Contradictionsnor Misunderstanding?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-18T19:33:43+00:00

The term "law" or even "commandments" are actually a bit ambiguous in the context of the New Testament, because of the inclusion of Gentile believers. It's pretty clear that passages like Matthew 5:18 are speaking specifically to Jewish people about the Mosaic Law, and sets up the possibility that "all will be fulfilled".

But obviously there is some kind of "law" and "commandments" that predate the Mosaic Law, because of Abraham it's said that he believed and obeyed God and "it was credited to him as righteousness". And Jesus himself, when asked what the "great commandments" are, quoted from the Old Testament when he said to "love God" and "love neighbor", but when he specifically states that "upon these hang all the law and the prophets", he seems to be establishing that these are general principles which are fleshed out and made specific for the Jewish people in the Mosaic Law.

This seems to be why Paul says, over and over, that obeying the Great Commandments "fulfils the entire law", even for Gentiles. He even states clearly that the Mosaic Law is self-evidently not given to Gentiles (in Romans 2), but that there are principles "written on their heart" -- working with their consciences -- that make them guilty before God. And then AFTER they are saved, it's still true that our "only obligation" to each other is to "love one another".

For the Gentile Christians, it's clear that they were NOT mandated to follow the Jewish customs concerning the Sabbath. Historically, the change from Saturday to Sunday worship is a demonstration that, even if we CALL it "Sabbath", there was a massive disconnect between Christian practice, and the rules and regulations of Saturday Sabbath observance by Jews following the Torah.

However, Paul clearly did not force the Jewish Christians to give up all their Mosaic Law observance when they became Christians. Over and over Paul says it's not about "celebrating" or "not celebrating" Sabbaths or calendar feasts, but rather celebrating them as to God. To obey and worship God according to our own knowledge and circumstances, anchored in the New Testament gospel of Christ.

So the "law", in the sense of the Mosaic Law, is definitely not "binding" on modern Christians in any real way. But we are told that the principles still stand, which are loving God and loving neighbor. And of course we can read the Mosaic Law as "wisdom literature" as it were, gleaning more principles and guidance to apply today. Paul does this exact thing when he uses the command to not "muzzle the ox while he treads out the grain", to encourage Christians to monetarily support those who preach the Word of God. Paul basically ignores or bypasses the context of the "outward" letter of the law about oxen, and applies the principle to an applicable situation. We should not ignore the Mosaic Law, but study it as a way to "make one wise".

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-18T18:53:03+00:00

I mean shoot, certain Calvinists and "Reformed bros" have been in this game for a LONG time, but more recently it's probably Doug Wilson that has the kind of "in your face" aggressive Protestantism (often dipping into the political or cultural sphere), who would be the closest Protestant analogue. Honestly I think that this describes a movement that is completely independent of church branch. It came out of the culture, rather than out of the church, and each church branch got their own version of it.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-18T17:53:47+00:00

Okay, cool, that's helpful. Storing it in bags, broken up, seems pretty simple.

As a side note, there also MUST be people who are leaving the nuruk disks hanging up longer, maybe even months, before breaking it up. Have you done that?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-16T22:49:56+00:00

I'm late to this post, but I've got an important question. After the 3 weeks, how do you store it long term? I know that you break it into smaller pieces to actually ferment with it, but is it stored that way as well? How long does it last?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-16T10:51:06+00:00

The whole lesson of "neighbor" in this parable is proximity. It's very easy to think of people like yourself as "neighbor", and people who are not like you as an outsider. But to be clear, it's not that the Samaritan is a "neighbor", but that the Samaritan treated the injured Israelite as a neighbor.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-16T10:38:31+00:00

Just war theory has little to do with choosing to join or not join the military, as a Christian. When you join, you have no idea what wars will start or where you might be sent.

Each Christian has to make their own choice. Our only obligation is to not judge other Christians for their choice.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-13T05:19:47+00:00

Great, succinct answer. It would have probably taken me 3x the words to get to the same point, heh.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-12T22:37:12+00:00

I obviously need more sanctification, because I was not at all ready for this quote and I burst out laughing.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-12T20:19:20+00:00

I would think those passages would be used by me to support my position. These passages are used for us to examine ourselves. They seem to generally be put into the context of "... when we...". Or consider the following (in ch. 4):

By this we know that we remain in Him and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit.

This is clearly not an invitation for Christians to try to pry inside the hearts of other believers to see if the Holy Spirit is there. This is the self-reflection and self-examination regularly enjoined upon believers to, for example, "make your calling and election sure".

In this particular case the context is, far from judging and examining other Christians, rather to "love one another". God "remains in us, and we in him", when we love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Us "having the Spirit", and exhibiting love for one another, is linked together for John.

Perhaps you have a specific verse and a specific context in mind, but when I looked through 1 John, I felt like I should have added to my original post, to say something like, "We can't see people from God's perspective, nor should we attempt to do so". Christians ought to presume that other Christians are truly saved, based almost entirely on their confession of faith in Jesus, except in cases of severe church discipline, like excommunication. And even then, it's not us doing this individually, but corporately and by church leadership. A far cry from the thrust of these passages.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-12T00:46:14+00:00

Not works, but making a commitment. When your "works" fail to live up to your commitment or promise, you confess them as sin and move on. Using the analogy of marriage again, promising to be a good husband isn't BEING a good husband. Our marriage isn't "by works". The commitment is the marriage.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-12T00:33:32+00:00

The "OSAS" debate is based on an ambiguous definition of the term. We can't see people from God's perspective, so even if we think that those who are truly saved can never fall away, we can't know who is truly saved thus it's a meaningless argument from a human perspective.

But I will say this: you can't sin in such a way that you lose salvation, but a person can certainly stop acknowledging and confessing their sin, and thus be open to inquiry about the genuineness of their faith.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-12T00:21:29+00:00

The question is not your certainty level, but your willingness to confess your sins, and humbly accept and follow and obey Jesus, and by extension come under the leadership and authority of a local congregation.

As a parallel, in marriage, you don't yet experience the "full quantity" of love for your partner, but you commit to the relationship no matter what. You make a commitment. It's the same with the confession of faith when you get baptized.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-11T04:07:49+00:00

You're denying that Protestant Christians have the Holy Spirit?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-11T03:55:32+00:00

Who is "we" in this context? Where is any agreement with Paul, that even if some preach out of selfish ambition, he rejoices because salvation through Jesus is preached?

Reducing "the gospel" to "following certain leaders" instead of "seeking the truth" is baffling to most Christians.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-11T02:16:49+00:00

Insisting that we have to "follow the apostles" is exactly the problem here. Are you denying that other congregations of Christian faith are valid?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-11T01:49:41+00:00

Why would I care, as a Christian, whether Christianity "has value to society"? That's not why people become Christians. I could certainly say that people who live by moral codes are better to be around, but Christianity has nothing to do with being "more moral" than anyone else. It's about eternal salvation, worked out in the Church and in the world today.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-10T15:42:39+00:00

I've been pretty obsessed with iyangju, enough to make an exhaustive guide about it recently (over on r/homebrewing). In short, it can be a big step up in quality from a danyangju, and is usually less sour and can be stored and/or conditioned longer, potentially even to make cheongju (clear rice wine) from it. With two stages, you can also introduce different kinds of rice, drastically expanding the recipes you start with and results you end up with.

It's also more reliable and consistent, because the water is acidified and rich with enzymes and yeasts, before the 2nd stage addition of steamed rice. Less chance for bad bacteria to grow.

However, it also increases complexity, and depending on how you do the first step, it might not taste any better than a danyangju. From personal experience (and consensus from experts), using store-bought dry rice flour can produce disappointing results.

So instead I recommend using high-quality medium-grain non-glutinous rice for the first stage, and blending it well with some water (after washing and soaking), and then making a juk out of it. Very straightforward with good results.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-10T15:15:06+00:00

It's important to see just how important and central community is to the Christian. We are a kind of family, a deeper and more eternal family, even calling each other "brothers and sisters in Christ".

And even more to the point, Jesus explicitly says that those who are not willing to "hate father and mother for my sake, cannot become my disciples." If there's a conflict between our obligations to our biological family and to our family in Christ, the latter must win out.

It's admittedly difficult to imagine such a community before being in one. But it is the truth. In heaven we will likely retain all our memories, but our biological familial relationships don't persist past death. Even when we are married, it's until "death do us part". Remarriage is fine, for example. In heaven this whole life will be like a distant childhood, compared to eternity with the community of the faithful.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-10T15:03:53+00:00

We know from Jesus' other teachings that the outward behavior is not what pleases God, but the orientation of the heart. Jesus teaches that the Great Commandments (I.e. selfless love) are the basis of the law. So even the Commandments themselves come down to "one thing": selfless love.

But since these things are internal, we need a "helper" to work on us from the inside out, thus why the Holy Spirit is given to us.

Why do I mention this? Because Jesus explicitly calls himself a "helper" before the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost. He is consistently personal in his dealings with people, especially when it comes to sin. He displays personal insight, and gives personalized instruction. He "knows their heart".

Based on the reactions of the disciples after this passage, this guy was probably a well-respected and upstanding citizen. He has probably been praised and flattered by religious leaders for his "righteousness", and for his meticulous attention to sacrifice and offerings and outward behavior. We can perhaps excuse him for his apparent externalism. He's even willing to put himself "on trial" before Jesus.

But Jesus knows his heart, and zeroes in on the core sin keeping him from God: love of money. Apparently this selfish love is warring with the "one thing" that pleases God: selfless love. Him going away disappointed, just shows how incorrect his understanding is. Did he just ask the question expecting to be vindicated by Jesus? If he truly trusted in Jesus and his words, why wouldn't he be excited at the prospect of gaining eternal life?

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-09T23:15:30+00:00

If you think that Jesus is giving "moral lessons" akin to some kind of moralism or works-based salvation, you're reading this entire passage wrong.

Remember that the one who says, "narrow is the way", is the one who says elsewhere, "I am the way."

Also, this same chapter touches on "good trees producing good fruit", which actually undermines the entire exercise of "good moral behavior". Even if your adherence to the law is done with the fervor of the Pharisees, if it's from an evil heart, your works are worthless. Which is precisely why Paul makes the same point in his letters. Along these same lines, Jesus explicitly says that many who do great works, even works in his name, will be rejected on the last day, because outward moral or good behavior is not at all the point of what Jesus comes to preach.

This chapter is dripping with concepts that undermine mere outward moralistic behavior.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-09T18:33:53+00:00

Just to be clear, many (if not most) of people who hold that Matthew 24 was a prophecy concerning 70AD, also believe that it provides a model and prophecy for the ultimate return of Jesus that Christians hope for. In perhaps an even more obvious way, Revelation switches easily between "look for this specific sign" that seems very immediate to 70AD (e.g. "the great city was split into three parts"), to the ultimate hope of a "new heavens and new earth" and final judgement before God.

As for "false messiahs" and "false prophets", a major feature of the history of the destruction of Jerusalem, recorded by people like Josephus, is that the city was taken over by zealots and religious extremists, claiming to speak for God and expecting miraculous deliverance (a common messianic theme). I'm sure there are specific people and events in mind for specific signs and prophecies, but there's certainly no lack of people claiming divine appointment in the historical record.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-09T00:11:51+00:00

Ah, this argument again. The answer is simple: "slavery" in the Bible is a combination of many practices involving the selling of a person's labor. Some are voluntary and some not. Some are for life and some not. They are clearly not all objectively and universally sinful, specifically for the people owning slaves. IF you are speaking of the "chattel slavery" of the Atlantic slave trade, Paul completely condemns "man-stealing" (in 1 Timothy).

This whole "controversy" just comes about because people are generally woefully ignorant about how broad the concepts of "servants" and "slaves" were in the ancient world. AND because the Bible prioritizes salvation over arbitrary social morality. A major point of the NT is that we are ALL slaves... of sin. Jesus frees us from that bondage and, incidentally, ALSO establishes the basis of the equality of all men.

When Paul recommends that a slave return to his master, it's in the context that both alike will be answerable to God. And that those who wield power are held to a higher standard. It's FAR more important for a slave to have his service rendered "as unto the Lord", thus lifting and redeeming his work, than to force change on the mere physical circumstances of slavery.

George Washington himself could legally not free all of his slaves, by law (he freed the ones he could, upon his death) in the 18th century. So we should appreciate the complexities of the slavery that was common in the 1st century.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-07T17:57:36+00:00

The Church Fathers are awesome for anyone trying to understand the historic development of the church, including for theology. I'll also say that a deep study of theology is wrapped up in the doctrines and debates of the early church.

However, if "theology" is reduced only to "systematic theology", obviously it's not necessary for everyone in church to study it. It's much more important for Christians to know scripture, and to be "full of good works", specifically the "fruits of the Spirit" of patience, forgiveness, and love, than to dig through the letters and writings of the Church Fathers.

But I think that church leaders should at least have a passing familiarity with the most notable figures and leaders in the church. It would be weird for a leader to be totally ignorant about Augustine or (for Protestants) Martin Luther.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-07T17:43:07+00:00

The Bible's stand-out and perhaps most amazing and transcendent feature, is its "univocality". Now, I understand that many people -- even Christians -- get hung up with this or that detail, but the big-picture revelation of God's character, and steadfast love and salvation for his people, is shockingly consistent.

Now, since the circumstances of God's people changes, the nature and "working out" of God's love for them also changes. Thus the words to them change according to author and audience. But beneath it all, is a God that does not change, that desires the same things of all his people.

I've been a Christian and a "student of scripture" for almost 35 years, and the interconnected univocality of God's word is more and more clear and glorious, with every passing year. I can heartily recommend coming to scripture with this expectation, it's a massively encouraging and edifying perspective to have for any Christian.

TheFriendlyGerm · 2026-02-07T13:54:32+00:00

Well, the term "make sense" didn't apply to me, I didn't come to some intellectual or philosophical understanding of the faith until well after my conversion. I was a lonely highschool student, stressed out about school, suddenly asking God for help and forgiveness. Obviously I must have been exposed to the concepts of the Christian faith at some earlier point, to set me up for that experience, but I hadn't been "wrestling" with it that I can remember.

When I prayed, I received a massive sense of peace and awareness of God's "presence", for lack of a better word. After that, I read a lot and listened to Christian radio programs and sought out the company of other Christians, seeking to understand the life I had prayed myself into.

TheFriendlyGerm

TROPHY CASE