It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Jesus did fulfill the law, he kept the commandments until his last day. Just because he fulfilled his part in the law doesn't mean he ended it. Just because you went to work today and fulfilled your duties doesn't mean you never have to work again. Know what I mean?
Paul says that after Jesus, the law is no longer needed. Him saying that is him putting his words over the law of the Torah.
Unless all has already been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Why would Paul say the law is ended when everything has not been accomplished yet? The world is still spinning isn't it?edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
I did "check it out" and looked up the things I found there.
Luke was actually a famous author/historian named Plutarch.
Without Paul, they would have been re-assimilated back into Judaism and would not have ever completely severed from it. So, no, in my opinion, there would not have been a clearly defined theology to spell out the superiority of Christianity, and the comparative worthlessness of Judaism.
I don't think Paul got into that hardly at all.
Such a revelation was their true salvation, and this ascension was not a physical ascension but a spiritual one - and not just associated with Jesus solely, as Paul and other exoteric institution-making types liked promoting to the masses.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Jesus did fulfill the law, he kept the commandments until his last day. Just because he fulfilled his part in the law doesn't mean he ended it. Just because you went to work today and fulfilled your duties doesn't mean you never have to work again. Know what I mean?
Paul says that after Jesus, the law is no longer needed. Him saying that is him putting his words over the law of the Torah.
Unless all has already been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Why would Paul say the law is ended when everything has not been accomplished yet? The world is still spinning isn't it?edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
So I suppose it's your conjecture that Jesus was a failure? He said the law wouldn't pass away until it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfil it.
Was He a failure? And that isn't what Jesus said. He never said the law would remain in effect for the remainder of human existence, He said it would remain intact until it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfill it. That's why He exclaimed "It is finished" when He died.
edit on 28-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Well, it was, in a way.
What if Christianity...or rather, the religion that Jesus started was actually an extension of Judaism? Considering how Jesus demanded the old laws were to remain, it appears that way.
You may not think so, looking at certain sects of Christianity, or certain philosophies spread about through the various sects that are anti-social. (what I like to call 'the cult')
Jesus did not introduce a religion that was compatible with 21st century life.
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Akragon
Dear Akragon,
It is a trick question (I love those). Can someone know Christ and never have read the bible? I would argue that they could. Now, if one has read the bible and rejects the letters of Paul then one must also reject Peter and the other apostles as they accepted him. Paul himself argued with the other apostles that gentiles did NOT need to be circumcised and in the end, they agreed.
I agree with the "unheard of" part, which is how Paul himself tells the story.
The same could be said for Paul. Jesus wasted a lot of time with a group of 12 disciples who would simply be replaced with some virtually unheard of . . .
That's an outdated view that goes back to Luther.
Not everyone accepts that the Apostles verify that. Some speculate that James was a critic of Paul as evidenced in his epistle.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
It's debated whether Peter even wrote that passage and most scholars agree that Peter didn't write it. None of the early church fathers ever mentioned 2 Peter either. Can you say "added in later"?edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by jmdewey60
Without Paul, they would have been re-assimilated back into Judaism and would not have ever completely severed from it. So, no, in my opinion, there would not have been a clearly defined theology to spell out the superiority of Christianity, and the comparative worthlessness of Judaism.
What if Christianity...or rather, the religion that Jesus started was actually an extension of Judaism? Considering how Jesus demanded the old laws were to remain, it appears that way.
Jesus did not introduce a religion that was compatible with 21st century life.
edit on 28-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
How is it finished if we are still here waiting on his return? If everything were accomplished we wouldn't be here right now and you wouldn't still be waiting on Jesus to come back. Since everything hasn't been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Jesus said so himself, or do you take Paul's word over Jesus'?