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.
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.
Also I would like to point out that those laws that everyone swears were perverted by the Pharisees and Sadducees, ...
... were already ridiculous.
Jesus and his Apostles were Jews. So they were bound by those laws.
and a vast majority of those laws were punishable by death.
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.
It was actually mandated by Moses, which he says he got from G-d.
And if you believe Jesus was a regular guy, then he was a regular guy breaking a law that required death as a penalty.
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."
I suspect you and I don't agree about that, and in the end, who cares what an agnostic thinks Jesus meant?
Apart from apologetics, I don't see how a perfect being could fail to learn from a fundamentally new experience.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by IamBoon
Eat your heart out...
Alledged Bible Contradictions
Originally posted by IamBoon
“...the scripture (Torah)cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
(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 ?
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.
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.
He is god in your opinion so why argue ?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by adjensen
Thus far, all the scripture that you've managed to quote has proven the opposite, rather than your case.