|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
posted May 20, 2013 03:58 PM |
|
|
In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said:
Quote:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
So if New Testament is obligatory, then technically Old Testament is obligatory too. But is New Testament fully obligatory for Christians, or maybe it's only about some of moral values?
But whatever, it seems that understanding Christianity is a personal thing anyway. 
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 03:59 PM |
|
|
I already told you that isn't a totally compatible book with today either. Also, you said yourself it only applies to some laws not the stories. He's talking about the stories. You can't cherry-pick from the Old Testament saying Genesis is fine but Exodus is not etc etc.
Actually YOU certainly can since whenever you make a comment, it's 90 percent of the time some wishful thinking without a logical backbone and later you even try to twist them around.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:11 PM |
|
|
Dude, do you know the definiton of the world "fulfill"?
ful·fill
/fo͝olˈfil/
Verb
Bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).
Gain happiness or satisfaction by fully developing one's abilities or character.
Jesus fulfilled them, after his death on the cross and resurrection the old law was no longer necessary.
<< In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. >>
Genesis is not law, Exodus is. becaue you know, it has actual laws for the JEWS to follow. That doesn't make Genisis invalid in any way.
Yeah because atheists don't have any wishful thinking at all. Who are you trying to fool here man?
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:28 PM |
|
|
|
First of all, Exodus is also a story. Secondly, the stories of cities being put down to the sword including women and children, Markkur mentions are everywhere including the New Testament, I recently quoted the Book of Luke on that. Third, wishful thinking is the act of assuming something true because it fits your desire, so no,atheists have no ground to do wishful thinking on THIS MATTER, our position is the opposite. And I wasn't talking about religious people in general, I meant you in specific and your spam. I try to treat you not so harsh since you're yet just a teenager and all but you keep asking for it with your absurd statements.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:31 PM |
|
|
Throw all you have at me, man. I have no fear, I'll stand up for my beliefs. Maybe we should ask Corribus which one of us is spamming here. I always talked about religion, unlike you who posts borderline personal attacks.
You think everything as it is today appeared at random and that nature and evolution is blind. That's the most blatant wihsful think I ever saw.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:37 PM |
|
|
|
Why should anyone WISH that?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:37 PM |
|
|
Because you refuse to believe in God, therefore you wish He's not real and blind evolution is.
wish (wsh)
n.
1. A desire, longing, or strong inclination for a specific thing.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The German Luther translation is leaning to that as well.
So obviously the harm for the fruit is already done - we are not talking about premature birth, but about a departure of the fruit - a miscarriage.
No, those versions translate the passage incorrectly. I quoted a discussion of the actual Hebrew words. The translation I quoted translates the passage correctly. The Hebrew word uses is NOT the one for miscarriage but the one for premature birth.
As far as the "but I say" sayings of Christ, here are three observations:
1) Jesus is correcting some of the things the Pharisees that had been teaching.
In the particular verse in question Jesus corrected the Pharisees who had been falsely saying the the Bible taught personal vengeance. Whereas "eye for an eye" in the Old Covenant actually means that the punishment should fit the crime. Justice is to be done. The Old Covenant did not allow for personal vengeance any more than the New Covenant does
2) Jesus was saying that he can make authoritative statements. He said "but I say," he did not appeal to other writings of Moses or the prophets. Jesus boldly claimed to be the LORD [YAHWEH, God] himself and it is that for which the Pharisees plotted to kill him. His words are God's words. He needs not to say, "thus saith the Lord" as the prophets did.
Quote:
Luk 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
3) Jesus came to establish the NEW Covenant. The New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant or it too would be the Old Covenant. 
The Old Covenant was fulfilled (completed) with the sacrifice of Christ and now the New Covenant is in effect.
Old Covenant believers were judged by the Law of Moses. We are judged by the words of Christ.
Quote:
Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Quote:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The Old Covenant had a circumcision of the flesh. The New, one of the spirit.
Quote:
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
The Old Covenant had ceremonial laws of clean/unclean things. The New Covenant has no such thing.
Quote:
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
We serve God in newness of Spirit, not in oldness of letter (Mosaic Law.) We are to walk in the Spirit, not after the flesh. If we walk in the Spirit we will live the righteous life that God demands. The Spirit gives us the power the letter of the Mosaic Law could not give. The Law said, "Thou shalt not" but gave no strength to live the live that pleases God.
Quote:
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
......
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:41 PM |
|
|
Nicely put Elodin. I've lost my patience with these people, they just keep going back to the Old Covenant.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because you refuse to believe in God, therefore you wish He's not real and blind evolution is.
wish (wsh)
n.
1. A desire, longing, or strong inclination for a specific thing.
I don't refuse anything, I just don't have valid reason to assume it exits, which is the opposite of wishful thinking. A godless universe is not my desire, it is my observation. Your stance is as foolish as saying not believing in dragons or gremlins is wishful thinking too, because you refuse them.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:50 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:02, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
First of all, Exodus is also a story. Secondly, the stories of cities being put down to the sword including women and children, Markkur mentions are everywhere including the New Testament, I recently quoted the Book of Luke on that.
You are continually spouting false information about the Bible. If you are going to attack the integrity of the Bible and Christian teaching do so honestly rather than with falsehoods.
Neither Christ nor his disciples are recorded as committing any violent act or commanding any violent act to be done.
There is one violent act committed by a disciple in the New Testament and Peter was rebuked for it.
The Kingdom of Christ is spiritual with spiritual warfare, not carnal warfare. Christ has no soldiers going around in physical armor wielding swords or guns. Christ called his disciples to preach the gospel, not conquer with a sword.
Quote:
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But certainly in the Old Covenant God commanded wars. The nation of Israel was a NATION. And God used Israel to judge other nations and other nations to judge Israel. When God gave Israel the land of Canaan it was filled with people so wicked it made God want to "puke" (spew them out of the land.)
Only when the wickedness of the Canaanites was "full" did God send Israel in to possess the land.
Quote:
Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because you refuse to believe in God, therefore you wish He's not real and blind evolution is.
Dude, you got it all wrong, as usual. Atheists don't need God. That hardly means that they "wish He doesn't exist" or whatever. How much time do you spend thinking about things that you don't need, let alone "wish"? If it wasn't for the plethora of semi-educated (or totally uneducated) religious wannabes who read pop-science materials like the Devil reads the Bible and throw around ridiculous claims, the atheists wouldn't be talking about God at all, trust me on this. You people gotta figure out that nobody gives a damn what you believe in as long as you don't shove it down other people's throats. And if you decide to do so anyway, at least be prepared to actually defend your position, not constantly scream how badly treated you are.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 04:55 PM |
|
|
It sure would be nice though if any of the religions that have an afterlife was true. Eternal happiness and life sounds much better than non-existance.
____________
|
|
The_Polyglot
Promising
Supreme Hero
channeling capybara energy
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:02 PM |
|
|
Drakon-Deus asked me to post this in his stead:
Quote:
I can say I don't believe in dragons because I have solid proof they do not exist anywhere on Earth. Existence of God or blind evolution is another thing altogether
I don't care about atheists, but you don't believe in God so we are in opposition. And by the way, I don't shove my belief down anyone's throat. "
____________
Friend-shaped
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:17, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
You are continually spouting false information about the Bible. If you are going to attack the integrity of the Bible and Christian teaching do so honestly rather than with falsehoods.
Neither Christ nor his disciples are recorded as committing any violent act or commanding any violent act to be done.
There is one violent act committed by a disciple in the New Testament and Peter was rebuked for it.
The Kindom of Christ is spiritual with spiritual warfare, not carnal warfare. Christ has no soldiers going around in physical armor wielding swords or guns.
Markkur talked about a specific situation and that situation exists as God's deliberate will also in the New Testament, we already discussed it on page 49 of this thread so I won't go into details.
Quote:
I can say I don't believe in dragons because I have solid proof they do not exist anywhere on Earth. Existence of God or blind evolution is another thing altogether
They live in another planet called Umandora or do you dare to REFUSE that?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:10 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:16, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Markkur talked about a specific situation and that situation exists as God's deliberate will also in the New Testament, we already discussed it on page 49 of this thread so I won't go into details.
Sure, Christ prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by Rome when it accepted a false Christ and mounted a rebellion against Rome.
But let's be clear, Christians were told by Christ to flee Jerusalem when they saw it coming, not to stay and help level it.
God's will was that they repent but they did not. Instead Jerusalem killed God (in Christ), embraced a false God, and brought judgement on itself.
Quote:
Mat 23:37-38
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
thou that killest the prophets,
and stonest them which are sent unto thee,
how often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Luk 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
Luk 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:22 PM |
|
|
|
I never said Jesus ordered it, however it was God's will, it was in NT and the point is even children who can't think for themselves "had it coming." Which was the point Markkur related to historical conditions, my objection was, that historical approach is not compatible with religions.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dude, do you know the definiton of the world "fulfill"?
I do know this definition. Yet it is said that these laws are not supposed to be abolished. You're saying that they are both fulfilled AND abolished, but it isn't really what Jesus said.
Quote:
No, those versions translate the passage incorrectly. I quoted a discussion of the actual Hebrew words. The translation I quoted translates the passage correctly.
Any evidence, please?
Quote:
Jesus fulfilled them, after his death on the cross and resurrection the old law was no longer necessary.
Quote:
The Old Covenant was fulfilled (completed) with the sacrifice of Christ and now the New Covenant is in effect.
Okay, so we ignore all laws in the Old Covenant and use those which are said in the New Covenant... but what is this new law anyway? Actually does the New Covenant bring any new laws or maybe just some abstract moral code? How is the New Covenant really in effect if it refers to the Old Covenant which is not in effect?
I just really can't understand it. If Jesus said that he doesn't want to abolish the new law but to fulfill it, yet you're abolishing it anyway, does it mean that Jesus isn't the one we should obey, but only an authority? Same goes with God (who's actually Jesus) - he didn't change his rules, but we did, so does it mean we were supposed to listen to him, but now we're not? Who said that? I don't remember God nor Jesus saying their guidelines are outdated and we should make the new ones.
And finally - if you say that the Old Covenant isn't obligatory for Christians and that we should listen only to the New Covenant, that means it's nothing more than a history book that said how the Jews lived back then and what was their faith about.
So why the hell is it called the Holy Bible when it's actually NOT holy?!
Uh... Maybe I just seek too much logic in the religion...
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
The_Polyglot
Promising
Supreme Hero
channeling capybara energy
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:33 PM |
|
|
Filling in for Drakon:
Quote:
Nevermind man, you'll always see your side of the story but not mine. I say we stop here. This isn't going anywhere.
____________
Friend-shaped
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I never said Jesus ordered it, however it was God's will, it was in NT and the point is even children who can't think for themselves "had it coming." Which was the point Markkur related to historical conditions, my objection was, that historical approach is not compatible with religions.
God withdrew his protection of Jerusalem when Jerusalem mounted an armed rebellion under a false Christ against Rome. Rome crushed them.
I fail to see how you can blame God for anything Rome did.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
