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.

 

Christianity. A Religion of Convenience, or Polytheism?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


KJV? King James has plenty of contradictions... SHould I edit this post with proof or do you Believe me?


Every single alleged contradiction critics claim is in the Bible can be shown to violate one of the 7 basic laws of Biblical interpretation. But be my guest.


This is not up to interpretation.



Blatantly saying two different things rules out your 7 basic principles which include defining words , how it is used, the context, historical background, logic , precedent and unity.

The last one... unity isn't really a rule for truth, more so a nice way of saying that if anything contradicts anything else your interpretation is wrong until it agrees with everything else regardless of text.

Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac (Gen.16:15 & 21:3) but Isaac was Abraham's "only" son? (Gen. 22:2,12 & Heb. 11:17).

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."


Not too much you can do to reconcile these.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Illumin Not I


Also I would like to point out that those laws that everyone swears were perverted by the Pharisees and Sadducees, ...

I don't recall having argued anything about the Pharisees and Saducees. Since I am not Jewish, I am not a plausible candidate to referee a quarrel among Jews about their own law.

I observe that Jesus' views differ from the views of these other groups. That may be relevant to understanding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, the topic of the thread, as seen by those who recognize both parts.


... were already ridiculous.

Evidently, many Jews thought differently. I don't see how your difference of opinion with them can be resolved here and now.


Jesus and his Apostles were Jews. So they were bound by those laws.

Yes, we agree about that.


and a vast majority of those laws were punishable by death.

The laws that carry temporal punishments are instructuons for the initial governance of the real estate that God says he gave the Hebrews to use as nation-state homeland.

At the turn of the Era, there was no effective Jewish state, just the puppet kingdoms that surrounded the Roman occupied area.

As lawyers say, those provisions were dead letter. Any new Jewish state (which I believe to have been one of Jesus' political objectives) would begin from scratch.

Rumor has it that there is now a functioning Jewish state. Those sections are not its penal code.

I conclude that there is some agreement, then, that "the Law" which observant Jews were and are concerned about keeping was something else, not the statutes for a nation-state that had come and gone by Jesus' time.


So when Jesus walked around O.K.ing his apostles to disreguard those laws(I.E. plucking grain on the sabbath), it wasn't the Jewish religious leaders being ridiculous. They were following protocol.

And Jesus said that they were incorrect in how they applied the law.

You really need to hang out in courtrooms more. Everyday, people make long green arguing about how living secular law applies to actual situations. Arguing = disagreeing.

One might even argue that that is the nature of law.

As I say, I am in no position to opine whether or not, as a matter of Jewish Law, Jesus was correct. But, arguing about the law, as he did, is factually incompatible with disregarding the law. So, Jesus wasn't doing what you said he did. He was doing something else.


It was actually mandated by Moses, which he says he got from G-d.

Whether or not Moses was a historical person is an open question. I really don't know. I can only say that I suspect not, or that much has been added to somebody's biography.

Further, the Torah in its entirety is also attributed to Moses, and said to have been inspired in him by God. Yet, it seems very clear that the Torah does not have a single author. It follows that even if Moses were a historical person, what he personally did in the way of law-giving and literary production is open to question.


And if you believe Jesus was a regular guy, then he was a regular guy breaking a law that required death as a penalty.

And, as I recall, he was executed for it.

People who follow Jesus think he wasn't a "regular" guy, they think he is God. So, he has a specific defense to the charge of blasphemy of which he was convicted.

He said he was the Son of God, which is blasphemy under the Law. No question about that. His defense, however, according to his followers, is that he actually was.

The more lawyerly among them would say "conflict of the laws," since to have avoided blasphemy, he would have needed to bear false witness.

Applying the law, any law, to specific circumstances really is a four-star lady-dog. That much, Jesus was right about, and I can say so because it isn't anything peculiar to the Jewish Law.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Eat your heart out...


Alledged Bible Contradictions



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

Actually, I think that a more poignant question would be "Did she need to keep perfectly the Covenant?" Whether she did or not probably has no bearing if the answer to that is "no".

If Mariology was important to me, I would likely answer "Yes, she needed to.

Yes, I agree. She was a Jewess. I can easily imagine that she took that seriously, and that she would strive to conform with the law. All her life.

I also think she may have taken her son's advice, rather than tilt with Paul, whom she may never have met nor read, about how a Jew should conform with the law.

I think Jesus was saying that it isn't the letter, it's the spirit. And with all respect for Paul's practicality in discussing the difficulty he had in following the letter, I think Jesus' point may have been that following the spirit might be as "difficult," or more dififcult.

But, that's what he expected people to do, and what he did himself. I won't quibble about "perfectly."


That's an interesting point of view. I've long held that Christ's sole purpose was to fulfill the Law through his sacrifice, but your point is well taken. There were plenty of Jews who would not follow into Christianity, and there was still the problem of the hypocrisy and complications that the religious hierarchy had fallen into, not to mention the looming destruction of the Temple, so it seems sensible that he talk to both audiences at once.

I've never talked with a Jew about whether or not they get anything out of his teaching, once the whole Messiah issue is set aside. Because it seems to stop there on the occasion that I do, I don't know, but I suspect that they do not.



I suspect you and I don't agree about that, and in the end, who cares what an agnostic thinks Jesus meant?


Aw. You know my opinion of that




Apart from apologetics, I don't see how a perfect being could fail to learn from a fundamentally new experience.


Theologically, God is viewed as unchanging, though his eternal nature would, I think, tend to both support and refute that. But that's an area that I'm way over my head in and make little progress in working through.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Eat your heart out...


Alledged Bible Contradictions



This link is good but it has terrible flaws in reasoning. For some parts to be coherent one must hold a significant number of doctrines at once.

for example, They actually change text and paraphrase without any evidence it was intended just to make it right, and even then the statement contradicts another and the problem is mute!

Examples from link:
So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. HUh , He adds to the verse here...."No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

How does the "One and Only " justify "or Only Begotten"? It is pure destruction of the original text to support ab belief. Which means the belief is a lie.

5. God is tired and rests (from link.)

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17]
God is never tired and never rests

"The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." [Is 40:28]
According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work."
ME:
A vivid Oriental way? Seriously now. Why would the author , who is supposedly inspired and dictated by god, write in a vivid oriental way for just that moment when the writing elsewere shows none of this flare? This is why we have skeptics! Fools believe this crap and call the mental gymnastics "truth".

Did you actually read and question this stuff. He doesn't even come close to refuting a lot of blatant contradictions.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
“...the scripture (Torah)cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35


What is your problem? I mean, seriously. Are you illiterate? Myopic? Delusional? Obsessive compulsive?

This has been answered, over and over and over.

The Law is still there, FOR JEWS. It has not been changed, it has not been removed, it has not been altered, FOR JEWS. Christ fulfilled it, he didn't change it.



(P.S. It was proper English Let me explains "amend" means to put right.

So how would your answers coincide with the Jewish/Christian God being immutable ?


Why don't you just say something clear like "How do you reconcile your answers with the unchanging nature of God?"

To which I would answer "the Law is still there, it is unchanged, so there is nothing to reconcile."

If you continue to be unable to understand that, do yourself a favour and drop this whole issue, because you are serving only to demonstrate your ignorance and stubbornness on a very basic and fundamental issue.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



[edit on 5-8-2010 by IamBoon]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by IamBoon
“...the scripture (Torah)cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35


What is your problem? I mean, seriously. Are you illiterate? Myopic? Delusional? Obsessive compulsive?

This has been answered, over and over and over.

The Law is still there, FOR JEWS. It has not been changed, it has not been removed, it has not been altered, FOR JEWS. Christ fulfilled it, he didn't change it.



(P.S. It was proper English Let me explains "amend" means to put right.

So how would your answers coincide with the Jewish/Christian God being immutable ?


Why don't you just say something clear like "How do you reconcile your answers with the unchanging nature of God?"

To which I would answer "the Law is still there, it is unchanged, so there is nothing to reconcile."

If you continue to be unable to understand that, do yourself a favor and drop this whole issue, because you are serving only to demonstrate your ignorance and stubbornness on a very basic and fundamental issue.

You fail to read the entire post....I am not stubborn , well I am , but I have to be to get you to realize a single point because as far as I can tell you think you are infallible.

Jesus demands that his followers observe the law of his Father. For followers to come also and he advocates it's brutality. He is basically saying that to follow Christ you must follow Jewish Law and its punishments .

Jesus advocates for the death of disobedient children and gouging the eyes out for looking with lust , yet he says the law is forever. It means the Jewish Law given by god from Moses. Not Christs' death!

Why ignore this fact and not observe or follow Jesus's orders and wishes for humans? He is god in your opinion so why argue ?

To not follow these laws already shows god's fallible moral framework because we have evolved past that crap. This is good because it shows that we ourselves are good at heart with(not really with those gods are really strict!) or without some god telling us what is justified.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Boon, I am going to take my life into my hands and comment here.

You need to read the story. Jesus spends most of his time talking with Jews about how to be good Jews. When he talks to Gentiles at all, it is exceptional enough to be remarked upon. And, at least one of those times, what he says to the Gentile is that he'd rather be talking with Jews.

Of course, a certain amount of being a good Jew is to be a good human being, so there's plenty of reasons for a Gentile to read the story with interest. But mostly, Jesus is a Jew speaking with Jews about Jewish concerns.

So, yes, Jesus recommends that his Jewish followers follow their covenant, theirs and his, with God. I don't see any "brutality" in that. It actually seems like obvious advice, coming from a Jewish preacher.


He is basically saying that to follow Christ you must follow Jewish Law and its punishments .

Well, no, he rather pointedly intervened to disrupt a punishment. Maybe that's because some people had wanted to stone him, and so he had some sympathy for the would-have-been victim.

Or, maybe it's just that he knows which parts of the "Law" refer to that tribal nation-state that had once existed long ago, but by his day had ceased to exist.


Jesus advocates for the death of disobedient children

Really? I'll bet he was a handful growing up.


and gouging the eyes out for looking with lust ,

Yeah, I read what you posted about that. It seemed to me he was advocating not lusting after a woman who's married to somebody else. I've heard worse advice.

At no point does he discuss gouging out an eye as retribution for having chosen to sin, nor does he discuss anybody gouging out anybody else's eye. The passage, then, isn't even about punishment, much less Jesus proposing new punishments.


yet he says the law is forever.

As adj points out, so far, he's looking good on that.


He is god in your opinion so why argue ?

Always good to remind everybody that I'm an agnostic. And I have the distinct impression I'm arguing with you, not anybody's god.

Boon, whether I believe the story or not, I think it's important to find out what the story is.

I appreciate that there will always be a range of opinions about what the story means, maybe even some ambiguities about what happened here and there.

But I don't know any believer who reads it the way you do. So, what is the problem here?

You don't seriously expect a believer to take your advice about what their religion says, do you?

(I couldn't parse your last paragraph. Sorry.)



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Don't feed the troll, he refuses to acknowledge that Jesus also says that if you 1. Love god and 2. love mankind you "fulfill the entire law and prophets." He's teaching the letter of the law but completely missing the spirit of the law.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Let me ask you a question Boon:

Do you think the apostle Peter would know what Jesus taught? Or better yet, Do you think the apostle Peter, who Jesus said he would build His church upon, would understand the basic, fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Yeah I know about it. It is just interesting to see how people react when certain things do not compute.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by eight bits
 


Yeah I know about it. It is just interesting to see how people react when certain things do not compute.


Wait a sec, just because you don't comprehend does not mean "does not compute", I myself, along with countless others throughout history, have had no issues "computing" the things of the Bible.

Now, secondly, what do you say to this:


Do you think the apostle Peter would know what Jesus taught? Or better yet, Do you think the apostle Peter, who Jesus said he would build His church upon, would understand the basic, fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Don't feed the troll, he refuses to acknowledge that Jesus also says that if you 1. Love god and 2. love mankind you "fulfill the entire law and prophets." He's teaching the letter of the law but completely missing the spirit of the law.


I realize that a verse from the Bible says that. I am not a troll.

YOU refuse to acknowledge the other verses in the bible that state otherwise and use vile chicanery to reconcile abrogations in your framework. All you are stating is that Jesus says two different things many times over that are contradictory.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by eight bits
 


Yeah I know about it. It is just interesting to see how people react when certain things do not compute.


Wait a sec, just because you don't comprehend does not mean "does not compute", I myself, along with countless others throughout history, have had no issues "computing" the things of the Bible.

Now, secondly, what do you say to this:


Do you think the apostle Peter would know what Jesus taught? Or better yet, Do you think the apostle Peter, who Jesus said he would build His church upon, would understand the basic, fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?



You and others have a problem with facing the truth of the fallibility of the Bible and its testaments regarding the prophets , Jesus , laws, history , simple facts, etc. etc.


The Bible says what it says and can only be interpreted so far beyond what is said.
Just because Jesus says he fulfilled the Law doesn't mean he abolished the old ways. You cite 1 verse and I cite 10 and still you cannot confess an actual abrogation. It is pure lunacy,

Yes Peter knew what Christ taught..
Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

On women...“Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing”-- 1 Peter 3 :3)

This coincides with what I said earlier about Christians being bound by Jewish Law and its punishments.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by IamBoon]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by eight bits
 


Yeah I know about it. It is just interesting to see how people react when certain things do not compute.


Wait a sec, just because you don't comprehend does not mean "does not compute", I myself, along with countless others throughout history, have had no issues "computing" the things of the Bible.

Now, secondly, what do you say to this:


Do you think the apostle Peter would know what Jesus taught? Or better yet, Do you think the apostle Peter, who Jesus said he would build His church upon, would understand the basic, fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?



You and others have a problem with facing the truth of the fallibility of the Bible and its testaments regarding the prophets , Jesus , laws, history , simple facts, etc. etc.


The Bible says what it says and can only be interpreted so far beyond what is said.
Just because Jesus says he fulfilled the Law doesn't mean he abolished the old ways.

>

This coincides with what I said earlier about Christians being bound by Jewish Law and its punishments.


Thanks for the continued testimony of your inability to grasp simple theology.

Christians are NOT bound by Jewish Law. Jesus says so, by saying that he came to fulfill the Law, Paul says so, and Christian theologians have been saying so for 2000 years.

IF YOU ARE NOT JEWISH, JEWISH LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. CHRISTIANS (today) ARE NOT JEWISH!

But now, here comes Boon, who testifies to his ignorance of the religion with every post, and declares that the exact opposite is true. What on Earth is your deep insight that makes this revelation possible? Thus far, all the scripture that you've managed to quote has proven the opposite, rather than your case.

You're an atheist. Although I've no faith (har har) that your ignorance in that area is less than what it is here, may I suggest you at least consider sticking to subjects that you believe in, because your disbelief apparently causes a mental block that disallows learning.

Don't feed the troll, indeed. If I wasn't interested in refuting your foolishness, lest someone think it actually has relevance, I'd have clicked the "Ignore" link on your profile long ago.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen


Thanks for the continued testimony of your inability to grasp simple theology.

Christians are NOT bound by Jewish Law. Jesus says so, by saying that he came to fulfill the Law, Paul says so, and Christian theologians have been saying so for 2000 years.

IF YOU ARE NOT JEWISH, JEWISH LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. CHRISTIANS (today) ARE NOT JEWISH!

But now, here comes Boon, who testifies to his ignorance of the religion with every post, and declares that the exact opposite is true. What on Earth is your deep insight that makes this revelation possible? Thus far, all the scripture that you've managed to quote has proven the opposite, rather than your case.

You're an atheist. Although I've no faith (har har) that your ignorance in that area is less than what it is here, may I suggest you at least consider sticking to subjects that you believe in, because your disbelief apparently causes a mental block that disallows learning.

Don't feed the troll, indeed. If I wasn't interested in refuting your foolishness, lest someone think it actually has relevance, I'd have clicked the "Ignore" link on your profile long ago.


But Jesus says the Law is binding and that scripture is immutable also. I can care less about what anyone else says only what the BIble and Jesus says and have stated that. We are discussing the Bible and Jesus's own testimony not some 1 st century theologian who pondered how many angel could dance on the head of a pin.

YOu say Jesus fulfilled the law. How does that falsify his other statements in the Bible stating that he thought Jewish law was eternal and advocated its policies?

I understand that Christians of today are not bound by Jewish law... if you were smart you would see that I am asking WHY are they not ?

There are so many things that Jesus said that specifically point to his belief that he was bound by his father's laws. Why is this just thrown out the window by one verse that is just interpreted as meaning he changed the law?

And if the Law changed then was Jesus speaking falsely? Was god speaking falsely in the Old Testament?

I grasp Christian thought and seem to feel you are on a pedastal because everything you see and hear about religion is muddled by the small box your ideology trapped you in.

Being an Atheist has no bearing on the knowledge of Christian concepts nor anything else except my stance on the existence of god.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by IamBoon]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
When Jesus spoke the first covenant was still in full effect. his death brought the end of the first covenant and the beginning of the new covenant. Jeremiah prophesied that God would end the first covenant with mankind and bring a new covenant. This was in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Christ's death brought the end of the first covenant. But even more important than that. Jesus's death brought the end of the first covenant God made with the JEWS. The Gentiles were never a party to the first covenant which was made between God and Israel.

How can we as Gentiles be obligated to a covenant we were never a part of to begin with?? Secondly, how can anyone since the death of Christ be obligated to a covenant with God that ended with the death of His Son???

You're seriously failing the Christian theology department.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Don't feed the troll, indeed. If I wasn't interested in refuting your foolishness, lest someone think it actually has relevance, I'd have clicked the "Ignore" link on your profile long ago.


I'm seriously considering the advice of Jesus...

"Do not cast your pearls before swine."



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Thus far, all the scripture that you've managed to quote has proven the opposite, rather than your case.



I am not stating that a Christian should worship or live as a Jew would. I am stating that the Ten Commandments and the punishments for breaking them are valid for Christian Belief. I know that some verse and writings , especially by Paul, dictate that when Jesus died we were free from the law like a wife is from a dead husband.

Really explain how each verse states that the law for Jesus's (which is the Old Testament god according to Trinitarians) followers changed with his teachings and does not apply to Christians...

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB) The law is never invalid. (LAw meaning Torah and Talmud)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

“...the scripture (Torah)cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Claiming the law's fulfillment as meaning it is no longer valid is like saying f one human chose not to murder then the law no longer applies to the rest.
That is the thought behind those who interpret the laws fulfillment as causing the law to be invalid.

The fulfillment of the law by Jesus meant to live it perfectly which he did not do according to Mark breaking thou shall not kill...
The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them."Mark 5:12 He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned. Mark 5:13
I am not stating that a Christian should worship or live as a Jew would(I just like discussing). I am stating that the Ten Commandments and the punishments for breaking them are valid for Christian Belief.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join