A Reply to Maximum Aguilar
Link Location: http://ift.tt/2qQEpNa
I do see how very much of a doubtful ordeal it can be for you that the early church historical contentions that led to factions with split canons could create confusion in the minds of outside-lookers. But just because the issue of division among Judaism is reducing does not mean that they do not still exist. Just wanted to throw that in, in a chessy way haha :) But this still comes back down to the simple logical postulates
And you have asked me which denominations I go with. What I believe you should be asking me is "which cannon" I go with. This is because many differnt denominations believe the same canons. Surely, I could easily provide you with an essay on all of these but, I might be wrong so please correct me, but that would be drifting away from the main topic regarding "HISTORICAL RELAIABLITY" of the claim of Jesus being the Messiah that has already come. That is to say, we have a set of valid list of mere historical documents believed to coherently all suggest that Jesus is the messiah. Let us scrap the fact that HE is God for now and just stick to messiah. This is to appreciate that yes, there are differences in theologies and heresies but that does not destroy the underlying denominator common factor.
Canonised or not by who's faction/ denomination, heretical or not, I am not making a fuss over mere valid historicity; I am claiming that ALL these ANCIENT books (old testament included) point to Jesus being the Messiah and in no way do they incoherently contradict that fact. So I can escape their differences such as the Gnostic Christians or Muslims (who are another heretical christian group) and just say that we all believe that this one man, JESUS is the Messiah.
Yes, you have brought up a wonderful, exciting and intellectually stimulating sandwich point.
Now to address the inside of the sandwich point you made was
1. The Issue of abrogation: I certainly do understand the angst of thinking that Elohim's words can be abrogated. Surely, one would think that Elohim does not change HIS mind. I mean, HIS words are supposed to be eternal and immutable. Both of us would agree to that on ground of coherent theology. However, I can only speak for the Christian Faith that I believe in on my own personal level (regardless of islam or other denominations that agree with me or I think are heretical).
You have mentioned abrogation. However, this is to conflate islam with christianity. Islam teaches a doctrine of abrogation, Christianity doesnt. What Christianity teaching is a doctrine of the old becoming obselete and the enactment of the NEW TESTAMENT PROMISED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
There is a misunderstanding-equivocation you may be eluding to, correct me if I'm wrong. In the Christian Doctrine (at least, the one I subscribe to), the word "Old Testament" could mean two things
The Law of Moses is obselete (Old Testament) not the set of books. So when I real Genesis and places in the bible that occured before the LoM, those are not obselete. Stories are not obselete, only the judicial LoM on the OT books ... not abrogated according to the christian doctrine. This is to make sure that you're not conflating "obselete" and "abrogation" together. But this means that the Law of Moses (OT) still exists as a viable way to relate to God if one chooses to. Nobody is saying that it is evil or impotent in giving you what it promises ... we (christians) are just saying that we rather prefer Jesus because we have broken the OT and incurred unto ourselves and our several generations to come "cursees upon curses upon curses" (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Even David in the Pslam, by the Spirit of Elohim said,
David looked to a time where a Perfectly Just Elohim will not imput iniquity to a man - well, Christians believe that, that can only happen if a Perfectly Just Elohim has perfectly and judicially satisfied all the conditions for doing that. This, I believe, can only be seen in Jesus the Messiah. This way, I believe I have satisfied your arguement regarding 1 Samuel 15:29 to show you that Christians do not believe that Elohim has taken "back what HE says" (abbrogated- its still there for the taking) and neither has HE changed HIS mind. The OT/ LoM is still there for you to observe, it has not gone away. You are free to die the death that the LoM actually commands and pay the price for your sins eternally in hell (thats what the OT says - i'm saying this with a straight face because the law doesnt have emotions. The law is the law and bends for no one). You will die eternally in hell because the LoM is nothing in summary but a choice between Blessings and Curses which, according to the OT are synonymous to Life and Death (Deuteronmy 30:19).
8For the redemption of his soul is costly,
9That he should live on eternally,
2. The Issue of Elohim being Man
Numbers 23:19 is a subjuctive conditional that does not exempt Omnipotent Elohim on being man. The context is CONDITIONAL on Elohim telling lies or changing HIS mind like man. If I say, "I am not a husband that I should beat my wife". Nothing in that statement stops me from being a husband. It just says that I am not the kind of husband that beats his wife. So, yes, Omnipotent Elohim can be man, but HE is not going to be the kind of man that lies or the kind of human being that changes HIS mind regarding what HE has spoken to do or promised to fulfil.
Another of my exegesis, which you are free to critically analyse is Malachi 3:6. Surely, you and I don't think that Elohim is like an unchanging-static statue ... if not, HE would be able to move HIS lips to say those words. Rather, the context is referring to Omnipotent Elohim's Character/ Attitude. Pertaining to the introduction of the NT. Nothing here stops Elohim from introducing the NT. You see, the OT has not been changed - it's still there for the taking and yes, the OT will destroy you with many many many curses. If anything be the point, its that the LoM stands in direct contradiction to Malachi 3:6 if God meant that the HE would not change from taking the LoM to be the Law for Everyone, Everywhere, Everytime (according to your own interpretaion/ exegesis) - it is, but you can judicially migrate to letting El the Son(Jesus) Satisfy the LoM and stay in the Blessings that Sinless Jesus Provides. Let HIM be under the LoM and you stay under the benefits that HE provides. That's the christian way.
Lastly, I really love your fire and passioin for the Word of God. I really respect that in a human being. This is because what I see you doing is taking Ecclesiastes 1:9 and 'universalising' to produce the necessary spiritual authority of consistency and coherence into every aspect of life. This is wonderful and not wrong on a poetic level. However, on a mere context review, your exegesis stands in direct contradiction to Jeremiah who prophesied about a new covenant/ testament. But if you take the context as I would interpret it, that it is talking about daily activities "under the sun" and not merely "divine testaments/ covenants between man and God", then you will notice that the covenant beteween man and God EXTRUDES "beyond the sun" (symbolic representation of the physical world), "above the sun" and into the spiritual world. So, I could further argue if basing my evidence on this verse alone that God's Testament could change, but I'm not. I am rather saying that it does not apply as you suggest it does. I believe that God's Testaments are eternal and unchanging... but that does not mean that it is impossible to trustfully let Infinitely Omnipotent and Holy El th Son fulfil the LoM and take the consequences on your behalf in the flesh.
Looking forward to your valued thoughts. Take you time, I know ive written a lot :)
via Blogger http://ift.tt/2qf98GJ
May 08, 2017 at 12:27AM