in the old testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished.
suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the new testament where grace is shown as flowing through jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of jesus.
interestingly, new testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other.
You say ‘Google search - grace in the old testament’
The main thread in the Old Testament does not allow for Grace in the sense you take—committing sin and making use of His Grace, but it does make room for disproportionate degree of Grace if one acts in righteousness. Curse for 3-4 generations for those hating God, and blessings for “thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:5, 6)
in the old testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished.
suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the new testament where grace is shown as flowing through jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of jesus.
interestingly, new testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other.
Religious leaders obscured this simple truth:
When you change your thinking, your action is changed
when you repeat the action, habit is created
when habit is maintained, destiny is created
and anyone can have control over his thought. But degree of control varies from person to person, hence we find sin in varying degree among people. So is the case with righteousness. There were many even Bible itself refers as blameless like Job because they had control over thought.
There is nothing as easier as changing your thought—something you can do any time anywhere without the help of an external savior. Suppose, you are tempted. See what happens if you withdraw your thought from it—temptation stops.
in the old testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished.
suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the new testament where grace is shown as flowing through jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of jesus.
interestingly, new testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other.
slimboyfat,
What I provided was the internal evidence. Jesus came to reinforce the Law and urged more ‘violent’ or intense action. (Mathew 5:17; 11:12)
Yet much more striking is the external evidence. Teaching of Grace was very prominent in Mithraism, and Church Fathers feared that people might suspect later that Christianity borrowed from pagans, hence they blamed it on Satan (as though he is teaching truth well in advance through pagan leaders so that future generation would see no value to truth when it arrives through Jesus); hence Tertullian wrote:
"The Devil, too, baptizes some that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.
What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. "
– Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics
in the old testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished.
suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the new testament where grace is shown as flowing through jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of jesus.
interestingly, new testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other.
In the Old Testament the basic teaching is that no sin would go unpunished. Suddenly, it takes an opposite turn in the New Testament where grace is shown as flowing through Jesus to sinners who put faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Interestingly, New Testament writers admit that both the teachings are in opposition to each other. (Galatians 5:4)
Here some difficult questions arise. What was the need for such an opposite turn for God? Even if it would produce good result, would a God of integrity opt for it? But in this case, after the teaching of Grace was introduced, it has no effect on the habit of people’s sinning—even religious leaders themselves are caught for various heinous crimes such as child-abuse. That would mean it is a change of teaching for the benefit of religious leaders because they flouted all the possibilities of Grace and acted in OT style when it came to donation to the church (which means teaching of Grace is to attract people to church, not for the leaders)—Acts 5:1-11
Such great opposite turn is not even alluded to in the great prophecy about Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) Jesus too has no idea about a teaching of Grace which is seen till his last words. (Revelation 22:12) Teaching of Grace cannot originate from God because He knows that those who want to do right will always do right even when there is no law given (eg. Joseph resisted temptress when there was no law) and those who want to do wrong will always do wrong even when there is law given (eg. David’s murder and adultery)—especially so God has already declared that grace is ineffective (Isaiah 26:10)
in case you were wondering if the governing body we're going to become kinder and gentler, the answer is a big "no!!!
in the current study edition of the wt magazine, the sheeple are reminded of some very important key points.
1) god has an organization ( corporation ) that you must respect.. 2) only the gb/faithful slave can dispense spiritual food and only the gb/faithful slave can interpret the bible.. 3) individual dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.. 4) god requires "unity of doctrine.
When they finally drop 1914 doctrine, they will have proved themselves as being not appointed by God to dispense food at the proper time.
in case you were wondering if the governing body we're going to become kinder and gentler, the answer is a big "no!!!
in the current study edition of the wt magazine, the sheeple are reminded of some very important key points.
1) god has an organization ( corporation ) that you must respect.. 2) only the gb/faithful slave can dispense spiritual food and only the gb/faithful slave can interpret the bible.. 3) individual dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.. 4) god requires "unity of doctrine.
3) Individual Dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.
This claim has no biblical support because we have Joseph resisting the attempt of the temptress when there was no law given against adultery, and we have David murdering his faithful friend to steal his wife in spite of having many wives and concubines when there was law given against adultery.
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
In the second point, you resort to threat which is not necessary if you take other things Jesus said. He himself warned that after he would leave, wasteful additions will be made to his teachings. (Mathew 13:24-26). Hence weed out the Bible and take only what appeals to “reason” which is what true worship means (Romans 12:1, 2; 1Thess 5:21) Hence what I am doing is something that Jesus would surely commend.
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
So, you mean to say those who understand will understand, and others will not.
Here I agree with you because we have Joseph resisting the attempt of the temptress when there was no law given against adultery, and we have David murdering his faithful friend to steal his wife in spite of having many wives and concubines when there was law given against adultery.
This would mean that there is no need of anyone instructing others—especially using parable and exaggeration.
some time ago, during the mid-week meeting, the sanctification of god’s name was being discussed (chapter 4 in ‘god’s kingdom rules’).
in paragraph nine we read that in the early period the jw’s viewed jesus ransom sacrifice as the most important teaching of the bible.
then they said they gave overbalanced importance to jesus, and nowadays, they say the sanctification of god’s name is the most important thing in the bible.. .
If sanctification of God's name was the most important subject, Jesus would have used all his superhuman skills to teach this subject, and all his illustrations would have centered around it. Interestingly, his parable about Kingdom of God has nothing to do with sanctification of God's name but it looks alike almost counterproductive to this very concept because he said: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” (Mathew 13:33) And, he did not explain it.
This leaves the reader to make his own conclusion: Vices work like yeast or leaven, thus Bible presents leaven as symbol of sin. (Luke 12:1; 1Corinthians 5:6-8; Galatians 5:9) Does it mean sin would appear again?
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
There are people who care about this because for them every verse of the Bible is "inspired and beneficial"
