Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Is the 'honor the Sabbath' moral, civil, or ceremonial?

It is mankind's duty to God.It matters not. The Christian is under none of them.
The Christian is under only the law of love of God and love of neighbor.The whole NT is consistent with Paul and Hebrews.The "dismissal" is according to what Jesus taught his apostles about the meaning of the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48). The NT texts,
which are based on Jesus' authoritative understanding of the OT (Lk 24:44-48), authorize the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.Paul is not the author of Hebrews. So who is this disciple, and of whom? The conflict is between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and Jesus' authoritative understanding of them,
which he explained to his apostles (Lk 24:44-48), and which are found in the NT writings.

Quote:

Hence my conclusion that the text is not unified on this issue.

Which conclusion is not based in correct understanding of the texts as authoritatively explained by Jesus to his apostles (Lk 24:44-48).

Luke 24:44-48

Quote:

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Where does it say that the OT commandments are not to be followed in this passage? I see it not.

I'll reiterate: Jesus says 'obey the commandments' many, many times. He didn't rescind those statements with this Luke passage.

Here (again) are some of those passages I am referring to:

Quote:

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mat 5:19

Quote:

And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Quote:

14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:14-15

Quote:

20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

Quote:

10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. John 15:9-11

Note: these passages are found in Matthew, Mark, and John. I tend to appeal to Mark (first written) or John (independently written from the Synoptics). There is a reason that Marcion preferred Luke's.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

I like how Christians will insist that the decalogue is the only part of the Law which applies to them, yet they refuse to honor the Sabbath day.

And oddly enough, the directions as to how to honor the Sabbath day are part of the Levitical Law which Christians insist no longer applies. :constern01:

Well, actually the NT says that love of God and love of neighbor will, by definition, fulfill the Decalogue.

Where? That sounds like more writing in between the lines of God's word. I find it fascinating when people so vehemently defend a text as God's word, then add their own meaning between the lines left and right.

That would be Ro 13:8-10.

Are you keeping up? Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I'm not given to doing so.

Quote:

So Christians are not specifically under it.

Jesus disagrees with you:

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mat 5:19

I will not bother to show what is material that you have left out of the verses, and which is a demonstration of insincerity.

Quote:

And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

I've addressed that with you before.

Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I will not be doing it.

Quote:

14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:14-15

20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. John 15:9-11

And what are Jesus' commandments?

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Where? That sounds like more writing in between the lines of God's word. I find it fascinating when people so vehemently defend a text as God's word, then add their own meaning between the lines left and right.

That would be Ro 13:8-10.

Are you keeping up? Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I'm not given to doing so.I will not bother to show what is material that you have left out of the verses, and which is a demonstration of insincerity. I've addressed that with you before.

Addressing a point is not the same as overcoming it.

Quote:

Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I will not be doing it.

Quote:

14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

I'm repeating arguments because they haven't been overcome...

Quote:

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:14-15

20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. John 15:9-11

And what are Jesus' commandments?

Jesus, according to John 15

Quote:

9 Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

As the text isn't crystal clear, I would presume that when Jesus is talking about his 'Father's commandments' he is indeed speaking of those commandments you reject.

Did Jesus not celebrate the Passover? Was Jesus not Jewish?

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

when the purpose for which the Levitical priesthood and the laws based on it were given is accomplished, they are set aside.

This is a Christian pretext, and addresses the fact of why the Law has been dumped for an amendment.

Does the OT contain an article for amendments? Even if it did, which I am unaware of, still it would be a logical inconsistency to have a loophole for amendment or even radical substitution, alongside "my law is eternal".

So it is clear to you too that the Law is not eternal, you just give a pretext, but then again, it is not eternal, it has been abrogated (discontinuated with authority). Even if God has the authority to do so (and the main thread of the whole Bible is he can do anything he wants), what he said was not true. God is a liar.

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Quote:

Another inconsistency, this time with a attribute of God.

Quote:

"Read my lips: my law is eternal"

Read my lips, the Sinaitic covenant, which God promised in Jer 31:31-32 would be replaced, was not an eternal covenant, it was a conditional covenant (Ex 19:5).

Oh alright I stand corrected. Then the jerk was this guy:

Psalm 111:7-8: "The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."

(BTW: Ex19:5 "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession." doesn't say, "If not, I will change it" and enters in contradiction with the psalmist).

1) You will find in Lev 26:14-45 what occurs when "if not" occurs.

2) The Levitical law was set aside because the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted to execute and enforce it, was set aside, as was announced the priesthood would be in Ps 110:4, and would be replaced with a new priest forever.

Quote:

Logically inconsistent.

God isn't overly concerned with your notion of "logic," but with the execution of his plan which he set in place from all eternity.

Quote:

His plan is being a trickster?

Because the moment he uses human language, he abides by its rules. If I say, "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house", you think 'What a deal!', give me $5000 and ask 'Where's my house?', and I give you a pencil... then I have tricked you. I can say all along "I had a plan", I still knew what "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house" would mean to you and motivate you to do. I therefore would be a prankster.
------
1) Those rules are not priestly rules, they are rules for the people, they are rules they must comply, priest or no priest.

2) I understand the Christian explanation for not obeying YHWH's law, but that is a Christian thing, it is not Jewish, what you say is not found in Leviticus.

Jesus explained to the apostles the meaning of all the Scriptures which related to him (Lk 24:44-48).
It is that meaning which is found in the NT writings.

The conflict is between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and Jesus' authoritative understanding of them,
which is contained in the NT writings.

Quote:

3) If it is not in Leviticus but instead meant to be there, YHWH is a bad legislator compared to humans, he can't write or dictate his will clearly. Things had to wait for Christian theologians to come up with stuff Jewish rabbis had no idea of. Plain and simple, what you say, was not there, it's a mere excuse so Christians will not be bothered by God's law spelled out in OT.

If you don't like YHWH's revealed plan, take it up with him.

Jesus, not Christian theologians, is the one who authoritatively explained it all to his apostles from the OT Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48), and which understanding is found in the NT writings.

Quote:

Also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by You

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

Logically inconsistent.

God isn't overly concerned with your notion of "logic," but with the execution of his plan which he set in place from all eternity.

... means you accept what the Original Post of the thread claimed all along, and you depreciate it as unimportant because there was, supposedly, a plan. It would be a con plan, because God (as you admit) does not care about setting things straight but provoking an action and then excusing himself with "I had a plan behind scenes all along", which is not a valid excuse but an admission of intentional misleading with an ulterior motive.

Your disagreement is with what Jesus authoritatively explained to the apostles about what it all means.

Perspicuo · 07-10-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

The conflict is between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and Jesus' authoritative understanding of them,
which is contained in the NT writings. If you don't like YHWH's revealed plan, take it up with him.

Exactly. So you agree there is a conflict.

So if someone comes up with a message, explaining everything in a different light, it's ok to contradict whatever came before, by calling himself an authority? That easy?

That would make every major religion true. Calvinistic Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Islam, Baha'i. None of them lacks any measure of authority to put everything upside-down all over, at least according to themselves.

Notwithstanding the conflict everything is ok with one swift stroke of yada.

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Your disagreement is with what Jesus authoritatively explained to the apostles about what it all means.

Authoritatively for you. You are absolutely clueless as to how to discuss standards of truth with anyone that doesn't already agree with you.

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 12:06 PM

Simon, I should re-outline my position, because it seems to have been lost in the shuffle, based upon your responses as of late.

Back in post 94 of this thread, I established the position that Paul* seems at odds with the OT, as well as the gospels.

I have cited several OT verses (as others have as well) that indicate that the covenant with the Israelites was described as everlasting, or permanent, or throughout the generations, etc.

I have cited several NT verses where Jesus (allegedly) made statements that would re-iterate that the OT commands should be followed.

You have cited a lot of the book of Hebrews and Paul's writings that disagree with the gospels and OT citations. I call these contradictions and an example of a lack of consistency (indeed that was my point in bringing it up). You call it 'progressive revelation'. Until you support with a rational argument why progressive revelation (especially revelation that directly contradicts earlier revelation that was asserted at that time to be everlasting/permanent) is a reasonable position, I don't see this discussion moving anywhere.

Justification for the 'progressive revelation' claim certainly is in my purview as it is central to the discussion.

*I should have grouped Hebrews with Paul's writings as well, as they share a lot of theology.

Perspicuo · 07-10-2011, 12:12 PM

Simon Kole,
You just don't get it, that when a guy who says his law is eternal and says "Go left", comes back and says "Go right", has contradicted himself.

Yes he has the authority (according to your story, Christianity, that nobody else takes for granted but you here... something else you just can't get), but no matter how authoritative, still made a contradiction.

It's like the room is blue, I say I will never change it, then I paint it red... IT HAS CHANGED. No matter how much authority your story assigns to its central character, there is no way red is blue, and there is no way he said the truth when he said "I will never change it".

It's so frickin basic...

dockeen · 07-10-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Simon Kole,
You just don't get it, that when a guy who says his law is eternal and says "Go left", comes back and says "Go right", has contradicted himself.

Yes he has the authority (according to your story, Christianity, that nobody else takes for granted but you here... something else you just can't get), but no matter how authoritative, still made a contradiction.

It's like the room is blue, I say I will never change it, then I paint it red... IT HAS CHANGED. No matter how much authority your story assigns to its central character, there is no way red is blue, and there is no way he said the truth when he said "I will never change it".

It's so frickin basic...

There is a trap in viewing the bible as a ---- book. You view things through
the lens that you view other books from - twists and turns of story and plot
that bring you to a definitive conclusion. The end point is the payoff, and
all else is simply a means to an end.

Ironically, I have just described a fictional story.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

when the purpose for which the Levitical priesthood and the laws based on it were given is accomplished, they are set aside.

This is a Christian pretext, and addresses the fact of why the Law has been dumped for an amendment.

Does the OT contain an article for amendments? Even if it did, which I am unaware of, still it would be a logical inconsistency to have a loophole for amendment or even radical substitution, alongside "my law is eternal".

So it is clear to you too that the Law is not eternal, you just give a pretext, but then again, it is not eternal, it has been abrogated (discontinuated with authority). Even if God has the authority to do so (and the main thread of the whole Bible is he can do anything he wants), what he said was not true. God is a liar.

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Quote:

Another inconsistency, this time with a attribute of God.

"Read my lips: my law is eternal"

Read my lips, the Sinaitic covenant, which God promised in Jer 31:31-32 would be replaced, was not an eternal covenant, it was a conditional covenant (Ex 19:5).

Oh alright I stand corrected. Then the jerk was this guy:

Psalm 111:7-8: "The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."

(BTW: Ex19:5 "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession." doesn't say, "If not, I will change it" and enters in contradiction with the psalmist).

1) You will find in Lev 26:14-45 what occurs when "if not" occurs.

2) The Levitical law was set aside because the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted to execute and enforce it, was set aside, as was announced the priesthood would be in Ps 110:4, and would be replaced with a new priest forever.

Logically inconsistent.

Quote:

God isn't overly concerned with your notion of "logic," but with the execution of his plan which he set in place from all eternity.

Quote:

His plan is being a trickster?

Because the moment he uses human language, he abides by its rules. If I say, "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house", you think 'What a deal!', give me $5000 and ask 'Where's my house?', and I give you a pencil... then I have tricked you. I can say all along "I had a plan", I still knew what "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house" would mean to you and motivate you to do. I therefore would be a prankster.
------
1) Those rules are not priestly rules, they are rules for the people, they are rules they must comply, priest or no priest.

2) I understand the Christian explanation for not obeying YHWH's law, but that is a Christian thing, it is not Jewish, what you say is not found in Leviticus.

Jesus explained to the apostles the meaning of all the Scriptures which related to him (Lk 24:44-48).
It is that meaning which is found in the NT writings.

The conflict is between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and Jesus' authoritative understanding of them,
which is contained in the NT writings.

Quote:

3) If it is not in Leviticus but instead meant to be there, YHWH is a bad legislator compared to humans, he can't write or dictate his will clearly. Things had to wait for Christian theologians to come up with stuff Jewish rabbis had no idea of. Plain and simple, what you say, was not there, it's a mere excuse so Christians will not be bothered by God's law spelled out in OT.

If you don't like YHWH's revealed plan, take it up with him.

Jesus, not Christian theologians, is the one who authoritatively explained it all to his apostles
from the OT Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48), and which understanding is found in the NT writings.

Quote:

Also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by You

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

Logically inconsistent.

God isn't overly concerned with your notion of "logic," but with the execution of his plan which he set in place from all eternity.

... means you accept what the Original Post of the thread claimed all along, and you depreciate it as unimportant because there was, supposedly, a plan. It would be a con plan, because God (as you admit) does not care about setting things straight but provoking an action and then excusing himself with "I had a plan behind scenes all along", which is not a valid excuse but an admission of intentional misleading with an ulterior motive.

Your disagreement is with what Jesus authoritatively explained to the apostles about what it all means.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

The no part: Therefore, Christians are under no OT laws, moral, civil or ceremonial.

So I can expect that no christians are going to dredge up verses from the old testament to support their particular set of biases or 'moral values', then? That if their particular bugaboo is not explicitly stated in the NT, then they have no standing? That only 'love thy neighbor' should be used as a moral compass? Cool!

Christians are under no obligation to follow OT laws. That's going to be news to quite a few of them, I think.

"Love thy neighbor/love god" trumps everything else? That would seem to be news to quite a few christians who find it perfectly ok to judge people based on the OT.

Now, I must say that I'd love to see a religion that was really based on 'love thy neighbor'. Chances are, it would be a pretty good religion. Unfortunately, that description really doesn't cover most christian behavior today. It would be nice if it did.

Love God, love thy neighbor includes all the moral laws.

The ceremonial laws have been set aside with the Levitical priesthood, which was their basis.

The civil laws applied only to the nation Israel.

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

07-10-2011, 12:06 PM	#416
schriverja Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Western Connecticut Posts: 1,545	Simon, I should re-outline my position, because it seems to have been lost in the shuffle, based upon your responses as of late. Back in post 94 of this thread, I established the position that Paul* seems at odds with the OT, as well as the gospels. I have cited several OT verses (as others have as well) that indicate that the covenant with the Israelites was described as everlasting, or permanent, or throughout the generations, etc. I have cited several NT verses where Jesus (allegedly) made statements that would re-iterate that the OT commands should be followed. You have cited a lot of the book of Hebrews and Paul's writings that disagree with the gospels and OT citations. I call these contradictions and an example of a lack of consistency (indeed that was my point in bringing it up). You call it 'progressive revelation'. Until you support with a rational argument why progressive revelation (especially revelation that directly contradicts earlier revelation that was asserted at that time to be everlasting/permanent) is a reasonable position, I don't see this discussion moving anywhere. Justification for the 'progressive revelation' claim certainly is in my purview as it is central to the discussion. *I should have grouped Hebrews with Paul's writings as well, as they share a lot of theology.

07-10-2011, 12:12 PM	#417
Perspicuo Moderator - History of Non Abrahamic Religions, General Religious Discussions Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Latin America Posts: 6,620	Simon Kole, You just don't get it, that when a guy who says his law is eternal and says "Go left", comes back and says "Go right", has contradicted himself. Yes he has the authority (according to your story, Christianity, that nobody else takes for granted but you here... something else you just can't get), but no matter how authoritative, still made a contradiction. It's like the room is blue, I say I will never change it, then I paint it red... IT HAS CHANGED. No matter how much authority your story assigns to its central character, there is no way red is blue, and there is no way he said the truth when he said "I will never change it". It's so frickin basic...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.