Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dockeen · 07-10-2011, 07:45 AM

I still find it amazing how powerful xtians find the word "plan". god has a plan for the
universe, god has a plan for your life. It all sounds so - powerful, except they never
set it on the table and examine it in the context of a god that they consider eternal
and all powerful, in which case the questions like:

What does and eternal, alll powerful god need with a plan?

Why does a god need to create people who can't understand his greatness to massage
his ego by telling him how great he is? (And at an horrendous cost in eternal suffering)

When you start honestly pondering such questions, you begin to see such ideas, even
when covered in flowery language like "so that his glory could be fully manifest", as
incredibly superficial cover stories invented my men as bandages to try and hold a
bed-time story together into a history book.

Zenaphobe · 07-10-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

I still find it amazing how powerful xtians find the word "plan". god has a plan for the
universe, god has a plan for your life. It all sounds so - powerful, except they never
set it on the table and examine it in the context of a god that they consider eternal
and all powerful, in which case the questions like:

What does and eternal, alll powerful god need with a plan?

Why does a god need to create people who can't understand his greatness to massage
his ego by telling him how great he is? (And at an horrendous cost in eternal suffering)

When you start honestly pondering such questions, you begin to see such ideas, even
when covered in flowery language like "so that his glory could be fully manifest", as
incredibly superficial cover stories invented my men as bandages to try and hold a
bed-time story together into a history book.

Your confusion stems from your erroneous mental image of God.

You are imaging God to be like this

when you ought to be imagining him to be like this

Hannibal God would clap his hands and thunder out how he "Loves it when a plan comes together".

Macgyver God would respond to unexpected situations and adjust his responses with a cosmic ball point pen, 5lb. block of Play-dough, and a bottomless supply of copper BB's.

Fix your image of God, and your confusion will vanish like a cancelled T.V. action show. :thumbs:

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by Levitical Laws. If you mean anything other than the Decaloge I disagree with you that the Levitical Laws are ceremonial laws. There may be some that are ceremonial, but there's a lot that are, in fact, moral.

Well, not a good choice of words on my part. I was thinking of what is more commonly known about Levitical law as they are fulfilled in Jesus, the Christ.

But going back to the NT letter to the Hebrews, at 7:11-12. The priesthood and the law of Moses go together. The priesthood was instituted to carry out the laws in Leviticus. All of the people, without exception, were sinners subject to the law's condemnation. The Levitical laws provided a remedy for their sin, which needed a priestly system both to execute and to enforce those laws.

The NT letter to the Hebrews reveals that the Levitical priesthood was set aside with the new eternal High Priest and Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus, the Christ. Likewise, it was announced about midway through the Levitical priesthood that one was coming who would be a priest forever (Ps 110:4), which meant that the existing system would be giving way to something better.

Huh? Psalm 110:4 with some context

Quote:

1 The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
2 The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
3 Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,
Your youth are to You as the dew.

4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
5 The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.

Notice the utter lack of future tense in the bolded part? Keep in mind this was written centuries before Jesus. I think it a bit of cherry-picking eisegesis on the author of Hebrews part (as well as you) to put in this passage anything that implies that God's covenant was any less than everlasting, as the many, many passages that have been cited have shown.

The NT reports that the cherry-picking was done by Jesus,
who taught the apostles the meaning of all the Scriptures that referred to him. (Lk 24:44-48)

Quote:

So far as I know you have failed to cite an OT passage (not taken out of context) that imply that the Law was a temporary situation.

Jer 31:32 promises a new covenant to replace (not like) the old Sinaitic covenant.

The NT reports that the apostolic understanding of Ps 110:4 and Jer 31:31-34 came from Jesus himself (Lk 24:44-48).

Quote:

You have been shown several that state that it was permanent, everlasting, to be honored by the generations of God's people, etce...

That would be a conflict between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures, and the reported understanding of the Scriptures by Jesus (Lk 24:44-48).

So the NT letter to the Hebrews reveals the fulfillment of the announcements found in Ps 110:4 and Jer 31:31-34.

And the NT reveals that love of God and love of neighbor will result in fulfilling the Decalogue, for love fulfills the Law (Ro 13:8-10).

Therefore, the Levitical laws have been set aside along with the Levitical priesthood (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:11-12), and loving our neighbor will result in fulfilling our duties to them (Ro 13:8-10), as love of God will result in fulfilling our duties to him.

Ergo, the only law a Christian is subject to is love of God and love of neighbor.

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Huh? Psalm 110:4 with some context

Notice the utter lack of future tense in the bolded part? Keep in mind this was written centuries before Jesus. I think it a bit of cherry-picking eisegesis on the author of Hebrews part (as well as you) to put in this passage anything that implies that God's covenant was any less than everlasting, as the many, many passages that have been cited have shown.

The NT reports that the cherry-picking was done by Jesus,
who taught the apostles the meaning of all the Scriptures that referred to him. (Lk 24:44-48)Jer 31:32 promises a new covenant to replace (not like) the old Sinaitic covenant.

The NT reports that the apostolic understanding of Ps 110:4 and Jer 31:31-34 came from Jesus himself (Lk 24:44-48).

Quote:

You have been shown several that state that it was permanent, everlasting, to be honored by the generations of God's people, etce...

That would be a conflict between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures, and the reported understanding of the Scriptures by Jesus (Lk 24:44-48).

So the NT letter to the Hebrews reveals the fulfillment of the announcements found in Ps 110:4 and Jer 31:31-34.

And the NT reveals that love of God and love of neighbor will result in fulfilling the Decalogue, for love fulfills the Law (Ro 13:8-10).

Therefore, the Levitical laws have been set aside along with the Levitical priesthood (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:11-12), and loving our neighbor will result in fulfilling our duties to them (Ro 13:8-10), as love of God will result in fulfilling our duties to him.

Ergo, the only law a Christian is subject to is love of God and love of neighbor.

Why are we going back in time now? You are responding to a 5 day old post, that has already had a lot of back and forth...

What, specifically, do you feel that a Christian is subject to do? Since you feel the OT specific ordinances, statutes and laws are disposable, what moral guidance do you take from any of the Bible?

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

I agree, I was not clear enough at the beginning of this subject. I should have pointed out all three at that time.

About 90% of the chapters in Leviticus regard forgiveness and righteousness (ceremonial).
The remaining 10% deal with morals and government (civil).

There are no symbolic laws in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments).

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

It is mankind's duty to God.

Quote:

The OT texts call them commandments, statutes and ordinances.
The OT refers to them in a phrase as commandments, statutues and ordinances.

Quote:

According to Exodus 12:14, 17, 24, 13:10, Levi 6:22, 19:37, 20:22, 26:15 and many more the ordinances are stated as permanent, everlasting, forever, etc.

The language regarding statutes is similar...

How do you differentiate them? Are ordinances the optional ones? How about statutes?

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.

Quote:

You are the one winging it.

Quote:

How am I winging it? I've been pretty consistent in the view that the OT states the Law as a permanent condition, and that the NT, outside of Paul and Hebrews is consistent with this view.

The whole NT is consistent with Paul and Hebrews.

Quote:

The thing is you paradoxically think that God actually inspired those laws in the first place. If I believed that God thought highly enough of something to put it in a holy text, I wouldn't so casually dismiss it.

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.

Quote:

One author, as well as a disciple of that author (the Hebrews author) endorse the transition.

Paul is not the author of Hebrews. So who is this disciple, and of whom?

Quote:

In my view, they disagree with the other NT writers, including the words of Jesus, which I have pointed out. They (Paul, Hebrews) also contradict many, many passages of the OT, as I and others have pointed out.

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).

dockeen · 07-10-2011, 10:08 AM

Sounds like (like many xtians), that the OT is supposed to do two things:

(1) Provide for a lot of ooohs and aaahs about "fulfilled propehesies"

and

(2) Provide a basis for hitting non-xtians over the head with the law that THEY are not
subject to.

This is what happens when you teach a theology of double standards with respect to
god. (The" his ways are not our ways" justification for him doing things that would be
evil if humans did it). The xtians look to create a double standard that favors themselves
over others.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

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.
So Christians are not specifically under it.

So you're changing your story?

First Christians were under the decalogue, now they're not?

Well, yes and no.

The yes part: love automatically fulfills the Decalogue, so Christians don't need it. They are only under the law of love of God and love of neighbor.
The no part: Therefore, Christians are under no OT laws, moral, civil or ceremonial.

Quote:

BTW - When NT Jesus refers to The Law, it is understood that he meant the entire Mosaic Law, not just the decalogue.

Good enough.

But he explained the meaning of all that to his apostles (Lk 24:44-48), which meaning we have in the NT writings, which reveal Christians are under only the law of love of God and love of neighbor.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

The NT texts authorize the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.

The only such transition 'authorised' in the NT is through one's death and burial.
Except a person dies, and is buried, the 'New Covenant' ('Testament') is not in effect.

And that's what Jesus did, in whose blood the New Covenant is made.

Quote:

THE LAW, its condemnations and its effects remain fully in force against all 'children of disobedience' for as long as any person lives in the flesh.
"....ready to pass away" does not mean '....has passed away'.
The 'transition' is an internal one, a transforming of the individual through belief and obedience to the Spirit.
Thus no one who has not so believed and been converted, has any access to the 'New' Covenant, but remains in the condemnations of the old, that is to say the letter of THE LAW, whereby ALL are concluded guilty and remain under the penalties of sin and a consequent death.

Atheists, simon, by very definition, -cannot- cross that barrier, because they have not believed the glad tidings. Much less obeyed that which they have not believed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Except a person dies, and is buried, the 'New Covenant' ('Testament') is not in effect.

And that's what Jesus did, in whose blood the New Covenant is made.

And this simon, is what you are failing to understand about the New Testament.
It is not His death that is again required. It ought to be obvious that when I wrote "Except a person dies and is buried, the New Covenant is not in effect...." that it is the believer(s) that are required to die and to be buried in an emulation of His death and burial, to ever become partakers in that New Testament.
Which was also further explained and clarified by the following statement and the full context;
"The 'transition' is an internal one, a transforming of the individual through belief and obedience to the Spirit.
Thus no one who has not so believed and been converted, has any access to the 'New' Covenant, but remains in the condemnations of the old, that is to say the letter of THE LAW, whereby ALL are concluded guilty and remain under the penalties of sin and a consequent death.

Atheists, simon, by very definition, -cannot- cross that barrier, because they have not believed the glad tidings. Much less obeyed that which they have not believed."

(-Believers do not cross over either. ......unless they DO what it is that is -required- of them.)

There is no way for you to validly be construing what I have above written as being something that He did, or was ever able accomplish for you, on your behalf. It -requires- and it -demands- YOUR active belief and personal participation.
You do not come under any of the promised protections or benefits of this New Testament unless YOU likewise believe, die, and are buried with Him. This part He could not do for you, or for anyone else.
The onus is upon the believer to take the action of also laying down their own life that they might likewise be raised up from the dead.

Unto whose baptisim were you baptised simon?
What was the occasion of your baptisim simon?
What was the name of he who baptised you simon?
Into what Name were you baptised into simon?
Can recall the date of your death simon?
And the name(s) of the witnesses present that laid holy hands upon you simon?
Did you recieve ha'rucha ha'Qodesh since you believed simon?
Have you recieved your new name, simon?
And whose feet amongst The Brethern have you washed upon The Layla Shemorim, simon?

Babbling on the Internet accomplishes none of these things simon.

I cannot take you seriously, Sheshbazzar, regarding Biblical contradictions, until you adequately address

your own personal contradictions, presented here.

Failte · 07-10-2011, 10:25 AM

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.

Zenaphobe · 07-10-2011, 10:33 AM

If Paul was of the mind that Christians were not under any of the statutes of the Law, this bit from Acts seems a bit weird,

Quote:

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Paul seems to have lost a bit of his fire against the Law here. One would think that Paul would have refused to give an appearance of caring if Jews thought he was contradicting Moses and telling people that "circumcision profits nothing, but only faith in Christ", but here Paul just does what he's told and goes through with the purification. :huh:

This is supposed to be the same Paul who withstood Peter the Rock to his face for vacillating in his behavior when moving between groups of Jews and Gentiles.

Elsewhere Paul wrote about how he went up to Jerusalem to those who were "apostles" and told them how things were going to be concerning the Gospel.

Commence spin in 3...2...1...

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

07-10-2011, 07:45 AM	#401
dockeen Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Panhandle Posts: 9,176	I still find it amazing how powerful xtians find the word "plan". god has a plan for the universe, god has a plan for your life. It all sounds so - powerful, except they never set it on the table and examine it in the context of a god that they consider eternal and all powerful, in which case the questions like: What does and eternal, alll powerful god need with a plan? Why does a god need to create people who can't understand his greatness to massage his ego by telling him how great he is? (And at an horrendous cost in eternal suffering) When you start honestly pondering such questions, you begin to see such ideas, even when covered in flowery language like "so that his glory could be fully manifest", as incredibly superficial cover stories invented my men as bandages to try and hold a bed-time story together into a history book.

07-10-2011, 10:08 AM	#406
dockeen Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Panhandle Posts: 9,176	Sounds like (like many xtians), that the OT is supposed to do two things: (1) Provide for a lot of ooohs and aaahs about "fulfilled propehesies" and (2) Provide a basis for hitting non-xtians over the head with the law that THEY are not subject to. This is what happens when you teach a theology of double standards with respect to god. (The" his ways are not our ways" justification for him doing things that would be evil if humans did it). The xtians look to create a double standard that favors themselves over others.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.