Quote:
Originally Posted by bearbear
When I read what aron wrote I interpreted law keeping in a cultural context and not related to justification but I will let him clarify.
|
He made himself plenty clear, bb, and I quoted him. He left no room for misinterpretation.
Here, let me quote him again...
"...he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. Peter kept the WHOLE LAW, INDIVISIBLE, as did Paul, as did James"
So, where in the quote above does he imply a divide in the law between its cultural aspect and its legal aspect?
That's right, he doesn't.
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that of all three men that, perhaps, James stuck hard by the law a little bit more than he should have, because for sure he was greatly sympathetic towards it. But who, in all the Bible, ever kept the WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE?
The poster, 'aron', claims that these three men: Peter, Paul, and James kept the WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE.
What a lie! ... What a lie!
What did Paul say concerning the LAW when he addressed the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue at Antioch, while he was announcing the good news of the saviour, Jesus Christ?
Here's what he said:
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him ALL that believe [both Jews and Gentiles] are justified from all things, from which YOU COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES. Beware therefore..." (Acts 13: 38-40)
Are those the words of a man who 'kept the whole law, indivisible'? I think not.
Moreover, here, Paul was addressing both Jews and Gentiles, but this poster, 'aron', would like us to believe that the Bible teaches that there is a distinction between them, when it actually teaches the exact opposite of that.
It is a falsehood.
...there is nothing to clarify.
Ok, stepping back into the shadows.
Ciao