It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why don't christians follow the laws of Leviticus and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc.?

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena


Peter was the real Apostle to the peoples (Gentile is no a concept in the Greek it just means nations or peoples and it isn't so racial) chosen by Jesus himself no matter how much you exploit his mistakes. Paul was a snitch, kidnapper/Jailer and murderer for hire for the Sadducees and Romans. You think he is great because he pretended to have a vision and feigned conversion only to later turn on the Nazarenes and develop a hatred of James who is universally recorded as Most Righteous of all men of his day...and a jealousy of Peter who went on his own to Rome and baptized thousands???

Paul was a villain with no redeemable qualities.




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage


Peter was crucified upside down. His request. His family was killed too.

According to stories. Maybe, maybe not. Jesus gave him the offer to die on the spot on the lake shore so he could follow. He refused.


Peter was greater than Paul and so was James.

Peter and James were better at appearing to keep the Torah, sure, no question about that. James didn't even believe in Jesus until after the "resurrection".


This is documented. Historically by the heresiologists about Paul how they rejected him as apostate

About AD160, these comments were made. Paul did not survive longer than Nero. AD 67ish. We have no idea what exactly the Ebionite teachings were before Paul's death. Nor during the Roman suppression of the Great Rebellion first under Vespasian who went back to Rome to become emperor, and then under Titus his son.

We don't know what the Ebionites taught between the two rebellions. We only know what they taught nearly a century after Paul's death.


Why is this a polemic against Peter pro Paul? You think he is a hero?



jewishencyclopedia: Gentile

Present Status of the Gentile
With the conversion of the Gentile to Christianity or to Islam, the heathen and pagan of the civilized or semi-civilized world has become almost extinct, and the restrictions placed on the ancient Gentile are not applicable to the Gentile of the present day, except in so far as to consider him a Noachian observingall moral laws, in contradistinction to the Jew, who as one of the chosen people observes in addition the Mosaic laws. That the laws against the Gentile as a barbarian were not entirely expunged from the rabbinic literature after the advent of Christianity, was due to the persecutions and the barbaric treatment of the Jews in the Middle Ages. The gradual decrease of animosity may, however, be noted by comparing the various codes and collections of response

Peter and James would have, no doubt, restricted their evangelism to Judeans, and perhaps Hellenized Judahites. The Roman Empire would not have become free of heathenism and paganism if not for Paul's mission to include Gentiles. When Peter was captured and brought to Rome years after the death of Paul, he could have worked with the Romans colluding to write additional "letters by Paul" to pacify anti-Roman sentiments among Jewish Christians, encouraging them to be peaceful rather than exclusive holy chosen ones whose mission is to crush Rome.


Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah.
Inasmuch as the Jews had their own distinct jurisdiction, it would have been unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents' courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation). "It is like placing an obstacle before the blind" (Sanh. 59a; Ḥag. 13a). And yet if a Gentile study the Law for the purpose of observing the moral laws of Noah, R. Meïr says he is as good as a high priest, and quotes: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev. xviii. 5). The text does not specify an Israelite or a Levite or a priest, but simply "a man"—even a Gentile ('Ab. Zarah 26a).
...
the more plausible reason advanced by Maimonides, who says: "The principle is, one is not permitted to make innovations in religion or to create new commandments. He has the privilege to become a true proselyte by accepting the whole Law" ("Yad," Melakim, x. 9). R. Emden (), in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.

Paul did not teach Gentiles to follow Torah. Neither did he teach the 7 Noahide Laws, because they hadn't been invented yet. He taught an ethic which he thought appropriate.

Bottom line: Without Paul, Heathenism and Paganism would be much more prevalent in the Western World. Now that heathenism has been suppressed, the Jews are done with Paul and are kicking him under the bus. Then the Gentiles who would like to be Christians must go to the Jews to learn what it means to be a Christian. That's the plan.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

They are all stories. Whether or not they were chosen is not eva big deal. James and Peter had no problem with converts not of Israelite descent and James himself says he wishes not to burden them. You don't really think that they were trying to horde the Way? Acts disagrees with you on that and so does thousands of years of tradition and church history. Paul really didn't do anything except maybe write some whiney letters full of insults to the Jewish community and the Ebionites had good cause to reject him. Bahh.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage


Peter was the real Apostle to the peoples (Gentile is no a concept in the Greek it just means nations or peoples and it isn't so racial) chosen by Jesus himself no matter how much you exploit his mistakes. Paul was a snitch, kidnapper/Jailer and murderer for hire for the Sadducees and Romans. You think he is great because he pretended to have a vision and feigned conversion only to later turn on the Nazarenes and develop a hatred of James who is universally recorded as Most Righteous of all men of his day...and a jealousy of Peter who went on his own to Rome and baptized thousands??? Paul was a villain with no redeemable qualities.Text

I was wondering just how long we could have a topic without Paul bashing.

John Taylor - quotes Maurus Rabanus --1909 "The Coming Of The Saints" ==

Quote
In the thirteenth year after the ascension (a.d. 47)
James, the brother of John, was killed by the sword ;
Peter was cast into prison, and Saul, called to the
apostleship of the Gentiles by the Holy Spirit, departed
on his mission. At this time he took the name of Paul.

The following year (the fourteenth after the ascension,
A.D. 48) the following division was made of the apostles : —

Thomas and Bartholomew were allotted to the care of
the east.

Simon and Matthew to the south.

Philip and Thaddaeus to the north.

Matthew and James to the centre of the world (" Medium
mundi").

John and Andrew to the provinces of the Mediterranean,
and Peter and Paul to the kingdoms of the West.

At the same time Paul came to Jerusalem to see Peter,
both giving and receiving from James, and John and
Peter due recognition of their union in the apostolate.
He then departed with Barnabas to preach the gospel
in Syria and Illyricum.
Unquote

Paul is a real bad guy but still good enough to be sent out with Peter to the west. Wow, what happened to Matthias?
Got any ideas on that? wonder why Paul wasn't part of the first pope beings He put his head on the ole chopper.

But back on topic. Re read the account of the woman who was caught in adultery and explain why the man was not present also. The law said that both shall be stoned but the man was not brought before Jesus. Kind of one sided wasn't it?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I'm going to add a few .02 cents to this discussion (since it's so pertinent to me). First, Saul took Peter's role...if you read the scriptures, it was PETER who was commissioned to take the message to the gentiles.
I don't believe James, John OR Peter put any heavy burden on the gentile converts...basically, they were told to abstain from sexual immorality, things with blood in them and things strangled. They were also told to listen to the Torah.
My take on the above admonitions...James and the others were taught vegetarianism by Jesus. It makes sense when you realize that "things with blood in them" is any dead animal. Things strangled (which may seem obscure) is probably fish. They die by suffocation when taken out of water. The sexual immorality issue is self explanatory.
Also, the reason why I think Paul and the true apostles butted heads so often, was because Paul was trying to take a "different gospel" to the gentiles....who didn't know any better. They had no clue about Jewish law and were basically clueless to what the Jews taught. They were sitting ducks. They also had belief in all kinds of polytheistic deity's. All Paul had to do was bunch all that paganism together and make a "god man" (Jesus) who was their blood sacrifice....basically right up all those pagans alley.
Jesus never was "god in the flesh" nor did he come to be a "blood sacrifice". He came to show all those lost souls the TRUTH of the real God.
Read again His conversation with Pilate before His crucifixion. Pilate asked Him if He was a King..and He said, "rightly so"...then He said, "It's for THIS reason I came into the world...to bear witness to THE TRUTH.
What truth would that be?
Well, look back on what he accused the Pharisee's of....their father was the DEVIL. Who did they follow and obey?
That would be Yahweh. So, Jesus called them out on their god being the devil himself. Interesting.
Saul/Paul was just an instrument of "Yahweh" or (Yaldoboath) the demiurge, to highjack the true message of the TRUE Kingdom of the TRUE God, of which Jesus said this world was not HIS.
That would be why "for God so loved the World that He sent His only begotten Son" into it to save it. This world is not the True Father's world. I don't know if it's a knock off, simulation, whatever...but, it's built on dualitites and destruction.
The saddest part is, with all the misery here, humans are called the "culprit" for it. Yet, the "god of this world" is let off the hook and judges us unmercifully for it's mayhem.
It's like the whole animal eating thing....you either go to ABSOLUTE LOVE and see it as wrong (and care that the lion lays down with the lamb...and we don't harm another sentient being). Or, you make excuses and say, "well, that's just how it is...it's the circle of life. We aren't any better than the animals..just a step up. Oh, the excuses for causing pain and suffering to another life goes on infinitely.)
Even Saul (the trickster he is)...said "for those who eat only vegetables...have a weaker faith (my paraphrase). But, those who eat meat...their faith is stronger.
Huh. So, why did Saul make a DISTINCTION between vegetarians and meat eaters? WHY????????
THERE IS SOMETHING to that!
Once you wake up to the dualities in this world, and the constant bickering that the Bible causes...you see it.
You also see a lot more.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Who knows dude what happened at the other side of the world at that time



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor


Well, look back on what he accused the Pharisee's of....their father was the DEVIL. Who did they follow and obey? That would be Yahweh. So, Jesus called them out on their god being the devil himself. Interesting.

Are you saying that the Devil is Yahweh? That is the way I interpreted your above statement. Maybe I misunderstood you but is that what you believe?

The Pharisees who Jesus debated were of the Devil but that does not mean all Pharisees were of the same mindset. Now if you had said Sadducee's then I would agree but Pharisees who accepted Jesus as the Christ have the same Father as Jesus had. Jesus as flesh was not God but Jesus as the "Word" was the Creator of all both visible and invisible as is understood in the 1st chapter of John. The "Word" was not "The Most High EL" but "The Most High El" did not create this universe. So who is this Yahweh that you call the Devil?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: craig732
a reply to: NOTurTypical

So you are saying those laws are still in effect for "the children of Israel"?


Ask the Jews, however since 70 AD they follow the Talmuds, not the Torah. There isn't a Levitical priesthood, nor is there a temple to carry out the sacrifices.


edit on 8 23 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer

The only moment killing anyone is justified or perhaps passable (and that is a very narrow line) is in self defense.


So when god orders his followers, or the Levites, or the priests, or whoever he is telling to do it in Leviticus, to kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc he is telling them to do it in self defense?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: craig732
No, I am trying to understand why christians follow some parts of the bible but ignore other parts.

Perhaps the best answer is that they are following the parts that are good and ignoring the parts that are bad, such as the stoning of adulterers.It's called discernment. I take it you would approve of this policy. Or why would you not approve?


I do not approve of this policy...

Because I am confused as to why people would follow ANY part of a book with such evil stuff in it allegedly put forth by a "loving" god.

Because there are MANY people who say they hate homosexuals because the bible says it is "an abomination". Why agree with THAT verse but not others?

There are so many examples I could use.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

Thank you for all of your contributions to this thread, nomore.

This post clearly makes one of the main points I was trying to make with my question in the OP.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor


Well, look back on what he accused the Pharisee's of....their father was the DEVIL. Who did they follow and obey? That would be Yahweh. So, Jesus called them out on their god being the devil himself. Interesting.

Are you saying that the Devil is Yahweh? That is the way I interpreted your above statement. Maybe I misunderstood you but is that what you believe?

The Pharisees who Jesus debated were of the Devil but that does not mean all Pharisees were of the same mindset. Now if you had said Sadducee's then I would agree but Pharisees who accepted Jesus as the Christ have the same Father as Jesus had. Jesus as flesh was not God but Jesus as the "Word" was the Creator of all both visible and invisible as is understood in the 1st chapter of John. The "Word" was not "The Most High EL" but "The Most High El" did not create this universe. So who is this Yahweh that you call the Devil?



Oh, yea they were....and they killed Jesus for challenging their "mind set". Read it with eye's to see and a heart to hear, Seede. Get out of your indoctrination..hear the Savior you profess.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps




The fact is, the Council of Nicaea pretty much picked and chose what books would be included, and which VERSION of those books would be included.


That's not a fact at all, not even close. The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It was specifically convened to address the Arian heresy in Alexandria, also to settle on a date for Easter, and to appoint bishops. Dan Brown said that the Council of Nicaea got together to determine what books would be allowed in the NT canon, but it was simply sensationalism and his book was fiction.


The point though, is that a bunch of MEN decided what books would be included and which wouldn't. It continued on throughout the ages.
Here's the kicker for me...Christians believe God would micromanage and protect "His Word" down to the tiniest detail...causing men (or basically violating that free will we're all supposed to have) to write everything down, word for word, just as He said....yet, He can't take time out to 'micromanage" this planet. Like, a little girl who is being raped and brutalized, or a child being blown to pieces in a war he or she has no control over, or that little kid in Africa, dying from starvation and lack of clean water (with flies buzzing all around it while it dies), or the zillions of other things that are so f'ed up on this planet, it boggles the mind.
But YEA...that ole "Holy Word of God" is going to come through unscathed, dang it...because it's the only thing humanity has to tell it how to behave. God doesn't have to do anything else to help us...just give us "HIS WORD" so we know we are all going to be damned if we don't follow it.
Sorry, but something is truly rotten about that whole picture.


This is a pure genius explanation as to why the bible is most likely BS. I hope you don't mind if I copy this and use it talking with others. I will credit you.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: enterthestage

Neither.

I don't agree with homosexuality. But in this day I am not commanded to kill them or adulterers.



I think we may be getting to one of my points here... WHY don't you agree with homosexuality? Why do you care what others do?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: rukia

So how do you know which verses to follow and which verses to ignore in a book full of contradictions?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04

Thank you so much for commenting on my thread. Given your anxiety to do so, I am humbled that you chose my thread to interact with.

Your writing was eloquent and intelligent. While I may not agree with all you said, you said it well and respectfully. For that I am grateful.

You actually drove home one of my points... that the bible is confusing.
edit on 23-8-2016 by craig732 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Instead of asking why Christians DON'T kill homosexuals and adulterers, why don't you ask WHY Muslims DO kill homosexuals and "honor kill" adulterers.


I don't have to ask... I know the answer to that:

Because THEY follow the orders given to them in their "holy" book.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: craig732

I noticed you left out the one about stoning a disobedient child.

Or maybe you don't agree with "honor killings" like the rest of the "radical religious conservatives".


I left out A LOT. I thought I made the point with the couple that I mentioned.

I don't agree with killing anyone. My point is to find out why christians (or whoever Leviticus is written to) pick and choose which bible verses they follow.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Excellent response, exactly the point I am trying to make with my post.

Why follow ANY of the bible or worship the god that wrote it or inspired it to be written if it contains horrible stuff like the laws of Leviticus?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaronOfEther


Can you really say "I believe" if you're willing to lie about believing?


I did not lie about believing. Up until that very moment, right before the teacher said something to the effect of "okay, now everyone open your hearts to the holy spirit and ask to speak in tongues and you will!" I BELIEVED. I was SHOCKED that nothing happened. That one moment is the moment I started questioning my beliefs. The one person who said "they felt nothing" was criticized and and I did not feel like being shamed. I WAS ashamed. I truly felt, right up until that very second, that it would happen. I was a believer and a follower with all my heart and mind.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join