|
|
Post by maranguape on Aug 27, 2018 16:08:09 GMT -8
It's a common premise within Christian doctrine that Messiah's death and resurrection abducated any role of  in our life. Few articulate it to this point; but basically, many believe that by acnowledging the righteousness of we are dismissing the righteousness of faith in Christ. Put simply, to embrace (to their thinking) is to deny Messiah. This, of course, is a rediculous argument for any Jew who would see the Messiah as the ultimate proponent of (as Yeshua declared Himself to be). Yet, this idea is perpetuated by misapplied Pauline statements such as this: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:21 KJV)
For many Christians, attempting Observance is dangerous...they might lose their faith when the Adversary uses when he pushes your guilt button. I think that alone is a reason why so many Christians cling only to what Yeshua said, and not all that He did, and think that obedience to Yeshua is contained in 'love thy neighbor as thyself'...presuming of course if they keep that commandment either.
And all along, Yeshua was saying, "Why do you say you love Me, when you do not obey Me?"That's not what Yeshua said in Luke 16:29-31. He said that, to achieve salvation, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. IOW, to love HaShem, we must obey His Law. Hence, to set things right with the Lord so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent, make reparations and return to the obedience of the Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19) |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 27, 2018 17:10:27 GMT -8
... And all along, Yeshua was saying, "Why do you say you love Me, when you do not obey Me?" That's not what Yeshua said in Luke 16:29-31. He said that, to achieve salvation, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. IOW, to love HaShem, we must obey His Law. Hence, to set things right with the Lord so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent, make reparations and return to the obedience of the Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)
Questor kind of mixed up his scriptures there, apparently: John 14:15 (NKJV) “If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Luke 6:46 (NASB) “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
But you are both saying the same thing here- keep , obey the Law. And I agree with both of you. I don't always agree with either of you, but here, I agree.  Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Sept 17, 2018 15:28:43 GMT -8
That's not what Yeshua said in Luke 16:29-31. He said that, to achieve salvation, we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. IOW, to love HaShem, we must obey His Law. Hence, to set things right with the Lord so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent, make reparations and return to the obedience of the Law. (Isaiah 1:18,19)
Questor kind of mixed up his scriptures there, apparently: John 14:15 (NKJV) “If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Luke 6:46 (NASB) “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
But you are both saying the same thing here- keep , obey the Law. And I agree with both of you. I don't always agree with either of you, but here, I agree. Dan C -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am glad to see that Luke 16 is a parable. The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Otherwise, Avraham Avinu could not have had that dialogue with the rich man in hell. That's the mystery of parables even legends can be added to it to reach the bottomline of the story. And what was the bottomline here? Personal responsibility to obey the Law to achieve salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Sept 17, 2018 15:52:47 GMT -8
This man is not a rabbi....and you should do a little research on his past history. I'm not so sure you will be too pleased by what you learn. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Zionlion, whom are you referring to, Jesus or Tonga? I am a little confused because, according to the title, "A Rabbi who is not misguided" seems to be a reference to Jesus but, when you say that "This man is not a rabbi," I get the impression that you are talking about Tonga. Throughout the NT, a see that a grudge seems to have been fed between Jesus and the Pharisees. If that was true, I don't think the Pharisee Nicodemus would ever address Jesus as a Rabbi and master to ask him a question. (John 3:1,2) So, what's what? |
|
|
|
Post by maranguape on Sept 17, 2018 16:20:46 GMT -8
If I weren't so busy with my studies, I'd ask you if you really believe that heaven and hell are merely states of mind and not in actual existence, but I don't have time now. I need to get back to my calculus. I'm sure you understand.  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow! Finally, someone to totally agree with! Totally, I hope! Do you know something Zionlion? Jesus would have agreed with us too. According to Luke 17:21, he said, heaven aka the kingdom of God is within us and not some place to walk into or to fly to. And as hell is concerned, he used the same interpretation by speaking about it in a parable, a method which allows the use of legends to arrive to the point desired which in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was to obey the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) But of course! You need to get back to your calculus; so, I don't expect to hear from you so soon. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Sept 17, 2018 16:47:06 GMT -8
I am glad to see that Luke 16 is a parable. The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Otherwise, Avraham Avinu could not have had that dialogue with the rich man in hell. That's the mystery of parables even legends can be added to it to reach the bottomline of the story. And what was the bottomline here? Personal responsibility to obey the Law to achieve salvation. It is often interpreted to be a parable, however parables always start with a disclaimer- "It is like ..." or "It was as though ..." or something to that effect. This story does not, so it is also interpreted to be true. Of course you will fall in the 1st camp, since you do not believe in life after death. But the message is still the same whichever way you interpret it. That is the main thing. Dan |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 17, 2018 17:59:12 GMT -8
It is often interpreted to be a parable, however parables always start with a disclaimer- "It is like ..." or "It was as though ..." or something to that effect. This story does not, so it is also interpreted to be true. Of course you will fall in the 1st camp, since you do not believe in life after death. But the message is still the same whichever way you interpret it. That is the main thing. Dan Another telling difference is the identification of specific names and identities. Yeshua uses general role- based or common nouns (man, son, father,....) when speaking in parables, but this story identifies specific people by name. maranguape, what you are suggesting is that Yeshua used the names of real people (Abraham easily identifiable as Abraham avinu as you said), no longer here to speak for themselves, to tell a fictional story. You're basically saying He made up a story about Abraham. He wouldn't do that to the memory of Abraham or anyone else who ever existed. That's sinful, Yeshua never sinned, so it's not a parable. |
|
in our life. Few articulate it to this point; but basically, many believe that by acnowledging the righteousness of 
