Happy Atheist Forum

In America, many Christians have as a point of pride to have as literal an interpretation of the Bible as possible. From these uncompromising and unyielding readings come controversial subjects as young earth creationism, denial of rights for gays, a pseudo-historical context for the flood, Jesus' relationship to the divine, a dismal apocalyptic future of mankind and a plethora of unfastidious topics. However, there are plenty of details biblical literalists miss and/or omit from their worldview and acceptance of the so called word of god. But we have to start somewhere in our examination. Why not start...

Why don't Christians observe Mosaic Law? They do not sacrifice animals to god, they don't keep the Sabbath holy and they stopped stoning people for transgressions against god's law. Talk to any Christian and he will tell you how Christ' death on a cross saved them from the old ways of the Hebrews - meaning, Christians are not under the authority of Mosaic Law because Jesus replaced that system of salvation with a new and improved one. At first glance, this seems to have answered the question, but there is a problem with it and it is nevertheless the Christ figure.
Matt 5:17-19: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It is worth pointing out that the majority of Christians agree that Jesus did not abolish the Law, but in the same breath, claim that his alleged fulfillment of it has rendered it unobservable. In effect, He didn't abolish the Law, He made it obsolescent for believers. As absurd as this vain attempt at reconciliation is, it's not even remotely true that Christ himself fulfilled the Law by Biblical example.
Matthew 12:1-8: Jesus violates the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:46-50: Jesus openly dishonors his mother.
Mark 7:18: Jesus violates the food law.

One may contend that Christ's death was the fulfillment of the Law but it is very odd indeed when one reads:
Psalm 119: 151-152: which tell us that the Hebrew God established His commandments forever.
Deut. 4:2: which tells the Hebrews to not add or subtract from the Law.

To complicate this further, St. Paul utters that Jesus is the end of the Law.

So what's really going on here? Did Jesus fulfill the Law, replace the Law or are Christians still subject to its authority? Once again, refresh your memory by reading Jesus' words in:
Matt 5:19: Jesus tells the people that anyone who breaks even the least of the commandments and teaches others to do so, will be called least in Heaven.
This is a strong encouragement for the people to obey the Law.

What is the significance of this and what can it mean to a Biblical literalist and to an observing Christian?

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 01:50:51 PM
Why don't Christians observe Mosaic Law? They do not sacrifice animals to god, they don't keep the Sabbath holy and they stopped stoning people for transgressions against god's law. Talk to any Christian and he will tell you how Christ' death on a cross saved them from the old ways of the Hebrews - meaning, Christians are not under the authority of Mosaic Law because Jesus replaced that system of salvation with a new and improved one. At first glance, this seems to have answered the question, but there is a problem with it and it is nevertheless the Christ figure.

You misunderstand (as do lots of Christians)  The system of sacrifice was never a method to salvation.  It was a tool to teach the sacrifice Christ would ultimately make for us.  No animal's life can save a human life in this matter, much less the human race.  Is it cruel to take life from the innocent?  Of course.  Why MUST it be so?  I've gone over this somewhat in the past.  I don't care to mull it all over again as it didn't make much of a difference to most here anyway.  Do I fully understand it?  No.

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 01:50:51 PM
Matt 5:17-19: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It is worth pointing out that the majority of Christians agree that Jesus did not abolish the Law, but in the same breath, claim that his alleged fulfillment of it has rendered it unobservable. In effect, He didn't abolish the Law, He made it obsolescent for believers. As absurd as this vain attempt at reconciliation is, it's not even remotely true that Christ himself fulfilled the Law by Biblical example.

I agree with you to a degree, but you are mixing laws here.  The 10 and the sacrificial law are not the same.  In short, the only law that remains is that law that is kept in the ark of the covenant.

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 01:50:51 PM
Matthew 12:1-8: Jesus violates the Sabbath.

According to who's law?  It is very well explained in those texts.  Read especially vs. 12

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 01:50:51 PM
Matthew 12:46-50: Jesus openly dishonors his mother.

It's a difficult one for me.  However it seems to me in context of his work, his mother is also human and in need of a Savior...of which He was about "His Father's business."  He didn't necessarily dishonor his mother, but rather put whatever "trivial" matter they wanted to speak to him about, below in importance to what he was doing atm.

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 01:50:51 PM
Mark 7:18: Jesus violates the food law.

There is a dual teaching here.  While it may be more wise to stay clear of certain foods, salvation itself is not a matter of what food one eats or doesn't eat because it's not what goes in a man, but what comes out (character).  So in context of salvation, all foods are "clean", but some may "violate" your body.  (see also 1 Corinthians 6:19)

This is all I'm doing at this time...I remember now one reason I quit making long replies...this damn reply box is really screwy and difficult.

Edit:  As a Seventh Day Adventist, I do endeavor to keep the Sabbath holy.  Since I am human, I cannot keep it perfectly.  Thankfully it is not my righteousness that God will see me by, but through Jesus' righteousness.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt
You misunderstand (as do lots of Christians)  The system of sacrifice was never a method to salvation.

That's not quite true as you'll read below.

QuoteIt was a tool to teach the sacrifice Christ would ultimately make for us.

You are saying that the ancient Jewish sacrifices were a tool to teach about the sacrifice of Christ?  

QuoteNo animal's life can save a human life in this matter, much less the human race.

The Jews were not bothered about saving one's life for an after life...however, they did have salvation in mind. It just does not have to stigma attached to it like the Christian version.

QuoteIs it cruel to take life from the innocent?  Of course.  Why MUST it be so?  I've gone over this somewhat in the past.  I don't care to mull it all over again as it didn't make much of a difference to most here anyway.  Do I fully understand it?  No.

So be it.

QuoteAccording to who's law?  It is very well explained in those texts.  Read especially vs. 12

It isn't explained very well at all. Jewish tradition recognizes the 10 C's as the theological basis for the rest of the commandments. Traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of Jews. Exodus 20 represents God's first inscription of an entire corpus of law that is revealed to Moses within which the 10C's are included. The 10 C's were revealed )per Exodus 20-23), along with a miscellany set of laws called the "Book of the Covenant".  The rest of the Law was not named until Exodus 24, which refers to the "book of the covenant"(Exodus 24:7) and "stone tablets" (Exodus 24:12).

The Tanakh, or in the Christian vernacular, the Old Testament, is seen as presenting moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The civil laws are seen as having expired with the end of OT Israel. Jesus' statement quoted above is seen as eliminating the ceremonial law's applicability. The Law, all of it remains in full force and effect and it makes one wise, gives life, protects you from evil, fills you with joy and provides salvation.

QuoteIt's a difficult one for me.  However it seems to me in context of his work, his mother is also human and in need of a Savior...of which He was about "His Father's business."  He didn't necessarily dishonor his mother, but rather put whatever "trivial" matter they wanted to speak to him about, below in importance to what he was doing atm.

As I said above, Christians try to spin this every way they can in order to have their cake and eat as well.

QuoteThere is a dual teaching here.  While it may be more wise to stay clear of certain foods, salvation itself is not a matter of what food one eats or doesn't eat because it's not what goes in a man, but what comes out (character).  So in context of salvation, all foods are "clean", but some may "violate" your body.  (see also 1 Corinthians 6:19)

I'm glad you brought in Paul. As our dialogue progresses, I will show just how wrong he was.

QuoteThis is all I'm doing at this time...I remember now one reason I quit making long replies...this damn reply box is really screwy and difficult.

No worries. I find the quote system here lacking as well.

QuoteEdit:  As a Seventh Day Adventist, I do endeavor to keep the Sabbath holy.  Since I am human, I cannot keep it perfectly.  Thankfully it is not my righteousness that God will see me by, but through Jesus' righteousness.

Lucky for you you don't believe that those who violate the Sabbath are no longer stoned. But I will show you how you are wrong in thinking that.

Prepare yourself for a long read.

Actually, the OT laws, all of them, are binding forever. Every one of them:  
Psa 119: 152: Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.  153: Consider mine affliction, and deliver me: for I do not forget thy law. 154: Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word. 155: Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. 156: Great are thy tender mercies, O LORD: quicken me according to thy judgments. 157: Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158: I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. 159: Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. 160: Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.[/b]
Note above that the Jews were indeed concerned with salvation.

The Law is perfect:
Psa 19:7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.[/i]
There has to be at least half a dozen passages similar to these in the bible. When will Christians start reading them? More importantly when will they consider the implications of badmouthing God's Law? Notice that it doesn't say the first 10 commandments. Note that it doesn't say never mind, really, about the food laws because I'm going to have a saviour do away with them anyway. Paul actually didn't know what he as talking about (as always). If he had bothered to read the Hebrew scripture he was mauling, he would have discovered that the expected Messiah would not be the end of the law but would bring in a new era of compliance with the law.

A few more examples:
Ezek 37:24: And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them[/b].
Ezek 36:27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.[/b]
This next one is rather important:
Psa 111:7-8: The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
You see, there was never a need for a human sacrifice.
Exo 15:18: The LORD shall reign for ever and ever
Psa 10:16: The LORD is King for ever and ever...
Note the last two denote God's sovereignty and by default, all his commandments/Law are just as sovereign.

If Christians want to keep saying over and over and over again that the bible is the word of God and that they love this God then they should not ignore the instructions he gave to his followers long before some guy named Paul showed up with his new doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice.

Perhaps a few more examples:
This one just about says it all
Deut 11:1: Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.
Deut 6:2,5,24-25: That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

What I don't understand is why Christians call themselves Christians when the man they keep citing is Paul. Paul may have said the law is over or fulfilled, but that is not what Jesus said. In Revelation Jesus makes it clear that the law is the ticket to salvation:
Revelation 14:12 (KJV): Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God[/b], (along with) and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. [/i]
Jesus himself says he has not come to destroy the law which is what, in effect, Paul did.

Matthew 5:17-20: Think not that I am come to destroy the law...
Now you may argue that Jesus does say he came to fulfill but what does that mean? Well if he meant to negate the law than he is an idiot because he flatly contradicts himself flatly in the next verse in this passage and in Revelation. Jesus here makes it clear you have to obey every iota of the commandments. Every single commandment is binding and valid:
Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The word "fulfilled" here is clearly a bad translation to put it mildly. The context of the passage requires that the word actually be "uphold" or "continue" or "enforce". The rest of the passage has Jesus stating that his law lasts forever and that his law is the key to salvation. If you insist on the word "fulfill" you are reducing Jesus to an incoherent blathering idiot (not that it's difficult to do mind you) who says one thing at the beginning of the passage:
Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy...
And then proceeds to contradict himself violently with his next three words:
...but to fulfill...
And then proceeds to backtrack from that momentary lapse in reason and continue his original train of thought for the balance of the passage stating in no uncertain terms that God's Law saves and that no one may seek to change it or teach others to do so:
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do you have any idea how nonsensical the idea of fulfilling a law is? There is no scriptural support for the assertion that Jesus fulfilled God's Law. Has all been fulfilled? Was it all fulfilled with Jesus' death? No. How do we know all has not been fulfilled? Easy. We take a look at the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation states quite clearly that all will be finished and accomplished at some mysterious indeterminate point in the future. For example, Revelation 17:17 (KJV) shows that all - the word of God - has not been fulfilled:
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Have heaven and earth passed away? No. And the law is to be obeyed until they do. If everything were accomplished already, the following verse is meaningless:
Rev 10:7: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished (accomplished), as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Obviously, Jesus' death accomplished nothing and the Law is still binding just as it was the day God delivered it to Moses.

I have a great deal more but should probably stop here. That is, unless you wish to read all of it in its entirety before posting. It doesn't matter either way with me.

Just at reading the first few points you posted (I've not read it all yet), you are confusing the 10 C's and the rest of the law.  Please note that in the NT it is clear that they are distinct in nature where one comes DIRECTLY from God's own hand and never are to be "gone" even when in heaven.  The rest of the sacrificial laws, celebrations, sabbaths (note 's' vs. 'S' in differentiating between the Sabbath of the 10 C's and the sabbaths of days/years, etc.) which were a shadow of things to come.

I'll keep reading...

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 09:47:00 PM
That's not quite true as you'll read below.

Again...you'll have to prove from scripture that sacrifice of an animal equated to salvation.  The NT is clear in that Abraham's righteousness was credited to him from belief and not from following the law (necessarily) nor by circumcision as the sign itself is meaningless to one who's belief is simply in a "sign" of salvation or an outward appearance of salvation.  Again...it's what comes out...not what goes in, or for that matter, "going through the motions".

QuoteYou are saying that the ancient Jewish sacrifices were a tool to teach about the sacrifice of Christ?

Yes.  One need not look any further than when God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skin.  They received the knowledge of the plan to save humanity by God himself...although only the words that God clothed them is in the text.  We conclude that since they were so close to God, they witnessed the shedding of blood (consequence(s) of sin).  

QuoteThe Jews were not bothered about saving one's life for an after life...however, they did have salvation in mind. It just does not have to stigma attached to it like the Christian version.

My ignorance here is what you are trying to state with this.  I have no clue.  Sorry.

Again...one must differentiate between the 10 C's and the rest of the law(s).  You are quoting lots of verses that apply to the 10 C's and some that apply to the rest.

Quote from: Gawen on August 08, 2011, 09:47:00 PM
Do you have any idea how nonsensical the idea of fulfilling a law is? There is no scriptural support for the assertion that Jesus fulfilled God's Law. Has all been fulfilled? Was it all fulfilled with Jesus' death? No. How do we know all has not been fulfilled? Easy. We take a look at the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation states quite clearly that all will be finished and accomplished at some mysterious indeterminate point in the future. For example, Revelation 17:17 (KJV) shows that all - the word of God - has not been fulfilled:
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Have heaven and earth passed away? No. And the law is to be obeyed until they do. If everything were accomplished already, the following verse is meaningless:
Rev 10:7: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished (accomplished), as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Obviously, Jesus' death accomplished nothing and the Law is still binding just as it was the day God delivered it to Moses.

I have a great deal more but should probably stop here. That is, unless you wish to read all of it in its entirety before posting. It doesn't matter either way with me.

Again...you are equating two different ideas of what is fulfilled and trying to make them one when in actually they differ greatly.

The death of Jesus, the sacrifice He was, was what all the past sacrifices pointed to.  Where the believers prior to Christ were saved on the promise of a Savior (their belief in...and so they practiced and showed their belief in carrying out the animal sacrifices) the believer after Christ is saved on the already sacrificed Lamb which is Christ and whose belief is now "measured" in the character or "what comes out of a man" and not on reverting to an "old and (now) useless" set of laws (not the 10 C's of which there is no mention of sacrifice) or old covenant, if you will, which is not changed, but now fulfilled in Christ.  He therefore, fulfilled the law (kept it perfectly) and died as an innocent Lamb for the sinner and it is His righteous keeping of the Law that is credited to the believer, prior to Christ on the promise of a coming Redeemer and to the new believer on a Risen Christ having paid the penalty of sin for us.


This is getting difficult as I cannot see what I am typing withou having to stop and check..

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

The death of Jesus, the sacrifice He was, was what all the past sacrifices pointed to. 

There is no scripture alluding to this in the Hebrew Bible. If you are going to use the NT as proof of this, you may rest assured that this is circular reasoning. Not only that, thinking this way co-opts thousands of years of Jewish theology.

QuoteThis is getting difficult as I cannot see what I am typing withou having to stop and check..

You should be able to just scroll down and read previous posts? Either way, I'm in no hurry.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 08, 2011, 10:00:25 PM
Just at reading the first few points you posted (I've not read it all yet), you are confusing the 10 C's and the rest of the law.  Please note that in the NT it is clear that they are distinct in nature where one comes DIRECTLY from God's own hand and never are to be "gone" even when in heaven.  The rest of the sacrificial laws, celebrations, sabbaths (note 's' vs. 'S' in differentiating between the Sabbath of the 10 C's and the sabbaths of days/years, etc.) which were a shadow of things to come.

I'll keep reading...

Let me say again...
"Exodus 20 represents God's first inscription of an entire corpus of law that is revealed to Moses within which the 10C's are included. The 10 C's were revealed (per Exodus 20-23), along with a miscellany set of laws called the "Book of the Covenant".  The rest of the Law was not named until Exodus 24, which refers to the "book of the covenant"(Exodus 24:7) and "stone tablets" (Exodus 24:12)."

I do not think the confusion is on my part, AD.

QuoteAgain...you'll have to prove from scripture that sacrifice of an animal equated to salvation.

Apparently, AD, Christians deny the Hebrew Biblical teaching that the law is the vehicle of salvation. But on what basis? The sacrifice of Jesus (belief in barbarous human torture and a reprehensible and sinister blood sacrificial execution), doesn't save anyone. The sacrifice of Jesus wasn't even a legal sin sacrifice according to the law that he was living under as a Jew.

Here's what the OT says about salvation:
Ezek 18:20-27: Each person will die for their own sins, there is no vicarious atonement.
A person can save their souls by repenting and obeying the law of God.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD:
and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.[/i]

God and Jesus spoke of the law as a universal binding and permanent principal that brings salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.
Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice. There is not one word about such a scenario. I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

I forgot...

If you are referencing Jeremiah 31 as the scripture that alludes to a human sacrifice, does it really say the laws will be abolished with the new covenant?

Jer 31:33:
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

This does not say he will abolish or even "fulfill" his laws and regulations. He says he will write it on their hearts and put it in their minds. IOW, the Jews will not need the written Mosaic Laws because they will now know them by heart. That doesn't mean they can stop doing them, but with the new covenant they will be able to perform them by heart, which is what God wanted all along.

Another illustration of that meaning is in Ezekiel 11:19-20:
I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. 20 Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

When God brings the Jews back from scattered exile, he promises to take away their hearts of stone and give them a new heart and put a new spirit in them. IOW, he will make a new covenant with them. With this new heart they receive in the new covenant, he will also put his spirit in them and write his laws and decrees on their hearts. Then... Then they will be able to follow his decrees and be careful to keep his laws.

It seems the "new covenant" has nothing to do with abolishing God's laws. On the contrary, according to the Hebrew Bible, this new covenant consists of God giving his people new hearts and writing his laws on their hearts so they will be successful in keeping his laws.

Christianity in many cases, of course, changes this to mean Jesus and his work on the cross is the new covenant, but there is scriptural evidence that teaches God's laws are still very much in effect, and why wouldn't they be? These laws and regulations were "eternal".

The sacrificial and purity laws of the Torah are foundational theology. By Christian thinking, the sacrifices of Israel and the purity laws should have no place in the "Age of Grace". Many Christians regard these as throwbacks to an era of paganism and ritual worship; that these have no place - now that 'worship in the spirit is here'.

A survey of verses from Ezekiel's description of the Third Temple gives the lie to such a notion of doing away of the Law. The only way to dismiss these verses and maintain a theology where purity laws have no place in God's great future is to deny that Ezekiel's vision will ever come to pass or to suggest his detailed descriptions are mere allegories. (Ezek. 44:23, Ezek. 43:19-20, Ezek. 44:15-16, Ezek. 45:17-18, Ezek. 42:14, Ezek. 44:6-7)

The world of the 'Age to Come' is not yet the Final Age (Rev. 20-22). In the Age to Come (the thousand-year kingdom of the Messiah) there will still be death and sin. Isaiah 65 says the young will die at 100 years old and that there will be sinners (65:20). Thus, with sin and death still on the earth, there will still be a need for a Temple, a Torah, the Law, and a Sacrificial System, for God's glory will be in that coming Temple with the Messiah.

Quote from: Gawen on August 09, 2011, 05:28:51 PM
[Apparently, AD, Christians deny the Hebrew Biblical teaching that the law is the vehicle of salvation. But on what basis?

Indeed the Law IS a vehicle for salvation...as long as the individual has never sinned, the Law then testifies (in that no Law has been broken) that the individual is sinless and so is proven righteous.  However, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.  The Law cannot save a sinner.  It cannot be a vehicle to salvation for a sinner.  It only serves as a beacon of what righteousness is that a sinner would strive towards, but never be able to measure up to to save him/herself. (Rom. 3:20)  Hence the need for another means unto salvation.  (Rom. 3:21) (Gen. 15:6)

Quote from: Gawen
Here's what the OT says about salvation:
Ezek 18:20-27: Each person will die for their own sins, there is no vicarious atonement.
A person can save their souls by repenting and obeying the law of God.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD:
and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.[/i]

God and Jesus spoke of the law as a universal binding and permanent principal that brings salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.
Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice. There is not one word about such a scenario. I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

If this is all that existed as "Bible", then we would agree.  However it's not.

Quote from: Gawen
Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

It may be that you've overlooked some of Paul's words, namely, Romans 3:31.

I'm slow at catching up and replying to all your comments.  I'm working on it though.  =)

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 07:06:21 PMHowever, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.

What sin does a baby commit? Grand larceny comes to mind, maybe being selfish little parasites is a sin or how about murder? Really though, where does the bible say all are born sinful?

Sying we are all born in sin brings up a lot of problems. The fixed game god plays to send all those sinful little babies to hell who've had not but taken breath themselves before dying. And where is free will in regards to being able to choose god or even to sin if the babies can make no choice whether they sin or not... so much for free will if without our choice we're sinners.

Quote from: Davin on August 09, 2011, 07:50:28 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 07:06:21 PMHowever, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.

What sin does a baby commit? Grand larceny comes to mind, maybe being selfish little parasites is a sin or how about murder? Really though, where does the bible say all are born sinful?

Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23.  Every person born since Adam and Eve sinned are tainted with sin.

Quote from: DavinSying we are all born in sin brings up a lot of problems. The fixed game god plays to send all those sinful little babies to hell who've had not but taken breath themselves before dying. And where is free will in regards to being able to choose god or even to sin if the babies can make no choice whether they sin or not... so much for free will if without our choice we're sinners.

The Bible does not speak of specifics in regard to babies dying before actually knowing their own sin.  I cannot conclude what will or will not happen.  What I do know is that God is merciful in that He has made a path to return as He created us. (humanity).  If it was a fixed game, you would have no choice in the matter.  But you do have a choice and it is all yours.  (do you deny choosing to disbelieve?) We all have a choice.  I choose to believe, you choose to disbelieve.  If there was no choice either all would be saved or none would be saved...seems logical to me.

Again, about the babies and their death before they "know" or make a choice.  I cannot speak for God.  Only He knows what He will do.  You seem to pass judgment without even knowing the end...which is odd.  You are angry at God for something that you (or I) have no evidence for...isn't that interesting given the fact you* (the Atheist) finds no evidence for God) Well, I find that interesting anyway.  Hell is not a place that exists now, as in people suffering now.  (and Hell is another discussion altogether on whether it is a perpetual suffering or an end to life and complete separation from that which sustains life)

Quote from: Gawen on August 09, 2011, 06:28:35 PM
I forgot...

If you are referencing Jeremiah 31 as the scripture that alludes to a human sacrifice, does it really say the laws will be abolished with the new covenant?

I wasn't. I don't recall any allusions to human sacrifice there anyway. No, it doesn't say it, however the allusion to that point is made (which wasn't necessarily understood by the OT Jew/Hebrew) when God instructed the Testimony (the 10 C's) be put into the ark (Exodus 25:16, 21, 1 Kings 8:9, 21, 2 Chronicles 5:10) and not the rest of the commands, decrees, but is later understood by the OT Jewish writers (with the possible exception that Luke was a Jew)

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 08:27:11 PM

Quote from: Davin on August 09, 2011, 07:50:28 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 07:06:21 PMHowever, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.

What sin does a baby commit? Grand larceny comes to mind, maybe being selfish little parasites is a sin or how about murder? Really though, where does the bible say all are born sinful?

Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23.  Every person born since Adam and Eve sinned are tainted with sin.

Quote from: Psalm 51:5Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

That is David talking and doesn't say anything about all babies, just him. And he doesn't even sound very confident about it.

Quote from: Romans 3:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Doesn't say anything about babies or even about conception.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinSying we are all born in sin brings up a lot of problems. The fixed game god plays to send all those sinful little babies to hell who've had not but taken breath themselves before dying. And where is free will in regards to being able to choose god or even to sin if the babies can make no choice whether they sin or not... so much for free will if without our choice we're sinners.

The Bible does not speak of specifics in regard to babies dying before actually knowing their own sin.  I cannot conclude what will or will not happen.  What I do know is that God is merciful in that He has made a path to return as He created us. (humanity).  If it was a fixed game, you would have no choice in the matter.  But you do have a choice and it is all yours.  (do you deny choosing to disbelieve?) We all have a choice.  I choose to believe, you choose to disbelieve.  If there was no choice either all would be saved or none would be saved...seems logical to me.

This bit of rhetoric does nothing to address either of the points I just made. Let's start again: You're claiming that babies have sinned at the time of conception, before they even have a chance to make a choice, you're calling them sinners... let alone that many of those likely won't even reach a state where they even have a brain. How can a person make a choice, let alone sin without even having a brain?

Quote from: AnimatedDirtAgain, about the babies and their death before they "know" or make a choice.  I cannot speak for God.  Only He knows what He will do.

But you speak for this god all the time, like the previous verses you just cited here, you're putting more into the verses than is there in themselves.

Quote from: AnimatedDirtYou seem to pass judgment without even knowing the end...which is odd.  You are angry at God for something that you (or I) have no evidence for...isn't that interesting given the fact you* (the Atheist) finds no evidence for God) Well, I find that interesting anyway.

I am not angry at all, just pointing out what doesn't make sense about what you said. Refrain from making assumptions about me and I will continue do you the same honor.

Quote from: AnimatedDirtHell is not a place that exists now, as in people suffering now.  (and Hell is another discussion altogether on whether it is a perpetual suffering or an end to life and complete separation from that which sustains life)

If a person is sinful before even given a chance to make a choice and that sinful people get punished, then the game is fixed. If the person can sin before even given the chance to choose to sin, then where is the free will? This god forces the people to sin at their conception then punishes them for that sin (even if they never commit another one), which is ridiculous.

Quote from: Davin on August 09, 2011, 08:51:24 PM
That is David talking and doesn't say anything about all babies, just him. And he doesn't even sound very confident about it.

So now you're asking for something different.  You want proof of something I already admit there is none of?

Quote from: DavinDoesn't say anything about babies or even about conception.

ALL.  I guess in your English class ALL excludes some.  Ok.  Moving on.

Quote from: DavinThis bit of rhetoric does nothing to address either of the points I just made. Let's start again: You're claiming that babies have sinned at the time of conception, before they even have a chance to make a choice, you're calling them sinners... let alone that many of those likely won't even reach a state where they even have a brain.

You brought up babies.  I simply mentioned that I don't know whether babies are saved or lost on their own merits or lack thereof. 

Quote from: DavinHow can a person make a choice, let alone sin without even having a brain?

Do you agree that when two humans conceive, the result is another human?  Their genetic code is transferred to their offspring.  A bit from the male and a bit from the female.  In the same light, their sin is transferred.

Quote from: DavinBut you speak for this god all the time, like the previous verses you just cited here, you're putting more into the verses than is there in themselves.

What did I insert?

Quote from: DavinI am not angry at all, just pointing out what doesn't make sense about what you said. Refrain from making assumptions about me and I will continue do you the same honor.

Your "anger" was assumed by your wording.  I only have your wording to go on so if you don't want me to assume, refrain from passing judgment when neither of us has the evidence to conclude on the part of infants/babies/the unborn.

Quote from: DavinIf a person is sinful before even given a chance to make a choice and that sinful people get punished, then the game is fixed. If the person can sin before even given the chance to choose to sin, then where is the free will? This god forces the people to sin at their conception then punishes them for that sin (even if they never commit another one), which is ridiculous.

Have you been punished?  If so, I would guess that is evidence for God...isn't it?  Where is your punishment?  Have you done anything that the Bible speaks of that is sin?  Now who is making assumptions?  What have you been forced to do?  Sinful people do get "punished" (again, punishment is a whole different topic).  Do you have the capacity to choose to do good or are all your actions bad?  The only sinful people that get "punished" are the ones that refuse to put Christ's death (and so their faith in Him) as their own death to sin (the punishment is death, not perpetual suffering)  Everyone will die.  I'm sure you don't deny that.  So, when you die, you will have paid for your sinfulness.  The difference is you (apparently) are satisfied and happy to live this life and this life alone.  I and anyone who claims Christ as their Savior, hope for something better/more.  That's all.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 09:22:33 PM

Quote from: Davin on August 09, 2011, 08:51:24 PM
That is David talking and doesn't say anything about all babies, just him. And he doesn't even sound very confident about it.

So now you're asking for something different.  You want proof of something I already admit there is none of?

No, I'm asking for the same thing I asked earlier: "where does the bible say all are born sinful?"

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinDoesn't say anything about babies or even about conception.

ALL.  I guess in your English class ALL excludes some.  Ok.  Moving on.

Well apparently "men" and "man" means women and children too in the bible, so one can't really be certain can they? Snide comments aside, the usage of "all" could be a colloquial meaning that is common usage which is meant as "most" or "almost all". Another problem is that the definition of "all" includes everything from animals to rocks. So do you take that all muffins have sinned? Ridiculous I know, but you chastized me for not taking "all" to mean "everyone" while the word "all" means more than just humans... which would also include god, so you must take that all, which includes god, have sinned. So while you're little derogatory comment may make you feel all superior on this point, it's solves not a problem with the verse you cited.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinThis bit of rhetoric does nothing to address either of the points I just made. Let's start again: You're claiming that babies have sinned at the time of conception, before they even have a chance to make a choice, you're calling them sinners... let alone that many of those likely won't even reach a state where they even have a brain.

You brought up babies.  I simply mentioned that I don't know whether babies are saved or lost on their own merits or lack thereof.

Yet you spoke for them as if you knew. To be fair, you brought up babies, I was just letting you know the logical problems with your statement as well as not having any biblical back up for your statement (woot for me for staying on topic).

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinHow can a person make a choice, let alone sin without even having a brain?

Do you agree that when two humans conceive, the result is another human?  Their genetic code is transferred to their offspring.  A bit from the male and a bit from the female.  In the same light, their sin is transferred.

Is this from the bible? I read the whole bible a few times and don't remember it saying anything like this. This would also mean that sperm are sinful and eggs are sinful. Those milions of little sperm several times a week and one to a few eggs about once a month, get punished without even a chance at becoming a person. This kind of sin inheretence is unreasonably placing the actions of two people onto another person who had no choice in the matter. Again a problem with free will when a person is sinful without even having the chance to commit a sin. How is one sinful without committing a sin?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinBut you speak for this god all the time, like the previous verses you just cited here, you're putting more into the verses than is there in themselves.

What did I insert?

"Every person born since Adam and Eve sinned are tainted with sin." Neither of the verses you cited state this.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinI am not angry at all, just pointing out what doesn't make sense about what you said. Refrain from making assumptions about me and I will continue do you the same honor.

Your "anger" was assumed by your wording.  I only have your wording to go on so if you don't want me to assume, refrain from passing judgment when neither of us has the evidence to conclude on the part of infants/babies/the unborn.

That is entirely unreasonable. Questioning something that you stated does not give you a free pass to make assumptions about me. I did not say that I was angry nor did I even allude to my emotional state. Once again (but much less politely): stop making shit up about me. There is no anger in that statement, I'm just requesting that you stop saying things about me that aren't true.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Quote from: DavinIf a person is sinful before even given a chance to make a choice and that sinful people get punished, then the game is fixed. If the person can sin before even given the chance to choose to sin, then where is the free will? This god forces the people to sin at their conception then punishes them for that sin (even if they never commit another one), which is ridiculous.

Have you been punished?  If so, I would guess that is evidence for God...isn't it?  Where is your punishment?  Have you done anything that the Bible speaks of that is sin?  Now who is making assumptions?  What have you been forced to do?  Sinful people do get "punished" (again, punishment is a whole different topic).  Do you have the capacity to choose to do good or are all your actions bad?  The only sinful people that get "punished" are the ones that refuse to put Christ's death (and so their faith in Him) as their own death to sin (the punishment is death, not perpetual suffering)  Everyone will die.  I'm sure you don't deny that.  So, when you die, you will have paid for your sinfulness.  The difference is you (apparently) are satisfied and happy to live this life and this life alone.  I and anyone who claims Christ as their Savior, hope for something better/more.  That's all.

This banter does nothing to address the points I made, please either address my points by accepting them or pointing out the problems you see with them. Keep it in context: I'm talking about the concept you presented making no supposition to the reality of a god being, merely the logical problems with the things that you've proposed. And in this context we are talking about babies (even freshly fertilized eggs), who have had no chance to make any kind of decision, let alone being able to choose or deny a god. So stop trying to bring something unrelated to the points I'm presenting (trying to bring me into it), and either discuss them or concede to them.

Edit: quoting issues.

If all you want to do is bicker, then I'm done with you.  I plainly gave you answers along with texts.  If you choose to ignore them/it.  So be it.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 10:35:50 PM
If all you want to do is bicker, then I'm done with you.  I plainly gave you answers along with texts.  If you choose to ignore them/it.  So be it.

I was intrested in discussion which is why I asked you not to make assumptions about me and asked you to address the points I made instead of introducing loosely related things into the discussion. I did not choose to ignore your answers or the texts you cited, I addressed them directly. Please stop making untrue statements about me.

Quote from: Davin on August 09, 2011, 10:55:55 PM
I was intrested in discussion which is why I asked you not to make assumptions about me and asked you to address the points I made instead of introducing loosely related things into the discussion. I did not choose to ignore your answers or the texts you cited, I addressed them directly. Please stop making untrue statements about me.

I made no statements about you.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 11:53:10 PM

Quote from: Davin on August 09, 2011, 10:55:55 PM
I was intrested in discussion which is why I asked you not to make assumptions about me and asked you to address the points I made instead of introducing loosely related things into the discussion. I did not choose to ignore your answers or the texts you cited, I addressed them directly. Please stop making untrue statements about me.

I made no statements about you.

Then perhaps these are the products of my imaginings?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 08:27:11 PMYou seem to pass judgment without even knowing the end...which is odd.  You are angry at God for something that you (or I) have no evidence for...isn't that interesting given the fact you* (the Atheist) finds no evidence for God) Well, I find that interesting anyway.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 09:22:33 PMYour "anger" was assumed by your wording.  I only have your wording to go on so if you don't want me to assume, refrain from passing judgment when neither of us has the evidence to conclude on the part of infants/babies/the unborn.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 10:35:50 PM
If all you want to do is bicker, then I'm done with you.  I plainly gave you answers along with texts.  If you choose to ignore them/it.  So be it.

Or maybe you using the word "you" was not in reference to the person you were responding to? While I do admit that I made the assumptiong of the last two sentences of the last one because of the incorrect grammar, it is clear that you made several statements about me.

I am very much interested in the discussion and have demonstrated so by directly addressing what you had said and the texts you cited. Are you interested in the discussion? If so then please respond to the points I made.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Indeed the Law IS a vehicle for salvation...as long as the individual has never sinned, the Law then testifies (in that no Law has been broken) that the individual is sinless and so is proven righteous. 

AD, if people never sinned, there would be no need for the Law. You have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned. The Law does not testify at all, let alone testify someone blameless of itself. Even though nearly all Jews at the time, as they do now, thought that to observe every commandment of the Law was nearly impossible, it's why they made sacrifices for absolution. It's not to obey every commandment, but in trying to obey that was righteous and the sacrifices were for the ones they failed at.

QuoteHowever, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.  The Law cannot save a sinner.  It cannot be a vehicle to salvation for a sinner.  It only serves as a beacon of what righteousness is that a sinner would strive towards, but never be able to measure up to to save him/herself.

I think I have already shown how it is.

Quote
If this is all that existed as "Bible", then we would agree.  However it's not.

Then you need to show me how it isn't, not just claim it so.

QuoteIt may be that you've overlooked some of Paul's words, namely, Romans 3:31.

Oh....I haven't overlooked Paul at all. And since you bring in Paul, I'll tell you all about tomorrow morning.

QuoteI'm slow at catching up and replying to all your comments.  I'm working on it though.  =)

No worries.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 09, 2011, 09:22:33 PMDo you agree that when two humans conceive, the result is another human?  Their genetic code is transferred to their offspring.  A bit from the male and a bit from the female.  In the same light, their sin is transferred.

I had an idea about this much later, wouldn't this mean that Jesus would have been born with sin? The sin comes from his mothers side. If he was born with sin then he couldn't be the innocent sacrifice to take away all other sins because he wouldn't be innocent or sinless. If however sin is not some kind of genetic disorder, then it is possible that other people aside from Jesus could live lives without sin. Both cannot be true: either all people (including Jesus), inheret the sin from their parents or sin is not inheretible.

Quote from: Gawen on August 10, 2011, 01:19:54 AM
AD, if people never sinned, there would be no need for the Law.

In a sense, however God's Law (the 10 C's) are eternal in that it will never be 'ok' to dishonor God, use God's name in vain, dishonor parents, steal, murder...and so on.  Even the Sabbath, instituted at creation before there was ever any Jew, is perpetual as it is a reminder that we are created and have a Creator.

Quote from: GawenYou have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned.

Someone?  Are you simply avoiding saying God?  heh.  There is no person that has lived that has ever been sinless after A&E's fall (aside from Christ).  So while some are mentioned were sinless or blameless or whatever, it simply means that they were so close to God that it would seem as though they were.  

Quote from: GawenThe Law does not testify at all, let alone testify someone blameless of itself.

The Law doesn't testify literally.  It's not unlike our laws today, for example.  As a citizen, if I am pulled over by an officer right now, for no apparent reason, and he does a check of my license, my vehicle and my insurance, and he/she finds that I am in compliance, then it is the law that does not condemn me and not the officer.  He's there to uphold the law, not make his own.  So then it is the law that proves me lawful.  In the same manner, when the Law of God shows no guilt on a person, that person, by the Law, is blameless or without sin and therefore the Law "testifies" of righteousness.  By that manner, the Law is then the measure of righteousness and therefore proves/saves/is the vehicle for salvation to one that has never sinned.  There is no need for a Savior.

Quote from: GawenEven though nearly all Jews at the time, as they do now, thought that to observe every commandment of the Law was nearly impossible, it's why they made sacrifices for absolution. It's not to obey every commandment, but in trying to obey that was righteous and the sacrifices were for the ones they failed at.

You almost have it right!  It's not the Jews that figured out the Law was "nearly" impossible to keep, it was God that knew it IS impossible for a sinner to keep (and so made sure there was another method/plan to save His creation, before creation (1 Peter 1:18-21).  It matters not how much we try because without Christ as our mediator (by His perfect keeping of the Law and therefore our advocate) we cannot attain salvation on our own.  It is impossible as (I think) you and the Jews knew/know.

Quote from: GawenI think I have already shown how it is.

I've agreed with you.  It is a vehicle for salvation...see the reply two points up.

Quote from: GawenThen you need to show me how it isn't, not just claim it so.

Oh....I haven't overlooked Paul at all. And since you bring in Paul, I'll tell you all about tomorrow morning.

Not avoiding this...going back to look as there are many points floating...or at least I can only handle one or two at most.  ;)

Quote from: Gawen on August 09, 2011, 05:28:51 PM
God and Jesus spoke of the law as a universal binding and permanent principal that brings salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.
Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice. There is not one word about such a scenario. I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

Quote from: Gawen on August 10, 2011, 01:19:54 AM
Then you need to show me how it isn't, not just claim it so.

One need not look any further than the OT for this.  It is in the sanctuary practice where God shows His mercy and gives His people the instruction on how sin is removed and/or forgiven.  Every action or point had its purpose or meaning.  It is blood that has always been the vehicle for the covering of sin (since A&E - see Genesis 3:21) and which pointed to the promise of a Savior (which the Jews/Hebrews mistook for a conquering king that would smite their physical enemies, not knowing that the enemy was spiritual and therefore eternal death or separation from God for eternity).  So while the Jeremiah texts you quoted seem to say man need only obey and so save himself, one need obey and by that obedience the person is putting their faith in God that He is Creator and ultimately Savior.  Salvation cannot be gained by any animal blood, but through that process we become aware of what sin causes and what the price of sin is.  The animal blood is a symbol of Christ's blood.  Once Christ's blood was shed, once Christ died, there is no more need to keep sacrificing animals, or continue all the ceremonies that pointed at or were a shadow of Christ's blood/death/sacrifice/ransom.  The 10 C's have nothing to do with this, but rather are a separate issue, a perpetual issue that never does it become lawful to do that which they point to as sin.

That's probably the best I can do.  I'm not a theologian or pastor that I could give you a thesis type answer.

Quote from: GawenPaul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

There is no pass on the Law.  Any Christian that tells you he or she is freed from the Law is simply not understanding that he/she is not freed from the keeping of the Law, but that he/she is freed from the condemnation that comes BY THE LAW.  Again, it's that point that the Law either validates perfection and therefore righteousness or it points at sin and proves one a sinner.  As I mentioned above, we are freed from the ceremonial laws as they were a shadow of (a better) things to come but never are we free to dishonor God...neither of the 10.  Paul is very clear on this.  (Romans 3:31)

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 10, 2011, 05:20:05 PM

Quote from: Gawen on August 10, 2011, 01:19:54 AM
AD, if people never sinned, there would be no need for the Law.

In a sense, however God's Law (the 10 C's)..

You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

Quote from: GawenYou have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned.

QuoteSomeone?  Are you simply avoiding saying God?  heh.  There is no person that has lived that has ever been sinless after A&E's fall (aside from Christ).  So while some are mentioned were sinless or blameless or whatever, it simply means that they were so close to God that it would seem as though they were.  

Elizabeth and Zacharias followed the Law faithfully.
Noah did it-Genesis 6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
2 Chronicles 15:17: The heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
God says you can do it:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14:
11: For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13: Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14: But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
John says you can do it.
1 John 5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.


Oh, and back to salvation, of course there's salvation under the Law. I refer you to Rev. 22:14, Rev. 14:12, Mathew 5:17-20, Ezekiel 18:20-27, Ezekiel 33:14-16, Genesis 4:7, Isa 56:1-8 and so on.

Quote from: GawenThe Law does not testify at all, let alone testify someone blameless of itself.

QuoteIn the same manner, when the Law of God shows no guilt on a person, that person, by the Law, is blameless or without sin and therefore the Law "testifies" of righteousness.  By that manner, the Law is then the measure of righteousness and therefore proves/saves/is the vehicle for salvation to one that has never sinned.  There is no need for a Savior.

Now you're getting it!

QuoteYou almost have it right!  It's not the Jews that figured out the Law was "nearly" impossible to keep, it was God that knew it IS impossible for a sinner to keep (and so made sure there was another method/plan to save His creation, before creation (1 Peter 1:18-21).  It matters not how much we try because without Christ as our mediator (by His perfect keeping of the Law and therefore our advocate) we cannot attain salvation on our own.  It is impossible as (I think) you and the Jews knew/know.

I already took care of this.

QuoteNot avoiding this...going back to look as there are many points floating...or at least I can only handle one or two at most.  ;)

No worries.

Quote from: Gawen on August 10, 2011, 09:06:11 PM
You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

There is only once that God writes something down Himself  (Three if you consider Daniel 5:5, 25-28 and John 8:6)  that is physically given to a human.
I refer you to Genesis 31:18, Deut. 9:10

That, in and of itself, separates the 10 from the rest.  Not to mention only the 10 is placed/kept inside the ark (as a symbol of its perpetuity) as already pointed out.

Quote from: GawenYou have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned.

Elizabeth and Zacharias followed the Law faithfully.
Noah did it-Genesis 6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
2 Chronicles 15:17: The heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
God says you can do it:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14:
11: For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13: Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14: But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
John says you can do it.
1 John 5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

As I mentioned, for a person to follow God and His Law is for that person to place their faith in God.  No person can gain salvation SIMPLY by adhering to God's Law and not putting faith in the one that put the Law in place.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to keep God's Law as part of the Law is acknowledging God as God, Creator and Savior.

Quote from: GawenOh, and back to salvation, of course there's salvation under the Law. I refer you to Rev. 22:14

Wash in what?  Downey, Tide?  Certainly there is more to the meaning of those words than the use of a washing machine or washboard.  Again, I say, if this is all the enlightenment we had, I would agree.  But as has been said, "A text without context is a pretext."

Quote from: GawenRev. 14:12,

"...and remain faithful to Jesus."

Quote from: GawenMathew 5:17-20,

There's certainly a lot more than just being "good" if you desire righteousness.  Keep reading on

Quote from: GawenEzekiel 18:20-27,

There is one word in this that begs research.  "credited".  What is this credit based on?

Quote from: GawenEzekiel 33:14-16,

Who decides what is just and right.  Again...faith that God is God and ultimately that God saves us.

Quote from: GawenGenesis 4:7,

What or who decided that an offering of fruit/veggies was not acceptable.  So the "what is right" in this context was the animal sacrifice, shedding of blood, was the right thing to do.

Quote from: GawenIsa 56:1-8 and so on.

"righteousness will soon be revealed" ??  "Their burnt offerings will be accepted" ??  Accepted as what?  Your point is that simply following the Law is enough for salvation, yet the whole point of the sacrifice of animals is to cover sin and a symbol of the promise of Christ's blood.  If it was simply that the Law and a sinner NOW following it (when at some point he/she hadn't) is a vehicle for salvation makes the death and sacrifice/ransom of Christ's death a moot point.  Christ's death is central and the main point of faith.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 10, 2011, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: Gawen on August 10, 2011, 09:06:11 PM
You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

There is only once that God writes something down Himself  (Three if you consider Daniel 5:5, 25-28 and John 8:6)  that is physically given to a human.
I refer you to Genesis 31:18, Deut. 9:10

That, in and of itself, separates the 10 from the rest.  Not to mention only the 10 is placed/kept inside the ark (as a symbol of its perpetuity) as already pointed out.

And in turn I shall point you to:
Exodus 20:1:  And God spake all these words, saying,...
Exodus 24:3: And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
And then...
4: And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD,...

QuoteAs I mentioned, for a person to follow God and His Law is for that person to place their faith in God.  No person can gain salvation SIMPLY by adhering to God's Law and not putting faith in the one that put the Law in place.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to keep God's Law as part of the Law is acknowledging God as God, Creator and Savior.

I have just shown you how that is not true.

QuoteWash in what?  Downey, Tide?  Certainly there is more to the meaning of those words than the use of a washing machine or washboard.  Again, I say, if this is all the enlightenment we had, I would agree.  But as has been said, "A text without context is a pretext."

AD, as I said above, Christians spin all this to fit their worldview. You are no exception.

QuoteWho decides what is just and right.  Again...faith that God is God and ultimately that God saves us.

Well, not quite. Who is God. Why, is to follow all the Law. Paul is wrong.

QuoteWhat or who decided that an offering of fruit/veggies was not acceptable.  So the "what is right" in this context was the animal sacrifice, shedding of blood, was the right thing to do.

We really can't proceed here. You have to show me where God's Laws are preempted and sanctified by God himself. It makes no sense for the Hebrew Bible to say numerous times that the Law is for ever only to be thrown away by vicarious human sacrifice, which was illegal and performed by a Jew living under said Laws.

This is where you may draw heavily upon Paul. And I will just as heavily show you he was wrong.

I honestly can't stand the quote feature of this board...*sigh*

I'm going to try a completely different tack. If I can't make this sensible to you, AD, then I'm afraid we'll have to give it up because all we're doing is arguing past each other. There are also points I made in previous posts that you overlooked that I wish you hadn't. But I don't really want to go back and look them up.

So here goes. Oh...and sorry for its length.

Deuteronomy 6:1 states God wanted the children of Israel to keep his commandments, statutes and judgments. Deuteronomy 6:1-3 reads:
"Now this is the commandment [mitsvâh], and these are the statutes [chôq ] and judgments [mishpât] which the Lord your God has commanded [tsâvâh] to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you . . . all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. "

The Hebrew Bible uses various names (for lack of a better word) to refer to different parts of the Law and some of these meanings overlap and some of those to quite a degree.  In Genesis 26:5, God said that He blessed Abraham because he: "obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments [mitsvâh], my statutes [chûqqâh], and my laws [tôrâh tôrâh]."
 
So, what are the differences between these? Let's start with some definitions.
Vine's Expository Dictionary
The word chôq in Deut 6, means "statute, prescription, rule, law, regulation," and may also refer to laws of nature (cf. Job 28:26; Jeremiah 5:22; 31:35-36) or what is allocated, rationed, or apportioned to someone (cf. Genesis 47:22; Exodus 29:28).  The Hebrew word in Gen 26:5 translated "statute" is chûqqâh and it may also refer to the laws of nature (Jer 33:25; 5:24) and the regular allocation of something to someone (Lev 7:36).  It also can be used to refer to the customs or practices of the gentile nations, which Israel wasn't supposed to imitate (Leviticus 18:3; 20:23).  The bad practices of Israel also could be called chûqqâh (Micah 6:16)."
 
Vine's also says Chûqqâh has a more specific meaning than chôq.  Chûqqâh refers to a particular law, perhaps relating to a festival or ritual, such as the Passover (Ex 12:14) or other festivals such as the Days of Unleavened Bread (Ex 12:17) or the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:41).

Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies says a statute is: "something decreed, prescribed; a statute, ordinance, law; usually applied to the positive statutes appointed by Moses, the institutions of his religion and civil polity." (p. 417)

Insight in the Scriptures simply says a statute is "A formally established and recorded rule, or law -- divine or human." (Vol. 2, p. 1034)

The Hebrew word mishpât means, "judgment, rights" and can refer to a person sitting as a judge, or it can refer to the rights of someone (Exodus 23:6).  There are several related meanings, according to Vine's.  It can refer to the area in which things remain in a proper relationship to someone's claim (Genesis 18:19), a judicial verdict (Deuteronomy 17:9), or an established ordinance (Exodus 21:1).
 
Wilson's Word Studies interesting comment about the word mishpât:
"There is a considerable difference between this word and [another Hebrew word], the former being much more general.  Jeremiah 10:24, 'correct me, but with judgment,' as a just as well as a considerate judge.  The latter rather implies a settlement of right between two persons, as to what is due to one or both; if Jeremiah had used this word, he would have prayed God to correct him according to his desserts [i.e., what he deserves]." Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12 are two examples of judgments concerning how to apply God's law.  After a case sets precedence, it then serves similar cases in the future.  It is similar to our country's laws where prior decisions by judges are normally respected by future judges in the same or analogous cases.  The difference here is that God made the initial decision.

The Hebrew word mitsvâh translates as "commandment," and normally appears when God directly gives an order.  The plural of mitsvâh refers to a "body of laws".  According to Wilson's this means:  "to set up, to put, to place; to constitute, appoint; to command, to charge. . . . With an [accusative, or a word meaning "to" someone or something] of person, without mention of the thing commanded, to give charge to any one, to send with commands, to command to go:  the person who whom one is thus sent is put with [a Hebrew word]." (p. 87)

The (liberal) Interpreter's Commentary maintains that Deut 6:1-3 is (another) introduction to the law and makes sense that it would mention the different parts or sections of God's law.

Now that I'm done with this part, let's take it another direction and all should come back to intent of the OP.


Which commandments did Jesus break or disobey? It may come as a shock to many, but when reading it a different way, one may realise that Jesus broke at least one commandment. And knowing which commandment He broke and why He broke it should be an eye opener.

Did Jesus break the Fourth Commandment? Let's look at the account in John 5: "Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because he not only BROKE THE SABBATH, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (NKJV throughout).
Jesus answers: "I have kept my Father's commandments" (John 15:10).
What the hell to make of that?

Jesus said in response to a man who asked Him what to do to inherit eternal life: "Now behold, one came and said to Him,  'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' . . .  
'But if you want to enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.'  
He said to Him, 'Which ones?'
"Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" " (Matthew 19:16-19)
These verses following clearly identify "the commandments" as those God gave in the Torah. Of course, I could make the case that that's only 6 Commandments and the others are nullified because Jesus didn't say them.

On another occasion Jesus said,
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4).
Clearly, Jesus believed in, taught and kept all the commandments of God. He also commanded his disciples to be: ". . . teaching them [new converts] to observe all things I have commanded you . . . " (Matthew 28:20).
We do not have to go far into the gospels before we encounter the words of Jesus regarding the laws and commandments of God. In fact, near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount he states:
"DO NOT THINK that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.  I DID NOT come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one JOT or one TITTLE will BY NO MEANS pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)

And again, one could make the case that the "JOT" Jesus stated would not be removed from the law is the smallest letter found in the (Greek or) Hebrew alphabet. The "TITTLE" is a small point or stroke added to some Hebrew letters to help distinguish them from ones that look similar. At any rate, we can only conclude as did the writer of that passage that since heaven and earth are still here, God's Law has not been "done away with" but are still in effect.

Did Jesus END the requirement to keep God's commandments? Unfortunately, many Christians still think He came to destroy or end the need to keep the commandments. Some say Jesus "transformed" the law. This means, according to the argument, that people don't need to keep the Law, because Jesus allegedly kept it for us. This ultimately means that Jesus did in fact "destroy the Law."

The word translated as "destroy" in the New Testament comes from the Greek word καταλύω, or kataluö, Strong's Concordance #G2647. It means "to loose or unloose what was before bound" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, by Spiros Zodhiates, page 836). Another meaning of kataluõ is "annul" (Weymouth translation). So, if Jesus somehow "transformed" the Law so that we don't have to keep it, He annulled it and "loosed" us from keeping it.

But Jesus emphatically says He did no such thing: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will BY NO MEANS pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).
The word "fulfilled" means to complete; to completely accomplish the purpose God intended.
Jesus concludes his introductory "disclaimer" with a warning,
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;  but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " (Matthew 5:19).

Some carelessly assume and assert that "these commandments" refers to the teachings of Christ that follow in the remainder of the chapter. Not so! The wording of the Greek text simply will not allow such an interpretation. Expositor's Bible Commentary explains: "But what are 'these commandments'? It is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus' teachings, . . . for the noun in Matthew never refers to Jesus' words, and the context argues against it. Restriction to the Ten Commandments is equally alien to the concerns of the context. Nor can we say "these commandments" refers to the antitheses that follow, for in Matthew houtos ("this," pl. "these") never points forward. It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the commandments of the OT (old testament). The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus' coming but fulfilled. Therefore, the commandments of these Scriptures--even the least of them -- must be practiced . . . . The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; . . . so he, in fulfilling it, establishes . . . the way it is to be obeyed" (volume 1, page 146).

Actually, the word in verse 19 translated as "breaks" is related to the word in verse 17 rendered "destroy". Luõ literally means "to loose."  So Jesus' warning not only applies to anyone who disobeys even a minor detail of God's Law, but a warning to those that teach others to do the same. Loosing or relaxing any of the requirements is forbidden, because that is the first step toward destroying the law.

Have you heard the saying "For lack of a lace, a shoe was lost. For lack of a shoe, a soldier was lost. For lack of a soldier, a battle was lost. For lack of a battle the war was lost."? Apply this and the lesson is clear. No one should be careless about any detail of God's law, however minor it may seem.

And here we are back again to "Did Jesus break a Commandment?" Another answer is found in Matt 15: "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN."
Jesus quoted Isaiah 29:13 and applied it to "the tradition of the elders" (Matt 15:1) speaking of the Pharisees who sat in judgment of Him. These "commandments" were also known to the Jews as the "oral Torah (law)."

It was this VERBAL version of the law that Jesus sought to correct in the Sermon on the Mount and is clearly evident by his statement: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, . . ."
This comes before each his pronouncements in (Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). What follows is then an explanation of the proper application of the commandment upon which the particular tradition was based. One may then make the case that Jesus "fulfilled" the law by restoring it to its original meaning and intent (and I still think "fulfilled" is a mistranslation). Righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees (verse 20) in that Christians must keep the law of God in its proper intent. In other words, to keep the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law.

The Jews charged Jesus with breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6).
But let me digress. The two main sins that led to the captivity of Israel and Judah were breaking the Sabbath and idolatry (Ezekiel 20). But they failed having simply gone from one extreme to the other. They went from careless disregard for God's Law to a fanatical legalism that violated the intent of God's Law and deprived them of their effect (Matthew 15:6), rendering them Commandments of Men. So in their minds, the Pharisees considered Jesus a sinner worthy of death because he broke these commandments of men which they considered as binding as God's law.


But Jesus sets the record straight as is shown in the Gospels. If you are a Christian and believe Jesus was sinless, then He perfectly obeyed the Law and commands you to follow His example. Of course, very few people can live up to his example, even though that should be your desire and intent. Jesus did not live by the law of God to save you from the obligation to obey it.

If love is the basis of God's law, one cannot claim to love God apart from obedience to His commandments (1John 5:2-3, 2:4).

To see an analogy and to compare it with the times of Jesus and today...
The Sabbath is the epitome of the blessings of the entire Law of God and Jesus was accused of breaking it.  Today those who keep the Sabbath as a commandment of God are scorned by others who say they worship the same God. The majority of the Christian world has abandoned this one Commandment and are keeping a different day which is based on HUMAN TRADITION. Once again the pendulum has swung from legalism back to careless disregard for God's Law. By replacing the laws and commandments of God with human traditions many people, like the Pharisees have: "made the commandment of God of no effect by YOUR tradition." (Matthew 15:6).

The specific commandment Jesus stands accused of breaking is the Sabbath, which is the epitome of the blessings of the entire law of God and a type of the master plan of God. Even today those who seek to keep the Sabbath as a commandment of God are condemned by others who also say they worship God. The majority of the Christian world has abandoned this blessed gift God made for all mankind (Mark 2:28) and are keeping instead a different day which is based on HUMAN TRADITION. Once again the pendulum of human nature has swung. From legalism back to careless disregard for the laws of God such as the Sabbath. By replacing the laws and commandments of God with human traditions many people, like the scribes, Pharisees and other religious leaders at the time of Jesus, have:
"made the commandment of God of no effect by YOUR tradition." (Matthew 15:6).

So, after reading all that, one may see how ALL the Commandments (not just 10 of them) are to be obeyed.

Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 11, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Yes, that is true...in both cases...*chucklin*. But I brought up the Sabbath account as evidence for the Law and not its abolishment. It lends to my case quite well.

Quote from: Gawen on August 11, 2011, 04:50:33 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 11, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Yes, that is true...in both cases...*chucklin*. But I brought up the Sabbath account as evidence for the Law and not its abolishment. It lends to my case quite well.

The difference we have or our disagreement then is that you equate the 10 C's and the rest of the laws where I don't see the scriptures or God/Jesus equating them, in fact there is a clear line of being distinguished between as I've already mentioned.

 

Quote from: Gawen on August 11, 2011, 02:30:51 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 10, 2011, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: Gawen on August 10, 2011, 09:06:11 PM
You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

There is only once that God writes something down Himself  (Three if you consider Daniel 5:5, 25-28 and John 8:6)  that is physically given to a human.
I refer you to Genesis 31:18, Deut. 9:10

That, in and of itself, separates the 10 from the rest.  Not to mention only the 10 is placed/kept inside the ark (as a symbol of its perpetuity) as already pointed out.

And in turn I shall point you to:
Exodus 20:1:  And God spake all these words, saying,...
Exodus 24:3: And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
And then...
4: And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD,...

I think I made my point with God's own finger being very rare or basically non-existent other than the tablets of stone.

Quote from: Gawen

Quote from: ADAs I mentioned, for a person to follow God and His Law is for that person to place their faith in God.  No person can gain salvation SIMPLY by adhering to God's Law and not putting faith in the one that put the Law in place.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to keep God's Law as part of the Law is acknowledging God as God, Creator and Savior.

I have just shown you how that is not true.

I suppose we are at a point in which neither of us is going to concede this point.  I believe I have the backing of the Bible on the whole and (to me it seems) you are claiming points here and there without taking into acct. the whole (old and new, old covenant and the "new" covenant, the promise of a Savior vs. the Savior/God in physical form fulfilling that which was previously ceremonially celebrated as shadows of things to come).  By that matter, just about every sin conceivable can be justified and/or shone to have biblical support. 

Quote from: Gawen

Quote from: ADWash in what?  Downey, Tide?  Certainly there is more to the meaning of those words than the use of a washing machine or washboard.  Again, I say, if this is all the enlightenment we had, I would agree.  But as has been said, "A text without context is a pretext."

AD, as I said above, Christians spin all this to fit their worldview. You are no exception.

No spin.  You simply may be ignorant to the meanings of certain words or ideas in scripture that in a literal sense mean one thing and in a spiritual (or biblical) sense mean something different.  It is no spin of any kind when one uses the whole of scripture to interpret one part.  Case in point;  "Washed Robes"  why would there be a need for clean robes entering into heaven?  Is it literal that we will be wearing robes in heaven?...  and so on. 

Quote from: Gawen

Quote from: ADWho decides what is just and right.  Again...faith that God is God and ultimately that God saves us.

Well, not quite. Who is God. Why, is to follow all the Law. Paul is wrong.

I really have no clue here.  Might you make your question/point more clear for me, plz.

Quote from: Gawen

Quote from: ADWhat or who decided that an offering of fruit/veggies was not acceptable.  So the "what is right" in this context was the animal sacrifice, shedding of blood, was the right thing to do.

We really can't proceed here. You have to show me where God's Laws are preempted and sanctified by God himself. It makes no sense for the Hebrew Bible to say numerous times that the Law is for ever only to be thrown away by vicarious human sacrifice, which was illegal and performed by a Jew living under said Laws.

God's Law preempted?  I don't understand.

It makes no sense when it is said, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies...let those in Judea flee to the mountains...let those in the city get out..." (see Luke 21:20-24)
How does it make sense to tell someone that when you see yourself surrounded, to flee?  Isn't it logical that if you're being surrounded that it is too late to flee?

History tells us that Cestius Gallus had initially brought his army against jerusalem, but was unsuccessful.  After being run off, many of the Jews fled.  Vespasian then shows up a few years later and more flee but the entire area was eventually subdued and finally destroyed by his son, Titus in the Spring of 70 AD.  (paraphrased from here (http://latter-rain.com/Israel/jewar.htm) and here (http://www.josephus.org/warChronology2.htm#map).  I knew the basics, but needed some refresher on the matter and just used the first points I found.)

Quote from: GawenI honestly can't stand the quote feature of this board...*sigh*

Nor do I.

btw, sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the number of points you make so if I seem to disregard something, it may be that something else seemed more important at the moment to me than another.  I'll try and keep my points/replies to a point or two also.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 11, 2011, 05:01:38 PM

Quote from: Gawen on August 11, 2011, 04:50:33 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 11, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.

Yes, that is true...in both cases...*chucklin*. But I brought up the Sabbath account as evidence for the Law and not its abolishment. It lends to my case quite well.

The difference we have or our disagreement then is that you equate the 10 C's and the rest of the laws [/li][/list]
where I don't see the scriptures or God/Jesus equating them, in fact there is a clear line of being distinguished between as I've already mentioned.

 

Ok, one more time. I haven't given up on you yet...*chucklin*

I'll try it this way. And this is very long.

Several years ago I had pretty much the same debate as you and I are having. I kept the debate for future reference. I've already shown you how the entire Law is eternal, perfect, gives salvation and will again give sources (here are some, there are more):
Matthew 5:17,18,20
Psalms 119: 152, 155, 160
Psalms 19:7
Ezekiel 37:24
Ezekiel 36:27
Deuteronomy11:1
Deuteronomy 4:2
Deuteronomy 6:2,5,24-25
Revelation 14:12
Revelation 22:14
Revelation 17:17
Revelation 10:7
Revelation 5:19

What I don't understand is why Christians call themselves Christians when the man they keep citing is Paul. Paul may have said the law is over or fulfilled, but that is not what Jesus said, or God commanded. Now you may argue that Jesus does say he came to fulfill the Law. The word "fulfilled" here is clearly a bad translation and to read it in context it requires that the word actually be "uphold" or "continue" or "enforce" and this is where Rev 17:17 comes into play. If he meant to negate the law then he's an idiot and I've already covered that in a previous post.

Note that in all of the Jewish scripture which Christians incorrectly call the Old Testament, there is no mention of God's law alluded to being cancelled or fulfilled (as in rendered outdated) by Paul or anyone else. Whoever heard of a law, any law, being fulfilled? Does it mean I can stop eating because eating has been fulfilled? Can I stop speeding because the law against speeding has been fulfilled? Are laws today designed to be "fulfilled?

Is there any textual scriptural support for this "fulfillment" anywhere in the so-called OT? No.
It seems to me that Paul struggled to find converts to Judaism, and so made an extremely watered down version by arguing his way around some of the more awkward elements (circumcision being a major one). Not to mention his lack of knowledge of scripture and the outright corruption of the Torah he did use in many cases.

I know a lot of Christians believe in the 10 Commandments (although which set of the 10 Commandments is an interesting issue unto itself and I am happy to know that no Christian boils a baby Goat in its mothers milk), and are also happy to quote some of the Levitical laws on occasion when it suits them. They are equally happy to ignore others though, so it all seems a little too convenient. It's a case of having ones pork and eating it too.

Paul flat out lies in order to push his own theology, his own doctrine of disregarding the Law and putting your faith in a human blood sacrifice. Take his little deception in Romans 10:8 in which he changes the words of Dt.30:14 to match his doctrine of faith and ignoring the Law. He omits the words "that thou mayest do it", meaning obey the law, and in its place puts "that is, the word of faith which we preach." And that's not the only place where Paul manipulates and distorts scripture to suit his purposes.

Let's move for a moment to Vicarious human sacrifice. The only sin sacrifice that comes close to the kind of sin sacrifice Christians say Jesus was is the animal sacrifice which provides remission of unintentional minor sins. But here Christians have more problems. Jesus was not only human, which is forbidden, but he did not meet the prerequisite conditions for being a sin sacrifice. In order for a sin sacrifice to be lawful it must conform with the Torah which:

1. Requires that a sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7). Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18, 23).

2. Requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Leviticus 4: 5-6). New Testament evidence clearly shows this was not done.

3. Requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defect or blemish (e.g., Leviticus 4:3). According to the various accounts in the NT, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mark 14: 65, 15:15-20; Luke 22: 63; John 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Philippians 3:2, Galatians 5:12).

4. Requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Numbers 28:22), not as a communal offering. According to the NT, Jesus' death (termed a "sin sacrifice") expiated the sins of mankind (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

5. Directs that the Paschal Lamb was NOT to be offered for the removal of sins. It was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under items 4 above and 6 below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Numbers 29:11 [individual sin-offering―male goat]; Leviticus16:15 [communal sin-offering―male goat]).

6. Requires the sacrificed Paschal Lamb to be roasted and eaten, and its blood marked on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exodus 12: 7-8). There is no record in the NT that this was done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).

7. States that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for UNINTENTIONAL sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Leviticus 5:1-6, 20-26 [Leviticus 6:1-7 in some Christian Bibles]; [e.g., Numbers 15:27-31] .

8. Teaches that sacrifices can only atone for sins committed PRIOR to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed AFTER the sacrifice was offered. Thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered.

9. Strictly FORBIDS human vicarious atonement (e.g., Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29 [30 in some Christian Bibles]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7).

There are other different types of sins that require different types of sacrifices or atonement. Forgiveness does not always require bloodshed. Offerings of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11 ), money (Ex 30:15-16), jewelry (Num 31:50) and prayer ( Hosea 14:1-4) can also atone for sin.

You, AD, simply have no foot to stand on. But I'm not finished yet.

One may argue the Gentiles were without the Law from the beginning so the Levitical ordinances never applied to them. Anyone saved by God's grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) in Paul's gospel (Romans 2:16, 16:25, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) is under grace and not law (Romans 6:14). And Jews may or may not remain under the law for all time. It's a nice try but without merit. The truth of the matter is that if one wants to follow Paul then one is not a Christian, one is a Paulinian. One needs to get the terminology straight. It's either Paul's doctrine of vicarious human blood sacrifice or God's Law. Jesus said follow the Law; to obey the Law. And, as I said, he does so in the Book of Revelation which means that Paul is pretty much an island unto himself. Mind you there are numerous passages where Paul advocates obeying the law but most of these instances are used for his own advantage...not God's.

Moreover, maintaining the point that Jesus is for the Jews and Paul is for the Gentiles, as some Christians do, is flat wrong. Jesus said his word was meant for all people, not just the Jews. Take a look at His own words: Matthew 28:29, Mark 16:15. What did Jesus teach and command? What was "all things"? That everyone obey the Law. Did I hear Jesus any mention anything about Paul in any of that? No. Remember that Jesus forbade teaching people to disregard the law. Sound like Paul? Of course it does.

Then there's Luke 2:32: A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.  Hmm..."lighten the Gentiles". Sounds to me like Jesus' words are meant for everyone, not just the Jews. Actually if you look at it in a graphical way you will see Paul is isolated and surrounded by the rest of the Bible which teaches observance of God's law. Even so, as I said, Paul is in a bit of a pickle since he also advocates the law in some places, but for his own ends.

Who is this Paul guy? Does Paul have the power to make declarations (Romans 7) which contradict a law made by a deity to whom he is subservient? There is no mention of any of this in any part of the Torah where God lays down his laws.

QuoteThe Law IS still in full force against ALL of the living, who are yet engaged in the satisfaction of the lusts of the flesh. But as many as have believed His words, and been immersed into His name, are accounted as being dead under the Law, wherefore the letter of The Law no longer has dominion. The man that says that he keeps The Law of God, and observes all of His Statutes and Ordinances, to do them, makes himself to be a liar, whom deceiving himself, also deceives whosoever receives his testimony.
No man under The Law, is justified by the hundreds of Laws, Statutes and Judgments that are observed, but all are condemned under The Law, by a single solitary commandment that is neglected, altered, perverted or voided for convenience sake. With Law there is condemnation and penalties upon its trespassers, but justice and mercy are within the power and the province of Judgment; wherefore, if The Law condemns, it is the Judge alone, who is empowered to show His mercy and His leniency upon the trespassers.                                                                                                                            
As many as are in The Messiah our Passover, are exempted from the penalties of The Law regarding "touch not, taste not, handle not," those matters being unlawful to them under The Law, become exempt and therefore lawful, unto them whom through faith, submit themselves to accepting His just and compassionate offer of His exemption, Our Passover.

The above three paragraphs actually came from a Christian in another forum I frequent. The arguments seem quite convincing from a Christian perspective don't they, AD? But they are sophistries and wishful thinking and I told him so. The Christian poster, like you, is using Paul to justify Paul. One ought to know better because it's circular reasoning. The key is whether one believes in Paul or whether one believes in Jesus and his Father. It's a choice. It should be a dilemma. And it won't go away if one keeps repeating Paul.
Is Paul a member of the Trinity? No.
Did God mention Paul anywhere? No.
What is Paul's authority? There is no satisfactory answer to the last question except Christian wishful thinking.

QuoteActual Christian statements like the one below are saying no one can observe the commandments, which are a burden and are impossible to obey. Much like you say, AD:
"The man that says that he keeps The Law of YHWH, and observes ALL of His Statutes and Ordinances, to DO them, makes himself to be a liar, whom deceiving himself, also deceives whosoever receives his testimony."[size]

The problem here is one would be wrong and I've covered that in previous posts as well.

The Christian mentioned above eventually went into some sort of alpha state trying to sound holier than thou and repeating a common version of Christian doctrine. But that is not an argument. The "misunderstanding" of the Law, in this particular Christian's case constituted willful ignorance of the Law. Many Christians keep hiding behind Paul and make no mention of passages that show Jesus' direction that the Law be obeyed in full. They keep missing the obvious and it's because they've bought into the mainstream Christian doctrine that Paul had authority to overwrite God's Law. All the rest is dodging and apologetics on their part. Per his example:

Quote"Are you familiar with The Law as set forth in Deut. 17:8-13, 21:5 and 25:1 with their implications for the words and events recorded in Acts 4:17-19?"

Sound familiar AD? Please be serious. What on earth part of those passages contradicts my position that God's law is supposed to be obeyed? Can you tell me? He couldn't either. But here this Christian goes mentioning Paul again as proof of Paul as though citing Paul to justify and explain Paul somehow constitutes an argument that disproves my argument that the Law is to be obeyed forever. It's what is called circular logic.

That is why a distinction must be drawn between what Paul says about the Law and what Jesus says about the Law. It's not Paul's Law remember. Many Christians (including you, AD) point that I am missing something about the NT words and deeds regarding the Law. This shows only that they (and you) are taking a very selective readings of the Bible and are at the same time completely disregarding God's and Jesus' instructions.  

Christians routinely try to dismiss my arguments by trying to redirect the argument (moving the goal posts); saying I am contemptuous of Paul, for example, and it won't work. An example from the same Christian:  

Quote"Think not that you have a quarrel with brother Paul alone, but your quarrel is with every soul of faith who has stood firm for His witness, rejecting the letter of The Law, and its injunctions, unto confessing His name before men."

This is mindless repetition of mainstream Christian doctrine.
It has yet to be shown:
1) Where Jesus and/or God make any mention of faith in a human blood sacrifice somehow becoming a substitute for the Law.
2) Where it is written that Paul is a member of the Trinity or where he was ever granted authority by God or Jesus to overwrite and change the Law.
3) Why Paul's declarations about the Law are more important than Gods' and Jesus' statements about the Law.
4) How the words "eternal" & "forever" mean "only until some guy named Paul comes along with his new doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice.
5) How Paul's treatment of the Law does not constitute a violation of God's and Jesus' commands against teaching others to break the Law and changing or manipulating it.
And you can't do this. He couldn't do this. No Christian can without resorting to fallacies and wishful thinking. In short Christians have yet to show why the word of Paul is more authoritative and binding.  

The point Christians keep missing over and over and over is that Jesus, one third of their Triune God, said to follow the Law. His Father, a second third of the Triune God said to obey the Law, which are unconditional and permanently binding. Any lapses or inconsistencies in observance or interpretation of the so-called Mosaic Law are the products of man's inherent failings and do not in any way nullify the Law which is described as perfect. The Law precedes anything that happened in Acts or Romans. All this tap dancing around the elephant in the room is not going to get anywhere.

So if Jesus is THE man, why don't Christians obey him? If Gentiles wanted to be part of God's fold, they were to adopt the covenant God made with the Israelites (Isaiah 56:1-7). Did Paul teach this? No.

If one is saying the early believers felt justified to ignore the judges/priests and preach in the name of Jesus by using Paul and that makes it OK to adopt new rules for behavior, then it's a rather empty assertion.

If one wants to deny this passage (Ezekiel 18:20-27) and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to him. But I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean. I keep asking Christians where God ever mentions baptism as a way out of or substitution of obeying the Law. They can't. Why? This baptism thing is made up as well. You can offer no scriptural support for this doctrine that can be reconciled with the Law.

You readers that made it this far, can you not see how Scripture is whacked out of context and twisted to conform to a Christian worldview? I do know what the bible says about the Law and Christians try to maneuver me into an extreme position or opinion and it won't work. Largely, AnimatedDirt's apologetics and the the above quoted apologetics are a semi-incoherent regurgitation of mainstream Christian doctrine.

It's quite logical in my opinion when proto-Christians believed when someone broke the Law or someone told them to break the Law in Acts (for example) and decided to base a religion on it. They are passing their own revision of the Law with no Hebrew Bible authority. Don't try to come up with a theology based on one incident where someone broke the Law. If someone breaks the law, the law does not disintegrate. You still have to obey the Law. Nobody present in Paul's Epistles had the authority to pronounce new legislation on the Law.  

I like the way Paul and Joel and Acts are quoted as though Christians have found something really potent. I mean God and Jesus versus some bit player named Paul? It's a mismatch and Christians don't know it, or they know it and disregard it. Are those people in Acts going to pass judgment on them?

If I have mishandled the texts then prove it. Bring forward a Jewish scholar or quote me something from the Tanakh to show how I am wrong.  

I am firmly convinced that the odds of swaying away any Christian that fervently believes Paul is next to zero.

I am an unbeliever and yet I firmly think Christians are incorrect, incoherent about and justifying, self deceived, delusional and plain fooling themselves if they believe Paul's declarations gets them off the hook of obeying the Law. The words of God and Jesus trump anything Paul or anyone else said until proven otherwise by citing the appropriate scripture. So far I have been unable to find any. And neither have the Christians.











[/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]

Quote from: Gawen on August 11, 2011, 11:41:44 PM
I've already shown you how the entire Law is eternal [...]

I know a lot of Christians believe in the 10 Commandments (although which set of the 10 Commandments is an interesting issue unto itself and I am happy to know that no Christian boils a baby Goat in its mothers milk), and are also happy to quote some of the Levitical laws on occasion when it suits them. They are equally happy to ignore others though, so it all seems a little too convenient. It's a case of having ones pork and eating it too. [...]

Before I go any further in reading your post (which again as I mentioned above gets to be overwhelming in forming an answer from so much to answer to or expected to answer to...) It seems quite clear here that you make no distinction between the Law of God (the 10 C's) and the laws or ceremonial laws that are apart from the 10.  Please notice there is no law, nothing close, about goats, cooking baby goats, goats milk, mother's milk or anything of the sort in the 10.  In my dealings with the Levitical laws, there are certainly ideas which can still be followed, but nothing which points at sin itself.  If anything the 10 are the only measure of SIN that remains as perpetual.

The 10 C's are separate and distinct in that they are the only hand-written 'legal' document written by God's own finger.  Not only that, but it was set apart from the rest of the writings of Moses (the ceremonial laws) as it was the only Law(s) placed into the ark of the covenant.  I think anyone can easily see that there is an obvious difference.

Now back to your post of which I know I will be accused of overlooking a point or two.  (sigh)

Quote from: AnimatedDirt

Before I go any further in reading your post (which again as I mentioned above gets to be overwhelming in forming an answer from so much to answer to or expected to answer to...) I understand this entirely. But I can't just throw out snippets here and there. The subject matter is intensive.

QuoteIt seems quite clear here that you make no distinction between the Law of God (the 10 C's) and the laws or ceremonial laws that are apart from the 10. 

There IS no distinction between them. All are mouthed by God himself. No where in the Hebrew Bible does it say to hold the first 10 above all others. No where in the HB does it say the 613 commandments will be lessened to 10 in some unspeified time in the future.

QuotePlease notice there is no law, nothing close, about goats, cooking baby goats, goats milk, mother's milk or anything of the sort in the 10. 

Exodus 20:2–17
vs
Deuteronomy 5:6–21
vs Exodus 34 (which states:
1. Thou shalt worship no other god...
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods...
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep...
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine...
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest...
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks...
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven...
8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring...
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk...

QuoteThe 10 C's are separate and distinct in that they are the only hand-written 'legal' document written by God's own finger.

Oh, so if it's written by a finger of God, it's more important? More important than the other 603 that he only communicated to Moses by mouth? You're really splitting hairs here, AD.

Quote
Not only that, but it was set apart from the rest of the writings of Moses (the ceremonial laws) as it was the only Law(s) placed into the ark of the covenant.

Putting the 10 into the arc because the stone tablets were written by God would be a good explanation. But it doesn't lessen the remaining 603 as just as eternal because Moses wrote them down.

QuoteI think anyone can easily see that there is an obvious difference.

Only when trying to cram it into a Christian world view.

QuoteNow back to your post of which I know I will be accused of overlooking a point or two.  (sigh)

Take your time. I'm in no hurry.

You, at this time, still have no leg to stand on. You cannot find scripture that directly relates to your views.

I suppose we are at a point which we cannot agree.  If we cannot agree on this, then it seems useless to move on to the other.

What is clear is that the 10 and the other 603* are distinct.  Yes, the finger of God does make a difference and the placement God directed adds to that distinction and difference.
I guess there's no distinction between that which is encased in glass in Wash. D.C. is equal to that which is not encased in anything at all but here in my city that stated no overnight parking on city streets except for residents with resident stickers on their cars.  Oh but wait, that law is going to be done away with and they are simply going to NO overnight parking for anyone.  Yes...that "law" is just as important as that one encased in D.C.  We'll stick with your spin.

The whole of scripture supports my view(s).  It's the spin YOU put on it that doesn't.  But I guess your spin is better than mine.

I concede.  I suppose I'll continue in my delusion and split hairs.

I thank you, Animated Dirt and Gawen, for making this thread a very interesting read! I certainly appreciate all the effort that both of you have put into the discussion.

I don't think we currently have any members who are truly Biblical literalists, but I just want to point to one passage which seems to be ignored by even the most literal of literalists. Jesus himself is speaking in Matthew 18, and in Matthew 18:8-9, he gives a way of dealing with sin:

Quote8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Elsewhere, a staunch literalist was using Matthew 18:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:18&version=KJV) to justify his ability to pronounce the verdict of heresy on other Christians.  (Christians who accept the theory of evolution are heretics, according to him.) I asked him why one doesn't commonly see self-mutilation (as clearly prescribed by Jesus) in literalist Christian communities, and he ignored me. I guess even they have their limits when it comes to interpreting the Bible literally.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on August 12, 2011, 06:55:57 PM
I suppose we are at a point which we cannot agree.  If we cannot agree on this, then it seems useless to move on to the other.

The whole of scripture supports my view(s).  It's the spin YOU put on it that doesn't.  But I guess your spin is better than mine.

I concede.  I suppose I'll continue in my delusion and split hairs.

I haven't yet seen how scripture supports your views, AD, not without selective readings, spin and wishful thinking. Alas, I too must stop, for I have just about shot my entire wad.

Until next time!

Me

Quote from: Recusant on August 13, 2011, 05:31:51 PM
I thank you, Animated Dirt and Gawen, for making this thread a very interesting read! I certainly appreciate all the effort that both of you have put into the discussion.

I don't think we currently have any members who are truly Biblical literalists, but I just want to point to one passage which seems to be ignored by even the most literal of literalists. Jesus himself is speaking in Matthew 18, and in Matthew 18:8-9, he gives a way of dealing with sin:

Quote8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Elsewhere, a staunch literalist was using Matthew 18:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:18&version=KJV) to justify his ability to pronounce the verdict of heresy on other Christians.  (Christians who accept the theory of evolution are heretics, according to him.) I asked him why one doesn't commonly see self-mutilation (as clearly prescribed by Jesus) in literalist Christian communities, and he ignored me. I guess even they have their limits when it comes to interpreting the Bible literally.

Hiya Recusant,
Thanks for the compliment.

Matthew 5: 27-30 as well.
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
28: But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 
29: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 
30: And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

There is one body part in particular that might tempt you to sin, and it is NOT what a Christian would expect.  But in those days and in some circles today it would be vulgar to mention 'penis'  and 'testicles', although it is quite proper to mention 'foreskin' (because it is used in the bible). We know verses 29-30 are ridiculous on several levels. A hand cannot "cause you to sin" -- your brain causes "sin." Therefore, gouging your eye out or cutting your hand off may be useless. If you have a problem with "sin" and you are going to amputate something to solve it, you would need to cut out your heart, since that is the organ where all "sin" originates - as was believed in ancient times. But Jesus and Paul seem to really mean it, when they speak of making one a eunuch for the kingdom of Heaven's sake. Of course, one can imagine an omniscient being to know of these things, but this is one case where Jesus sounds ignorant and rather emotional instead of thoughtful.

Jesus tells them that those who are able to make themselves eunuchs should do so. "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Making yourself a eunuch sounds extreme, but Jesus says you should do whatever it takes to live a sinless life, even cut off body parts that tempt you to sin.  Since no one listens to Jesus any more and would rather follow some guy named Paul, who never met the man, he says it also.

I could go on for a couple of pages just on the faulty ethics of Jesus. But this thread took quite a bit out of me. If anyone's interested, they can start a new thread and I'll join in.

Oh....and Biblical literalists are hard to come buy in discussion boards. Sad part is they really can't be literalists because of all the contradictions (they never see). So even when dealing with a literalist or a cherry picker, they ALL pick and choose

How would one eye cause you to sin but not the other?  And the foot...? *blink blink*

The bible is just confusing, bloody nonsense.

^ Hear, hear!

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 14, 2011, 05:51:57 PM
How would one eye cause you to sin but not the other?  And the foot...? *blink blink*

The bible is just confusing, bloody nonsense.

Well, some people seem to think it makes....absolute...*ahem*...sense.

Talking donkeys always make sense. *stern nod*

30: And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
I always thought that it was your soul, that goes to heaven or hell.

Oooh, attempting to make sense out of the bible, Tom?  :P


Some church do gooder was once trying to explain to me the difference between a soul and a spirit. I stopped listening a few words in.

No, I gave that up years ago.
Which is one of the reasons, why I'm now a happy atheist.

Same. ^___^