew that man could not fulfill the law, but He gave it anyway, because it was a representation of His holy nature and standards. God wanted man to see that he could never live up to God's standards, and this would point out the need for the savior."
 
Dreadsox said:

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:3 NKJV

I have now read this entire passage in context and can address it now, in reference to this discussion:

To understand the meaning, we can't stop at verse 3...we must go on with verse 4. This is very important. Here are verse 3 and 4.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. FOR (capitalization added) whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world - our faith."

This verse does not contradict Pauline theology at all. In fact, I believe it has to be understood in Pauline terms. John is talking to Christians here, not the unsaved. Paul tells us clearly that Christians have something the world does not have: the Holy Spirit, the new nature. This means that "walking the Christian walk" is simply a matter of letting Christ live His life through us; relinquishing control to the Holy Spirit. The unsaved have the sin nature, but it has been crucified for the saved. So, John is saying "his commandments are not burdensome, because (FOR) as Christians, we are born of God, and since being born of God means having a new nature, the Holy Spirit, we have overcome the world." Since nonChristians do not have the Holy Spirit inside them, "the law" is indeed a burdensome thing. However, since Christians do have the Holy Spirit in them, keeping God's commandments is not a burden, because we have the power of Jesus, and as the Word tells us, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
 
Dreadsox said:


Do youhave any evidence of this? I do not doubt your sincerity in your belief. I am curious where this comes from.

It might have been a personal interpretation, and good Friday is one day of the year not every Friday ( I am not knocking this because I love seafood). I was told it was due to goiters and the people were not eating a diet enriched with iodine but there are a lot of body functions regulated by the thyroid gland. It is also known that if the church did not support an idea it was not followed (previous laws and statutes were divine before they were recognized). It could have been something else though.

What happens if we don't get enough iodine? - The most damaging consequences are on fetal and infant development. Maternal iodine deficiency causes miscarriages, other pregnancy complications, and infertility. Thyroid hormones, and therefore iodine, are essential for normal development of the brain. If the fetus or newborn is not exposed to enough thyroid hormone, it may have permanent mental retardation, even if it survives. Low birth weights and decreased child survival also result from iodine deficiency. Cretinism is a very severe degree of this brain damage; it includes permanent dense mental retardation, and varying degrees of additional developmental defects such as deafmutism, short stature, spasticity, and other neuromuscular abnormalities.
I copied this from a thyroid education site>http://www.tulane.edu/~icec/icecfaq.htm

The most visible consequence of iodine deficiency is goiter. This word means "an enlarged thyroid." The process begins as an adaptation in which the thyroid is more active in its attempts to make enough thyroid hormone for the body's needs, despite the limited supply of raw material (iodine), much as a muscle gets bigger when it has to do more work. If this adaptation is successful and the iodine deficiency is not too severe, the person may escape with only an enlarged thyroid and no other apparent damage from the iodine deficiency. Older individuals with goiters may develop nodules (lumps) in their thyroids, and sometimes these can begin making too much thyroid hormone when suddenly exposed to iodine. This result occurs because these nodules are independent of usual controls; they make thyroid hormone at their own rate, and may over-produce it when given more iodine. Also, the nodular goiters in iodine deficiency have an increased rate of one type of thyroid cancer, called "follicular cancer." Goiters can sometimes enlarge enough to produce compression of other neck structures and may need surgical removal for that reason.

In addition to these effects on the individual, iodine deficiency has adverse consequences for the community. The mental retardation can cover a wide range, from mild blunting of intellect to cretinism, and a large part of the population may have some intellectual impairment. The mean IQ of the deficient community is decreased by about 13.5 IQ points, according to one review. Individuals in these communities have lower educability and lower economic productivity, and the output of the whole community suffers. Dramatic improvement typically occurs after appropriate addition of iodine.

Where do we get iodine from? - Most of it comes from what we eat and drink. Seafood is usually a good source because the ocean contains considerable iodine. Freshwater fish reflect the iodine content of the water where they swim, which may be deficient. Other foods vary tremendously in iodine content, depending on their source and what may have been added. Plants grown in iodine-deficient soil do not have much iodine, nor do meat or other products from animals fed on iodine-deficient plants. Because the breast concentrates iodine, dairy products are usually a good source, but only if the cows get enough iodine.
 
80sU2isBest said:

This verse does not contradict Pauline theology at all. In fact, I believe it has to be understood in Pauline terms. John is talking to Christians here, not the unsaved. Paul tells us clearly that Christians have something the world does not have: the Holy Spirit, the new nature. This means that "walking the Christian walk" is simply a matter of letting Christ live His life through us; relinquishing control to the Holy Spirit. The unsaved have the sin nature, but it has been crucified for the saved. So, John is saying "his commandments are not burdensome, because (FOR) as Christians, we are born of God, and since being born of God means having a new nature, the Holy Spirit, we have overcome the world." Since nonChristians do not have the Holy Spirit inside them, "the law" is indeed a burdensome thing. However, since Christians do have the Holy Spirit in them, keeping God's commandments is not a burden, because we have the power of Jesus, and as the Word tells us, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

The verse most definitely DOES not embrace Paul's belief that the Commandments were a "Curse". John in my opinion is clearly agreeing with Pauline Theology surrounding FAITH in Jesus, however, he is in my opinion also endorsing the Jewish Christians point of view and Peter's point of view that God's Commandments are still in effect.

[Q]1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves (also) the one begotten by him.
2
In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments.
3
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome,

4
for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith.
5
Who (indeed) is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? "[/Q]

While you seem to be making the case that commandments here means the commandments of Christ, which I will agree with may be possible, the two sources that I have used to review this text, indicate that in this case it is indeed the commandments of the old testament. It is also interesting that John uses the word "burdensome" here. This is the same word that Matthew attributed to Jesus when talking about the commandments. Matthew, if I am not mistaken was writing for a Jewish audience, and I am willing to wager, in this context, was indeed writing about the Old Testament commandments.
 
Last edited:
80sU2isBest said:
Deut. 6:25...I agree that a man would be righteous if he could observe all the commandments. Only problem is that man can't keep all the commandments. In fact the Word tells us that if a man has broken the law in one part, he has broken the entire law.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Some examples of people who were determined to be righteous before the Lord.
 
I have skimmed it, very nice article and post Ramu. I will read it in depth later. Thanks for sharing.
 
Back
Top Bottom