stillseeking

Disagree. This was definitely NOT my personal experience, nor was it the personal experience of any other former atheist I've ever met. We don't come to God because someone accused us of being sinful enough times. We come to God because patient and respectful people cared for us enough to present evidence at the pace we were willing to hear it and at the quantity we were able to digest it. It's pretty self-evident to recognize your own sin once you recognize who God is and what His standards are. None of these above-referenced people were strangers. Among the influences which affected me are 80% my own research (from participating in theist/atheist debates) and 20% or so a close friend/family member who absolutely never force fed me gospel, walked the talk, and patiently answered the questions that I asked. I still find strangers spewing unwanted "convictions", advice, or gospel force-feeding to be extremely disrespectful. We are to treat others how we want to be treated, and I NEVER want to be treated that way. Most people don't. This is why I speak to how ineffective and hurtful such an approach is, to those who may have never experienced it from the other side.

I disagree. They're probably having an insulted reaction that someone they didn't ask advice from is telling them how to live their life. Similar accusations of "you're wrong" are just as frustrating when the source is another atheist. People just don't like being told they're wrong--and that's why they react.

I haven't found much difference TBH. I found religious people of any breed who accused me that something was "wrong" with my behavior to be extremely annoying. I would have mocked any one of them indiscriminately. However, having been exposed to a wide variety of religious people, Christians were DEFINITELY the most rude and outspoken. So, it is totally understandable to me that any random atheist out there might have observed this too and therefore have bad memories of rude Christians, whereas I have yet to see this terrible behavior on the same scale from other religions. I've lived in multiple countries, urban and suburban areas--so while my experience might not be indicative of everyone's, I can at least speak to how this experience might be shared by many others. That said, the original point is that if you've given them no reason to believe in a holy God, then you have given them no reason yet to believe that what you define as sin is in fact such. You're not convicting anyone of anything if you've not given them a reason to believe that their sin is wrong. Instead, you're expressing to them that YOU think it's wrong. Until they believe in God, and God's standards, then any accusation you throw out there, as far as they know, is "your standards". 9/10 such a "conviction" from someone you barely know isn't delivered lovingly, to boot.

Good point. Even to this day, talking to non-Christians, I also do catch myself more commonly using terms like "wrongdoings" or "evil".

Thanks for this specific. I know there are portions which refer to a law of sin and death, and portions, like this one, which refer to the whole of the law of Moses. I still am unsure how this harmonizes with Jesus' command in Matt 23:1 to obey the literal Torah but ignore the religious leaders' other words. Why would Jesus say to obey it, where here, Paul tells us it's a tutor? What then actually defines sin? Furthermore, if the WHOLE of the law is "a tutor", then any tendency we have to discard "ceremonial" laws ought to apply to "moral" ones as well, as they're all included in "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years". Obviously we're not to disregard some laws. Which ones? Why? I get that circumcision is specifically mentioned throughout the NT as no longer required, as it is specifically mentioned. I'm fuzzy on what else is/isn't required. I thought Acts 15:28 was such a distinction for a while ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.")...but, later, it was pointed out to me that James tacked on his reason for such a short list: "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”"...which seems to imply that the Gentiles would learn the rest of it in synagogue which they'd be attending. The OT still is used to define what sin IS, though. Jesus tells us to avoid sin even at extreme costs (through the analogies of cutting out one's own eye, etc.) Sure, we're covered if we mess up, but it would be extremely ignorant of us to insist that because we're covered, we shouldn't even try. It seems fitting that we ought to be extremely aware of what sin is, and sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). I do agree that we're covered if we screw up. I am not sure, though, why some OT laws are then considered to to define sin and others aren't (at least by most Christians, who disregard those that they classify as "ceremonial"). I'm still not really sure what to take away from this. I currently accept that: 1) We should try not to sin 2) We're covered if we mess up 3) Sin is defined as...? All OT laws? Some OT laws? The 9 commandments + love God / love neighbor (only bc you guys don't seem to like the one about the Sabbath)? Why/why not BTW? Is this ^ how you would define sin, then? Why is it also said, then, that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)? Praying about everything, you often just won't get answers. It's sort of why we have the Bible in the first place, to guide us. Then everyone jumps all over everyone because some people think ABC is ok and others think it's wrong, for a huge array of issues. I'm not seeing a logical way to tie all this together. Sin is the transgression of the law, but it's also "walking in the spirit", but also some OT moral laws apply, but several "ceremonial" ones don't??? I just don't see the biblical support for this, and yet this weird and contradictory view is held by the majority of Christians I know, and none of them can explain it logically. Then on what basis do you justify labeling anyone else's behavior as sin? Or, your own behavior? When churches in Revelation are called out for tolerating "sin", what were they doing if not breaking rules? I'll go back to my example from before: On what basis do you claim that being gay is wrong? There are certainly gay Christians who walk in the spirit. Many of them even tried being married, even multiple times, to women, and of course it didn't work. I think I've mentioned previously, but I'll state again that at this point, my thinking is that there's enough consistency among early apostolic writers and others who were close to them to establish that Paul is probably credible, and my questions at present mainly circle around HOW he harmonizes with what Jesus actually said. If you believe in simply "walking by the spirit", then fallible scriptures don't present a problem Sin is transgression of the law, though, not transgression of having walked in the spirit wrong. All scriptures are potentially fallible because they're written by fallible people. We have bits and pieces and not a whole lot of clarity. We have letters and varying iewpoints and histories that paint a fuzzy picture. I don't see a problem with this. We're trying to figure out bits of history, the same way historians figure out other bits of history. All of the randomness actually gives Christianity credibility, IMHO. Christian gospels are comprised of letters and histories and genealogies and such, whereas other holy texts purport to be miraculous flowery poetry of sorts. In other words, the way we know about Jesus is kind of the same way historians know about other historical people, and that in itself is significant. Nonetheless, I digress. We're still comparing the ideas presented by Jesus, as we have them, and those presented by Paul. How they harmonize is going to be a product of our interpretations. I've proposed a few ideas, and you've also proposed one (yours, namely). Ultimately, only one interpretation can be the truth, and that's what I'm after here. Because of the 10 commandments and because of the 7th day being blessed long before the Torah was given and because according to Isaiah we'll mark Sabbaths again in the future...and because God doesn't change. Why would you assume that, though? You haven't said why you think it's Sabbaths and not fasting days. Religious people of the time would fast on certain days to 'be more holy' than each other. Jesus even called them out when they were being hypocrites. It's established that people fasting on various days for devotional reasons was common practice. And again, why would God negate one of the 10 commandments, especially the one that he seems to have established all the way back in Genesis? Paul cancelling Sabbaths through one super vague verse doesn't seem that likely based on what we already know about God and his rules up to this point. We need more proof to be able to establish what you are claiming here. Read carefully. He's talking about those sitting in the Moses seat specifically--the place you sit when you're reading the Torah literally and not making commentary: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Jesus is telling people to listen to the people in the Moses seat--the ones reading the Torah verbatim. Haha well no, not really. It's a serious question. Remember I probably don't see things the way you do, or the way most people do. You've cherry picked that the point of the story of the rich young ruler was that being a disciple is the qualifier to eternal life, and I'd really like o understand why. Reading the story, we see other specifics. Why not them? What is the ACTUAL reason it's not them? What is the actual reason you believe it's 'being a disciple'?

Like the title says, I was an atheist previously. For years, in fact. I know a lot of Christians are born and raised that way, and I want to speak personally to some of the disconnect between those believers who were born and raised as such and the people they're usually the most frustrated they can't reach: atheists. I don't want this to be a super-long read. The following are a few reasons why (many) of you aren't reaching people like me--people who are open to different opinions but are largely disgusted at how their being presented. Do you catch yourself doing any of these? I ask you in that case to pause, be mindful of it, and humbly consider this list of ineffective behaviors: Stating your interpretation of the Bible as gospel truth--especially concerning grey areas. Many atheists and agnostics are far more informed about the Bible than you might expect. They will question your interpretation. Be honest about how you came to adopt the interpretations you did. Even if they disagree with you, you'll both still walk away with mutual respect, and that's super important if you ever plan to follow up with them in any capacity whatsoever. Speaking in any kind of accusatory manner. You may be right that their behavior is sinful, but what's the point in rubbing that in their face when they don't yet believe in a holy God? You've given them no reason yet to believe sin is even wrong. Speaking in any way, of any thing, that is motivated by your own self-righteousness. Be extremely honest with yourself about this. If you think you've achieved "humble", then that's probably a sign to be more humble. Failing to give people the benefit of the doubt when they ask questions or pose doubts. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they're *not* just trying to be annoying/contradict you/win an argument/attack you. If you assume everyone has bad motives, you'll start to believe this assumption even when it's not true, and furthermore, you'll lose the chance to win with kindness. Force feeding people gospel information when they've made it clear they're not interested. Talk to someone who IS interested. Jesus never forced his message on anyone and in fact issued warnings to those who would choose to follow him. Assuming your biblical interpretation is essential doctrine, or speaking to someone as if it is. Treating the desire to prove using logic as some sort of horrible heresy. There are plenty of logical arguments for God. If you don't know any, point them to Ravi Zacharias or John Lennox videos and debates on Youtube (or whomever else you find influential). The attitude that logic must be abandoned in order to follow God is not only ridiculous but incredibly off-putting to an intelligent person. Accusing them of holding a position they don't, just because they question yours. Example: "You believe in abortions? Then you must be a new age feminazi!" Losing your patience for any reason, but especially because of: the content of someone's response, someone's emotions, someone's culture, someone just not matching your expectations I hope this helps. I'd also be happy to discuss what it's like actually BEING an atheist approached by Christians, what I found annoying, and what I found respectful and effective. I'm putting this out there because it's been my observation that the way Christians usually approach atheists is horrible and not at all respectful and effective...and I'd like to help change that. That's all.

I still wonder why many purport these verses to be about the Sabbath. Many early Christians followed the Sabbath, in some parts of the world it's still common, and the context of the time the verses above was a population where fasting on certain days was a common thing--and not necessarily designated holy days. I know WHAT you believe about these passages, that they refer to Sabbaths (and not fasting or other things). Please explain WHY you think this way.

If you keep reading Matthew, verse 18 says: " For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Heaven and Earth are still here. What you have posted is one of the contradictions I struggle with: Jesus says the law will never pass away until Heaven and Earth do, and yet Paul claims that it did. Do you have an answer for how you believe this harmonizes?

Torah-observant Jews don't necessarily reject Christianity. Even today, there are Jewish believers of Jesus. This doesn't sound very definitive, unfortunately. You state that I as a Gentile am bound by an old covenant. However, you then continue and suggest that it might have started at Noah, but you're not really sure when it began (correct me if I'm understanding you wrong). This is confusing and not definitive. Do you have scriptures to support the specifics of your viewpoint? If the law of the new covenant is our conscience and moral code, then why does Paul name a list specific sins which will prevent one from entering the kingdom?

I had said: * Possibility: Since we know that the apostles were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus told people to follow Jewish commandments, Paul's letters, which are confusing the the apostles' admission, can indeed be interpreted as opposition to the traditions of MAN rather than opposition to any of the laws God gave to Moses. We're left with the question of why he seemed to tell the Gentiles not to be under the law, or if indeed he did. To which you replied: Why would he need to make a distinction? Jesus went around doing exactly this (opposing the man-made laws and establishing the Torah laws). I had said: The new covenant obviously does have rules...you seem to have rephrased them as "not doing things that offend God", but "don't do any of these individual things that offend God" is exactly the same as saying don't do X, Y, or Z in the Old Testament, since the very REASON not to do X, Y, or Z OT things was because X, Y, and Z offend God. The new covenant either a) uses the rules from the original covenant or b) has its own set of rules. You voiced that you disagreed and cited grace, and what you said sounds like a dangerous hyper-grace perspective: If there are no rules, then why do you adhere to rules such as insisting that being gay is wrong (I'm not convinced of the same, for the record, but you did voice that you feel it's wrong)? Why do you even bother to avoid any sin at all? And since sin is the transgression of the law, how are you picking and choosing which ones are ok to transgress? Maybe we ourselves can't break the new covenant, but would you agree that we can leave it? Especially considering such verses as: Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Jesus didn't violate any old testament rules by healing on the sabbath. Because those verses aren't in reference to that act. That act I cited was one of Paul's last before he was killed. We see his actions (Jewish sacrifices/purifications) and his motive (proving he still kept Old Testament law). Unrelated passages that seem to generically say something else are irrelevant since Paul's actions and motives are already recorded here together. My objection remains. That's your opinion of how Paul harmonizes. You assume I share this position, and I'm not sure I do. I can see how he's accepted and corroborated by the real apostles, which at least gives his writings a bit of credibility. That doesn't convince me he's infallible, especially on any points which he makes which appear nowhere else in the Bible. The history recorded of Paul also make it clear that he was not only a law-abiding Jew but that he made a point to prove that to those who doubted. To add to the confusion, his writings are interpreted a number of different ways...so the way in which Paul's writings can harmonize really isn't clear. In regards to the Sabbath, you wrote: Here's the verse: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." ^ Why do you think that's about Sabbaths? If we read the verse in context, we learn why many understand this verse to be simply saying that it doesn't matter which fasting days a person takes: "5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Then, of course, we've got the 10 commandments, Jesus' admonition of woe to those who might have to flee on a Sabbath (clearly after his resurrection), and also Isaiah's reference to Sabbath in the context of worshiping God when in heaven. So there's that, but I could really see Sabbath as its own potential thread if that's something we end up wanting to discuss further. That explanation doesn't work since it ignores the fact that Jesus singled out specific things they said to follow, not all. Jesus isn't telling them to respect the authorities. He's saying, "Obey these specific commands they give you from the old testament" and "don't obey any of these man-made teachings". He specified the Moses seat--and that's the only time these people were instructing obedience to God. At all other times, they were instructing people to follow the rules of men--which Jesus and his followers did NOT follow-- and you've already cited verses that show you're aware that Jesus did NOT advocate that people obey THOSE things. (healing on the sabbath was one such verse). Re: the rich young man story: Except he also told him to sell everything he owned. We're not all required to do that, are we? So how can you assert that the item which you cherry picked (becoming a disciple) is the qualifier to eternal life?

Hi there, Hawkins; welcome to the conversation! As I've stated on this thread already, Jews were never saved through obedience to the law. The Bible even records that no human ever kept it perfectly, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Galatians 3:11 echoes Habakkuk 2:4 in asserting that the righteous live by faith. You cite Galatians 2:11 as support for your statement, but your own emphasis on the quoted verse highlights the concept of forcing Gentiles to observe Jewish customs. Paul wasn't a Gentile, so please explain why you believe this was related. Furthermore, I have cited already an example of Paul's intentional choice to take actions to prove he kept Jewish law; please share how your statement can harmonize with these things, as described in Acts 21:23: “Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them” If Jewish laws were unnecessary within the new covenant, why didn't Paul simply TELL the Jews that...instead of going to great lengths to prove he kept Jewish laws? This is simply not true. I have explored many denominations of churches, including visiting a Messianic Jewish church. These are Jewish people who believe in Jesus.

I find it interesting that you responded to a bunch of my specific points but then posted another post in the name of not wanting to do that. A little confusing, but, ok...Now I'm not sure whether you just wanted to have the last word or whether you actually wanted me to respond...Anyway, I'll assume the former and just respond to your second post only, in the name of avoiding "lengthy conversation": They can be interpreted that way, yes. They can also be interpreted from a more Jewish perspective. I've heard both sides of the coin and am still looking for evidence that gives one side the winning edge. The question as to how/if Paul harmonizes remains. The gospels present a picture of a Jewish, Torah-teaching and law-abiding Jesus, who focuses on the fact that the kingdom of God is near. Paul's writings seem to suggest the possibility of freedom from the law, when interpreted a certain way. The difference in focus and the difference in what Paul and Jesus teach still stands out to me. Again, both sides have arguments but neither convinces me fully. Paul addresses which issues as referring to this? I'm not sure I understand your objection here. I still see this as a possible harmonization. Salvation has never been based on faithfully adhering to a set of rules, even in the Old Testament times. We know this because even those who are listed as "righteous" still sinned, and yet we have the concept of Old Testament people who were saved. If I had to make an observation as to why that might be, it seems that their hearts were in the right place, they trusted God, and they tried their best to adhere to the rules regardless of the fact that they inevitably all fell short. No one was ever saved by the Law of Moses, to my knowledge. The new covenant obviously does have rules...you seem to have rephrased them as "not doing things that offend God", but "don't do any of these individual things that offend God" is exactly the same as saying don't do X, Y, or Z in the Old Testament, since the very REASON not to do X, Y, or Z OT things was because X, Y, and Z offend God. The new covenant either a) uses the rules from the original covenant or b) has its own set of rules. Even the hyper-grace ideas ("pray once and you're saved forever" types of ideas...which lack biblical support, given the high number of verses focused on DOING the will of God) represent the concept of rules: there is still the requirement to "believe" in that paradigm. I still see a new covenant, which replaced the old, as a possibility. Sounds like we have some ambiguity on the requirements of this new covenant, though, as well as why Paul mentions a number of specifics that Jesus didn't even allude to. It's only 'exaggerated' if you doubt these Bible verses, which depict Paul indeed proving to the Jews that he DID keep the law: “Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them” (Acts 21:23-26). This again seems strange if Jewish rules are no longer required, Jesus was the final sacrifice, etc. I have yet to see a good explanation of this which supports Jewish laws having been done away with. Not sure what you're getting at. I'm here because I have questions, and the multiple explanations I get on harmonization of Paul and the twelve disagree with each other...this includes your points as well as the interpretations of others, many of which I've presented in response to your opinions. I'm here trying to figure it out, and so far, I again do not see evidence for one interpretation over another. I've raised a lot of doubts, and the responses received to such doubts are largely the repetition of the same interpretation rather than an explanation of why it's correct. There are still verses on either side that can't be explained away if we are to take one interpretation over another. There is still a huge lack of clarity here. Jesus kept the Sabbath and biblical feasts and never alluded to these things going away. He alluded to the temple going away. There remains confusion as to which OT provisions still apply and which don't. Even if we accept Paul as scripture 100%, his opinions on these things can be interpreted in a very Jewish manner and likewise a very Gentile manner. The question of how he harmonizes remains, even if we establish that he does harmonize. I can mostly at this point accept that he does harmonize...but HOW is not clear. There are writings referring to Polycarp preaching on the Sabbath, and even the date of his martyrdom is referred to as a Sabbath (which also could refer to a biblical holiday). The Martyrdom of Polycarp records that he was taken on the day of the Sabbath and killed on a Great Sabbath. Those references would be fairly odd for someone who has done away with the Sabbath; one who keeps biblical holidays and preaches on Sabbath, referred to as Sabbath, likely doesn't do those things and then hold to a Sunday doctrine. Seeing as Sabbath keeping was the default (Jesus and disciples were Sabbath keeping Jews,) a departure from it is what needs to be justified and explained, not the maintenance of the status quo. If you're referring to Justin Martyr, I'm not sure that he necessarily proves anything, either. First, his most-quoted references to the "Lord's Day" are arguably better translated as "Lord's Way". Second, the further we get from the apostles, the more we start to see ideas departing from them. Polycarp is significant, though, because he was likely the leader of the blessed church at Smyrna at the time that the letter extolling its virtues, found in Revelation, was written. Sunday observance has, in its favor, popular acceptance and a few early adherents. Saturday observance has what Jesus and the apostles did as well as what's written in stone into the 10 commandments. I again do not see a definitive answer here (but see a more convincing story for Saturday). This is an interesting interpretation; what is it based on? What evidence is there that Matthew 23 is about "obeying authority" rather than obeying Jewish law? That's not what it says, though: 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”[a] 20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.” 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

Was reporting this discrimination incident to an advisor and the administration not an option? Interesting premise for a movie, but not sure how it would be legal to treat one student different than all others on the basis on religion.

It's a music and dance performance, and according to several Chinese people I know, it is indeed associated with the religious group Falun Gong, which is banned and persecuted in China.

* sigh* I feel like we're going in circles. "The New Covenant was instituted at the time of Jesus death – consecrated through His blood." I'm still wondering why Paul went to great lengths to prove he kept the law, or why favored early church leaders kept sabbaths and Jewish holy days (Polycarp was one I mentioned). "Paul tells the Thessalonian Church that Satan will use “signs and lying wonders” to deceive (2 Thes 2:9-10)" And at other times, Paul uses his own miracle workings as "proof" that he's legit. Which is it? (Regarding Matthew 7:21-23): "The passage tells us who the people were – they were those who thought there part was to focus on working for God, rather than sitting at His feet and getting to know Him." Does it say that? Interesting idea, but I do not see any declaration that these people "thought there [sic] part was to focus on working for God, rather than sitting at His feet and getting to know Him." Is this your interpretation, or what the verse actually states? Here is the verse: 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Seems to be the former. Also, I don't see convincing evidence that all the Gentiles in the Jewish synagogues are converts to Judaism rather than Christianity. In fact, Christianity was, at that time, a Jewish sect. On what basis can you claim a distinction? This is an interesting interpretation, but I am interested to understand how it is you came to it. "The Law requires absolute obedience – or else condemns us as transgressors." Sure, I'm familiar with the verses that tell us that. Question still remains how popular Christianity makes the distinction on what laws do and don't still apply. Jesus asks us to obey his commandments, which include the entire Torah in Matthew 23. Seems that we then ought to be doing the best we can. Maybe sacrifices are impossible at this time, as you state, but following food and clothing laws are still very possible: On what basis can we say those disappeared? "Under grace, you can wear or eat whatever you choose. It's only when we start thinking that makes us better Christians than those who choose otherwise, that we defer from grace to Law. Murder and adultery have always been wrong – regardless of it being written down in the covenant between God and Israel (2500 years-or-so after Cain murdered Able) – and will continue to be wrong; regardless of the Law." Again, on what basis are these distinctions made? Because remember shrimp are an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12)...Which is especially interesting as a segue into the next topic: "If a denomination condones homosexual practice, then they are teaching against the clear morality espoused by scripture." I don't yet have an opinion on this yet. I've looked into why the churches which accept it do so, and it seems that it is largely because the verses which appear to condemn the practice have more to do with idolatrous temple prostitution than committed gay relationships, which weren't really a thing that people did back then. They have an interpretation of the Bible. You have an interpretation of the Bible. For me to accept that any interpretation is correct, I need reasons, and I need to see how they are more correct and how they harmonize...which is why I still doubt both. Maybe the norm for churches in your region is different than in mine...but these differences were apparent to me after even just visiting a handful of churches. "The others are issues of non-essential doctrine" You've just made a claim that 'homosexuality or not' is essential doctrine. Some of these churches would say the same about the issues mentioned. (modest dress standards, make-up, Saturday sabbath, practicing homosexuality among members, jewelry, Torah observance, marriage to non-Christians) Again, differing interpretations, and I'm still left at "I don't know". We need a basis for establishing what is and isn't essential. Everyone seems to disagree on this, and for most of the issues, I've yet to see an argument convincing enough to prove their opinion is the right interpretation. We all like to think the Holy Spirit leads us, but let's face it--the real result is we all come to different conclusions. Anyways, we've digressed. This might make an interesting thread on its own, though. "There is no objective reason to classify the Christian celebration of Christ's birth as pagan." That's not exactly what we were disagreeing about, though, is it? "Most Christians don't deny the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter and instead insist that such origins are irrelevant due to the new meanings assigned to them after Christians adapted these holidays." (the above is my quote) The above pretty much says it all. In some way, perhaps you agree with me then...that these were pagan holidays that eventually got adapted by Christians who gave them new meanings. "Does that mean we can't do anything the pagans did – because that is a ridiculous standard?" Hmmm, I never made that argument. I did, however, state that we can't accept something just because it's widespread. Here's the original snippet: "...pagan customs made their way into just about every church in existence today. I already mentioned this--Christmas and Easter are pagan, as are wedding rings and even the requirement of government or church weddings in order for a couple to be truly "married"--and yet, these things are also generally accepted by churches. Again, we can't accept something just because it's widespread." “Luke was Paul's companion, so this isn't surprising (that he agrees with Paul). It was mentioned that 2 Peter endorses Paul, but when I responded that this was and is indeed one of the most disputed authorships in the NT, no one has provided any additional information regarding why it should be considered to be Peter's writings genuinely, and thus my doubt surrounding this remains.” (The above is my quote) You accuse me of "dogma over doctrine", but this is interestingly fallacious, for all I've done is state that circular proof isn't exactly convincing, which I'm sure any logical person would agree with. Christians also ought to be logical people. Luke, Paul, or anyone else can still potentially be valid and convincing, but we need more than circular support among contemporaries to establish that. The fact that Polycarp, who studied with John the beloved disciple and who led the favored church of Smyrna, for example, mentioned any of Paul's letters in his "Letter to the Philippians", is FAR better proof of this, because we can track the teachings which were handed down back to Jesus and because in Revelation, Smyrna is praised as doing things right. It's stuff like that which I've been looking for. So far my observation has been that most Christians can provide only circular proofs, act like that's sufficient evidence, and then start discouraging me on the basis of my continued doubt, which is puzzling. Sometimes pride keeps us from realizing our arguments aren't really as convincing was we think they are...this is a bit of a pet peeve, as I observe that such tendencies are literally killing modern evangelism. (The "well I gave you the proof you need, so just believe" attitude...) Good thing I've been able to ignore this sort of behavior for the most part, since otherwise I would have never run into the proof I needed to realize Jesus was who he said he was. "For a Christian, the Law is obsolete in its entirety (with regards to righteousness – not knowledge). There are exactly no such written rules that apply to, or in any sense obligate, sincere Christians - none." Really? Because a few paragraphs ago, you said that condemning homosexuality was 'essential doctrine'. Furthermore, my doubt remains: Yes, a new covenant is foretold, with Israel. Where exactly do we see this distinction between what was and wasn't changed? There is much disagreement even on WHICH rules changed. I just don't see any clarity on this matter. "For example, there were Egyptians who fled Pharoah along with the Israelites. They were welcome to come along as long as they also followed the rules.”" (the above is my quote) "Therefore, to account for gentile converts, perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Law never applied beyond Judaism" And beyond Judaism, was there any salvation available? If going to hell was the alternative to accepting Jewish laws, then apparently the rules given in Judaism did indeed apply to gentiles. "You are suggesting we should read exceptions into what is actually written – therefore it is your responsibility to provide an argument for the case of exceptions." Again, nope. I find it interesting that you seem to to so badly desire to accuse me of saying things I haven't. Why? I'm doubting your interpretation because you have failed to support your claim, but why not just actually support your claim? To shout back that I, your doubter, am making a claim, is rather ridiculous. Doubting your claim != making my own. Here's the verse: Romans 14:5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. You originally brought that verse out hoping to support your position, citing it directly following these words: "We can abstain from bacon if we choose, but there is no value in that decision before God with regards to righteousness (either for or against)." Thus, you're the one making a claim, and the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I'm still waiting for you to support this claim ("we can abstain from bacon if we choose") Read the verse carefully. There's no mention of bacon; it just says "meat". "I don't think “flat out abandoned their Torah observance” is an apt characterisation of my position. As Paul described in Romans 14, a person is free to honour God through regulating what they eat or when they worship, or, alternatively, a person can honour God by walking in the fullness of freedom offered through Christ. It is no surprise that Jewish Christians continued in many of their traditions – even though it was no longer required." Same question, then, with your position reworded: We need support for that position, then. I've actually been looking into this possibility as well, since I wanted to better understand how these widespread ideas came to be without any explicit point in biblical history where the apostles or Paul encouraged that it was acceptable to abandon Torah observance. "The main advocate of freedom from Law in the New Testament is Paul (along with the author of Hebrews – likely Paul, but not stated). It is very easy to support the superiority of the New Covenant if we are permitted to use these scriptures (see Hebrews 8, for example). What is difficult in our conversation is that you reject Paul on the very basis of this explicit doctrine." I do? Really? I believe I've established my doubts as to how Paul harmonizes with the twelve, and several others along the way. That I'm trying to put the pieces together is saying that I haven't yet reached a conclusion, nothing more. The only circular reasoning I see is the supposition above, suggesting that I can't reach a conclusion because I haven't yet reached one. I enumerated the doubts which I still have in my previous post. I still would love to see those addressed.

NB - I'm not sure why the editor made most of my post above bold. I can't seem to get rid of it.

I'm not *totally* convinced that commandments = the law of Moses, but it does so far seem to be the most likely explanation. John does indeed list the commandments of loving God and one another, but I still fail to see how we can ignore the many times that other commandments are given, suggesting that "love God/love people" isn't a complete list. For example: Matthew 23:2 "2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." (Here, Jesus is directly telling the crowds and his disciples to do the things read from the Moses seat, which would have been the Torah.) Matthew 19:16 "16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”" (Here Jesus lists a few more OT commandments right alongside "love your neighbor") Do you see the confusion here? There are places in the Bible where he clearly instructs the disciples and the crowds to obey far more than "love your neighbor". === (Regarding Matthew 7:21-23) "You have overlooked the specific criticism of Jesus. Jesus said their problem was “I never knew you”." That doesn't seem right...in verse 21, it tells us that only those who *do* the will of the Father will enter the kingdom: "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Right after that is where Jesus affirms that even many people who seem to be real believers, as evidenced by their ability to do powerful works through him, will get rejected! I'm terrified by the notion that Jesus would reject people who call upon his name and sincerely seek him, and even are able to do amazing works of faith and think they're following him correctly...but who maybe get it wrong by accident...to the point that I actually have another thread open trying to figure out who these people are, that Jesus rejects, even after they called upon his name. If people who believe in Jesus and can even do miracles in his name can't get saved, then wow...I guess the rest of us are screwed? Seriously though, there's really no comfortable explanation for this, thus my thread on that topic. === "In your most recent post, you seem to be considering Paul's inclusion based on the standard of adherence to the Law – which demonstrates that you have predetermined the issue prior to consideration." Faulty conclusion, and no, there's nothing predetermined about my doubts. I came into this thread because I genuinely do not understand how it is that Paul fits in, especially given the many varying viewpoints on this matter, many of which raise valid points. So far, this explanation which you quoted makes the most sense to me so far. I'm not totally convinced, though, which is why I continue to explore. I don't yet have a conclusion. I only have the notion so far that certain explanations make a little more sense than others. === “this is where I struggle. Gentiles in synagogues on sabbaths and kept Jewish holy days and other Jewish customs” (me) "I'm not sure where this idea comes from." (you) Acts 18:4 "4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks." Why were there Greeks there, too? Acts 13:14 "14 From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.” 16 Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!" (Paul addressed the Jews and Gentiles as two distinct groups) Acts 2:5 "5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”" (Why were there Gentiles there in Jerusalem at Pentecost if they weren't following Jewish traditions?) === "Jesus raised the standard of righteousness from a system of outward obedience to a system of sincere, worshipful devotion. That devotion is a faith/love response to the knowledge that our salvation is entirely the work of Christ; nothing we did (nor could ever do) contributed to our standing with God – and so Christ deservingly gets all of the glory." On this point I do agree. Furthermore, Torah observant Christians will further explain that the law is kept BECAUSE they are saved, not SO THAT they are saved. Tzitzit, kosher eating, and everything else is seen as obedience to God out of love...for the same reasons that we keep other commandments, such as not murdering and not committing adultery. And my suggestion above that Paul was possibly Torah observant and taught such is in line with this way of thinking, as this notion doesn't clash with Jesus' very Jewish way of teaching and living. === "This is a list of rules for the Jews to obey as their part in the covenant with God. No sincere love or devotion is required – just follow the instructions." God DID ask for their sincere devotion, though. The commandment to love god with all your heart which Jesus gave wasn't new...it's right there in Deuteronomy 6:5. === "If you are Christ's, you have scripture and the Holy Spirit to guide you into truth." There are an awful lot of people who think this way and yet come to drastically different conclusions. I again wonder how it is we can verify that we have arrived upon God's intended interpretation. === "None of these examples are “pagan”. Christians celebrated the birth of Christ on December 25th before the Roman pagan festival of Sol Invictus was instituted. Easter stems from the German festival of the East – celebrating the resurrection of Christ with the rising of the sun on the Sunday (i.e. around the time of Passover, when the Bible says Jesus was raised). The history of wedding rings is vague – but as far as I can ascertain, they have always represented covenant marital devotion, not pagan worship. But I agree that they are not a requirement of scripture." Ummm...ok. Most Christians don't deny the pagan origins of these things and instead insist that such origins are irrelevant due to the new meanings assigned to them after Christians adapted these holidays. While scholars debate the origin of Christmas, most believe that it has to do with winter solstice celebrations, which definitely predate Jesus. This, at least, is the opinion of National Geographic. Pagan celebrations around this time predating Jesus are well-accepted. Same story with Easter. Scholars tend to agree that it was originally a pagan festival, but they disagree about exactly which one. One thing we do know is that even as early as the first apostolic successors, the Easter vs. Passover question was causing problems: Polycarp was being pressured to celebrate Easter instead of Passover, and he flat out refused, insisting that he would continue to observe Passover the way that John did and according to the calendar date that John had used. Naturally, I question your statement on the origin of Easter as a German tradition; seeing as this argument happened prior to 100 AD. Wedding rings date back to at least the ancient Egyptians. No, they're not pagan "worship" as you mentioned, but they were pagan nonetheless. So...where did you get this information of the supposed origins of these holidays? Many things you have said up to this point have been credible, but these statements aren't. === "You skipped the argument. You suggested you were testing “the prophets”. I provided the context (1 Jn 4:1-3) revealing the standards against which we are instructed to “test the spirits” - i.e. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God”. In Romans 1:3, Paul explicitly confesses that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. So Paul passes the test." This is still circular reasoning. Paul is still the one proclaiming that Paul passes the test. One reason so many Jews did NOT accept Paul is that he didn't pass the Deuteronomy 13 test. No one had John's writings to refer to until many decades after Jesus' death. === "But not Luke or Peter – who explicitly endorse Paul's legitimacy in scripture." Luke was Paul's companian, so this isn't surprising (that he agrees with Paul). It was mentioned that 2 Peter endorses Paul, but when I responded that this was and is indeed one of the most disputed authorships in the NT, no one has provided any additional information regarding why it should be considered to be Peter's writings genuinely, and thus my doubt surrounding this remains. === "This is a red herring. My claim was that God revealed our freedom from Law to Peter by showing him that salvation was also offered to those who are not under the Law." No it's not. I'm asking what Torah laws might have prohibited Peter from visiting the Gentiles, since you said: "Peter was initially resistant to the message of freedom from Law - God had to reveal this to him in a vision" We know that Peter's own interpretation of the vision was that he could visit Gentiles, yet you suggested that it had something to do with freedom from the law. So, naturally, I'm asking exactly which laws you think he was freed from, since the only change enacted here was that he went from NOT visiting Gentiles to doing so. === "Christians relate to God under a completely New Covenant. But what doesn't change, regardless of the covenant, is morality." This seems to be the crux of your position and what I'd appreciate if you could elucidate. Yes, a new covenant is foretold, with Israel. Where exactly do we see this distinction between what was and wasn't changed? There is much disagreement even on WHICH rules changed. I just don't see any clarity on this matter. You mention that the distinctions between moral and "other" laws are self-evident--but I maintain the question of where GOD makes such distinctions, or where he cancels some and not others? === "None of the “Torah rules” ever applied to the gentiles." They sure seemed to be, according to the old testament. For example, there were Egyptians who fled Pharoah along with the Israelites. They were welcome to come along as long as they also followed the rules. Plus, God's covenants were/are with Israel. We're "grafted into Israel" so that we can partake in that new covenant (whatever its rules may or may not be). === "We please Him by faith in the finished work of the cross – and our subsequent good works will reflect that faith, but not add to our standing before God." I do accept that Jesus has already paid the price for our salvation. The main thing which I am NOT sure of is which works are those which those who love God will do; which works are those without which faith is dead? Jesus' commandments include a lot more than "love God/love people", and without a strong case to disregard them, it seems like doing so might risk living a lifestyle that isn't pleasing to God. I don't think any of us wants to risk intentionally living in sin, so it's utterly important that we define it. Defining the way God wants us to live is indeed one of the things I hope to determine from this discussion and others I'm having. Matthew 7:21 "21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." === "I am happy to let Romans 14:6 speak for itself. For me, there is no reason to assume it means anything other than what it says. You are the one suggesting it might mean something beyond what it says. So you are the one obligated to provide support for “your position, but you are also welcome to not support your position”." Except it doesn't work that way. You originally brought that verse out hoping to support your position, citing it directly following these words: "We can abstain from bacon if we choose, but there is no value in that decision before God with regards to righteousness (either for or against)." Thus, you're the one making a claim, and the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I'm merely a skeptic; my position is merely that I currently do NOT have a satisfactory explanation for how the teachings of Paul fit in with the very Jewish repentance/kingdom teachings Jesus made during his lifetime. I don't claim that it does or doesn't mean what you say--and I cast doubt on people's explanations hoping to see which position is best supported. And because the "eat anything" position doesn't seem very well-supported, my doubts remain. === “Were we not "grafted onto Israel" and made a part of it?” (me) "We were not. Jesus is the vine onto which we were grafted (Jn 15:1-5). We were grafted into the promise of salvation – which followed the ancestral line from Adam to Jesus." (you) What is the meaning of the following, then: Romans 11:17 "17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree..." Here, our buddy Paul is talking about how Gentiles are made a part of the tree which symbolizes Israel and its inheritance. Corroborating that, we remember that the new covenant was FOR Israel in the first place: Jeremiah 31:31 "“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]” declares the Lord. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (By the way, the above verse is one that supports your hypothesis of the differences in Paul's teachings being of the new covenant. We would still have to explain, though, why it is that it's so different than the message Jesus gave during his life on Earth. We could explore this; it would be helpful.) === "Were they differences over morality, or other doctrines? Were they condoning sex outside of Godly marriage, or murder, or theft, or pagan worship etc." Both. I've made a point of visiting a number of varying denominations and seeing how people explain their beliefs. Here are just a few issues on which the varying churches I have seen differ: - Modest dress standards - Make-up - Saturday versus Sunday worship - Acceptance or rejection of practicing gays - Jewelry - Torah observance - Marriage to non-Christians, or even those of another denomination (and more) Churches are kind of all over the map. It's been an interesting experience, but I'm not sure it's brought me closer to any conclusions, other than that I am fairly certain I do not like churches. === "What if God's truth is, as I argue, that the New Covenant of grace is superior to, and therefore replaces, the Old Covenant of Law?" We need support for that position, then. I've actually been looking into this possibility as well, since I wanted to better understand how these widespread ideas came to be without any explicit point in biblical history where the apostles or Paul flat out abandoned their Torah observance. On that note, it seems that whether or not Christians ought to be Torah observant mostly belongs on its own thread. I would have arguments for and against this at present, if I were to participate in such a thread. In support of your theory, though, I would offer the following points so far: * Jesus makes a point of declaring that his own blood sealed the new covenant. This mirrors the way the Mt. Sinai covenant was sealed--also with blood. * We do in fact have several OT verses which prophesy the establishment of a new covenant. * The Talmud records that since about AD 30, (approximately the time of Jesus' death,) the crimson rope which used to turn white as a sign of the forgiveness of sin following Yom Kippur observances in the traditional Jewish manner. (This is one my my favorites, as it's a widely verified, non-Christian source pointing to the legitimacy of Jesus' work on the cross in general. I'm surprised no one mentioned it so far, actually.) But the doubts remain: I've spelled many of them out, but in summary, here are the specific status updates on my original questions: * At what point are Paul's gospel and the twelve apostles' version harmonized? * Possibility: Since we know that the apostles were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus told people to follow Jewish commandments, Paul's letters, which are confusing the the apostles' admission, can indeed be interpreted as opposition to the traditions of MAN rather than opposition to any of the laws God gave to Moses. We're left with the question of why he seemed to tell the Gentiles not to be under the law, or if indeed he did. * Possibility: We see in the OT that a new covenant was foretold. If we can establish that the new covenant is characterized by a new set of commandments replacing (and not in addition to) the old ones, then Paul's (again confusing) letters can also be interpreted as supporting adherence to such a set of new rules. We're let with the question of whether the old laws were truly abolished, though, since the apostles seemed to keep them, many early church fathers are recorded as keeping the sabbath and the biblical feasts, and why Paul so adamantly wanted to prove to the Jews in the book of Acts that he indeed DID keep the law. * Why does Jesus never mention during his time on Earth any of the things Paul is teaching? * I still don't know. But I can recognize that the notion that a few things were changing was definitely alluded to on multiple occasions. It's a bit cryptic, though, which doesn't satisfy my black-and-white mind. * Since Paul's version is so different from the apostles' version, how can we be sure he's not a false prophet? (Many people at the time thought he was) * The explanations to this are seen under the first point. * If Paul's truth is the one we're supposed to go by, then why wouldn't Jesus have made any mention of those concepts during his earthly ministry? Why would he choose twelve guys who would ultimately "get it wrong"? * This I am still confused by...especially since those twelve guys seemingly kept on living by the Jewish laws long after the resurrection. I'd love to see some material that demonstrates otherwise. * What early Christian records do we have which suggest that the churches founded by the apostles and NOT touched by Paul were taught Paul's version of the gospel...and were taught so by the apostles and not Paul? (This perhaps would be the most convincing to me, seeing as all biblical attempts to harmonize Paul and the apostles are written by Paul's camp.) * While searching, I found out that people like Polycarp DID keep sabbath on the 7th day, as well as the biblical feasts, which is odd if those things "passed away". I observe that you bring up a myriad of verses which seem to say that sabbaths and dietary laws requirements and such are done away with, but I fail to see how this explanation fits: I fail to see how these verses harmonize with the words of Jesus who told us to listen to and DO the law of Moses (Matthew 23) and who told a man seeking eternal life to follow the ten commandments literally (Mark 10:18). This is part of the information I have been seeking, if it exists, from the start, and this is the information I still lack, if we are to support Paul's differences as a "new covenant" position.

I came to belief largely through studying historical evidence surrounding the resurrection, scientific impossibilities of our universe existing without a designer, and incredibly accurate Bible prophecies which foretold the Messiah. If that is the sort of stuff you are looking for, I would be happy to share. Just say so

Tracts I've seen seem pretty ineffective, largely because they don't address the main reason people don't turn to God--they don't believe there IS a God. Posters above have affirmed a few anecdotal stories about traditional tracts being helpful, but my experience has been that most people I know personally, including myself at one point in life, would need to first get over the hurdle of believing that God even exists. I feel like tracts which could directly address THAT in a way that is respectful to one's intellect might be a little more effective. I have never seen any such tracts, though.

It's possible to rebuke unkindness without also being unkind. Do you live with (or close to) your mother? I can tell you from experience that it IS possible to honor father and mother even when they themselves are setting a terrible example. I am nowhere near perfect at this myself BTW. I have difficult relationships with both of my parents, who are divorced and a thousand miles apart. We are challenged to forgive abusive parents--a challenge that others will never face. Forgiving someone who wrongs you whom you never expect to see again is one thing, but forgiving someone who will continue to wrong you over and over at every opportunity is another thing entirely. However, no matter how much they continue to wrong us, we know that God continues to forgive us as we wrong him daily with our sinful thoughts and actions. Forgiving the wrongs of my parents has given me a better perspective of what God is doing for me and for each of us in continuing to forgive us time after time. That said, honoring your parents does not necessarily mean giving them all of your time. Conversations can be kept short, and when things get out of hand, have a few possible ways of quickly exiting should the need arise. I've even flat out said things like, "I have asked you many times now to please stop ___. This conversation doesn't seem to be helping either of us. I'm going to hang up now. Perhaps we can talk more later." And then, I hang up. Prolonging something like that doesn't help you OR them. Then, again, forgive them. Willingness to forgive them honors both God and your parent. Another thing worth mentioning is that God's authority still trumps your parents' authority. If they ask you to do something which is against God's will, then listen to God and not those who oppose him. This is general advice, but we could go into specifics if you want to (or are comfortable) talking about more specific situations. There is absolutely no pressure here to do so.

Not exactly: I'm unsure of Paul. I don't really have a position, except skepticism of modern Christian ideas which seem to contradict the practices and beliefs of the very earliest. I mentioned that canons differ because they indeed do, showing that there isn't just "one canon" we can trust. I don't see a problem with this, and neither did the early church who didn't even have the concept of of official NY canons. God never seems to make things obvious. We are told to test everything, and indeed with so many conflicting ideas of what is true, I don't see how you can form a belief in anything at all without looking at all of the evidence available. Again, if canons can be fallible at all, then one person's writings appearing in any or all of them is not valid evidence of it being truth. That is the only point of the mention of canons, and it still stands. My goal was to understand how Paul and the twelve could be harmonized, and as I stated a few posts ago, the current evidence I have DOES allow me to see some level of harmonization between Paul and the twelve IF we can say that Paul was Torah observant and taught Torah observance...and, the more I read, the more I see evidence of such. I change my beliefs when the opposite position presents more compelling evidence to the contrary. That said, my views have already shifted somewhat over the course of this thread (to seeing Paul as probably more Torah observant than I originally thought...which puts him at fewer odds with the apostles). I restate this from before. "Apart from the book of Acts, there is not much historical information in scripture about the specific behaviour of the early church – and Acts tends to focus on Paul. But I think it's fair to say that both Peter and Luke explicitly endorsed Paul through scripture." And this is where I struggle. Gentiles in synagogues on sabbaths and kept Jewish holy days and other Jewish customs. How would it make ANY sense to assume a position that doing the opposite of that is correct? We have supposedly tons of writings from the apostolic successors of the early churches...but even when I start reading THEM, I learn that people like Polycarp kept 7th day Sabbath as well as biblical feasts! My skepticism that abandoning Jewish practices is somehow correct still stands. Living in the way of what we see that the apostles actually DID seems like a much safer option than departing from it, so there would have to be some pretty hefty evidence to merit departing from it. Again, I wish there were--Jewish laws require a lot of commitment. God wants commitment, though. He wants us to love him with our "whole heart and strength". "In light of all that support, arguing for a special rejection of Paul (whilst accepting other scriptures like the Gospels) speaks to an underlying motive against Paul." Again, no. It proves that I test everything. I'm still nailing down the specifics of what I can accept as true in a lot of this. "And if you believe the Damascus road account, Jesus did personally choose Paul. Furthermore, neither was Luke one of the twelve (nor Jude)." I'm skeptical of it. Reasons for such already stated. "Jesus was obligated to teach the Law." If he was obligated, by whom was he obligated? By God. I think I'll listen to his words. Why would we not? "And what do we really need to do to “inherit eternal life”? Jesus said “come, take up the cross, and follow Me” (verse 21)." Which, by the way, is incredibly vague. Following Yeshua means doing the things he taught. What are some of the things he taught? Stuff like following the Mosaic laws: "1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you." (Matthew 23:2) You've already admitted that he taught the law. I do not see a case for those teachings being nullified. (And again, I'd love to...but I have to believe what the evidence supports, not what I *wish* were true.) "The Law does not tell us "HOW" to love God" Then what are these? "3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. 8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:1) "Not those who are obedient to Law, but “whoever believes in Him”" The obedience stems from the belief; else that "faith" has no works and is dead. Obedience and belief are NOT mutually exclusive; indeed one comes from the other. It's a change in motive: we must be obedient BECAUSE we are saved, not because obedience COULD save us. I see nowhere that obedience is no longer requested. Yeshua again, even affirms that those who love him will keep his commandments. (John 14:15) " Jesus said, “I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18) At some point, we have to trust that God is involved in the preservation and passage of the church." According to which tradition, though? The apostles seeded many churches, and there are a few denominations which claim absolute apostolic succession and yet have different traditions. Furthermore, compare their CURRENT beliefs to those expressed in the letters of the early churches and see that there are a lot of teachings TODAY that just weren't part of the early church or which differ from the early churches. The truth is buried, if it's preserved in a denomination at all. So sure, I can accept that the truth is there. But where? Everyone has a different answer. "But whatever standard we apply, we are rationally obligated to apply it consistently. Paul's preservation in the church throughout church history is one of many lines of evidence presented to you in this thread." In what sense, though? Because now, remember, we've introduced the concept that the harmonization of Paul with the twelve might have to include a higher level of Torah observance. I made mention of that in an earlier post or two as well. That and again, pagan customs made their way into just about every church in existence today. I already mentioned this--Christmas and Easter are pagan, as are wedding rings and even the requirement of government or church weddings in order for a couple to be truly "married"--and yet, these things are also generally accepted by churches. Again, we can't accept something just because it's widespread. " “I still ask why Paul (or at least the traditional understanding of Paul, as mainstream Christians believe) should be valid instead of the Jewish/apostolic Kingdom message that the apostles were given by Yeshua” (me) You have been presented with many lines of evidence supporting Paul's inclusion in scripture – some of which exceed standard of evidence available for the other works of the New Testament. "" (you) That's not the question I asked. This was about the traditional understanding of Paul (no Jewish customs) versus the Jewish kingdom message. If we believe Paul's message was the same, then there's no issue. Again, as I've stated many times before, seeing Paul as a Torah observant Jew is the closest I can see to him being harmonized with the rest of the NT. I care about the truth, and if Paul happens to agree with it, then great. If not, then in such a case I'd have to reject anything not matching up with the truth. " And Paul wrote; 1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:1-3) So Paul passes the test. " How? Because Paul says that he himself is legit, he's legit? How is that not circular reasoning? "You are claiming to be simply testing Paul, but you are scrutinising Paul against a much higher critical standard than other scriptures (which you seem to accept). The only reason to adopt this inconsistent approach is that you have an existing predisposition to reject Paul." I'll take the words of an eye witness (apostles) over a secondary witness who never met Yeshua any day, and that's a logical thing to do. Test a secondary witness' validity by seeing if it lines up with the eye witness. Paul's claim to knowing about the truth is through a vision...and just how many false religions were started by that exact method? So indeed let's test such an absurd-sounding thing and see if it matches up with the truth of the eye witnesses. I can accept him if he matches with the eye witnesses' truth. " “Maybe I'm missing something from Torah, but where in the Torah does it prohibit a Jew from visiting the house of a Gentile? There certainly were Pharisee traditions (law of men) prohibiting such things.” (me) There are many dietary and hygiene laws that would make concerting with gentiles difficult, but the point of the vision to Peter was that God's new path of salvation is also offered to those outside of the Law (i.e. non-Jews) – unlike the Law which was specific to Jews." (you) Again I ask which Torah laws prohibit? I'm still not aware of any, other than the traditions of men. I see no evidence of Peter breaking Torah to visit Gentiles, or of God commanding him to break Torah. Do you have such evidence? "As previous discussed, morality (what is ultimately right and wrong) doesn't change with a new of covenant." Where was a distinction made, that "moral" laws should continue to apply and that others don't? Furthermore, what distinguishes whether a law is "moral" or "other"? I see no such distinctions. Can you point to any? You mentioned Galatians 3:24-25. Here's the passage in question: "23 Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." (Galatians 3:23-25) What does a guardian do for a child? Things like teach them to take baths, study or work hard, be nice to his sister, etc. As an adult, will the grown child STOP doing these specifics? No--he just does them without having to be told anymore. How then can the above be interpreted as saying that the things taught in the law no longer apply? "“Sin = transgression of the law” " (me) "Only if you are under Law. For the rest of us, sin is a breach of God's holy standards (some of which are incidentally reflected in the Law)." (you) Then why does 1 John 3:4 say "4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." ? “Doing God's commandments, just like Yeshua said, isn't pleasing to God?” (me) "Correct." (you) Then why did Paul go to such lengths to prove to the Jews that he still kept the laws, and why didn't the apostles ever stop practicing Jewish laws? Or, if they did, please provide the source of this information. I'll even take evidence that a legitimate direct successor of one of the apostles, whose teachings were approved by and handed down from the apostles, did so. Again, I'd love to see such evidence, but I haven't found such. Furthermore, why would God ask for our obedience? "Really – show you a scripture detailing the Apostles “NOT” abstaining from a particular food? Do you think that's a reasonable standard by which to judge freedom from Law – a very specific double-negative? " I'll even take scripture showing that they made a habit of abandoning any Torah laws. Pork eating is just one example. (And that's another issue entirely...because even Noah seemed to have a concept of which animals were "unclean" when he loaded them up on the ark...there's another thread on that somewhere) "Apart from the Pauline texts, freedom from Law was specifically addressed in scripture through the issue of gentile Christians “NOT” being compelled to be circumcised (e.g. Acts 15)." Maybe this is the verse you're thinking about: "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”" (Acts 15:1) The people here were falsely claiming that circumcision was needed IN ORDER to be saved. As gentile converts learned more and more about Torah, would they not be expected to become more and more accountable for new rules as they learned them? Would they not be taught what sin is? Is not sin transgression of the law? What was the meaning of James' suggestion to that regard in Acts 15:21, "21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”" Did he not mean that these Gentiles would be in synagogue every Sabbath? Did he not mean that these Gentiles would be learning the law of Moses? Obedience to God should be a natural result of faith, not the thing that saves you. That seems to be the distinction here. Gentiles were permitted to learn their new rules gradually and comply as they learned more. "God told Noah (i.e. before the Law) that “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Gen 9:3)." How did Noah know before the flood which animals were clean and unclean? How long was it before God imposed the unclean animals restriction again? Would God's temporary allowance of eating "everything" because there's no other food be similar to his permission, in early human history, to commit incest due to the severe lack of people on the planet to marry? Weren't both temporary allowances due to dire circumstances? "I don't think consuming bacon was ever “declared an abomination”. Dietary laws are ritual, not moral – likely, in many cases, as a means to distinguish those in covenant with God from the idolatrous dietary practices of the pagan nations." OK, you're mostly right--pigs are "unclean" and it's shellfish and a few others which are an "abomination". Indeed some other meats are listed as being an "abomination". Here's the passage which does indeed declare some meats as an "abomination": "1Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 2“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Deut. 14:4; Ezek. 4:14; Dan. 1:8; (Matt. 15:11); Acts 10:12, 14; (Rom. 14:14; Heb. 9:10; 13:9)‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: 3Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. 4Nevertheless these you shall Acts 10:14not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 5the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 6the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; 7and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, Is. 65:4; 66:3, 17; Mark 5:1–17is unclean to you. 8Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. Is. 52:11; (Mark 7:2, 15, 18); Acts 10:14, 15; 15:29They are unclean to you. 9Deut. 14:9‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. 10But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an Lev. 7:18, 21; Deut. 14:3abomination to you. 11They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. 12Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you. 13Deut. 14:12–19; Is. 66:17‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15every raven after its kind, 16the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 20‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22These you may eat: Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:1) "There is no value in keeping rules never intended for you." Please demonstrate which Torah rules did and did not ever apply to Gentiles. I am aware of the concept that some may not have applied, but unfamiliar with any that Gentiles are told not to follow. "But if you think your abstaining from bacon puts you in any better stead with God (in any sense) than those who eat bacon, then by logical extension, you imply that you have earned righteousness and favour by your own efforts." Not really. If people know God's commandments and break them, it's not really following his orders, is it? How can one claim to follow God and then intentionally break his rules? That's the only point here. Your claim that I'm "setting aside grace" is unfounded and just false. " “Demonstrate how you believe the above [Rom 14:6] is regarding God's laws and not the Pharisee traditions that Yeshua AND the apostles preached against” (me) "Can you demonstrate that it means one and not the other?" (you) I don't need to. I'm not the one making a claim that God changed any Torah laws. You are claiming God stopped requiring Torah adherence. This would have been an opportunity to prove that those verses supported your position, but you are also welcome to not support your position. "The Law was not given to humanity. It was given to Israel as a covenant between them and God. We can learn from the Law (namely regarding our inherent corruption and need for a Saviour), but the corruption of sin exists with or without the Law...The question we are discussing is whether or not the Law of Moses holds any authoritative sway over Christians. " Which Torah laws applied to Gentiles living in the land? Were we not "grafted onto Israel" and made a part of it? " “I am truly curious how you can come to this conclusion. The ten commandments are either about specifically how to love god or love your neighbor.” (me) "Only if you define loving God as 'not worshipping anything or anyone above God', and only if you define loving “your neighbor” as not murdering them, not stealing from them, not lying to them, and not coveting their spouse or possessions. I mean, I agree that walking in love would self-evidently cover these laws – but the Law itself sets a pretty low bar for “love”. " (you) Again, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The ten commandments are some of God's commandments. Thus, they are part of what we must keep. "The influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian (which Paul calls “the fruit of the Spirit” - Gal 5:22-23) teaches a Christian to walk in love, patience, goodness and kindness - without the need for the “specifics” to be “spelled out” in a list of rules." Do you think there's a right and wrong way to behave? Why do so many "spirit-led" Christians differ on these things? Could having specifics help with this dilemma? Did God ever give us specifics? "I'm not sure there is that much dispute among sincere, Bible-believing Christians as to what constitutes moral and immoral behaviour. " Then your experience and mine differ greatly. Even over the last few weekends, I've experienced differences in beliefs in various churches. " But “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn 3:16)" Then who are the people referred to in Matthew 7:22? These seem to be people who believed in Yeshua--and even did good deeds in him name--but ultimately get rejected. What's the distinction between believers in John 3:16 and in Mattew 7:22? "You don't have “to do” anything." Then why does it say (I know, I keep bringing this one up): Matthew 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" That's terrifying. NOT all who just believe will be saved according to that. This verse talks about people who THINK they are going to be saved because they called upon the name of the lord. We have to get it right the first time. So the specifics would be of UTMOST importance here... Also, 1 John 2:4, "He who says, I know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." "I can fully understand how you might be depressed if you think you still have to perform to please God" Of course, because Matthew 7:22 again. There seems to be a lot of focus on following commandments in the Bible. That's why stuff like this seems like a very dangerous position: " Like children, we can relax in our Father's arms - knowing that we are already accepted because of what Jesus has done for us. "

Sure Psalm 150:1-6 "1Praise God in his sanctuary! Praise God in his fortress, the sky! 2 Praise God in his mighty acts! Praise God as suits his incredible greatness! 3 Praise God with the blast of the ram’s horn! Praise God with lute and lyre! 4 Praise God with drum and dance! Praise God with strings and pipe! 5 Praise God with loud cymbals! Praise God with clashing cymbals! 6 Let every living thing praise the Lord!"

LOL to "Sojourner414". It's amazing to me how much more hostile the so-called "Christians" on this forum are than many atheists I know. If you are so easily offended by those who disagree with you, perhaps you shouldn't go around telling other people how wrong they are, especially coupled with snide remarks like yours. Thanks for removing yourself from the conversation so that those who do wish to participate still can! Nope. Joseph fleed Potiphar's wife because she was tempting him into adultery. Her intentions were obviously to do the deed. OP's intentions are to *not* have sex. Let OP decide what is too much temptation to bear. Like I said before, he has access to God in prayer as much as we do. It's unwise to subtract or ADD from God's word. The Bible doesn't prohibit what he's asking to do. If, as an adult, I share a hotel room with my brother, also an adult, then OBVIOUSLY nothing will happen. Why? There is ZERO intent to do anything immoral. The OP likewise has ZERO intent to do anything immoral. If that indeed is true, then why are people here trying to decide FOR HIM what's too much temptation to bear? Stick to the Bible and prayer. Matthew 7:2 " 1Do not judge, or you will be judged. 2For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? " The remaining scriptures you mentioned might be valid if the OP felt tempted, but he's stated he doesn't. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and let God be the sole judge instead of judging others.

With that logic, no one would travel to places in the middle east where Christianity is forbidden by law to witness. Such a situation makes being strong and having faith and not denying God MUCH harder. Why not let the OP decide how much temptation is too much, for himself? He's got access to God through prayer just like we do

The Bible mentions clanging cymbals and drums as a means to praise God, so in principle, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with loud music. It's how many people celebrate things they're passionate about. More power to them, and I hope they continue their loud church services. As for me personally, I don't like loud anythings, and it's not MY style. But I support others who wish to worship this way.