Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The time is short..

perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:07:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

The Greek is literally translated: "The time is having been shortened" i.e. shortened, compacted, etc. We are now living in the last age.

As such we should focus ourselves on our true purpose in life and not be overly preoccupied with this world. i.e. live in this world, but be not of it.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:15:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:07:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

The Greek is literally translated: "The time is having been shortened" i.e. shortened, compacted, etc. We are now living in the last age.

As such we should focus ourselves on our true purpose in life and not be overly preoccupied with this world. i.e. live in this world, but be not of it.

yes and?
had those "who have wives should live as if they do not" they wouldn't be procreating and we know procreating outside of marriage is wrong....so what is your point exactly
are you procreating? you shouldn't be, according to paul via the holy sperm
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:20:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:07:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

The Greek is literally translated: "The time is having been shortened" i.e. shortened, compacted, etc. We are now living in the last age.

As such we should focus ourselves on our true purpose in life and not be overly preoccupied with this world. i.e. live in this world, but be not of it.

Do you mean "make your life's purpose an afterlife".

Something that has never existed should should be your purpose?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:36:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:15:11 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:07:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

The Greek is literally translated: "The time is having been shortened" i.e. shortened, compacted, etc. We are now living in the last age.

As such we should focus ourselves on our true purpose in life and not be overly preoccupied with this world. i.e. live in this world, but be not of it.

yes and?
had those "who have wives should live as if they do not" they wouldn't be procreating and we know procreating outside of marriage is wrong....so what is your point exactly
are you procreating? you shouldn't be, according to paul via the holy sperm

There is nothing in that about not having children. Having children and bringing them to God is following God's plan. Living just for yourselves as a married couple is not.

The Corinthians were under a heretical viewpoint that their body was sinful and their natural desires wrong.

Just as previously in 7:2 Paul wrote: "So, each man should have his own wife. Each woman should have her own husband."

Paul goes on to write:

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time...

Doesn't seem like what you are saying hold up to the smell test. He is telling married couples to have sex.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:42:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:36:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:15:11 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:07:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

The Greek is literally translated: "The time is having been shortened" i.e. shortened, compacted, etc. We are now living in the last age.

As such we should focus ourselves on our true purpose in life and not be overly preoccupied with this world. i.e. live in this world, but be not of it.

yes and?
had those "who have wives should live as if they do not" they wouldn't be procreating and we know procreating outside of marriage is wrong....so what is your point exactly
are you procreating? you shouldn't be, according to paul via the holy sperm

There is nothing in that about not having children.
so what do you suppose he meant with "living as if you were not"

Having children and bringing them to God is following God's plan. Living just for yourselves as a married couple is not.
that is a conundrum you need to reconcile with the holy sperm not me...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 1:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:42:24 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:36:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:

so what do you suppose he meant with "living as if you were not"

In the verse directly above we have:

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

And further up we have Paul encouraging them to have sex:

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time...

Now if we merge 1 Corinthians with Jesus:

"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."

It becomes quite apparent what is being said. Your love to God and your duty to him and his commandments comes first. Focus first on that. Do not live jealously as if this life is all that you have.

Having children and bringing them to God is following God's plan. Living just for yourselves as a married couple is not.
that is a conundrum you need to reconcile with the holy sperm not me...

I already have, thank-you.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

I believe the text is audience relevant to the 1st century. The NT primarily speaks of two ages, the Old Covenant age which Jesus came to and lived among and the age to come, the NT age. The Old Covenant age, to whom Paul referred to here as he addressed the church at Corinth with the expression 'the time is short', ended in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and God's judgment on unrepentant Israel. Thus you have all these time texts that speak of the time being short as being a warning to repent before this judgment.

Hebrews 8:13
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.


Hebrews is a study in the contrast of the two covenants. The book was written shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 to Hebrews who had put faith in Jesus Christ and were in danger of turning back to Judaism. The author is explaining the superiority of the Christ and New Covenant in every way.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

I believe the text is audience relevant to the 1st century. The NT primarily speaks of two ages, the Old Covenant age which Jesus came to and lived among and the age to come, the NT age. The Old Covenant age, to whom Paul referred to here as he addressed the church at Corinth with the expression 'the time is short', ended in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and God's judgment on unrepentant Israel. Thus you have all these time texts that speak of the time being short as being a warning to repent before this judgment.

Hebrews 8:13
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.


Hebrews is a study in the contrast of the two covenants. The book was written shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 to Hebrews who had put faith in Jesus Christ and were in danger of turning back to Judaism. The author is explaining the superiority of the Christ and New Covenant in every way.

Peter

"In that he saith, 'A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away'."

Your analysis is correct up to a point, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think that a person living in AD 50 or 60 could have rejected Christ and maintained his worship under the Mosaic system - and still hear the words "Well done".

There is a distinction between (1) a Mosaic system with all its appendages as an acceptable system of worship and (2) the Jewish politico-religious state centered at Jerusalem. I'm not sure you make that distinction. You seem to teach that the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem marked the point at which the New Covenant was ratified.

We've had similar discussions before, although not on this particular passage, and I'd like to ask a hypothetical:

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:47:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 1:21:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:42:24 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:36:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:

so what do you suppose he meant with "living as if you were not"

In the verse directly above we have:

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

And further up we have Paul encouraging them to have sex:

and, if you were to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:47:33 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:21:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:42:24 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:36:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:

so what do you suppose he meant with "living as if you were not"

In the verse directly above we have:

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

And further up we have Paul encouraging them to have sex:

and, if you were to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex?

Since you are being completely disingenuous by ignoring direct quotes within the same chapter of this letter to the Corinthians, I'm done. You do all the atheists on this site a disservice through your intentionally obtuse arguments.

I was right you are cut from the same cloth as bulproof.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 4:56:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:54:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:47:33 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:21:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:42:24 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:36:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:

so what do you suppose he meant with "living as if you were not"

In the verse directly above we have:

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

And further up we have Paul encouraging them to have sex:

and, if you were to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex?

Since you are being completely disingenuous by ignoring direct quotes within the same chapter of this letter to the Corinthians, I'm done. You do all the atheists on this site a disservice through your intentionally obtuse arguments.

I was right you are cut from the same cloth as bulproof.

you are the one who is being disingenuous by averting the question....
so answer it...if the context is marriage and sex....when paul says to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex...yes or no?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:05:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 4:56:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:54:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:

you are the one who is being disingenuous by averting the question....
so answer it...if the context is marriage and sex....when paul says to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex...yes or no?

Not at all I've answered you several times.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time.

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

Your worse than most protestants at interpreting scripture.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:12:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 5:05:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:56:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:54:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:

you are the one who is being disingenuous by averting the question....
so answer it...if the context is marriage and sex....when paul says to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex...yes or no?

Not at all I've answered you several times.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife,
typical desperate pesky cherry picker
why, why why put that in there if the time is short....?
come on....
so if you were married, you are advised to live as if you were not....why?
i didn't write that...Paul did silly
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:14:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 5:05:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:56:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 4:54:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:

you are the one who is being disingenuous by averting the question....
so answer it...if the context is marriage and sex....when paul says to live as if you were not married, are you going to have sex...yes or no?

Not at all I've answered you several times.

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does

sociopathic ideology no less.
despicable and disgusting..however it has nothing to do with why he mentioned the time is short and to live as if you were NOT married....

gosh cherry picking must be exhausting...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:22:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 5:12:46 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:05:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Not at all I've answered you several times.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife,
typical desperate pesky cherry picker

This from the person who refuses to look at one verse in the greater context of what is being written despite being shown other verses within the exact same discourse.

why, why why put that in there if the time is short....?

In one sense it was short until the end of Temple. Additionally, time is short for all of us. None of us knows the time and hour.

come on....
so if you were married, you are advised to live as if you were not....why?
i didn't write that...Paul did silly

I've clearly shown what it means with my reference to Christ's own words. That you continue to hold to some preconceived notion that you've got a gotcha argument is your problem. This section was about a heresy that existed in the region and it was setting things straight.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:37:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 5:22:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:12:46 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:05:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Not at all I've answered you several times.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife,
typical desperate pesky cherry picker

This from the person who refuses to look at one verse in the greater context
the greater contest is sex and marriage...so why advise married people ( who are the only ones who can have legal sex) to live as if they were not?

of what is being written despite being shown other verses within the exact same discourse.

why, why why put that in there if the time is short....?

In one sense it was short until the end of Temple.
hahhahah boy you are a hoot...then why say "From now on" which puts the advice on an indefinite time schedule, cherry picker
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 6:08:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 5:51:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Put your money where your mouth is. Debate Challenge issued.

why? i already posited the questions which you continually avoid answering as you twist and ignore the context for which this passage came from...why should i expect you to answer them in the debate....? i'm not stupid.

what is the purpose of saying this?:
"what i am saying" which pretty much makes the statement that he is reiterating what was previously said....don't have sex if you are not married, if you can't control yourself get married...

BUT now because the time is short i advise those who are married don't act as if you were, which would obviously include sex since everything paul is talking about is sex up until that point ...so why include all these other things if the time is short
those who are mourning don't morn indefinitely, why?
those who are happy..don't be indefinitely, why?
those who can buy things, don't indefinitely, why?
obviously he meant he was expecting the end to come during his/their life time....as both you and i know asking people not to mourn those they have lost , or asking people to not be happy and not buy things indefinitely is a tall order....yea it's a bit much to ask but if you think that applies to you today...are you mourning those you lost, are you happy are you buying things....you shouldn't be
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 6:12:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 6:08:08 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:51:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Put your money where your mouth is. Debate Challenge issued.

why? i already posited the questions which you continually avoid answering as you twist and ignore the context for which this passage came from...why should i expect you to answer them in the debate....? i'm not stupid.

what is the purpose of saying this?:
"what i am saying" which pretty much makes the statement that he is reiterating what was previously said....don't have sex if you are not married, if you can't control yourself get married...

BUT now because the time is short i advise those who are married don't act as if you were, which would obviously include sex since everything paul is talking about is sex up until that point ...so why include all these other things if the time is short
those who are mourning don't morn indefinitely, why?
those who are happy..don't be indefinitely, why?
those who can buy things, don't indefinitely, why?
obviously he meant he was expecting the end to come during his/their life time....as both you and i know asking people not to mourn those they have lost , or asking people to not be happy and not buy things indefinitely is a tall order....yea it's a bit much to ask but if you think that applies to you today...are you mourning those you lost, are you happy are you buying things....you shouldn't be

Not willing to stand behind your assertion. Goodbye.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 6:13:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 6:12:01 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/23/2014 6:08:08 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/23/2014 5:51:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Put your money where your mouth is. Debate Challenge issued.

why? i already posited the questions which you continually avoid answering as you twist and ignore the context for which this passage came from...why should i expect you to answer them in the debate....? i'm not stupid.

what is the purpose of saying this?:
"what i am saying" which pretty much makes the statement that he is reiterating what was previously said....don't have sex if you are not married, if you can't control yourself get married...

BUT now because the time is short i advise those who are married don't act as if you were, which would obviously include sex since everything paul is talking about is sex up until that point ...so why include all these other things if the time is short
those who are mourning don't morn indefinitely, why?
those who are happy..don't be indefinitely, why?
those who can buy things, don't indefinitely, why?
obviously he meant he was expecting the end to come during his/their life time....as both you and i know asking people not to mourn those they have lost , or asking people to not be happy and not buy things indefinitely is a tall order....yea it's a bit much to ask but if you think that applies to you today...are you mourning those you lost, are you happy are you buying things....you shouldn't be

Not willing to stand behind your assertion. Goodbye.

no, you aren't
i presented my case...bye.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

I believe the text is audience relevant to the 1st century. The NT primarily speaks of two ages, the Old Covenant age which Jesus came to and lived among and the age to come, the NT age. The Old Covenant age, to whom Paul referred to here as he addressed the church at Corinth with the expression 'the time is short', ended in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and God's judgment on unrepentant Israel. Thus you have all these time texts that speak of the time being short as being a warning to repent before this judgment.

Hebrews 8:13
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.


Hebrews is a study in the contrast of the two covenants. The book was written shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 to Hebrews who had put faith in Jesus Christ and were in danger of turning back to Judaism. The author is explaining the superiority of the Christ and New Covenant in every way.

Peter

"In that he saith, 'A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away'."

Your analysis is correct up to a point, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think that a person living in AD 50 or 60 could have rejected Christ and maintained his worship under the Mosaic system - and still hear the words "Well done".

There is a distinction between (1) a Mosaic system with all its appendages as an acceptable system of worship and (2) the Jewish politico-religious state centered at Jerusalem. I'm not sure you make that distinction. You seem to teach that the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem marked the point at which the New Covenant was ratified.

We've had similar discussions before, although not on this particular passage, and I'd like to ask a hypothetical:

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

Could the Mosaic system ever save someone, or was it a covering until Christ came?

Hebrews is a great reminder of this fact.

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40

The Mosaic system was a shadow, a typology of the reality that is Christ.


10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near
. Hebrews 10:1

Does that answer your question?

5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Hebrews 8:5-7


18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 7:18-19

Jesus Our High Priest

3 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; 2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. 3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; 6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house"whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
Hebrews 3:1-6


21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

"Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband."

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

"Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman."

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Galatians 4:21-31



34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
John 8:34-36

The NT is littered with passages that speak of Christ as the only way to the Father, the only Savior, not some dead works that the people could never fulfill.

Peter

PS. I started a new job so I have not been posting much lately, but I want to return to the Amillennial post.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 9:20:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 8:54:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

I believe the text is audience relevant to the 1st century. The NT primarily speaks of two ages, the Old Covenant age which Jesus came to and lived among and the age to come, the NT age. The Old Covenant age, to whom Paul referred to here as he addressed the church at Corinth with the expression 'the time is short', ended in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and God's judgment on unrepentant Israel. Thus you have all these time texts that speak of the time being short as being a warning to repent before this judgment.

Hebrews 8:13
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.


Hebrews is a study in the contrast of the two covenants. The book was written shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 to Hebrews who had put faith in Jesus Christ and were in danger of turning back to Judaism. The author is explaining the superiority of the Christ and New Covenant in every way.

Peter

"In that he saith, 'A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away'."

Your analysis is correct up to a point, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think that a person living in AD 50 or 60 could have rejected Christ and maintained his worship under the Mosaic system - and still hear the words "Well done".

There is a distinction between (1) a Mosaic system with all its appendages as an acceptable system of worship and (2) the Jewish politico-religious state centered at Jerusalem. I'm not sure you make that distinction. You seem to teach that the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem marked the point at which the New Covenant was ratified.

We've had similar discussions before, although not on this particular passage, and I'd like to ask a hypothetical:

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

Could the Mosaic system ever save someone, or was it a covering until Christ came?

It was a covering until the death of the Christ - not after it.

Hebrews is a great reminder of this fact.

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40

The Mosaic system was a shadow, a typology of the reality that is Christ.

Yes, and the question remains: might a person have been saved by practicing the types, shadows, and figures after the realities were instituted?


10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near
. Hebrews 10:1

Does that answer your question?

No

5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Hebrews 8:5-7


18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 7:18-19

Jesus Our High Priest

3 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; 2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. 3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; 6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house"whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
Hebrews 3:1-6


21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

"Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband."

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

"Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman."

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Galatians 4:21-31



34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
John 8:34-36

The NT is littered with passages that speak of Christ as the only way to the Father, the only Savior, not some dead works that the people could never fulfill.

Peter

PS. I started a new job so I have not been posting much lately, but I want to return to the Amillennial post.

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:16:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 9:20:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

Could the Mosaic system ever save someone, or was it a covering until Christ came?

It was a covering until the death of the Christ - not after it.

Even though it was a covering, nothing about it could save because it could never make one perfect. Only Christ could do that because of His life on behalf of the sinner. Romans 3:10-12 said there is none righteous, no not one, all have turned away (except in Christ), so without this Jew putting faith in Christ he could not be saved.

The covering was taken out of the way in AD 70, but all the saints of old were looking for 'a better country' than the earthly one they lived in and the Messiah who would rescue them.


20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.
Hebrews 11:20

Jesus made Himself the issue. He came to His own, yet His own did not receive/rejected Him (John 1:11). To reject Him was to reject God's provision. Thus the constant warning in Hebrews, to 'this generation' not to have an unbelieving heart. 'Today' was that 40 year window to turn to God through Jesus. Just as Moses lead them out of Egypt, so Christ, the better Mediator came to lead them into the better country.

What was the Mosaic Covenant pointing to?
Who was ever justified except through Christ?

Hebrews is a great reminder of this fact.

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40

The Mosaic system was a shadow, a typology of the reality that is Christ.

Yes, and the question remains: might a person have been saved by practicing the types, shadows, and figures after the realities were instituted?

The question is, 'Was anyone ever saved by the Old Covenant types and shadows?'


10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near
. Hebrews 10:1

Does that answer your question?

No

Then let the text answer it. The law does not make perfect. Christ makes perfect. If this Jew rejected Christ then he could not be made perfect no matter how 'righteous' he lived before God outside of Christ.

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

I do not believe so. This man was under the law, not under grace.


4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:4

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Galatians 5:18-24

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4


24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 11:30:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:16:07 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:20:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

Could the Mosaic system ever save someone, or was it a covering until Christ came?

It was a covering until the death of the Christ - not after it.

Even though it was a covering, nothing about it could save because it could never make one perfect.

Nobody said it could "save"

Only Christ could do that because of His life on behalf of the sinner. Romans 3:10-12 said there is none righteous, no not one, all have turned away (except in Christ), so without this Jew putting faith in Christ he could not be saved.

The covering was taken out of the way in AD 70, but all the saints of old were looking for 'a better country' than the earthly one they lived in and the Messiah who would rescue them.

I know that the civil portion of Judaism was finally destroyed in AD 70. That is when God finally reigned down judgment for crimes committed many years prior. I'm asking about the Mosaic Code, or Judaism, as an acceptable form of worship to God.


20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.
Hebrews 11:20

Jesus made Himself the issue. He came to His own, yet His own did not receive/rejected Him (John 1:11). To reject Him was to reject God's provision. Thus the constant warning in Hebrews, to 'this generation' not to have an unbelieving heart. 'Today' was that 40 year window to turn to God through Jesus. Just as Moses lead them out of Egypt, so Christ, the better Mediator came to lead them into the better country.

What was the Mosaic Covenant pointing to?
Who was ever justified except through Christ?

Hebrews is a great reminder of this fact.

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40

The Mosaic system was a shadow, a typology of the reality that is Christ.

That's true, and I want to know if one could be acceptable to God after AD 33 by looking back at a shadow that had been replaced by the actual.

Yes, and the question remains: might a person have been saved by practicing the types, shadows, and figures after the realities were instituted?

The question is, 'Was anyone ever saved by the Old Covenant types and shadows?'

The answer to your question is that persons under the Old Covenant were saved by looking forward to the coming Messiah, and this "looking" was embodied in the types and shadows. What you are presenting is a quibble - and please note that you didn't even attempt to answer the question. You just asked another question.


10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near
. Hebrews 10:1

Does that answer your question?

No

Then let the text answer it. The law does not make perfect. Christ makes perfect. If this Jew rejected Christ then he could not be made perfect no matter how 'righteous' he lived before God outside of Christ.

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

I do not believe so.

I likewise would sincerely doubt it. Now move the hypothetical man's life back 100 years. Might this man have been saved while looking forward to the Messiah in BC 65?



4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:4

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Galatians 5:18-24

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4


24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24


Peter
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 12:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
PGA: "Even though it was a covering, nothing about it could save because it could never make one perfect."

Anna: This is a play on words as well as a straw man argument. Nobody on here has ever claimed that the Law of Moses could save a man, yet you set it forth as a question then proceed to answer it.

In the major sense, no, the Law of Moses could not save: it was but a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ. The blood of Christ was efficacious retroactively, cleansing those who looked forward to the coming "sheep without blemish led as a lamb to slaughter" based upon OT prophesies. This "looking forward" actually began in Eden, and as the centuries unfolded, the redemptive plan became clearer.

Here's the problem: prior to the crucifixion of Christ, rejecting the Law was tantamount to rejecting God the Father and rejecting Christ because one who did so was rejecting the very types and figures that pointed to Christ. But at the crucifixion, the sacrifice was made - and the types, figures, and symbols lost all of their significance. They were nailed to the cross. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it; however, the net effect of fulfilling the Law was to take it out of the way as an acceptable system of worship.

One problem that I perceive (admittedly without proof) is this: you see only one specific, very specific, scheme of redemption since the sin of Adam. I, on the other hand, see one general scheme of redemption: trust in God, faith in the Messiah (either as a future event or a past occurrence), and obedience to God's directives.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 12:22:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 11:30:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:16:07 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:20:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

Could the Mosaic system ever save someone, or was it a covering until Christ came?

It was a covering until the death of the Christ - not after it.

Even though it was a covering, nothing about it could save because it could never make one perfect.

Nobody said it could "save"

"might this man be saved" - Annanicole

I have repeatedly said I do not believe so because only in Christ can anyone be saved, old or new covenant. I don't know how to make it any plainer. You keep saying I have not answered you but I believe I have in every post. I don't know what you are looking for. Your point is not clear to me.

Only Christ could do that because of His life on behalf of the sinner. Romans 3:10-12 said there is none righteous, no not one, all have turned away (except in Christ), so without this Jew putting faith in Christ he could not be saved.

The covering was taken out of the way in AD 70, but all the saints of old were looking for 'a better country' than the earthly one they lived in and the Messiah who would rescue them.

I know that the civil portion of Judaism was finally destroyed in AD 70. That is when God finally reigned down judgment for crimes committed many years prior. I'm asking about the Mosaic Code, or Judaism, as an acceptable form of worship to God.

I have repeatedly said that it was not. A better covenant was always needed for no one could be made perfect with the first covenant. What else do you want me to say???


20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.
Hebrews 11:20

Jesus made Himself the issue. He came to His own, yet His own did not receive/rejected Him (John 1:11). To reject Him was to reject God's provision. Thus the constant warning in Hebrews, to 'this generation' not to have an unbelieving heart. 'Today' was that 40 year window to turn to God through Jesus. Just as Moses lead them out of Egypt, so Christ, the better Mediator came to lead them into the better country.

What was the Mosaic Covenant pointing to?
Who was ever justified except through Christ?

Hebrews is a great reminder of this fact.

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40

The Mosaic system was a shadow, a typology of the reality that is Christ.

That's true, and I want to know if one could be acceptable to God after AD 33 by looking back at a shadow that had been replaced by the actual.

Only if his faith was directed in the right person - Christ could a person be saved. That is how one is accepted by God. How can a person ever be acceptable outside of Christ or by looking to a shadow when the real had already come?

God was bringing judgment upon this people because they were heaping their sins to the limit and because of their rejection of Christ, their perfect provision for sin. As I said, Christ made Himself the issue for this people. If the person died outside of Christ then I do not believe he could be saved. "By looking back at a shadow" after the real had come and provided provision? Who in all of Israel had not heard of the Messiah, the Christ, by AD 65? The gospel had gone out into all the world of that time.

Yes, and the question remains: might a person have been saved by practicing the types, shadows, and figures after the realities were instituted?

The question is, 'Was anyone ever saved by the Old Covenant types and shadows?'

The answer to your question is that persons under the Old Covenant were saved by looking forward to the coming Messiah, and this "looking" was embodied in the types and shadows. What you are presenting is a quibble - and please note that you didn't even attempt to answer the question. You just asked another question.


10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near
. Hebrews 10:1

Does that answer your question?

No

Then let the text answer it. The law does not make perfect. Christ makes perfect. If this Jew rejected Christ then he could not be made perfect no matter how 'righteous' he lived before God outside of Christ.

A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

I do not believe so.

I likewise would sincerely doubt it. Now move the hypothetical man's life back 100 years. Might this man have been saved while looking forward to the Messiah in BC 65?

Been saved through looking ahead to Christ while Christ had still not come/appeared and made Himself the issue -I think so, but not saved through the law but through belief in the Messiah and what He would do, just like Abraham looked ahead to Christ's time and saw it, as did Isaiah the prophet and all those in the OT age. (John 8:56; 12:41)
The Messiah was promised from Genesis 3:15 onwards.

Peter
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 12:24:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
had christians heeded pauls words in 1 cor 7:29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
we wouldn't be dealing with them pesky types today

I believe the text is audience relevant to the 1st century. The NT primarily speaks of two ages, the Old Covenant age which Jesus came to and lived among and the age to come, the NT age. The Old Covenant age, to whom Paul referred to here as he addressed the church at Corinth with the expression 'the time is short', ended in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and God's judgment on unrepentant Israel. Thus you have all these time texts that speak of the time being short as being a warning to repent before this judgment.

nope...he said "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
that is an indefinite timeline. your apologetics failed...therefore the rest is moot.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 12:58:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 12:22:26 AM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:30:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 11:16:07 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:20:58 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 8:54:39 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:54:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/23/2014 1:54:34 PM, PGA wrote:
At 4/23/2014 9:08:19 AM, perplexed wrote:
A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?

Could the Mosaic system ever save someone, or was it a covering until Christ came?

It was a covering until the death of the Christ - not after it.

Even though it was a covering, nothing about it could save because it could never make one perfect.

Nobody said it could "save"

"might this man be saved" - Annanicole

Yes. I simply asked if under the conditions presented, might this man be saved. I never asked if the Law itself could save. I wanted to know if a man could be saved while practicing a Law that had been done away, set aside. You answered that. You said, "No."


I have repeatedly said I do not believe so because only in Christ can anyone be saved, old or new covenant. I don't know how to make it any plainer. You keep saying I have not answered you but I believe I have in every post. I don't know what you are looking for. Your point is not clear to me.

The point is that a person could not be saved while practicing, adhering to, the Law of Moses after it was done away in about AD 33. He could have been saved while practicing the Law, say, 10 or 20 years earlier.

Only Christ could do that because of His life on behalf of the sinner. Romans 3:10-12 said there is none righteous, no not one, all have turned away (except in Christ), so without this Jew putting faith in Christ he could not be saved.

The covering was taken out of the way in AD 70, but all the saints of old were looking for 'a better country' than the earthly one they lived in and the Messiah who would rescue them.

I know that the civil portion of Judaism was finally destroyed in AD 70. That is when God finally reigned down judgment for crimes committed many years prior. I'm asking about the Mosaic Code, or Judaism, as an acceptable form of worship to God.

I have repeatedly said that it was not. A better covenant was always needed for no one could be made perfect with the first covenant. What else do you want me to say???

What do I want you to say? Simply say that the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross, taken out of the way as an acceptable worship system, set aside, abrogated, fulfilled, etc. when the Christ was crucified on the cross. That was the end of it as an acceptable, God-ordained and approved religious system. The civil state persisted for another forty some-odd years, and by AD 70 both the religious and the civil were removed. That's all I'd want - but you never quite say it.


20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.
Hebrews 11:20

Jesus made Himself the issue. He came to His own, yet His own did not receive/rejected Him (John 1:11). To reject Him was to reject God's provision. Thus the constant warning in Hebrews, to 'this generation' not to have an unbelieving heart. 'Today' was that 40 year window to turn to God through Jesus. Just as Moses lead them out of Egypt, so Christ, the better Mediator came to lead them into the better country.

What was the Mosaic Covenant pointing to?
Who was ever justified except through Christ?

Hebrews is a great reminder of this fact.

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:39-40

The Mosaic system was a shadow, a typology of the reality that is Christ.

That's true, and I want to know if one could be acceptable to God after AD 33 by looking back at a shadow that had been replaced by the actual.

Only if his faith was directed in the right person - Christ could a person be saved. That is how one is accepted by God. How can a person ever be acceptable outside of Christ or by looking to a shadow when the real had already come?

He can't. That's the point: there were never two acceptable systems of worship for the same people at the same time.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 1:03:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 12:13:01 AM, annanicole wrote:
PGA: "Even though it was a covering, nothing about it could save because it could never make one perfect."

Anna: This is a play on words as well as a straw man argument. Nobody on here has ever claimed that the Law of Moses could save a man, yet you set it forth as a question then proceed to answer it.

Your hypothetical seems to imply a saving apart from Christ. Here it is again:

"A Jew was born in, say, AD 5. In his twenties, he hears passing rumors concerning Jesus Christ but dismissed them. He faithfully practices Judaism on through AD 40 and AD 50, observing all the rituals. In AD 55 he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in its fulness, but rejects it as a fanciful tale (as most Jews did). He thus continues right on worshiping under the Mosaic system of things. Finally, in AD 65 he dies, having faithfully worshiped under the Law. Barring quibbles, might this man be saved?"

In the major sense, no, the Law of Moses could not save: it was but a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ. The blood of Christ was efficacious retroactively, cleansing those who looked forward to the coming "sheep without blemish led as a lamb to slaughter" based upon OT prophesies. This "looking forward" actually began in Eden, and as the centuries unfolded, the redemptive plan became clearer.

In no sense could the law save. It was always a school teacher to bring people to Christ. Yes, God requires holiness and purity, but outside of Christ who has ever met that requirement?

Here's the problem: prior to the crucifixion of Christ, 1) rejecting the Law was tantamount to rejecting God the Father and rejecting Christ because one who did so was rejecting the very types and figures that pointed to Christ. But at the crucifixion, the sacrifice was made - and the types, figures, and symbols lost all of their significance. They were nailed to the cross. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it; however, the net effect of fulfilling the Law was to take it out of the way as an acceptable system of worship.

1) Rejecting the law by not fulfilling it, by breaking its commands. Only by living a perfect life could one be justified by the law. It pointed out to man that he was sinful before God. He knew this and thus the sacrifice that represented his punishment. Yet it was not the provision that God wanted. Man sinned and man needed to make atonement, not an animal. No man outside of Christ has ever been able to live the law perfectly. Yes the law in every aspect pointed to Christ. I agree with what you have written. As for taking it out of the way, I do not see it happening until AD 70. It was fulfilled in Christ at the cross - yes, yet it was not removed until AD 70. All the letter of the law and prophets had to be accomplished before it was removed. Jesus gave that generation 40 years to repent.(Matthew 5:17-18)

One problem that I perceive (admittedly without proof) is this: you see only one specific, very specific, scheme of redemption since the sin of Adam. I, on the other hand, see one general scheme of redemption: trust in God, faith in the Messiah (either as a future event or a past occurrence), and obedience to God's directives.

Could an animal sacrifice ever take away sin? Yet this was required in the OT.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4

So even though the blood of bulls and goats was required, they could not take away sin, only supply a temporary atonement until the Messiah offered His once, for all sacrifice. Redemption, IMO, has always been through Jesus Christ. He was the Lamb without blemish from before the foundation of the world. In Adam all men die, yet in Christ, the Second Adam, men are made alive. The Old Testament always looked forward to the Redeemer. Jesus said that all the prophets and the Law spoke of or pointed to Him. This was God's provision before the creation of the world - Jesus.

Peter