Kilgore Trout

Yes, I think this puts it quite well. The OT does not say you get to go to heaven when you die, or that you go to hell either. All they say is that if you don't obey god you will die. I think god would have mentioned the heaven and hell thing, after all it's a pretty good way to scare people. Jesus is like those gangsters who say they will "protect" your store if you pay them money every week. They are protecting you from themselves. The NT is the one that made up the idea of heaven and hell and I'm supposed to be grateful to Jesus that he is saving me from hell? I don't think so.

One example to show that Jesus is following a different god than the one in the OT is the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The people want to kill her like god commanded in the Torah, but Jesus says whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone. Yes that's very nice and all, but I think he forgot that his daddy is the one who told people to kill adulterers in the first place. There is no way that we are talking about the same god here. Jesus doesn't even acknowledge that god said stuff like this, he just pretends all these people are heartless hypocrites or something. This is another example of him overturning the Jewish laws. People always fall for things like this because they think "Those bad men with their bad laws wanted to kill this nice lady and Jesus stopped them. He is so much nicer that those bad Jews." They end up forgetting that he claims to represent the same god who made up those laws in the first place. So if the laws are bad then the god is bad. That is why the NT likes to use phrases like "the laws Moses gave us" etc, because they want to avoid the issue that these laws that they don't like were given by god.


Thank you for your standard answer from apologetics 101. If you keep repeating it enough maybe you will actually believe it. This was all made up by the NT, and it was exactly directed against the Jews to get them to deny the laws and follow the NT's false prophet. These ideas can not be found in the OT so they become contrary to the OT. They were told to follow the laws FOREVER, not until some guy comes around and fullfills them. Where did christians get this idea that if someone follows all the laws then they are fullfilled? How can you "fullfill" a law? They are supposed to be followed, not be to changed.

Christians made up the idea of all man being in a "sinful state". They created the idea of original sin and that we all are a part of this, that's why they also created the "answer" for this with their "prophet" from the NT. The Jews know these to be outright lies, "stumbling blocks" and they use them to even more embrace their faith and god, and reject pagan ideas and practices meant to sway them away from their true purpose and belief.

I guess you never heard the story of the guy who invented all the traffic laws. Nobody was obeying the traffic laws and they were getting into accidents all the time. So he sent his son and his son obeyed all the traffic laws, thus "fullfilling" the laws. Then his son got killed by someone running a red light. From then on anybody who believed in his son could still disobey the traffic laws and wouldn't have to go to jail. See what I mean? (of course you don't) You can't "fullfill" traffic laws and you can't "fullfill" the laws of the Torah.

You say it is impossible to follow all the laws. Well part of the law is the sin offerings. When you accidently break a law you perform a sin offering. Or as they also say in the OT, when there is no temple you pray for forgiveness. So even when you break the law you can be forgiven within the law by showing repentance. I guess the only ones you can't show repentance for are the ones you are supposed to be killed for, like murder. I have a hard time believing that its impossible to go through life and not commit major sins like murder.

Besides, you claim jesus obeyed the law but as I pointed out above and in my previous post, he did not obey the law. Deut 12:32 says "Do everything I have commanded you; do not add anything to it or take anything from it." In Matthew 5, right after Jesus claims not even the smallest detail of the law will be done away with, he adds and takes away from a bunch of laws. He changes the laws of divorce, the "eye for an eye" rule and others.

Also, as I said in my previous post, Jesus in no way fits the rules of a proper sin offering. God gave exact instructions for how to do sin offerings and Jesus' death fit none of them. God specified only certain animals to use, the animal was to be burned and other requirements that were not met. As soon as you don't meet one of these requirements you don't have a valid sin offering.

Jesus acts like his miracles prove that he is sent by god. That shows how little he knows about the Torah. Deut 13 says that if someone performs miracles but wants you to go against the way of life god commanded, then his miracles are just a test from god to test your faithfullness. You are not to follow him as he is a false prophet. Jesus wanted to change the ways god commanded so he is a false prophet and his "miracles" are meaningless. Not that I seriously believe he performed any miracles.

Soul Invictus

Magus55,

I was hoping to get your analysis of Kilgore Trout's last two posts. As a Jew, I'm sure you could add some commentary.

boneyard bill

Which is the correct interpretation of the Old Testament? Christians say it is the New Testament. Jews say it is the Talmud. Muslims say it is the Koran.

They're all wrong.

Volker.Doormann

Why do you ask that? Really? I think using this generalization claim in connection with the question. 'Which is the correct interpretation of the Old Testament?' without explaining what is meant with 'it' shows nothing news to the question: ' Which is the correct interpretation of the Old Testament?'. What is your correct interpretation of the Old Testament? I think, if one knows, that and why all are wrong, but is not able to speak one argument to this, one can ignore this impotent claim. It is similar to the answer: 'Yes.' to the question: 'Can you tell me the time?'

Volker

boneyard bill

Volker-Doorman writes:

I think people whose native tongue is German sometimes have difficulty understanding irony when it is presented in English.

Volker.Doormann

I think it is not a problem of native tounge; I think it is a problem of missing arguments of the English speaking poster in a forum about Biblical Critism & History. The German writer Kurt Tucholsky has written in a text called: 'Der Mensch', that 'next to humans, there are Americans and Saxonians, but we get zoology in the next year class'. Without knowing, that this was irony, when presented in German, one can think about an antiamericanism of Tucholsky. Where is the irony English speaking people laugh about?