Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Test of Isaiah 8:12


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:38 AM

The Test of Isaiah 8:20

Here is a test that every one who is involved or take upon him or herself to preach the Truth should take in order not to be found preaching an evil message.

Isaiah 8:20 - "To the Law and the Prophets" if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." If you have not noticed before, there is something very interesting about this test of Isaiah. He speaks of two words "Law and Prophets" then says "according to this word" as if he had mentioned only one.

Judaism was what Isaiah meant by "this word." In fact that's what "the Law and the Testimony" means: Judaism. Do those who are involved with teaching or discussing spiritual truth speak according to Judaism besides the Jews? Obviously not.

Jesus seems to have taken that test of Isaiah 8:20 and was proved an expert at the Truth as we have his own testimony in Matthew 5:17-19. His apostles took the same test and scored the passing test. Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken aback
with the impression that they were preaching a bout a different Jesus and took them as false apostles.

The conclusion is that as I have recommended above we all should take that test to make sure we are not teaching empty words of nonsense.


#2    lost bird

lost bird

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 35 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 01:26 PM

Law, theory with testimony, practice. Prophets were witnesses for the power of Divine Love, Allah. All Muslim Prophets Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Suleiman, Isa, Muhamed practised what they had taught. Theory without practice, faith without work is dead. They are our to our path of immortal and indestructible life.

Soul (sol/sun), Eye ; the light of the body/world is i.

#3    Ogbin

Ogbin

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 809 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • God Bless Israel

Posted 28 September 2013 - 09:09 PM

Ben Masada,

You say, "Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken back with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus and took them as false prophets." Will you please Explain this?  I am not aware of this being biblical.  Thank you.


#4    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,273 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:57 AM

Ben, my comment here is nothing new to our previous discussions, I'm writing here more for the benefit of those who might read your post and come away with the mistaken impression that Paul contradicted Jesus and/or the prophets, and that Jesus advocated strict adherence to the Law.

You quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19, but failed to quote the rest of the chapter. Verses 20-45 include example after example where Jesus changes the meaning of the Law (mere moments after advocating that be did not come to do away with it). At other times during his ministry, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Luke 6 shows that on one Sabbath he and his disciples were hungry so they picked heads of grain, disobeying the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Luke 6 accounts another Sabbath where Jesus healed a man with a shrivelled hand, to which the Pharisees thought he should come back on another day of the week (and you yourself admitted in earlier discussions that an observant Jew would not seek out a doctor on the Sabbath unless it was urgent, and likewise an observant Jewish doctor would not see a patient on the Sabbath unless it was urgent).

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. Paul did nothing more or less than build on that mandate. Through Jesus the Law is fulfilled, we are not bound to the Law (though that does not mean the Law cannot be a good guide for righteous living).

In short, Paul complements Jesus' words rather than contradict them.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 29 September 2013 - 03:08 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#5    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:58 AM

If I read all this correctly the test proposed is whether or not the preaching is in line with Scripture.  Of course all Protestant Christian denominations make that claim.

I understand that Jesus also told a story in answer to such a question that one should test for false prophets by the quality of the fruit the teaching produces.  In that event, considering all the wars and pogroms and hate that Western religions have produced, don't they fail?

With respect to whether Jesus came to "fulfill" the law, I have always wondered what that might actually mean, other than repealing it and replacing it with something else (the "law of love").  This sort of linguistic legerdemain is typical of people trying to avoid places where the Bible contradicts itself, and does then no honor.


#6    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,273 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:50 AM

Frank, I'd like to note two things in your post. The first is that Jesus did indeed say that they shall be known by their fruits. However, he's talking about individuals, not institutions. What one person does reflects only on them. What someone may have done to spark bloody violence on another reflects on their teachings, their bad fruits. What I or someone else does equally reflects on our good or bad fruit. But someone's bad fruit does not mean another person's fruit is also bad.

The second thing I wanted to address was what Jesus meant when he said he came to fulfil the Law. If you read Matthew 5 Jesus explains what he means. For some reason people like to quote verses 17-19 and then just stop, as if that's the end of what Jesus had to say on the issue. But immediately after, Jesus explains by giving examples. It follows the general pattern of "You have heard that it was said *insert Law/teaching/whatever, eg "you shall not murder"*.... But I tell you *insert fulfilled version of the Law*". In each case the physical Law had been updated with a greater spiritual aspect (or mental aspect, if you prefer thinking of it I'm terms of thoughts behind action). The Law about murder is fulfilled by Jesus in saying that if you are angry with your brother you've murdered him in your mind/thoughts/heart. The Law about adultery is fulfilled with a mental component of even looking with lustful intent towards a woman is akin to adultery in your mind/heart. Jesus fulfils several other Laws throughout the gospels, more here in Matthew 5, but elsewhere as well (eg, Mark 7). When taken in context it's quite obvious what Jesus meant.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 29 September 2013 - 06:52 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#7    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 29 September 2013 - 07:07 AM

I don't know that the distinction between individuals and institutions is even implied in the parable in question.  Even if so, aren't the institutions controlled by individuals?   As far as taking things in context, what I don't understand is what is the difference between "fulfill" and "replace."  It certainly looks like He is replacing laws and calling it fulfillment.  That is so He can say He hasn't replace the Law when in fact He has.

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.


#8    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,273 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 29 September 2013 - 07:34 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 September 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't know that the distinction between individuals and institutions is even implied in the parable in question.  Even if so, aren't the institutions controlled by individuals?   As far as taking things in context, what I don't understand is what is the difference between "fulfill" and "replace."  It certainly looks like He is replacing laws and calling it fulfillment.  That is so He can say He hasn't replace the Law when in fact He has.
Yes, but what one person in an institution does reflects on their actions, their fruit. I don't believe in institutional religion, even though I attend an institution. What the pastor at my church teaches (and the fruit it bears) reflects on him. When I teach the Bible at the midweek Bible Study (well, I've just moved to a new area, so I'm talking about my old church) that teaching and the fruit it produces reflects on me. What someone at another church or at another period in history did, whatever fruit they bore/bear,  reflects not on anything my pastor, or I, or any of the other leadership team at church did/does.


Quote

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.
Nevertheless it is what Jesus taught and therefore what Christians believe. I'm not demanding you adopt the same moral principles I have, just using the example Jesus used to clarify what he meant by fulfilling the Law.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#9    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:02 AM

View Postsuleiman, on 28 September 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Law, theory with testimony, practice. Prophets were witnesses for the power of Divine Love, Allah. All Muslim Prophets Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Suleiman, Isa, Muhamed practised what they had taught. Theory without practice, faith without work is dead. They are our to our path of immortal and indestructible life.

There is nothing immortal or indestructible about man, animal or any thing that has been born or had a beginning. Eternity is a concept true only of God. .

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 October 2013 - 04:03 AM.


#10    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:28 AM

View PostOgbin, on 28 September 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Ben Masada,

You say, "Paul came next and listened to their gospel and was taken back with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus and took them as false prophets." Will you please Explain this?  I am not aware of this being biblical.  Thank you.

Yes Ogbin. It happened that Paul spent 3 years preaching his peculiar gospel all throughout Damascus and Arabia and had never consulted with the Apostles of Jesus to have a source to report to eyewitnesses. The Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem where they started preaching the gospel of Jesus. Then Paul decided to pay a visit to them in Jerusalem and before starting preaching his own gospel he took some time to listen to the Apostles. That's when he got the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus from the one he preached himself. Hence, he took them as false apostles and went ahead with his version of Jesus. (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13)

The Pauline version of Jesus was that he was Christ, the Messiah, son of God and that he had resurrected. Within 15 days only the local Jews were after him to arrest and bring him to trial for preaching idolatry in Jerusalem. (Acts 9:26-31) The interesting point is that the Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem and preached the gospel of Jesus without any problem with the local Jews. When Paul started he almost got killed. It is only obvious that the things Paul preached about Jesus were not in the agenda of the gospel of the Apostles.


#11    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:10 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 29 September 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Ben, my comment here is nothing new to our previous discussions, I'm writing here more for the benefit of those who might read your post and come away with the mistaken impression that Paul contradicted Jesus and/or the prophets, and that Jesus advocated strict adherence to the Law.

You quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19, but failed to quote the rest of the chapter. Verses 20-45 include example after example where Jesus changes the meaning of the Law (mere moments after advocating that be did not come to do away with it). At other times during his ministry, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Luke 6 shows that on one Sabbath he and his disciples were hungry so they picked heads of grain, disobeying the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Luke 6 accounts another Sabbath where Jesus healed a man with a shrivelled hand, to which the Pharisees thought he should come back on another day of the week (and you yourself admitted in earlier discussions that an observant Jew would not seek out a doctor on the Sabbath unless it was urgent, and likewise an observant Jewish doctor would not see a patient on the Sabbath unless it was urgent).

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. Paul did nothing more or less than build on that mandate. Through Jesus the Law is fulfilled, we are not bound to the Law (though that does not mean the Law cannot be a good guide for righteous living).

In short, Paul complements Jesus' words rather than contradict them.

No need to explain yourself PA, and neither the reason why you will be giving replies to my posts. Just tell me how Paul did not contradict Jesus' gospel. After 3 years of preaching his peculiar gospel in Damascus and Arabia Paul came over to Jerusalem, listened for a while to the gospel preached by the Apostles of Jesus and was taken aback with the impression that they were preaching a different Jesus, considered them as false apostles and went ahead preaching Jesus according to his version of him and almost got killed by the local Jews. Now think and share with me your logical conclusion of you have one: The Apostles of Jesus were headquartered in Jerusalem and never had any problem with their gospel. Paul comes with his different gospel about Jesus and almost got killed. (Acts 9:26-31) Isn't it obvious that their gospels were different from each other? (II Cor.11:3-6,13) From here I could show you many other instances when Paul would contradict Jesus.

I would like you to show me a more specific point where Jesus changed the meaning of the Law when he declared in Mat.5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the Law down to the letter, even the dot of the letter, and to make sure all of us did the same. Any one can see that he did not change any thing of the Law. And that every one should do the same under the penalty of missing the Kingdom of God. Don't bring up the Christian claim that Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath because the opposite is rather true. One makes the Sabbath holy by doing good to others during the Sabbath.

And last but not least, help me to see what you see because when Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the Law," Paul corrected him by saying that he did abolish the Law on the cross as if Jesus was either lying or did not know what he was talking about. (Mat.5:17; Ephe. 2:15)


#12    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:17 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 September 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

If I read all this correctly the test proposed is whether or not the preaching is in line with Scripture.  Of course all Protestant Christian denominations make that claim.

I understand that Jesus also told a story in answer to such a question that one should test for false prophets by the quality of the fruit the teaching produces.  In that event, considering all the wars and pogroms and hate that Western religions have produced, don't they fail?

With respect to whether Jesus came to "fulfill" the law, I have always wondered what that might actually mean, other than repealing it and replacing it with something else (the "law of love").  This sort of linguistic legerdemain is typical of people trying to avoid places where the Bible contradicts itself, and does then no honor.

No Frank there is no such a thing as "Law of love." Love is not subject to laws. Love is subject to emotions. No one can be commanded to love. Emotions cannot be dictated upon and no one can be demanded to love or punished for lack of it.


#13    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:27 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 September 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't know that the distinction between individuals and institutions is even implied in the parable in question.  Even if so, aren't the institutions controlled by individuals?   As far as taking things in context, what I don't understand is what is the difference between "fulfill" and "replace."  It certainly looks like He is replacing laws and calling it fulfillment.  That is so He can say He hasn't replace the Law when in fact He has.

By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.

IMHO, you are right. I also can't see much of a difference between "fulfilling" and "replacing." Besides one cannot fulfill something on behalf of another. Hence Jesus made it very clear that as he fulfilled the Law, every one of us was supposed to do the same under penalty of missing the Kingdom of God. (Mat.5:17-19) But Paul coined the meaning of that word to depict replacing of the Jewish Theology which was the main theme of his Christian policy..


#14    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 September 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

.
By the way, saying that adultery and looking at a woman with lust are the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.

I hope your right or else I have blown it for the afterlife and also have a lot more according to this

9Or do you not know that the unrighteousb will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,c 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6

It is going to be a lonely place for the few but what did Mark Twain say  "Go to Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company"

fullywired :whistle:




.

Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

#15    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

View Postfullywired, on 02 October 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I hope your right or else I have blown it for the afterlife and also have a lot more according to this

9Or do you not know that the unrighteousb will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,c 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6

It is going to be a lonely place for the few but what did Mark Twain say  "Go to Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company"


According to Judaism he is not. Adultery is not the same as to lust after a woman in his heart. Sin is the action, not the thought. As long as the thought remains only in the mind and is never taken down into action a sin has not been committed. But of course if we fight the thought, the action will only become remote to be carried out..





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users