Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

This looks like prosyletizing.

Michael

Nope, just responding to the claims in other threads asserting the the Law wasn't on its face changed by the gospels. I beleive that misrepresents the gospel texts and so am setting the record straight. Whether once accepts Jesus' changes is a separate issue from whether he posited such changes.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

From Gamera:
All well and good, but what was his authority for overturning the law? And where did he get that bullshit about anger=murder.

I mean if he was a nice Jewish boy from Galilee (I'm from Brooklyn myself), who gave him permission?

Sounds like guilt trip his mother laid on him.

MARY: Joshua, are you angry with me?
JOSH: Yeah, mom. You really piss me off sometimes.
MARY: Oh, Joshua, you've put a knife through my heart.
JOSH: I'm sorry mom. I didn't mean to hurt you.
MARY: I forgive you son. Now about that little whore Magdalen, from down the block, you've been hanging out with. Don't think I don't know what you two are up to. I was young once.
JOSH: Is that why I don't look like dad?

RED DAVE

His authority is a matter of faith, outside the scope of this thread and this forum, for that matter.

My point is that on its fact the gospels assert that Jesus claimed to have overturned the law. This was in dispute in several other threads. This thread provides conclusive evidence to the contrary. I'm glad you agree.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchy

Why would Jesus need to "correct" any commandment handed down by a perfect and omnipotent god...(yet alone "himself" if one takes the trinity concept seriously?)

How did God "get it wrong" in the OT?

<slaps forehead> Oh, wait..it all makes perfect sense. I forgot for a second that God was made up by illiterate goatherders thousands of years ago. Never mind.

Because the law occurs in history and relates to a particular nation at a particular time in God's plan.

That's how Jesus and the NT envisions it, at any rate. You're welcome to reject the claim. The issue here is the claim itself, which was in dispute in other threads.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If your purpose is to preach against Biblical inerrancy, then, as this is an infidels' discussion board, you're preaching to the choir. The page you linked to has some point, because it was directed to Christians, and to Christians in a particular tradition (that is, an evangelical one) where Biblical inerrancy is widely believed in. But here, most people's reaction to claims that the Bible is not inerrant is, if you'll pardon the colloquialism, 'Well der-rr ....' (At least, that's what we said when I was at school: if it's an Australianism impenetrable to outsiders, I apologise.)

If, on the other hand, your point was that there are lots of Christians, including evangelical ones, who do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, then I think I already knew that as well, but I am nevertheless grateful to you for pointing out what seems a valuable resource. It is interesting to me, and I hope also to others here, to see in more detail how evangelical Christians who do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, and who are not anti-science, argue their case.

Neither. The thread responds to numerous other threads that asset that the NT does not purport to overturn the law. This misrepresents the text of the NT. I have attempted to set the record straight.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

You are pushing at an open door here. We can see how uncontrolled anger can so easily lead to murder, in the wrong hands.

2 Samuel 6:6 ‘When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. The anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark, and he died there beside the ark of God.’

A lesson for us all there to not become angry....

Was Jesus ever angry?

Is anger a sin in itself? Does Jesus blame you even for acts which are not sinful?

Did Jesus really overturn the law?

Did Jesus really declare all foods clean, as Mark writes?

I don't need to answer those questions to assert the fact that Jesus claimed that the law was incomplete, which is the point of the thread. Whether Jesus is being inconsistent or blew it or isn't making sense isn't the issue. (and I expect is a matter of faith, not textual criticism). The point is, Jesus assertion rebuts your claims about the Law, and my point is well taken regardless how your questions are answered.

So, stick to the point.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prester John

An observation you made a couple of times.

So Yahweh made a mistake in the OT and then in his alter ego of Jesus pointed it out later.Thought he was supposed to be infallible and all that, and as noah has consistently pointed out the OT stuff was for ever and ever which is a very long time - not a few hundred years.

Anyway, also agree looks like prosyletizing.

?!

God's plans occur in history, according to the bible. So the law isn't mistaken, it's true meaning is simply revealed by the NT. In any case, such is the teaching of the NT. And that's the point, to set the record straight in light of numerous threads that misrepresent the text as not asserting the above.

So your claim about proselytizing is off base entirely. Focus on the issue and you won't miss the point next time.

Gamera · 04-30-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Well Jesus:

Mark 3 (NIV)
4 "Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."

Go tell "Mark's" Jesus this cause I Am not going to (he might get angry with me).

Joseph

"Repent all ye who lead sinful and adulterous lives. For if ye do not, your tongue shall stick to the rrrh, rrrh, rrrrh." - Jimmy Swaggert

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Sounds like you want to argue about Jesus and not the topic thread, which is valid whether Jesus was angry or not.

Dina Noun · 04-30-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Whether Jesus is being inconsistent or blew it or isn't making sense isn't the issue. .... The point is, Jesus assertion rebuts your claims about the Law, and my point is well taken regardless how your questions are answered.

This sounds a bit odd. If Jesus is inconsistent - and He is - then does it really make sense to say that Jesus overturned the Law? What about the following statements allegedly from Jesus' own lips?

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18)

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.”
(Luke 16:17)

These indicate that Jesus Himself says that He did not overturn the law.

We even have examples of Jesus sticking to the Law.

Quote:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ wit it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

“’These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men’”
(Matthew 15:3-9)

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
(Mark 7:8)

Quote:

And he [Jesus] said to them,: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
(Mark 7:9-13)

Of course, Jesus contradicts Himself by turning right around and redefining parts of the Law in Matthew 5:21-22; 5:27-28; 5:31-32; 5:33-35; 5:38-39; 5:43-45; and 19:8-9.

How about we all agree that YES, Jesus did overturn the Law, and also, NO, Jesus di not overturn the Law? A little thing like a self-contradiction shouldn't bother Christians, what with their already accepting so many other ones.

michael wellenberg · 05-01-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

My point is that on its fact the gospels assert that Jesus claimed to have overturned the law. This was in dispute in several other threads. This thread provides conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The thread responds to numerous other threads that asset that the NT does not purport to overturn the law. This misrepresents the text of the NT. I have attempted to set the record straight.

It might be useful to distinguish between the gospels and the other NT literature, and again between the gospels themselves, in regard of the respective attitudes toward the Law.
While there is no evidence that the Markan Jesus overturns the Torah Paul surely does to a certain degree at least.
Take for example Mk 7:1-23. The Pharisees expanded the Law by adding some traditions. Jesus rejects such expansion so this is an intra-Jewish dispute not over the Torah but over the traditions of the elders.
Or compare Mark and Matthew. Only the Matthean Jesus is adding to the biblical commandments - but adding is not the same as changing or replacing.

Michael

Soul Invictus · 05-01-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I don't think there is much difference as to the practice of Christianity.

The Greek word he uses means to complete. Jesus completed the Law in the sense that his sacrifice made it obsolete and useless. It had served its purpose, which was to show people that they could not earn righteousness by following the law and they needed a savior.

What do you mean when you say Jesus completed the Law "in the sense that"? That sounds like you're trying to invoke a definition or idea that doesn't apply to the meaning of the word. Let me give you an example.
You don't swallow in the sense of anything. Swallowing is a clear action that requires passing items into the mouth, down the throat, and subsequently into the stomach. There is no alternative method for swallowing nor another notion of what swallowing is that would require a disclaimer such as swallowing in the sense that. Could you be using the wrong word when you use complete?

Secondly, as I stated in another thread when someone references an object as being incomplete, (in this case, the object is the law) this indicates that the object has yet to be completed - with the underlying assumption being that the object will be kept and not ridded of, or replaced. If something needing replacing then that would imply that the original object was obsolete. Incompleteness and obsolescence are two totally different concepts and somehow Christian theology seems to errantly commingle the two ideas. Is your claim that the the law was incomplete, or are you saying the law was obsolete?

Quote:

Now, the Law is still in effect for those who reject faith and want to rely on it. However, they will fail to follow the law and hence be judged.

Quote:

So for all intents and purposes, for followers of Christ, the Law is in fact abolished.

Are you saying that the faithful are not required to obey the law? This is an argument that I have made and I wanted to make sure I interpreted your position correctly.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.