Caledvwlch
New member
Then answer it for me, Lighthouse. Pretend granite isn't here, and explain it to me, because I'm still confused.Lighthouse said:
Why Theonomy?
- Thread starter Justin (Wiccan)
- Start date
Poly said:
When was the last time Granite didn't intentionally sabatage discussions on this topic? His only reason for being here is to derail what could be serious and fruitful discussions on a very important topic. If it were up to me, he would stop it or be banned. He's a total waste of time.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Caledvwlch
New member
Why's that? Because it really is a hole in the theonomy argument? Or because you don't want me to know the truth? I know you have a defense against the Deuteronomy 25:11-12 argument. So what is it?Clete said:
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Clete said:
Which is more important ... whether or not Granite wins or loses, or whether or not questions are answered?
Justin
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Zakath said:
More than that--Clete evidently doesn't realize that with responses like that, Granite's already won. I mean, what else could you call it when Granite has that much control over Clete's behavior?
And Clete's a moderator, no less....
Justin
Clete's not a moderator.:nono: I was wrong.
:yawn:
You'd think if this point was so self-evident that a quick and ready shakenbake answer would be on hand.
I continue to bring this law up because it IS reprehensible and no amount of tap dancing can change that. For as much as there might be to admire in the Mosaic code, this little proviso is not one of them.
You'd think if this point was so self-evident that a quick and ready shakenbake answer would be on hand.
I continue to bring this law up because it IS reprehensible and no amount of tap dancing can change that. For as much as there might be to admire in the Mosaic code, this little proviso is not one of them.
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Lighthouse said:
Oops. I thought that's what the italicized user-name meant. :blush:
Justin
I wish.:chuckle:Justin (Wiccan) said:
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Jefferson said:
Hi, Jefferson,
Sorry about that ... I fear they got lost in the shuffle of the thread.
Justin
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Jefferson said:
First and foremost, I tend to take the majority scholarship view that the author(s?) of the Pastoral Epistles was not Paul--this would be called a "Pseudo-Pauline Epistle.". That does not cause any substantive change in my arguments against theonomy, but I felt you should be aware of my position, lest it cause confusion.
The entire point of this passage is a warning against false teachers of the Law within the church. Pseudo-Paul is not deriding the Law, merely the false teachers thereof. One of the marks of a false teacher of the Law is that they do not know what the Law was all about. The Law was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (which Christians see themselves as a part of), but of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant was a conditional covenant specifically given to the descendants of Israel as a condition for living in Canaan, and the Law was one of those conditions. "Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)
Now, you may think that it would be a good idea for our current Gentile government to require obedience to the Mosaic Law ... but there's a few problems with that. Acts 15 and Gal 3:10-14 may be the most out-spoken examples, but they are far from the only ones. For you to try to live by the Law means that you must do everything that the Law requires. That means circumcision, ritual cleanliness, eschewing unclean meat, and the temple sacrifices. You cannot separate the Law into "moral law" and "ritual law"--such a separation is unbiblical.
Arguable. At no time does Hebrews or Psalms say that the same person will fill the office of Messianic King and Priest after the Order of Melchizedek. It is not an unreasonable conjecture, but it is conjecture.
As a side note: I also take the majority scholarship view that Deuteronomy was compiled in final form during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile. However, I also addressed this: in Deuteronomy, God does not say "You shall make a King": the text says "When you make a king, do it my way."
Jefferson, I've got to skip the rest for now ... we have a lightning storm in the area.
Justin
The following exposition from post #135 is correct! St Paul fails to differentiate between the covenants.
"The Law was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (which Christians see themselves as a part of), but of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant was a conditional covenant specifically given to the descendants of Israel as a condition for living in Canaan, and the Law was one of those conditions. "Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)"
"The Law was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (which Christians see themselves as a part of), but of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant was a conditional covenant specifically given to the descendants of Israel as a condition for living in Canaan, and the Law was one of those conditions. "Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)"
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Jefferson said:
As for the balance of your post ... Jefferson, remember, I take the view that most of the Tanakh dates to the Babylonian Captivity or afterwards. In that light, there is no way that I can answer that and remain inside a context that you can accept, so I fear my comment on these passages would only detract from the topic at hand.
I would be more than glad to discuss the United Monarchy tales in a separate thread, if you wish, but I fear my views would not be very popular here.