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.

 

To those that call themselves Christian

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
For anyone wondering what provoked this arguement.... This is in reference to "The Law" which at that time was the 613 laws of the OP


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You say he fulfilled everything when he died... so obviously before...



No, He never taught people to violate the Law, it wasn't fulfilled yet. It was still the operating covenant.

And technically He entered into the new covenant the night before He died.



Please refer to the previous page...............


edit on 13-4-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Yes I'll take.. Remember, Jesus was addressing their hypocrisy:



33. Not to put any Jew to shame. (lev 19:17)



Leviticus is for Levite priests performing their duty as born in the tribe of Levites. He was from the tribe of Judah, Leviticus is the laws for them, the Levites.



52. To give charity according to one's means...


I Googled and came up with Deuteronomy 15:11, you didn't have a verse associated:


11For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."


Don't see Christ violating that one, in fact asking the man to do what it said. He told him to sell what he owned and give it to the poor, He said nothing about his money he already owned. He wanted Him free in his heart of his possessions.

Please explain where you see a violation madcat.


58.To lend to an alien at interest....

34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?


Different word for "lend". Different connotation, but Christ ratcheted up the comm and, didn't loose it.


110.Not to do work on Shabbat


Helping those in need isn't "work", that's service to the Lord. It's "worship" which is allowed on the Sabbath.


Dietary laws: 143 - 168

Dealing with "unclean foods/meats"


How do you know if Jesus didn't wash His hands? We only know the disciples didn't.


288.That the Court shall pass sentence of death by stoning

Jesus...

let him who is Without sin cast the first stone....


It was a sham, there wasn't the man along with the woman, they were trying to trick Jesus. And there wasn't the proper court proceeding done under the law for her to be stoned, they were trying to get Him to VIOLATE the law. He was showing them that they would be held responsible under the law for murder without the correct proceeding to stone her and not the man too.

He was protecting them from judgment from His Father. Read the text bro, they were trying to trick Him into violating the Law.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
For anyone wondering what provoked this arguement.... This is in reference to "The Law" which at that time was the 613 laws of the OP


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You say he fulfilled everything when he died... so obviously before...



No, He never taught people to violate the Law, it wasn't fulfilled yet. It was still the operating covenant.

And technically He entered into the new covenant the night before He died.



Please refer to the previous page...............



Already done broski.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well done... i'll give you credit for even attempting this... 1 star for you...

but we arn't done yet...


Remember, Jesus was addressing their hypocrisy


Which also shames them in the process.... can you deny he put the jews to shame on the regular?

+1 for me


Leviticus is for Levite priests performing their duty as born in the tribe of Levites. He was from the tribe of Judah, Leviticus is the laws for them, the Levites.



IF that is the case... why would levitical laws be on that list? Its says nothing but Judaic law... meaning all jews are required to follow said laws... It does not say levitical laws are only for "levites"


Googled and came up with Deuteronomy 15:11, you didn't have a verse associated:


You could use the list i provided in the OP.... its there for a reason...


Don't see Christ violating that one, in fact asking the man to do what it said. He told him to sell what he owned and give it to the poor, He said nothing about his money he already owned. He wanted Him free in his heart of his possessions.

Please explain where you see a violation madcat.


heh... fair enough... moving on... 1+ for you


Different word for "lend". Different connotation, but Christ ratcheted up the comm and, didn't loose it.


Incorrect.... he loosed it... and taught otherwise.... You're focusing on the wrong word... Lend is not the issue... to lend at interest is lending expecting it to be returned and then some

This is greed... and its not what Jesus taught.... Usury will also be the downfall of our society, as it is already

i believe thats +2 for me...



Helping those in need isn't "work", that's service to the Lord. It's "worship" which is allowed on the Sabbath.



Fair enough...


How do you know if Jesus didn't wash His hands? We only know the disciples didn't.


Its not just washing your hands on this issue.... certian meat is not considered clean period... Jesus said it matters not what goes into your mouth... what comes out matters...

+3 for me... 2 for you...


It was a sham, there wasn't the man along with the woman, they were trying to trick Jesus. And there wasn't the proper court proceeding done under the law for her to be stoned, they were trying to get Him to VIOLATE the law. He was showing them that they would be held responsible under the law for murder without the correct proceeding to stone her and not the man too.

He was protecting them from judgment from His Father. Read the text bro, they were trying to trick Him into violating the Law.


This is true... they were trying to trick him... but it doesn't mean the lady wasn't caught in adultry...

IF it was a sham as you suggest... Jesus already knew they were guilty of bareing false witness.... and thus they will stand judgement regardless... somehow i doubt he was protecting them...

We're only half way down the list and it only gets worse from here on in.... though its also much harder on my part...

You said he did not violate the law as it stood.... thus far i've found at least 3 seperate violations...

To be continued...




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Which also shames them in the process.... can you deny he put the jews to shame on the regular?

+1 for me


Not so fast, He always let them hang themselves. And the the Levite Laws were separate and only given specifically for Levites or the tribe of Levi, and even just those who's duly appointed job to serve in the Temple. They were to be a "separate" tribe from he other 11, and the royalty would only come from Judah.

One of the biggest facepalms skeptics make, not you here, but they will scour the internet, find some law in Leviticus, and try to make it seem like Gentile Christians are "bound" by it and try to call us "hypocrites". Not even all Jews were bound by Levitical laws, only Levites serving at the temple.

Example: (Post verse about wearing blended fabrics)

Skeptic: "Seeee!!!! You Christians are hypocrites!"

Christians: "Huh? What the...??!!" *facepalm*


That's why the info I copy/pasted about Hermeneutics is vital to avoid 99% of those facepalm moments. Have you read and retained it yet friend?


It does not say levitical laws are only for "levites"


That's why the book is called "Leviticus". Look for another book named for a son of Jacob.



edit on 14-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Incorrect.... he loosed it... and taught otherwise.... You're focusing on the wrong word... Lend is not the issue... to lend at interest is lending expecting it to be returned and then some

This is greed... and its not what Jesus taught.... Usury will also be the downfall of our society, as it is already

i believe thats +2 for me...


The debt was cancelled every Jubilee.

They didn't make squat.

Their blessings came from God and the High Priest's faithfully following their duties at the temple.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Its not just washing your hands on this issue.... certian meat is not considered clean period... Jesus said it matters not what goes into your mouth... what comes out matters...

+3 for me... 2 for you..


Try again, He never told them to eat non-Kosher foods. He was making the point again of the condition of the heart, which was even if you followed the right dietary laws and evil came out your mouth you were just as dirty as if you had eaten them. You missed the point.

Gimmie my 2 pts back
edit on 14-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



but it doesn't mean the lady wasn't caught in adultry...


That was obvious from the text because He forgave her sins, (which only God can do but that's besides the point), the man was not there, there was no court proceeding under the Mosaic Law. It was a total sham. And only the King of Judah could pronounce death. Herrod was a Moabite, not a Jew from the tribe of Judah. the High Priests went through the streets in sackcloth and ashes when he was made king over them thinking the "scepter" prophecy had been violated because they had lost the "scepter" which the prophesies said wouldn't "depart from Judah until Shiloh come".

Capital punishment removed from them by Rome was the "scepter departing". Little did they know a boy was growing up in Nazareth. The entire episode was a sham to trick HIM into violating the law.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

You said he did not violate the law as it stood.... thus far i've found at least 3 seperate violations...


No, you found zero.

You can try 3 more, take your pick.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Not so fast, He always let them hang themselves


ok so which is it... You JUST said...


He was protecting them from judgment from His Father.


So does he always let them hang themselves but protect them sometimes.... You're tossing contradictions around here....


And the the Levite Laws were separate and only given specifically for Levites or the tribe of Levi, and even just those who's duly appointed job to serve in the Temple. They were to be a "separate" tribe from he other 11, and the royalty would only come from Judah.

One of the biggest facepalms skeptics make, not you here, but they will scour the internet, find some law in Leviticus, and try to make it seem like Gentile Christians are "bound" by it and try to call us "hypocrites". Not even all Jews were bound by Levitical laws, only Levites serving at the temple.

Example: (Post verse about wearing blended fabrics)

Skeptic: "Seeee!!!! You Christians are hypocrites!"

Christians: "Huh? What the...??!!" *facepalm*


Well most of these laws come from leviticus... and Jews seem to stick to these rules... regardless of what the books title is... jews adhear to these laws....

But fine, we'll move on.... but you didn't answer my question....

Can you deny that he put his adveresaries to shame on the regular... and they were almost always jews...


The debt was cancelled every Jubilee.

They didn't make squat.

Their blessings came from God and the High Priest's faithfully following their duties at the temple.



Completely beside the point.... Jesus said give without expecting a return... He was against usury... that is obvious.... that is still my point... and a violation


Try again, He never told them to eat non-Kosher foods. He was making the point again of the condition of the heart, which was even if you followed the right dietary laws and evil came out your mouth you were just as dirty as if you had eaten them. You missed the point.


I disagree, it says specifically "purging all meats"...


Gimmie my 2 pts back


I'll give you the levitical law one... the other two are mine.... thus far.


That was obvious from the text because He forgave her sins


There was no sin if it was a sham....


(which only God can do but that's besides the point),


Now you know better then that.... He was given the power to forgive sin...


the man was not there, there was no court proceeding under the Mosaic Law. It was a total sham. And only the King of Judah could pronounce death



the man was not there, there was no court proceeding under the Mosaic Law. It was a total sham. And only the King of Judah could pronounce death. Herrod was a Moabite, not a Jew from the tribe of Judah. the High Priests went through the streets in sackcloth and ashes when he was made king over them thinking the "scepter" prophecy had been violated because they had lost the "scepter" which the prophesies said wouldn't "depart from Judah until Shiloh come".

Capital punishment removed from them by Rome was the "scepter departing". Little did they know a boy was growing up in Nazareth. The entire episode was a sham to trick HIM into violating the law.


That is a grand assumption, unfortunatly its only that....


No, you found zero.

You can try 3 more, take your pick.


Nope... you closed one issue... and its still questionable....

Jesus still put jews to shame on the regular... Still taught against usury....

Theres no way around those as far as i can see... aside from baseless assumptions




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

One of the biggest facepalms skeptics make, not you here, but they will scour the internet, find some law in Leviticus, and try to make it seem like Gentile Christians are "bound" by it and try to call us "hypocrites". Not even all Jews were bound by Levitical laws, only Levites serving at the temple.
Huh?
Let me quote Wikipedia's article on Leviticus:

The English name is from the Latin Leviticus, taken in turn from Greek and a reference to the Levites, the tribe from whom the priests were drawn. It would be wrong, however, to describe Leviticus simply as a manual for priests as it concerns itself, at least equally, with the role and duties of the laity.
en.wikipedia.org...
Seems you are trying to say that somehow the laws in Leviticus only apply to Levites. All Israelites according to this book have to maintain a degree of cleanliness, purity, and holiness, according to the instructions found within it.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Seems you are trying to say that somehow the laws in Leviticus only apply to Levites. All Israelites according to this book have to maintain a degree of cleanliness, purity, and holiness, according to the instructions found within it.


Well, then Jesus was sinning. That means He could never have been your sinless Lamb of God.

Might want to rethink your position and how it's ramifications impact on your Justification before God.


but you didn't answer my question...


The only answer you'll accept is:

"Yes, you're right, Jesus must have been a sinner."

Correct?
edit on 15-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Jesus still put jews to shame on the regular... Still taught against usury....

Theres no way around those as far as i can see... aside from baseless assumptions


Okay, believe He was a sinner if you wish to, the Pharisees and Scribes maintained the same position, you have tremendous amount of company in that camp.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Well, then Jesus was sinning. That means He could never have been your sinless Lamb of God.

Might want to rethink your position and how it's ramifications impact on your Justification before God.
Maybe you should rethink why you believe that Jesus was somehow subject to laws that we are not.
And while you are at it, rethink what sin in general means, such as: Is it according to some rules men wrote down, or is it according to fundamental laws that are universally applied without distinction to tribal affiliation?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



There was no sin if it was a sham...


*sigh*

The process for dealing with her sin was a sham, she did sin, but the man wasn't brought to Him for stoning was he? They didn't have the authority for capital punishment anymore anyways.

If she had no sin He never would have forgave her sin.

Facepalm moment.


He can't forgive a sin that's not there friend. Use your brain God gave you.


edit on 15-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Maybe you should rethink why you believe that Jesus was somehow subject to laws that we are not.


That's found in NT books you reject.

We aren't under the old covenant. If we were we'd be practicing Judaism.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's found in NT books you reject.

We aren't under the old covenant. If we were we'd be practicing Judaism.
Feel free to explain all that if you ever get the free time.
The NT, from what I remember, does not describe Jesus keeping any laws (though it says his parents did to have him circumcised, though this can not be seen as a voluntary act on his part). The Passover, it seems, once, but not on the right day even.
edit on 15-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



The only answer you'll accept is:

"Yes, you're right, Jesus must have been a sinner."

Correct?



Incorrect... you seem to think im trying to accuse him of breaking Gods laws...

You know the original 10 were subject to the two he gave... On those two lay the entire foundation of the law God gave...

He broke none of Gods law... he broke MAN's laws... And taught against them...


Okay, believe He was a sinner if you wish to


No worries bro... Your saviour remains sinless... unless of course you accept the infancy gospels, but thats a different matter entirely...

I've told you before, the bible isn't Gods word... ONLY his words are directly from God, and perhaps some inspired prophecies within the OT....

These are mans laws hes violating Not Gods...


The process for dealing with her sin was a sham, she did sin, but the man wasn't brought to Him for stoning was he? They didn't have the authority for capital punishment anymore anyways.


heh...

In acts 7 you'll notice Paul took part in the stoning of stephen... Do you believe he had a trial?

Stoneing was illegal in rome... but Mob stonings happened quite frequently... It has nothing to do with "authority"... stonings happened, and likely would have happened to this woman if Jesus didn't speak up...

True... they were trying to bust him in breaking their law... Point being... stoning is a part of Jewish (man made) law... trials wern't always necessary... As a matter of fact it seems people would use any excuse to stone another person...

Jesus did not believe in harming another person... And broke another one of Mans laws by not stoning this woman "caught" in adultry.... And once again... put these jews to shame...

They had nothing to say........ "let those without sin cast the first stone".....

Uhh... *shrug* damn hes good.... *the group walks away frustrated*

Jesus turns and sees only her..... and says: Where'd they go? did they not want to accuse you and stone you for your crime? Did they not find you guilty? Did they not condem your actions?

The woman... *shrug* I don't know lord... they left...

Jesus: oh... *chuckles*... I will not condem you either.... be on your way...

And quit breaking the rules!!


edit on 15-4-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



He broke none of Gods law... he broke MAN's laws... And taught against them...


We agree, so what's the issue there? i said that days ago, and even pointed to Mark 7 where He says that specifically when He says "the tradition of the elders".


I've told you before, the bible isn't Gods word.


Yes, if you've said it once you've said it a gazillion times. I know you believe that. I'm a science and math nerd, you already said you can't stand math. Based on what I know about the structures under the text and the ELS codes and the probability of prophecy I can never make that same deceleration.

I can never say that, and never will. But you can believe that all day, that's fine. just thank God you weren't born in Saudi Arabia, you would be dead right now. We aren't that team bro, you can hold whatever belief you want to.


And quit breaking the rules!!


"Like I do, but don't look at Me, you just stop. Okay chic?"


edit on 15-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Read Deuteronomy, that lays out the process by which any person could legally be punished capitally.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join