Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

That's all well and good, but Acts isn't just talking about some "law keepers" who wouldn't know any better about the teachings of Jesus, we're talking about James, who we would assume would have known that Jesus did away with the Law altogether.

So, if Jesus did away with the Law and let his disciples know about it when he was making known the secrets of the gospel, why would they still communicate to the Gentile converts -

Why would Gentiles saved through faith in Jesus need to eat Kosher meats? There seems to be some confusion on the part of those who were closest to Jesus on the super-cession of the Law by the death of Jesus.

Do you adhere to Kosher dietary laws as a Gentile believer in Jesus? Were you to be instrumental in converting a Jew to Christianity would you advise them to jettison all semblance of obedience to observing these things or would you think it acceptable to continue these observances of the Law?

The Gentiles didn't "need to" follow the decisions reached in Jerusalem anymore than Paul "needed to" observe Jewish custom while in Jerusalem. It was not about requirements "needed" for righteousness (salvation). It was about the "need" for two extremely different cultures in the local Christian churches to get along with each other.

Did the Jews need to follow the Laws? In other words, Jesus actual disciples?
Because Acts sure seems to say that they thought they were under the Law still.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 05:51 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:

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.

Mr Kole, for Nth time:

For you it is authoritative, but for those who don't already believe it is not. You are trapped in a logical loop whose bottom line is: the Christian Bible is true because the Christian Bible says it's true.

What you say is meaningless gibberish to the Muslim, the Jew and the atheist... basically for everyone who does not take your sect's views at face value, as an already believed truth.

You Christians have disauthorized (by turning the older scriptures inside out) the OT because your religion came after it. Then Islam disauthorized (again, by the same method) the OT and NT; and Baha'i disauthorized all those, including Islam.

You don't believe the OT & NT have been disauthorized? Maybe because you don't have their faith (belief without evidence ["the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"]) but another? Of course. Faith makes people accept inconsistent doctrines and justifiy them, even if these doctrines contradict reality (such as thing that have good evidence, like evolution or cosmology [when it has determined the universe was not created in 6 days 6000-12000 years ago, but instead 13 billion.... which doesn't seem to bother YECs, thanks to what? Blind faith]).

But it is illogical to the rest of humanity, those whose rationality is not compromised by the emotional need to believe unsupported and inconsistent rubbish.

For the nth time, my purview is to examine the Biblical texts for contradiction among them. My purview is not to assert their truth, only to examine what they say. Whether or not you believe the texts is up to you.

Their truth and my faith are irrelevant to an examination of the facts regarding what the texts say, in their own terms; such as, the authority of Jesus in the NT. Jesus' authority is what the texts report, it is the basis of NT claims, transitions and obsolences regarding the OT, and of the enactment of the new covenant in his blood.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Jesus is the author of the NT understanding which you find contradictory to the OT.

You really don't get it, do you?

You haven't even established that Jesus existed, let alone that he (or any real person) said or did any of the things written in the gospels. We don't know who wrote any of the NT stories, or when, or how changed they were before they were codified circa 400 CE.

We do know that the writings were changed many times, and that there was bitter controversy as to what was 'scripture' and what was not. So your absurd contention that "Jesus" was the author of anything is utterly without foundation.

You know what is my purview. All those lie outside it, and you know it.

dockeen · 07-10-2011, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

You really don't get it, do you?

You haven't even established that Jesus existed, let alone that he (or any real person) said or did any of the things written in the gospels. We don't know who wrote any of the NT stories, or when, or how changed they were before they were codified circa 400 CE.

We do know that the writings were changed many times, and that there was bitter controversy as to what was 'scripture' and what was not. So your absurd contention that "Jesus" was the author of anything is utterly without foundation.

You know what is my purview. All those lie outside it, and you know it.

Then you strike one as someone who claims their purview as brain surgery,
when they never went to college or med school.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

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.

Jesus is the author of the NT understanding which you find contradictory to the OT.

He gave that understanding to his apostles before he ascended (Lk 24;44-48), and it is found in the NT writings on the issue.

Then why all the confusion over circumcision and the other parts of the Jewish Law in Acts 21?

Addressed in post #430, above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts

[James and other leaders in Jerusalem, speaking to Paul] 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. Acts 21:21-24

I guess Jesus wasn't clear enough?

Addressed in post #425, above.

Quote:

I don't justify what the NT reports that Jesus said and did. I simply report it.

Jesus explained the OT Scriptures and their meaning regarding him, which is what you find contradictory to the OT.
Jesus said they were fulfilled, not "contradicted."

Quote:

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

Quote:

Jesus didn't write a word of the NT, dude. We have accounts of what he said, but they weren't written by people who were there.

The Luke passage doesn't support your case that Jesus intended everyone to stop being Jewish, honoring the Jewish traditions, etc. Jesus himself observed them (at least the Passover, and apparently the Sabbath unless he had a healing to do). Luke was at least the 2nd revision of Mark, and the passage you cite isn't found in any other gospel. It didn't show up until at least 55 years after Jesus walked the earth). There is a reason that Luke, the least Jewish of the gospels, was so heavily used by the Marcionites. (I myself think the most consistent early form of Christianity was probably the Ebionites, as they at least tried to reconcile the Hebrew Scriptures with the teaching of the Jewish Jesus). I have supplied several statements attributed to Jesus that say the commandments of the OT should be kept. You have yet to cite a statement by Jesus that supports an alternate interpretation, as at most the Luke 24 passage points to Jesus showing the disciples he was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, not a new covenant himself.

I don't buy Paul's claim of special revelation, precisely because it doesn't match what is found in Gospels or the OT. I also don't buy the similar statements in Hebrews, as the theology clearly seems to follow in Paul's school of thought.

All those are outside my purview, dude.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

That's all well and good, but Acts isn't just talking about some "law keepers" who wouldn't know any better about the teachings of Jesus, we're talking about James, who we would assume would have known that Jesus did away with the Law altogether.

So, if Jesus did away with the Law and let his disciples know about it when he was making known the secrets of the gospel, why would they still communicate to the Gentile converts -

Why would Gentiles saved through faith in Jesus need to eat Kosher meats? There seems to be some confusion on the part of those who were closest to Jesus on the super-cession of the Law by the death of Jesus.

Do you adhere to Kosher dietary laws as a Gentile believer in Jesus? Were you to be instrumental in converting a Jew to Christianity would you advise them to jettison all semblance of obedience to observing these things or would you think it acceptable to continue these observances of the Law?

The Gentiles didn't "need to" follow the decisions reached in Jerusalem anymore than Paul "needed to" observe Jewish custom while in Jerusalem. It was not about requirements "needed" for righteousness (salvation). It was about the "need" for two extremely different cultures in the local Christian churches to get along with each other.

Did the Jews need to follow the Laws? In other words, Jesus actual disciples?
Because Acts sure seems to say that they thought they were under the Law still.

Are you sure about that?

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Did the Jews need to follow the Laws? In other words, Jesus actual disciples?
Because Acts sure seems to say that they thought they were under the Law still.

Are you sure about that?

I've posted plenty of passages with very specific verbiage (follow the commandments and so on) and the references to Acts to indicate that the early leaders in Jerusalem actually did follow the Jewish customs. You have posted a very vague passage from Luke.

I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide which one is the better argument...

Sheshbazzar · 07-10-2011, 06:47 PM

אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתה׃

μὴ ἀποκρίνου ἄφρονι πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου ἀφροσύνην ἵνα μὴ ὅμοιος γένῃ αὐτῷ׃

ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis׃

:banghead:

Do you know Whom it is that can read these words simon?
He knows what they say, wouldn't you think.

Really, I cannot take you at all seriously, simon, regarding Biblical truths when you repeatedly display your utter ignorance and unawareness of so many of those things pertaining to the fundamentals and living practices of The Faith. And are ever so ready and willing to -squirm- rather than simply confessing to any lack of comprehension or of mistake.
As I said before, "just consider whatever I may have written to have been for the benefit of others who do not suffer from your problems."

I continue to write here so that these matters of what you are lacking be set to writing, for the sake of the public record.
If you are lacking in reading comprehension, or in logical reasoning skills, or in the actual doing of what being a member of The NT Faith requires, Or simply cannot 'see' with your blinders on, and cannot 'hear' with your fingers stuffed in your ears, while singing your nah-nah-nah-nah's, that is your own personal problem.

When you avoid answering these challenges regarding your thoughts and conduct, you only the more appear to be as one caught with your pants down around you ankles.
<edit>
I wonder; "will pride indeed go before the fall " ?
Or will the fall come -before- the pride goeth ?

.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתה׃

μὴ ἀποκρίνου ἄφρονι πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου ἀφροσύνην ἵνα μὴ ὅμοιος γένῃ αὐτῷ׃

ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis׃

:banghead:
Do you know Whom it is that can read these words simon? He knows what they say, wouldn't you think.

Really, I cannot take you at all seriously, simon, regarding Biblical truths when you repeatedly display your utter ignorance and unawareness of so many of those things pertaining to the fundamentals and practices of The Faith.

As I said before, "just consider whatever I may have written to have been for the benefit of others who do not suffer from your problems."
I continue to write here so that these matters of what you are lacking be set to writing, for the sake of the record.
If you are lacking in reading comprehension, or logical reasoning skills, or simply cannot 'see' with your blinders on, and cannot 'hear' with your fingers stuffed in your ears, singing nah-nah-nah-nah, that is your own personal problem.
When you avoid answering these challenges regarding your thoughts and conduct, you only the more appear to be as one caught with your pants down around you ankles.
<edit>

Interesting "anti-theistic" point of view, when compared to bottom of this. . .and more of those personal contradictions, as presented here.

Sheshbazzar · 07-10-2011, 07:05 PM

The questions are not about my convictions or about my faith simon.

Have you been baptized since you believed, simon?

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

07-10-2011, 06:47 PM	#438
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתה׃ μὴ ἀποκρίνου ἄφρονι πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου ἀφροσύνην ἵνα μὴ ὅμοιος γένῃ αὐτῷ׃ ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis׃ :banghead: Do you know Whom it is that can read these words simon? He knows what they say, wouldn't you think. Really, I cannot take you at all seriously, simon, regarding Biblical truths when you repeatedly display your utter ignorance and unawareness of so many of those things pertaining to the fundamentals and living practices of The Faith. And are ever so ready and willing to -squirm- rather than simply confessing to any lack of comprehension or of mistake. As I said before, "just consider whatever I may have written to have been for the benefit of others who do not suffer from your problems." I continue to write here so that these matters of what you are lacking be set to writing, for the sake of the public record. If you are lacking in reading comprehension, or in logical reasoning skills, or in the actual doing of what being a member of The NT Faith requires, Or simply cannot 'see' with your blinders on, and cannot 'hear' with your fingers stuffed in your ears, while singing your nah-nah-nah-nah's, that is your own personal problem. When you avoid answering these challenges regarding your thoughts and conduct, you only the more appear to be as one caught with your pants down around you ankles. <edit> I wonder; "will pride indeed go before the fall " ? Or will the fall come -before- the pride goeth ? .

07-10-2011, 07:05 PM	#440
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The questions are not about my convictions or about my faith simon. Have you been baptized since you believed, simon?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.