Dmatic,
I do not intend to keep writing to you, though I may write again in response to your upcoming answer to my original points, which you have not yet answered (depending upon the merits of your case).
Frankly, I am weary of this dialogue, and too busy to give it much more of my precious time. It is not that you have presented compelling arguments—I would find such invigorating, not wearisome. It is that you do not engage the arguments at all.
You have made several invalid points. I and others have shown where they are invalid. You ignore the correction and simply repeat the same points (they must be favorites, which are emotionally difficult to discard), as if they continue to give weight to your position. If you think our responses debunking your points are not valid, then show how this is the case. That is the way to convince a thoughtful opponent in a debate. If you cannot do so, then you simply call into question either your honesty or your competence to engage in rational discourse by repeating the same arguments that have already been shown to be invalid.
This is what wearies me in our dialogue. In fact, I do not think it even necessary to answer you further, since anyone who knows how to evaluate evidence will already have seen what I am about to point out, and those who lack this ability will not likely be benefited by my presentation of evidence. However, since you addressed a number of your questions directly to me, my good breeding alone compels me to extend to you the courtesy of a response.
You wrote:
“Anyway, if I must, I'll still try to defend the use of the word "krino" as in "Let no man "krino" you...." as meaning let no man give you his opinion on what is right and wrong…”
In doing this, you discredit your credibility more than anything I can say will do. In Paul’s sentence, the word “you” is the direct object, not the indirect object, as you desire to make it. Therefore, “give an opinion on” (if you prefer this translation of
krino, but which is just another way of saying “judge”) is not referring to an opinion given
to you on food, drink, holy days, etc. (which makes these topics the direct object, and “you” the indirect object). It is “you” (as the direct object) that the critical opinion is being passed against. You have been shown to be wrong in your suggested re-translation of the verse, and yet you stick to your illegitimate translation. This is behavior befitting one whose agenda is something other than simply to understand the meaning of scripture. If you have not the honesty to admit defeat on this point, then you admit something far more damaging to your cause—namely, that nothing you say can be regarded as coming from one who wishes to let the scriptures speak for themselves.
You wrote:
“It's hard for me to believe that you find the use of the word "teach" in this place to be so offensive…He is saying don't let any man influence you regarding these things...”
I find nothing “offensive” about the word “teach”—teaching is my vocation. What I find offensive is people like yourself who profess to “teach,” but who really propagandize, and will not admit when they have been proven wrong. And now you add the word "influence" (alongside "teach") in your list of meanings of
krino. You might wish to write your own lexicon, since none of those written by the Greek scholars attest to any such meanings in this Greek word.
You wrote:
“Actually, if you think about what you are saying, you'll see that it is your position that is untenable. If you were actually obeying what you think Paul was commanding, then why would you even listen to him? Is he not a man? Why not, then, just do whatever is right in your own eyes? Don't let anybody tell you anything!”
There is nothing that makes sense in this argument. Why would I listen to Paul when he says to let no man judge me in the matter of Jewish legalism??? Why should I
not listen to him?
Paul was a man, it is true. But nothing in his statement or in my set of convictions forbids me to listen to a man. Paul does not say, “Do not listen to man.” He says, “Let no man judge you…” Can you see no difference in the meanings of these two exhortations?
You wrote:
"’Let no man judge you’...How, in the world can you even obey this? The only way is to be unteachable, and not listen to anyone! …If a man were to start judging you would you go over to him and force him not to judge you? Would you literally shut his mouth, in obedience to this command from Paul?”
It does seem strange to be told “Let no man judge you…” when you have no choice in the matter of what another man thinks of you. However, it is no more strange than for Paul to tell Timothy, “Let no man despise your youth.” What possible control could Timothy have over other people’s thoughts? It seems obvious that the idiom (in both cases) means, “No man has any right to (judge/despise) you…and if they do so, pay them no heed.” However, the strangeness of Paul’s idiom does not add any validity to your preference in translating the verse as you have suggested. Your suggested translation is wrong according to the rules of grammar, leaving it nothing to commend it.
You asked:
“Which of the two houses, that God is renewing His covenant with, do you consider yourself to be a part of?”
I am a part of the “one flock [having] one shepherd” (John 10:16). As a believer in the Messiah, and one faithful to the covenant He made with His disciples, I am a part of the olive tree (the Israel of God) along with the believing “branches” of Jewish background (Rom.11:16-17).
You asked:
“Why do you consider obedience to God's commandments ‘bondage’?”
Obedience to God is indeed a benign slavery—as Paul says in Romans 6:17-18, 22—
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness…But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.
There is nothing undesirable about being a slave of God, and under obligation to keep the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, to be under obligation to keep hundreds of ritual rules that Christ has not commanded (many of which cannot be practiced since AD 70), would be burdensome indeed. No doubt this is why Paul and Peter referred to it as a “bondage” or a “yoke” to be shunned (Gal.5:1ff/Acts 15:10) and James considered those insisting on the imposition of these rules to be "troubling" the Gentile believers (Acts 15:19, 24). I agree with the apostles. Are you on the side of the apostles, or are you among the "troublers" of whom Paul said he wished they would castrate themselves (Gal.5:12)?
You asked:
“Do you really consider God's just, holy, and perfect commandments to be childish?”
God’s ritual commandments of the Old Covenant are suited for a people living in a stage of religious experience that Paul compares to the juvenile stage of human maturity, as opposed to the “adult sonship” that arrives with one’s entering into the New Covenant (Gal.3:23-26; 4:1-7).
You asked:
“Why do you think Jesus' words pass away, even though He said that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would never pass away”
Why do
you think that I think Jesus’ words passed away? I believe that His commandment (John 13:34) is eternal.
There are things that He said to people in certain circumstances, which are not universally applicable, nor valid in changed circumstances—e.g., His instructions about bringing a sacrifice to the altar (Matt.5:23-24); His instructions to the leper to show himself to the priest and to offer the sacrifices commanded by Moses (Matt.8:4); His command to the blind man to wash the mud from his eyes in the Pool of Siloam (John 9:6-7); or His instructions to those in Judea to flee to the mountains (Luke 21:20ff). His several statements, for example, where He speaks of “this generation” applied to that generation, and no other.
His words did not pass away, but some of them were temporally relevant and/or applicable to special individuals. This is also, in my judgment, the case with His words recorded in Matt.5:17-20 (as I have previously explained, but which your present question makes me think you did not read).
You wrote:
“I've tried to address the first two paragraphs, showing that what was growing old and decaying and ready to disappear, was not the commandments of God, but rather the temporary priesthood, sacrifical system, which God finalized in 70 A.D.”
Yes, you have tried to assert that point. I have shown, earlier, why this is not a valid interpretation of Hebrews 8, in context. You have not presented any counter-exegesis to give us reason to think you gave any thought to my explanation. If you do not interact with arguments, but only obliviously repeat the debunked point, why should anyone care to dialogue with you?
You wrote:
“We are commanded not to think that the Law has passed away, as you seem to teach.”
Where are we command not to think this? I know of a passage that says the law will not be “destroyed” (Matt.5:17), but also one that tells us the law has been “changed” (Heb.7:12). In what sense (and in what passage) are we told not to think the law has “passed away”?
If you mean the mosaic law code, then I think you are quite mistaken. That the covenant made at Sinai (and its stipulations) have vanished away may be deduced from Hebrews 8:13 as well as the most likely interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:7-13.
On the other hand, if you mean the law as enunciated by Christ Himself, then you are again mistaken, since I do not teach that the law of Christ has passed away—or ever will.
You wrote:
“Romans 14:5 is not speaking about the sabbath day, so has no relevance to our discussion…”
Please remind me why it is I am supposed to share your view on this? Because you say so? Not good enough. You have already given us adequate means of evaluating your level of exegetical prowess. You say the “one day” that some were observing above others was a reference to “birthdays.” Since there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that some Christians celebrated birthdays—nor that there would be anything controversial about their doing so—your suggestion is entirely gratuitous. I maintain that any man who “esteems every day alike” (Rom.14:5) cannot be said to be observing a weekly Sabbath, or any other exceptional days. You think otherwise? Please, either defend you assumption, or else stop repeating it.
You wrote:
“Galatians 4:10-11 is speaking about pagan ‘holidays’ and practices which we are still commanded not to follow!”
The burden of proof is upon you (not those who take Paul’s words at face value) to demonstrate that the Galatians were following a pagan ritual calendar, and not a Jewish one. Since, from beginning to end, Paul identifies the Galatian heresy as the imposition of the Jewish law upon believers (Gal.2:3-4, 11-21; 3:1-5, 10-13, 17-25; 4:1-7, 21ff; 5:2-6, 11-12, 18; 6:12-15), you need some mighty fine evidence to support your claim that, suddenly, and exclusively, in Galatians 4:10, Paul’s concern has shifted without notice to the adoption of pagan practices. I am interested in seeing your evidence. If you have none, then please stop parroting this illogical claim.
You wrote:
“For the record, I was circumcised as a child, and I had my son circumcised as a child too. Even studies show that this is the perfect time to do this healthful procedure. Were/are you circumcised?”
There is a difference between being circumsized for hygienic reasons merely, on the one hand (a procedure routinely imposed upon baby boys in post-war America), and the receiving of circumcision as a religious obligation, which Paul condemns as a practice for Gentile Christians, saying that this decision essentially estranges one from Christ and causes one to fall from grace (Gal.5:2-4).
You wrote:
“...after God had scattered them all over the face of the globe. This is where we are now, in time, it seems…Verse 8...’And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all His commandments which I command thee this day!’”
You see this gathering as a future, end-times event. I do not. I believe it had its literal fulfillment in the return of the exiles from Babylon. Have you a better explanation—I mean one for which evidence can be provided?
You wrote:
“Do you see this Steve? That God is, all over the world, causing many of us to turn back to His commandments, giving us the desire to love Him by keeping them! God is doing this now!...You don't really want to oppose Him do you?
Since you are advocating a practice that Paul says will cause a man to fall from grace, how do you know that it is God, and not Satan, who is leading (deceiving) these many Christians to return to the law?
I do not share your eschatology, nor your soteriology. God is not calling Christians to place themselves under the yoke of bondage that Paul said will cause Christ to profit them nothing. I don't want to oppose God, but I have no qualms about opposing what the apostle opposed even more vehemently than I do. Compared to what he would say to you (judging from his sentiments in Galatians), I am treating you with unwarranted delicacy.
Peace, fellas.