[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sorry you don’t like the historic Christian understanding of the Old Testament, but that’s what it is. You and CB keep trying to bring up the Old Testament and make it stick, but your argument basically attempts to throw out the entire New Testament.
Like I said, as long as the NT is inadmissible to the discussion, there’s not really much I can say.
[/quote]
And, if the New Testament isn’t admissable they’re no longer talking about Christianity in the first place.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yeah, he hadn’t changed his purpose, though the people had fallen short.[/quote]
The scripture doesn’t say “I don’t change my purpose”. It says “I change not”. If god did change his commandments, people wouldn’t know what to follow and would be consumed in the process. As you point out in the following verse, God was talking about not changing his ordinances.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
I called out your statement that the laws applied forever to man.
Wait, what? [/quote]
You said:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
For man, they did apply forever.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Yeah, he hadn’t changed his purpose, though the people had fallen short.
The scripture doesn’t say “I don’t change my purpose”. It says “I change not”. If god did change his commandments, people wouldn’t know what to follow and would be consumed in the process. As you point out in the following verse, God was talking about not changing his ordinances.
[/quote]
Yeah, he hadn’t changed his purpose… He changed not, though the people this passage is directed at, had.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
I called out your statement that the laws applied forever to man.
Wait, what?
You said:
Sloth wrote:
For man, they did apply forever.[/quote]
Yes, God’s laws apply forever. We can’t put them away. What are you even trying to get at?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Yeah, he hadn’t changed his purpose, though the people had fallen short.
The scripture doesn’t say “I don’t change my purpose”. It says “I change not”. If god did change his commandments, people wouldn’t know what to follow and would be consumed in the process. As you point out in the following verse, God was talking about not changing his ordinances.
[/quote]
Yes, he God (as he pointed out) had made no change. Again, what are you getting at?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So the ten comandments don’t apply to you? All 14 of them are totally irrelevant to you because you are not from the time and place that they refer to.
See my response to forlife. Be sure to actually read it.
Am busy reading it now.
[Quote]
I want to be clear because I don’t want you to try and wriggle out of it once you have been proven wrong.
I’m waiting. Hopefully not for too long…
So is that a yes or a no? I want your definitive answer before I proceed. (am also busy reading the 47 page document that you posted)
That’s a yes. I’m pretty sure I know what you’re going to say anyway, so I’m working on a response. [/quote]
So yes, Yawheh is nothing to do with a war god from a pollytheistic religion (I’ll be honest here, I am in part buying time because I need to double check a reference from a book I am reading and it is on my bedside table at home 
)
By the way, interesting theological argument in the document you linked. Do you follow that reasoning? It actually seems reasonably sensible that Jesus was for the most part clarifying what were at the time modern abuses based on misunderstandings of the original rules or situations where the rules had been taken out of context.
Mind you, I am not entirely clear where you stand. You have stated that the OT Mosaic law is not relevent to you because you are not an Isrelite but surely, the document you posted concludes that Mosaic Law is relevent to you, but, only those parts of it that are relevent.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It is being kept forever, inasmuch as Jesus was the true Israel and kept the all aspects of the Law perfectly.[/quote]
Do you seriously not see how ridiculous your rationalizations are?
I proved to you that the statements applied to ceremonial laws, despite your claim that they didn’t.
Then you claimed that Jesus was the “true Israel” and kept the ceremonial laws, as if they don’t apply to the people that received those laws.
Come on.
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
God wasn’t telling himself to observe the ceremonial laws forever. He said very specifically that those laws should be observed by the people at that time, and by their sons forever.
Forlife, since you are incapable of making a distinction…
As long as you are alive and are a US citizen do the laws of the nation apply to you (obviously within your lifespan)?
What if they are built upon? Some allowed to be set aside? Which, they have. Does US law no longer apply to you?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As long as you are alive and are a US citizen do the laws of the nation apply to you (obviously within your lifespan)?
What if they are built upon? Some allowed to be set aside? Which, they have. Does US law no longer apply to you?[/quote]
Why don’t you stop misquoting the scriptures I provided, and address what they actually state?
They don’t say, “Some laws will be built upon and some will be set aside.”
They say, “You and your sons must keep these laws FOREVER.”
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
It is being kept forever, inasmuch as Jesus was the true Israel and kept the all aspects of the Law perfectly.
Do you seriously not see how ridiculous your rationalizations are?
I proved to you that the statements applied to ceremonial laws, despite your claim that they didn’t.
Then you claimed that Jesus was the “true Israel” and kept the ceremonial laws, as if they don’t apply to the people that received those laws.
Come on.
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
God wasn’t telling himself to observe the ceremonial laws forever. He said very specifically that those laws should be observed by the people at that time, and by their sons forever.
[/quote]
You’re trying to put forth a novel interpretation of Scripture here. Can you point me to a widespread movement in Christian history that has advocated keeping every aspect of the Mosaic Law? It seems to me that if what you’re saying is true, and we Christians today have it all wrong, there should be some evidence in the historical record confirming your understanding.
Surely, the apostles themselves advocated it, as they were taught by Jesus himself. Wait a minute, we have a controversy along these lines in the New Testament itself:
Galations 2; Galatians 2:3-5; NIV - Paul Accepted by the Apostles - Then - Bible Gateway;
Acts 15; Galatians 3; NIV - The Council at Jerusalem - Certain - Bible Gateway;
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
There is one God who inspired, acted in and through, human authors.
But again, you raise a point that Christians are aware of and have no issue with at all. Joseph actually lives the role of foster father.
And we are off! This is excactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You should read a book called Misquoting Jesus, it’s not by a religion hater like Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens so don’t worry. It’s actually quite positive about Christianity. But it also covers this point in some detail.
Why would I read a book about it? What controversial statement did I make?
That the phrophecy that Jesus was of David’s line is fulfilled by the fact that someone who later married her mother was of David’s line.
And as for ‘why would I read a book about it?’ well, to learn something.
For all intents and purposes, Joseph was his LEGAL father. Claiming Joseph’s lineage obviously wasn’t a big shocker to the apostles. Of course, if one accepts Christ as God, conceived in flesh through an immaculate conception, who is to say that genetically the flesh wouldn’t, on a biological/genetic level, show relation to the house of David?
[/quote]
Keep wriggling. When the Bible was written they believed that the child took everything from the father and the mother was just a vessel.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As long as you are alive and are a US citizen do the laws of the nation apply to you (obviously within your lifespan)?
What if they are built upon? Some allowed to be set aside? Which, they have. Does US law no longer apply to you?
Why don’t you stop misquoting the scriptures I provided, and address what they actually state?
They don’t say, “Some laws will be built upon and some will be set aside.”[/quote]
Of course not. Christ was a good ways in the future. It was he who fullfilled them.
[quote]
They say, “You and your sons must keep these laws FOREVER.”[/quote]
Yes, they must keep God’s laws forever. THEY can’t fullfill any of God’s laws one iota. Christ, God, would so long after.
It’s been addressed…But, you want non-Christian answers. You’ll have to ask non-Christian. The Sabbath is observed and fullfilled forever through Christ’s rest in the tomb. And we observe, worship, and celebrate Christ.
Now, if you’re not looking for Christian and Christ related answers, I can’t be of any help. Any non-Christians want to help forlife out with understanding Christianity minus the actual Christ part?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It seems to me that if what you’re saying is true, and we Christians today have it all wrong, there should be some evidence in the historical record confirming your understanding.[/quote]
I’m simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your holy book. Why would early Christians be any more exempt from the rationalizations we’ve seen in this thread than contemporary Christians? It’s a common theme.
After a couple thousands years, the laws and customs of the jews no longer had the same relevance. They evolved morally and culturally, and those old laws/customs no longer made sense. So they discarded them, in the name of new laws and customs. They created a new “god” for themselves that reflected their new values.
Unfortunately, doing so was a blatant contradiction to their earlier writings, which clearly stated that their “god” expected them to follow these laws forever. That’s the downside to keeping a written religious record. Your words come back to haunt you in the end, especially when you present them as coming from a divine being.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
Classic rationalization:
“God meant his moral laws to last forever, but all the rest (you know, the ones we no longer want to follow) were only temporary ceremonial laws.”
The problem is that the scriptures I provided clearly relate to ceremonial laws, for example:
[b]Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. …
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.[/b]
Obviously the writer was referring to ceremonial rites like the feast of unleavened bread.
It is being kept forever, inasmuch as Jesus was the true Israel and kept the all aspects of the Law perfectly.
Sorry you don’t like the historic Christian understanding of the Old Testament, but that’s what it is. You and CB keep trying to bring up the Old Testament and make it stick, but your argument basically attempts to throw out the entire New Testament. Like I said, as long as the NT is inadmissible to the discussion, there’s not really much I can say.
[/quote]
No, both OT [b]AND[b] NT are admissable but only if the entire koran is admissable and Muslims are allowed to claim at any point that any part doesn’t actually apply today and is being taken out of context.
Sorry, just trying to shuffle us back towards the original point which is that most religious books contain some pretty hateful bits along with some nice fluffy bits and to damn an entire people for the hateful bits whilst only espousing the fluffy bits of one’s own religion would be disingeneus to say teh least.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yes, they must keep God’s laws forever. THEY can’t fullfill any of God’s laws one iota. Christ, God, would so long after.
It’s been addressed…But, you want non-Christian answers. [/quote]
No, I want logical answers. You aren’t making any sense, because you refuse to acknowledge that they were told to keep a specific set of laws FOREVER.
There’s no wiggle room here. The writers of their holy books presented those specific laws (the feast of unleavened bread, etc.) as immutable, and told all future generations to follow them.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
There is one God who inspired, acted in and through, human authors.
But again, you raise a point that Christians are aware of and have no issue with at all. Joseph actually lives the role of foster father.
And we are off! This is excactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You should read a book called Misquoting Jesus, it’s not by a religion hater like Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens so don’t worry. It’s actually quite positive about Christianity. But it also covers this point in some detail.
Why would I read a book about it? What controversial statement did I make?
That the phrophecy that Jesus was of David’s line is fulfilled by the fact that someone who later married her mother was of David’s line.
And as for ‘why would I read a book about it?’ well, to learn something.
For all intents and purposes, Joseph was his LEGAL father. Claiming Joseph’s lineage obviously wasn’t a big shocker to the apostles. Of course, if one accepts Christ as God, conceived in flesh through an immaculate conception, who is to say that genetically the flesh wouldn’t, on a biological/genetic level, show relation to the house of David?
Keep wriggling. When the Bible was written they believed that the child took everything from the father and the mother was just a vessel.[/quote]
What wriggling? And yet, for all intents and purposes Jesus was seen as the son of Joseph and the source of his lineage. To non-believers, because he wasn’t immaculately concieved. To the believers in his divinity, because Joseph was given, and accepted the role.
And you don’t address our belief that God, if so inclined, could draw forth sons of David from stone, as far as we’re concerned. Meaning, if the data were available, the flesh by any human measurement would show a lineage to David.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Yes, they must keep God’s laws forever. THEY can’t fullfill any of God’s laws one iota. Christ, God, would so long after.
It’s been addressed…But, you want non-Christian answers.
No, I want logical answers. You aren’t making any sense, because you refuse to acknowledge that they were told to keep a specific set of laws FOREVER.
There’s no wiggle room here. The writers of their holy books presented those specific laws (the feast of unleavened bread, etc.) as immutable, and told all future generations to follow them. [/quote]
We do observe the sabbath through the Sacrifice of Christ. Again. You don’t have a problem with Christianity, because you’re not arguing against Christianity.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No, both OT [b]AND[b] NT are admissable but only if the entire koran is admissable and Muslims are allowed to claim at any point that any part doesn’t actually apply today and is being taken out of context.
[/quote]
One problem. Abrogation.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
Classic rationalization:
“God meant his moral laws to last forever, but all the rest (you know, the ones we no longer want to follow) were only temporary ceremonial laws.”
The problem is that the scriptures I provided clearly relate to ceremonial laws, for example:
[b]Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. …
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.[/b]
Obviously the writer was referring to ceremonial rites like the feast of unleavened bread.
It is being kept forever, inasmuch as Jesus was the true Israel and kept the all aspects of the Law perfectly.
Sorry you don’t like the historic Christian understanding of the Old Testament, but that’s what it is. You and CB keep trying to bring up the Old Testament and make it stick, but your argument basically attempts to throw out the entire New Testament. Like I said, as long as the NT is inadmissible to the discussion, there’s not really much I can say.
No, both OT AND NT are admissable but only if the entire koran is admissable and Muslims are allowed to claim at any point that any part doesn’t actually apply today and is being taken out of context.
[/quote]
The entire Qur’an is admissible. Of course it is. Muslims, like Christians, have a view that newer surahs abrogate the older ones, except that they don’t believe their older ones were fulfilled, but merely replaced:
Not only is naskh an epistemological nightmare, but from an infidel viewpoint, the problem is that (lately revealed) surahs 9:5 and 9:29 abrogate earlier, more peaceful surahs.
At least that’s what the 4 Schools teach.