Freethought & Rationalism Archive

simon kole · 07-01-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Strange times have indeed come upon us.
A Day wherein even the unbelievers, and atheists can grasp the principals of the workings of The Everlasting Covenant of Yahweh Elohi Israel; The Covenant which He established with Israel His Chosen, to a thousand generations, even forever.

Yet like unto Israel of old, those who think themselves as being the most religious have became blind in their conceits, and slaves to the traditions of men.

They bow down to what has became their Nehushtan and now perform all their services to that reincarnated Serpent on a pole.
But they know not, blind, they do not see, neither do they consider.

And lo, The latter rain is now near at hand, and the appointed time of The Nation of Israel's redemption near to come.

I hear supplications, and the swell of many voices again singing together in one voice in the streets of Jerusalem. For more and more for they who were for so long divided, are now at the long last seeing eye to eye.

Yahweh is even now demonstrating His holy power before the eyes of all the nations.
All the ends of the earth will see the victory of our Elohim.

The days of the reign of Babylon and its king, that old Serpent on a pole, are about to come to their end.
Woe to them. There shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

With the latter rain, in the first month, YAH-Yahweh shall sprinkle many nations;
the kings shall shut their mouths at Him:
For that which has not been told to them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Strange times indeed, when YAH-Yahweh redeems His people Israel, and magnifies His Law, and makes it honorable and glorious in the sight of all of the nations.

And all the earth shall sing for joy, and sing praises to His Holy NAME in the Day that YAH-Yahweh redeems Zion and all the sons of Jacob His chosen.

They will sing for joy at so great a salvation wrought in Jesus, the Christ, and to which they have access by faith in him.

simon kole · 07-01-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Now your just looking past my point on purpose. It is my assertion that when phrasing such as "eternal", "permanent", etc is applied to covenant described in the Hebrew Scriptures (over and over and over and over and over), then texts come along later (100s of years later) that say otherwise, that is a contradiction. An important one, because it is it the heart of Christianity. Spinning it with a phrase like progressive revelation is just wrapping it up in new clothes. Underneath, it is still a contradiction, especially for the one who believes God designed this plan even before creation began.

It is God who in the OT says he will make a new covenant with the Hebrews.

It is people putting words into the mouth of God. God didn't "say" anything. And those people are inconsistent with what they say. The only thing that was deemed important enough for God to write himself was a few commands on a stone, which were destroyed before anyone but Moses got to look at it (Ex 32:15-19)...

Let's be clear, when you are taking the position that any human-authored words are literally God's words, you are taking that position irrationally. The claim of human authors writing on behalf of God is hardly unique to Judaism or to Christianity. You cannot consistently take one to be actually God's words, written by human authors, and reject those of other religions.

That is likewise outside my purview.

Quote:

The NT letter to the Hebrews reveals the what, the why and the when of it.

I understand what you are saying, and my analogy does not talk past you, it shows the nature of the relationship between the OT and the NT.
You want to separate the NT from the OT as though they have no relationship.
My purview is examination of the whole Bible (meaning it is all authoritative for doctine and belief) in terms of itself.
In terms of itself, it is consistent in what it teaches. In terms of itself, OT revelation is to be understood in the light of NT revelation.
That is my purview.

If you do not accept that prinicple, then I cannot address your question within my purview.

simon kole · 07-01-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

YHWH states which covenant the New Covenant is replacing (Jer 31:32)..

What about the word "everlasting" means "eventually ends"?

I'll even buy new additional covenants, but an everlasting covenant is, well...everlasting. It isn't invalidated and dropped and ignored.

If the NT says that the covenant has been fulfilled and the old one 'no longer exists' then it wasn't 'everlasting' and thus the OT and NT contradict.

The covenant God says he will replace in Jer 31:31-32 was not an everlasting, but a conditional covenant, conditioned on their total consecration to him, explained here.

Failte · 07-01-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

That is likewise outside my purview.

It is one of your claims on the thread -- you have said that you accept the bible as 'god-breathed', that you believe it to be the work of one author (god).

Claiming that it is outside your purview to defend that assertion is disingenuous, at best. If you are going to argue based on what 'god says' in the bible, you are going to have to support your claim that god said it and why you do not accept the words of other scripture as true like you do the bible.

You are willing to state it as fact and expect us to simply accept it as true so you can continue to make your claims about the content of the bible as non-contradictory and logically consistent. You have made it your "purview", if your arguments are based on it.

Failte · 07-01-2011, 08:55 AM

Quote:

The covenant God says he will replace in Jer 31:31-32 was not an everlasting, but a conditional covenant, conditioned on their total consecration to him, explained here.

Linking back to a post where you say the same thing, is not 'explaining", at least not in my book.

The covenant was stated as everlasting, in the OT. (as shriverja and perspicuo have shown). Everlasting does not mean 'conditional and subject to expiration' as you imply. "Law is eternal" certainly does not mean "so I can replace it later" to anyone who reads the verses without a preconceived bias that they must be non-contradictory.

You can obviously interpret it that way, in order to make the stories sync up, but that is not what the verses say without those 'bible is unified" rose-colored glasses.

The religion of the NT is quite a bit different than that of the OT for christians. Different character for god, new actors in the play...the religion changed to fit the evolving times (as I would expect it would). The story is different and it simply doesn't mesh seamlessly with the OT any more. Insisting that it does really diminishes the credibility of anyone who argues that christianity is the right choice/correct religion/truth.

simon kole · 07-01-2011, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

The covenant God says he will replace in Jer 31:31-32 was not an everlasting, but a conditional covenant, conditioned on their total consecration to him, explained here.

Linking back to a post where you say the same thing, is not 'explaining", at least not in my book.

The covenant was stated as everlasting, in the OT. (as shriverja and perspicuo have shown). Everlasting does not mean 'conditional and subject to expiration' as you imply.

Your argument is with the text which shows it to be conditional (Ex 19:5), and with YHWH's promise of a new one because they could not meet the conditions.

Quote:

"Law is eternal" certainly does not mean "so I can replace it later" to anyone who reads the verses without a preconceived bias that they must be non-contradictory.

The text does not state that the old covenant referred to in Jer 31:31-32 was eternal, or everlasting.

The preconceived bias is not mine.

Quote:

You can obviously interpret it that way, in order to make the stories sync up, but that is not what the verses say

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

without those 'bible is unified" rose-colored glasses.

The religion of the NT is quite a bit different than that of the OT for christians. Different character for god, new actors in the play...the religion changed to fit the evolving times (as I would expect it would). The story is different and it simply doesn't mesh seamlessly with the OT any more. Insisting that it does really diminishes the credibility of anyone who argues that christianity is the right choice/correct religion/truth.

I make no such argument. I simply examine the texts for textual contradictions.

You have shown no textual contradictions regarding Jer 31:31-32.

simon kole · 07-01-2011, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

That is likewise outside my purview.

It is one of your claims on the thread -- you have said that you accept the bible as 'god-breathed', that you believe it to be the work of one author (god).

Claiming that it is outside your purview to defend that assertion is disingenuous, at best.

My personal observations, beliefs, etc. are irrelevant to textual examination for contradictions.

Quote:

If you are going to argue based on what 'god says' in the bible, you are going to have to support your claim that god said it

I do not support my claims regarding textual contradiction with God said it. I support them with the words of the texts.

Quote:

and why you do not accept the words of other scripture as true like you do the bible.

You are willing to state it as fact and expect us to simply accept it as true so you can continue to make your claims about the content of the bible as non-contradictory and logically consistent. You have made it your "purview", if your arguments are based on it.

Yes, my purview is examination of the textual content for textual contradictions.

Those are the only facts that can be established regarding the Bible.
Everything else is belief, or the conjecture of unbelief.

I limit myself to the content of the texts becausea they are subject to factual examination regarding textual contradictions among them.

Sorry you aren't happy with that.

schriverja · 07-01-2011, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Poor simon cannot get it through his head that minus The Laws of YHWH, sin is not made manifest, and "sin is the transgressions of The Law;" (1 John 3:4)
Wherefore The Law must needs remain that transgressions and sin might abound -and be made manifest- in the children of disobedience.
Without The Law of YHWH to define what is sin, one may not know what it is that constitutes sin in the eyes of YHWH.

The NT is talking about two kinds of law, the Levitical laws which were based in the Levitical priesthood, and the Decalogue given to Moses on Sinai.

The NT says it is the Levitical laws, and the Levitical priesthood on which those laws were based, that have been set aside as weak and useless, because the priesthood, sacrifices and cleansings made no one perfect (Heb 7:11-12,18).
The NT does not say the Decalogue of Mt. Sinai has been set aside.

Paul is referring to the Decalogue there, and the NT does not say it has not been set aside.
It is still in force to show forth sin.
Only the Levitical laws have been aside, along with the Levitical priesthood on which they were based (Heb 7:11-12,18).
Yes, the Decalogue has not been set aside, and Israel is under the guilt of it today,

Observation of the Sabbath is in the Decalogue. It is set aside in the NT, and it is set aside by Christians today (I'd wager you don't observe it)...

I'll repeat a segment of my post #271

Quote:

‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day. Deut 5:12+ (NAS)

And the related quote about its non-mutability

Quote:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4:2

Quote:

Indeed, a great many of the commandments of the Decalogue are disregarded by Christians (Christians worship Jesus above YHWH, Christians worship the Bible as an idol, Christians don't treat the name of God with reverence, etc).

simon kole · 07-01-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Poor simon cannot get it through his head that minus The Laws of YHWH, sin is not made manifest, and "sin is the transgressions of The Law;" (1 John 3:4)
Wherefore The Law must needs remain that transgressions and sin might abound -and be made manifest- in the children of disobedience.
Without The Law of YHWH to define what is sin, one may not know what it is that constitutes sin in the eyes of YHWH.

The NT is talking about two kinds of law, the Levitical laws which were based in the Levitical priesthood, and the Decalogue given to Moses on Sinai.

The NT says it is the Levitical laws, and the Levitical priesthood on which those laws were based, that have been set aside as weak and useless, because the priesthood, sacrifices and cleansings made no one perfect (Heb 7:11-12,18).
The NT does not say the Decalogue of Mt. Sinai has been set aside.

Paul is referring to the Decalogue there, and the NT does not say it has not been set aside.
It is still in force to show forth sin.
Only the Levitical laws have been aside, along with the Levitical priesthood on which they were based (Heb 7:11-12,18).
Yes, the Decalogue has not been set aside, and Israel is under the guilt of it today,

Observation of the Sabbath is in the Decalogue. It is set aside in the NT, and it is set aside by Christians today (I'd wager you don't observe it)...

I'll repeat a segment of my post #271

"Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day. Deut 5:12+ (NAS)

And the related quote about its non-mutability

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4:2

The NT reports that Jesus claimed

1) to be equal with God (power to forgive sin--Mt 9:2-6), for which he was killed,
2) to give law as God gives law (Mt 5:23-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, chp 23),
3) to be Lord of the Sabbath, particularly as interpreted by the Pharisees (Mk 2:27),
4) that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mk 5:27).

The NT likewise reports that the Saturday holy Sabbath of rest was changed to the Sunday holy Lord's Day of rest (Ac 20:7; Rev 1:10).

Because of Jesus, the NT does not view the holy day of rest as strictly on Saturday.
As long as there is a weekly holy day of rest, the commandment to "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy" is obeyed.

Quote:

Indeed, a great many of the commandments of the Decalogue are disregarded by Christians (Christians worship Jesus above YHWH, Christians worship the Bible as an idol, Christians don't treat the name of God with reverence, etc).

Christians are sinners like everyone else, except they are repentant sinners who are redeemed.

Perspicuo · 07-01-2011, 10:59 AM

There seems to be a dyssynchrony here.

While Mr Kole is spending his time in something that seems very much like preaching,
Everybody else here talking about logical inconsistencies in the Bible.

It seems for Mr Kole it's enough to quote how Jesus reformed or re-founded the Law of God, which has authority enough to be legit, and missing the fact that what he proudly cites is actually the problem the thread is addressing.

Somehow it does not seem to be a problem for Simon Kole if there is inconsistency and contradiction, if Jesus is the one who does it. He cannot seem to grasp the idea that "God's Law is eternal" means it does not change, because it means rescission, discontinuation, which is in blatant contradiction with any claim of being "eternal".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2011, 10:59 AM	#330
Perspicuo Moderator - History of Non Abrahamic Religions, General Religious Discussions Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Latin America Posts: 6,620	There seems to be a dyssynchrony here. While Mr Kole is spending his time in something that seems very much like preaching, Everybody else here talking about logical inconsistencies in the Bible. It seems for Mr Kole it's enough to quote how Jesus reformed or re-founded the Law of God, which has authority enough to be legit, and missing the fact that what he proudly cites is actually the problem the thread is addressing. Somehow it does not seem to be a problem for Simon Kole if there is inconsistency and contradiction, if Jesus is the one who does it. He cannot seem to grasp the idea that "God's Law is eternal" means it does not change, because it means rescission, discontinuation, which is in blatant contradiction with any claim of being "eternal".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.