Dispensationalism: Apostasy in the church

[Nienna]

Yes rebellion, against what he did not consider necessary law, the oral law or traditions of the elders. He openly violated these. He openly violated certain cleanliness laws. And he introduced the notion of breaking the law if the situation warranted it according to one's own personal jugement, which was not the prevailing view of the pharisees who were much more strict.

That's the part that's wrong.

[TheSage]

That's the part that's wrong.

SO jesus was wrong? Jesus believed in using an element of reason to determine if the true INTENTION was to evil or not, instead of mindlessly following the letter of the law. Of course, elite priesthood types don't like people to think for themselves in any cirucumstance. They like mindless followers. The pharisees were such people, and jesus rebelled against the notion of them as unquestioned authority figues.

[Nienna]

SO jesus was wrong? Jesus believed in using an element of reason to determine if the true INTENTION was to evil or not, instead of mindlessly following the letter of the law. Of course, elite priesthood types don't like people to think for themselves in any cirucumstance. They like mindless followers. The pharisees were such people, and jesus rebelled against the notion of them as unquestioned authority figues.

Jesus wasn't wrong, but he didn't use his own authority to decide whether or not he was going to obey the letter of the Law at the time.

[TheSage]

Jesus wasn't wrong, but he didn't use his own authority to decide whether or not he was going to obey the letter of the Law at the time.

Yes. He used his reason to evaluate whether what the pharisees were saying (oral or rabbinic tradition as we know it today) was really in accordance with the tanach or old testament. He rejected these teachings. It was considered (and was in actuality) a rebellion.

[Nienna]

Yes. He used his reason to evaluate whether what the pharisees were saying (oral or rabbinic tradition as we know it today) was really in accordance with the tanach or old testament. He rejected these teachings. It was considered (and was in actuality) a rebellion.

Uncle.

[TheSage]

Other stuff on mosaic vs. new covenant. Good essay here.

http://www.davesexegesis.com/categor...ical-theology/

In Galatians 3-4, Paul focuses on the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in light of the New Covenant. He is trying to remind the Galatians very forcefully that no one will be justified by the works of the Law (3:11). In other words, no one can please God escatologically by trying to execute their duties as prescribed by the Law of Moses. The reasons for this are because no one is truly able to execute this covenant so we are cursed in trying to do so (3:10), and the purpose of the Law was to make transgression fully visible and never to offer eternal life (3:18-19). This covenant came to bring us into slavery and imprisonment so that we could be rescued by Christ (vs.23-24). So Paul is setting up two different covenantal strands that find their culmination in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31. Hagar corresponds to the slavery that exists under the Mosaic Law and is demonstrated in the contemporary Judaism that is visible in Jerusalem (vs.25). Sarah corresponds to the freedom that exists under the New Covenant and is demonstrated in the promises God offers His people in the New (spiritual) Jerusalem (vs.26-28). So the Mosaic Covenant existed to serve as a physical template that would anticipate the spiritual realities to come in the new age that has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, in order to partake of this inaugurated Covenant, we need to believe in what Christ accomplished on our behalf and so cast out the “slave woman” (the Mosaic Covenant) (vs.29-31).

In light of these passages, I think it is evident that the Mosaic/Old Covenant was an external code which does and can only demand. God designed it this way in order to magnify sin in Israel, as Israel is simply Adam on a corporate/national scale (Hosea 6:7). Neither Adam nor Israel could ever have kept, executed, or complied to the Law given to them. Even if they could have, there was no promise for eternal life. It wasn’t the function of the Law given to them. But, both Adam and Israel’s failure have become the canvas for God to promise grace in the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus ratified the New Covenant which does and can only promise eternal life. In the New Covenant there is no code to keep or demand upon us, but the promise of life in Christ itself produces faith in us which will result in us keeping the law of God/Christ, which is essentially loving God and loving our neighbors.

Categories: Biblical Theology, Theology

[5stringJeff]

It's widespread. Just talk to most people. Talk to avatar4321.

If it's widespread, why are all the Christians on this thread telling you it's not?

BTW, Avatar is LDS, which is fundamentally different from Christianity.

[TheSage]

If it's widespread, why are all the Christians on this thread telling you it's not?

BTW, Avatar is LDS, which is fundamentally different from Christianity.

Because they're in denial.

[5stringJeff]

Because they're in denial.

Or you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[TheSage]

Or you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Or maybe you don't. Did you think of that Jeffy von jeffjeff-a-mundo?

[5stringJeff]

Or maybe you don't. Did you think of that Jeffy von jeffjeff-a-mundo?

I hate to sound arrogant, but seeing as how I've been to a couple dozens churches in my life and study theology, I think I probably have a bit more of a grasp of modern Christian thought than you.

[TheSage]

I hate to sound arrogant, but seeing as how I've been to a couple dozens churches in my life and study theology, I think I probably have a bit more of a grasp of modern Christian thought than you.

WHat are you? Bingo champ?

[eighballsidepocket]

Not all Christians see Jesus as divine.

Nate: Specifically to be a Christian is to accept Jesus and his Apostles teachings found in the New Testament. Christian or "Christ One".

Anyway, throughout the N.T. the divinity of Jesus is a "given", supported by myriads of scripture verses.

The very definition of being a Christian is to accept all that Christ is, and all that Christ is, is contained in the bible.

To accept that Christ is not devine is to place ones'self in the category of, "non Christian".

Simply a duck is a duck. Put a chicken suit on a duck and you still have a duck. There's some unchangeable things in life. Christianity is wholly based upon the bible. Any Jesus belief based on anything other than the bible is not Christianity, yet calling itself Christianity defines it as a cult, or possible a Christian cult........

Some Christian cults are:

1. Mormonism
2. Apostles of Christ churches
3. Unitarian Churches
4. Unity Village

Some non-Christian cults are:

1. Scientology
2. Watch Tower/Jehovah's Witnesses
3. Bahai'
.........