Throwing out the old testament?

lucidfox13
lucidfox13's picture
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Throwing out the old testament?

Well, I got i nto a discussion with this girl in my drawing class.  I meantioned some of the nasty parts of the Bible, about the sexism, murder, bigotry, etc.  She says that since they were in the Old Testament, that they should be excluded since Jesus came by in the new one.  However, doesn't the Old Testament still have verses that Christians believe?  She told me she believed in Adam and Eve instead of evolution, and in the 10 commandments.  Correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but weren't those meantioned in the Old Testament?  How can you toss out part of the book without tossing the whole out?  Why would an all powerful being need to "revise" himself?

JESUS SAVES!!! .... and takes only half damage!


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
9/10 commandments are in

9/10 commandments are in the NT and the creation myth is mentioned over 60 times in the NT. And I think Peter mentioned the flood.

 

 

Sources:

 

Ex- Bible student


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
lucidfox13 wrote:   How

lucidfox13 wrote:
  How can you toss out part of the book without tossing the whole out?

 

You can't. The only 'bible' that jesus could refer to was the OT, and he claimed that he came to hold up the word, not overwrite it.

In addition, the 'jesus' claim is based on 'prophecy' in the OT

And, furthermore, the basis for original sin is in the OT.

Remove the OT and christianity falls to pieces. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
lucidfox13 wrote: However,

lucidfox13 wrote:
However, doesn't the Old Testament still have verses that Christians believe?

 

Right.  Its blatant pick-n-choose. 

 

 

lucidfox13 wrote:
Why would an all powerful being need to "revise" himself?

Exactly.  Like, in the flood story, it is said that God "grieved" he had created man IOW, regret.  How can someone that knows everything that was, will be, or even could be, ever "regret" doing something?

Also, is it possible that there could have EVER been a time when the proclamations in the OT could have been reasonable?  For the ones in question, no.  They could have never been reasonable.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Remove the

todangst wrote:

Remove the OT and christianity falls to pieces.

Umm, I think it falls to pieces, with or without the OT...

 According to Bart Ehrman, there were lots of early schools of Christian thought that seem bizarre to us now.  Like one of them was the belief that the OT God was a *different*, evil God.  And Jesus came to save mankind -- from that bad God.

 


Temper Mental
Temper Mental's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I would assume that an

I would assume that an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect being would write it correctly the first time.

Dear Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Let us pray that all the hungry children in the world will be fed and peace be spread throughout the entire world. Amen.
*Incoherent speaking*
What do you mean it is not your will to feed the children of the world?!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
It not whether you "toss

It not whether you "toss out" the OT from belief but, as a Christian, understand its place in the faith. The NT has it's roots from the OT and the NT does not contradict or overrule the OT (before you flame on remember I'm speaking of the message although the technicial contradictions have been effectively answered). The NT simplifies what it means to obtain salvation from God in that only Jesus is necessary.

The OT doesn't go away; the NT has fulfilled the laws of the OT and those are which no longer apply thanks to Jesus.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
lucidfox13 wrote: Well, I

lucidfox13 wrote:
Well, I got i nto a discussion with this girl in my drawing class.  I meantioned some of the nasty parts of the Bible, about the sexism, murder, bigotry, etc.  She says that since they were in the Old Testament, that they should be excluded since Jesus came by in the new one.  However, doesn't the Old Testament still have verses that Christians believe?  She told me she believed in Adam and Eve instead of evolution, and in the 10 commandments.  Correct me if I'm wrong (I might be), but weren't those meantioned in the Old Testament?  How can you toss out part of the book without tossing the whole out?  Why would an all powerful being need to "revise" himself?

Sounds a lot like the old Marcionite heresy to me.  Or part of it anyway.  Marcionites held that an evil OT God had been superseded by an loving NT God who sent Jesus to save them from the OT covenants.

I don't know what the Protestant sects teach on the OT, but these excerpts for the Catechism of the Catholic Church may shed some light:

The Old Testament

;">121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

;">122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

;">129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: It not

razorphreak wrote:

It not whether you "toss out" the OT from belief but, as a Christian, understand its place in the faith. The NT has it's roots from the OT and the NT does not contradict or overrule the OT (before you flame on remember I'm speaking of the message although the technicial contradictions have been effectively answered). The NT simplifies what it means to obtain salvation from God in that only Jesus is necessary.

The OT doesn't go away; the NT has fulfilled the laws of the OT and those are which no longer apply thanks to Jesus.

Looking at the problem as just regarding rules is too simple.

Do you, or do you not, believe that god did all those terrible things the old testament claims he did? I mean, this guy is supposed to be loving and just, but is that just a recent mood of his?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
caseagainstfaith

caseagainstfaith wrote:
todangst wrote:

Remove the OT and christianity falls to pieces.

Umm, I think it falls to pieces, with or without the OT...

According to Bart Ehrman, there were lots of early schools of Christian thought that seem bizarre to us now. Like one of them was the belief that the OT God was a *different*, evil God. And Jesus came to save mankind -- from that bad God.

 

Yes. All these competing versions died out, leaving christians with the illusion of one 'story', uncorrupted through history. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: It not

razorphreak wrote:

It not whether you "toss out" the OT from belief but, as a Christian, understand its place in the faith. The NT has it's roots from the OT and the NT does not contradict or overrule the OT (before you flame on remember I'm speaking of the message although the technicial contradictions have been effectively answered).

Effectively answered?

Here's a tip for you: if you really want to, you can solve any contradiction, all you have to do is begin by insisting, no matter what, that what you believe is true.

Then, if you predict sunshine, and it rains... well then, the sun did shine... just you couldn't see it for all the raindrops.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:


The OT doesn't go away; the NT has fulfilled the laws of the OT and those are which no longer apply thanks to Jesus.



There's laws from the Old Testament that no longer applies?

"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. Truly I tell you, 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 is accomplished. Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mathew 5:17-20

Not only does Jesus clearly state that he wants you to follow the rules of the old testament, you have to be even better then the very people who teach and uphold the law, because if you don't, you burn for all eternity (What a nice savior). I hope you have tassels on the four corners of your cloak (Deuteronomy 22:12). No? Well I suggest you pack some marshmellows, I hear there's a lot of fire where Yahweh plans to send you Eye-wink


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca

Piper2000ca wrote:
razorphreak wrote:


The OT doesn't go away; the NT has fulfilled the laws of the OT and those are which no longer apply thanks to Jesus.



There's laws from the Old Testament that no longer applies?

"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. Truly I tell you, 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 is accomplished. Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mathew 5:17-20

Not only does Jesus clearly state that he wants you to follow the rules of the old testament, you have to be even better then the very people who teach and uphold the law, because if you don't, you burn for all eternity (What a nice savior). I hope you have tassels on the four corners of your cloak (Deuteronomy 22:12). No? Well I suggest you pack some marshmellows, I hear there's a lot of fire where Yahweh plans to send you Eye-wink

The question of the applicability of the law of Moses to Gentile Christians was settled at the first Church Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD.  The outcome of the Council is recorded in Acts 15.  Jewish Christians of the Pharasitic Tradition saying,"'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.'" (verse 5)

Then after some discussion the decision of the Council in verses 22-29:

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 with the following letter:"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The question of the

Quote:

The question of the applicability of the law of Moses to Gentile Christians was settled at the first Church Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD.  The outcome of the Council is recorded in Acts 15.  Jewish Christians of the Pharasitic Tradition saying,"'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.'" (verse 5)

Then after some discussion the decision of the Council in verses 22-29:

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 with the following letter:"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

It's good to know that the will of God is actually the common decision of people at the Councils.

It's also good to know that God doesn't treat us all equally when it comes to his divine justice of obligation, reward and punishment (do notice I didn't say anything about rights, for obvious reasons).

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Looking at

rexlunae wrote:
Looking at the problem as just regarding rules is too simple. Do you, or do you not, believe that god did all those terrible things the old testament claims he did? I mean, this guy is supposed to be loving and just, but is that just a recent mood of his?

What's your point?  If you lose your job is it because God was in a pissy mood?  What does that have anything to do with the NT fulfilling the OT? 

todangst wrote:
Effectively answered?

Here's a tip for you: if you really want to, you can solve any contradiction, all you have to do is begin by insisting, no matter what, that what you believe is true.

Then, if you predict sunshine, and it rains... well then, the sun did shine... just you couldn't see it for all the raindrops.

I forget there is no effective answer unless I show you the certificate of origin that was written by God himself and signed off by Darwin and recertified by Hawkins.

Every point of contradiction has been answered as being taken out of context, mistranslation through Latin instead of Greek, or misunderstanding of the culture of the time.  The fact that they are not accepted by yourself or others does not make them invalid points - it just means you stopped listening. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
Mathew 5:17-20

Not only does Jesus clearly state that he wants you to follow the rules of the old testament, you have to be even better then the very people who teach and uphold the law, because if you don't, you burn for all eternity (What a nice savior). I hope you have tassels on the four corners of your cloak (Deuteronomy 22:12). No? Well I suggest you pack some marshmellows, I hear there's a lot of fire where Yahweh plans to send you Eye-wink

Ah the whole "fulfill" argument.

If you understood what fulfill meant you'd understand that the laws to which Jesus "completed", meaning if they have run their course they are no longer necessary, are why I can say the OT laws do not apply (and if you understood the laws you'd understand what I mean, specifically the laws of atonement).  Sin is understood from the old laws but through Jesus sin was forgiven man and grace came to those who would accept.  This is not a free ticket to sin and more so when Jesus is accepted, it is a lifestyle change.  There is no desire to sin (even though you do) because your desire is to live out through the faith you have been given and it grows as time goes by (Romans 6, Matthew 11:27, Matthew 13:31).

The fact that you automatically assume hell (since you did start from an incorrect assumption) shows how little you understand the fullness of the message of the entire book. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What's your point? 

Quote:
What's your point?  If you lose your job is it because God was in a pissy mood?  What does that have anything to do with the NT fulfilling the OT?

Absolutely nothing... But that wasn't the question of the OP, if I correctly recall, so this part of the debate is, at best, off-topic.

Quote:
Every point of contradiction has been answered as being taken out of context, mistranslation through Latin instead of Greek, or misunderstanding of the culture of the time.

So then why does nobody in this smart and fully-understanding-of-the-old-culture-and-possible-interpretations religion called Christianity actually attempt to compile, print and give out a version of the Bible (even the Old Testament) that is not prone to heretical interpretation, that explains everything and that can be considered the message of a true, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god?

Or am I seriously missing something very important from the picture?

Quote:
If you understood what fulfill meant you'd understand that the laws to which Jesus "completed", meaning if they have run their course they are no longer necessary, are why I can say the OT laws do not apply (and if you understood the laws you'd understand what I mean, specifically the laws of atonement).  Sin is understood from the old laws but through Jesus sin was forgiven man and grace came to those who would accept.  This is not a free ticket to sin and more so when Jesus is accepted, it is a lifestyle change.  There is no desire to sin (even though you do) because your desire is to live out through the faith you have been given and it grows as time goes by (Romans 6, Matthew 11:27, Matthew 13:31).

Very well, let's, for the sake of argument, allow you to present this whole "fulfillment" of laws as an old replica of today's normal legislative process. Why has nobody actually bothered to give us a set of laws (be them 1, 2, 10, 32768 or whatever the necessary number) that are clearly specified, leave as little room for interpretation or backdoors as possible and that everyone will know for sure that those are the laws, the only laws that your god wants us to respect, and that whatever else we do while not breaking them is strictly our own damn business? I'm only saying this because if all human legislators were capable of doing that, starting from Hammurabi onwards, clearly an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god should also be capable.

Or am I, again, seriously missing something very important from the picture?

Quote:
The fact that you automatically assume hell (since you did start from an incorrect assumption) shows how little you understand the fullness of the message of the entire book.

OK, what are we supposed to understand out of this last paragraph of yours, razor?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: So

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
So then why does nobody in this smart and fully-understanding-of-the-old-culture-and-possible-interpretations religion called Christianity actually attempt to compile, print and give out a version of the Bible (even the Old Testament) that is not prone to heretical interpretation, that explains everything and that can be considered the message of a true, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god?

How many people today want to learn Greek?  Concessions are made.  I can only speak for myself of course but as I have grown in my faith I discovered those contradictions and dove farther in and discovered where the issues began and went the step further into looking at Greek and cross relationships to English. 

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Very well, let's, for the sake of argument, allow you to present this whole "fulfillment" of laws as an old replica of today's normal legislative process.

OK wait stop right there.  You want to compare God and his laws to a modern government?  Now I'm the one missing something... 

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
OK, what are we supposed to understand out of this last paragraph of yours, razor?

That it's ignorant to make a blanket statement that everyone is going to hell based upon Christian scripture if you don't want to understand the scripture to begin with (believing it or not)...and that goes for both sides.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
Looking at the problem as just regarding rules is too simple. Do you, or do you not, believe that god did all those terrible things the old testament claims he did? I mean, this guy is supposed to be loving and just, but is that just a recent mood of his?
What's your point?  If you lose your job is it because God was in a pissy mood?  What does that have anything to do with the NT fulfilling the OT? 

If Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT law, then your religion considers the OT to be correct and valid, but to just contain some laws that you don't have to follow. But if the old testament is correct, your god has, explicitly, ordered human sacrifice, inflicted plagues and death upon the Egyptians (including killing innocent children), ordered genocide, etc. And then, suddenly Jesus shows up and god's whole attitude seems to change. This god is supposed to be merciful and just? The same one that snuffed out life with such zeal just centuries before. By validating the OT, you validate the claim that your god has done all these terrible things.

So, how do you justify god's cruelty, and how do you justify believing that god just changed his attitude?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How many people

Quote:
How many people today want to learn Greek?  Concessions are made.  I can only speak for myself of course but as I have grown in my faith I discovered those contradictions and dove farther in and discovered where the issues began and went the step further into looking at Greek and cross relationships to English.

That has to be the dumbest answer I could have ever received.

If I wanted to learn Greek, then I'd might just as well read the original document(s). Of course I'm asking for an updated and explained version IN ENGLISH.

If you are able to realize that there are mistakes in translation, and you are able to pinpoint them, then you should be able to also explain what was originally intended in the text. If you are, then where's the "explicative Bible" I asked? If you aren't, then on what exactly do you base faith, knowing that your understanding of the texts might be incorrect?

Quote:
OK wait stop right there.  You want to compare God and his laws to a modern government?  Now I'm the one missing something...

OK, he gave a set of laws, they were not applicable anymore, so he sent J.C. to make public a different set of laws, offering him a mandate to speak in his name... And this has no resemblance to a legislative process... Good one, rummy !

But let's not make any assumptions, not even for the sake of the argument. I'll just restate the challenge: could you give me a set of strict, clear, unambiguous laws that are for certain your god's words and that are the only true laws that humans must respect when it comes to relationship with their god?

Quote:
That it's ignorant to make a blanket statement that everyone is going to hell based upon Christian scripture if you don't want to understand the scripture to begin with (believing it or not)...and that goes for both sides.

Enlight us, oh great and undoubtedly correct interpreter of scripture!

Actually, nevermind, just answer my first two questions. Your dodging efforts are remarkable.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Ah the

razorphreak wrote:

Ah the whole "fulfill" argument.

If you understood what fulfill meant you'd understand that the laws to which Jesus "completed", meaning if they have run their course they are no longer necessary, are why I can say the OT laws do not apply (and if you understood the laws you'd understand what I mean, specifically the laws of atonement). Sin is understood from the old laws but through Jesus sin was forgiven man and grace came to those who would accept. This is not a free ticket to sin and more so when Jesus is accepted, it is a lifestyle change. There is no desire to sin (even though you do) because your desire is to live out through the faith you have been given and it grows as time goes by (Romans 6, Matthew 11:27, Matthew 13:31).

All this is pulled directly out of your ass and the asses of various theologians, all of whom had and have a vested interest in whitewashing the horrible bits of the bible. There is nothing in the Bible itself supporting this interpretation, and the quote shows very clearly that Jesus expected everyone to live according to the letter of the old law.

Any document that requires this level of "interpretation" before it can be understood is not worth the paper it's printed on. Christians have two choices: live by what's actually written in the book they claim to revere, or admit that they are making Christianity up as they go along. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:

Tilberian wrote:
All this is pulled directly out of your ass and the asses of various theologians, all of whom had and have a vested interest in whitewashing the horrible bits of the bible. There is nothing in the Bible itself supporting this interpretation, and the quote shows very clearly that Jesus expected everyone to live according to the letter of the old law.

That's why I left you the bible verses so you could read it for yourself. Don't start with your attitudes if you didn't even bother trying to understand.

Tilberian wrote:
Any document that requires this level of "interpretation" before it can be understood is not worth the paper it's printed on. Christians have two choices: live by what's actually written in the book they claim to revere, or admit that they are making Christianity up as they go along. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.

That so. Might as well throw out Darwin's book too cause it seems you've got to do a lot of research and "interpretation" to figure that one out too.

Don't worry rigor, I didn't forget you. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
Mathew 5:17-20

Not only does Jesus clearly state that he wants you to follow the rules of the old testament, you have to be even better then the very people who teach and uphold the law, because if you don't, you burn for all eternity (What a nice savior). I hope you have tassels on the four corners of your cloak (Deuteronomy 22:12). No? Well I suggest you pack some marshmellows, I hear there's a lot of fire where Yahweh plans to send you Eye-wink

Ah the whole "fulfill" argument.

If you understood what fulfill meant you'd understand that the laws to which Jesus "completed", meaning if they have run their course they are no longer necessary, are why I can say the OT laws do not apply (and if you understood the laws you'd understand what I mean, specifically the laws of atonement). Sin is understood from the old laws but through Jesus sin was forgiven man and grace came to those who would accept. This is not a free ticket to sin and more so when Jesus is accepted, it is a lifestyle change. There is no desire to sin (even though you do) because your desire is to live out through the faith you have been given and it grows as time goes by (Romans 6, Matthew 11:27, Matthew 13:31).

The fact that you automatically assume hell (since you did start from an incorrect assumption) shows how little you understand the fullness of the message of the entire book.

I think you would be surprised about how much I do know about the bible. The Greek word that is used in this passage for fulfill is πληροσαι (roughly transliterated as playrowsai). While this is literally translated as fulfill, like many words in Greek, it losses much of its meaning in English. You are trying to say that the old laws have run their course, however πληροσαι also means to uphold. While the English translation may sound like he is saying they have run their course, the Greek is very clear that he wants them to continue as well.

While there are definite examples in the bible where Jesus or Paul (especially Paul) are basically saying that you don't need to follow the old laws, these only serve as further evidence to the contradictory nature of the bible.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
  It's good to know that

 

It's good to know that the will of God is actually the common decision of people at the Councils.

It's also good to know that God doesn't treat us all equally when it comes to his divine justice of obligation, reward and punishment (do notice I didn't say anything about rights, for obvious reasons).

Jesus conferred the power to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, and to interpret the Scriptures on the Apostles in Matthew 18:  "'18* Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19* Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

This passage  clearly establishes the teaching Magesterium of the Church, that is, the authority of the Pope, in cimmuninion with the bishops, to define doctrine and teach infallibly.  The problem of multiple and dubious interpretations of Scripture enters the Church during the Reformation with the promulgation of the Protestant doctrine of "sola Scriptura", that is "Bible only".  Under this doctrine, interpreatation of Scripture became the matter of individual interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Obviously, the existence of more than 30k Christian denominations shows that this method doesn't work.

The changes to the obligations under the Mosaic Law were applicable to all members of the Church.  I can see how my wording made it seem that they were only applicable to Gentiles.  That this is so is illustrated also in Acts 11:

 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3 saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?" 4* But Peter began and explained to them in order: 5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 But I said, 'No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.'

So the interpretation of the law was applied equally to all within the Church, in keeping with Christ's admonition to respect the rights of all as stated in Matt 25:40:

'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: I think

Piper2000ca wrote:
I think you would be surprised about how much I do know about the bible. The Greek word that is used in this passage for fulfill is πληροσαι (roughly transliterated as playrowsai). While this is literally translated as fulfill, like many words in Greek, it losses much of its meaning in English. You are trying to say that the old laws have run their course, however πληροσαι also means to uphold. While the English translation may sound like he is saying they have run their course, the Greek is very clear that he wants them to continue as well.

You know I'm a bit curious where you got that. In accordance to Strong's and Thayer's, the word used is "pleroo" (4137) (TDNT 6:286,867) - couldn't copy it sorry. The definitions for this word are:

1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally

1) I abound, I am liberally supplied

2) to render full, i.e. to complete

And is used 50+ more times in the whole of the bible.  I note that because of the usage of the word giving it tense and where we get "to fulfill".

Piper2000ca wrote:
While there are definite examples in the bible where Jesus or Paul (especially Paul) are basically saying that you don't need to follow the old laws, these only serve as further evidence to the contradictory nature of the bible.

Explicitly no you do not follow them but the law is implicitly followed through the teachings and example of Jesus.  There is nothing contradictory about this. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: That's

razorphreak wrote:

That's why I left you the bible verses so you could read it for yourself. Don't start with your attitudes if you didn't even bother trying to understand.

And don't you pretend that there's anything to understand. You know as well as I do that people in Jesus' time would have had no problem with the horrors of the OT - common practices of war and civil repression in a barbaric era. The fact that they were included in the bible shows that the people hundreds of years later who actually authored the Bible had no particular problem with them either. The whole document shows quite clearly that it was written from a moral perspective far less advanced than our own. So either god is evil, or just not worth listening to any more.

I love how theists try to sound like scientists when they claim that it requires all this background and study to understand the Bible. You wish. It's a primitive document written by primitive people who were primarily interested in establishing themselves as a theocratic power. It carries exactly the same moral and intellectual weight as the Greek and Egyptian myths of the same era.

razorphreak wrote:

That so. Might as well throw out Darwin's book too cause it seems you've got to do a lot of research and "interpretation" to figure that one out too.

That is so. And there is no interpretation required to figure out Darwin's Origin of Species. As a work of science it was groundbreaking at its time. Today we know that it contains a number of errors, though it has stood up remarkably well compared to many other early theories.  Of course, it doesn't matter than Darwin has errors, since Darwin and evolution are not the same thing, unlike the bible and christianity.

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:

Tilberian wrote:
I love how theists try to sound like scientists when they claim that it requires all this background and study to understand the Bible. You wish. It's a primitive document written by primitive people who were primarily interested in establishing themselves as a theocratic power. It carries exactly the same moral and intellectual weight as the Greek and Egyptian myths of the same era.

Dodging a theist now? Wow I can't say I'm impressed now. You've basically admitted to me you didn't read the verses I posted so hence you feel safe to assume what you want instead of what is written from the bible and debate that. Do what you wish then and continue on with your bias and closed minded approach.

Tilberian wrote:
That is so. And there is no interpretation required to figure out Darwin's Origin of Species. As a work of science it was groundbreaking at its time. Today we know that it contains a number of errors, though it has stood up remarkably well compared to many other early theories. Of course, it doesn't matter than Darwin has errors, since Darwin and evolution are not the same thing, unlike the bible and christianity.

I'm glad you think so. If you don't mind then I'll get back to the actual debate.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why not just throw the

Why not just throw the entire BuyBull out, and if Jebus really did do away with the OT, why do they insist on posting the 10 commandments everywhere (part of the OT!)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: You've

razorphreak wrote:
You've basically admitted to me you didn't read the verses I posted so hence you feel safe to assume what you want instead of what is written from the bible and debate that.

sorry meant to write: "You've basically admitted to me you didn't read the verses I posted so hence you feel safe to assume what you want instead of debating what I wrote based on the verses I referenced."

but I got locked out of editing. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Jesus conferred the

Quote:

Jesus conferred the power to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, and to interpret the Scriptures on the Apostles in Matthew 18:  "'18* Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19* Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

This passage  clearly establishes the teaching Magesterium of the Church, that is, the authority of the Pope, in cimmuninion with the bishops, to define doctrine and teach infallibly.  The problem of multiple and dubious interpretations of Scripture enters the Church during the Reformation with the promulgation of the Protestant doctrine of "sola Scriptura", that is "Bible only".  Under this doctrine, interpreatation of Scripture became the matter of individual interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Obviously, the existence of more than 30k Christian denominations shows that this method doesn't work.

So let me get this straight, Jesus allowed his apostles to interpret and delegater interpretation? This means that your god's omnipotence, omniscience and, even worse, omnibenevolence, is the result of interpretation, and that they might not be actual characteristics ? You mean to imply something like "missiles in the mirror are closer than they appear" ? Oh come on ! Surely you can do better than that !

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: If I

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
If I wanted to learn Greek, then I'd might just as well read the original document(s). Of course I'm asking for an updated and explained version IN ENGLISH.

And as piper so pointed out in this thread, there are translational losses so if you learn greek and read the original, you'll understand the translation issue.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
OK, he gave a set of laws, they were not applicable anymore, so he sent J.C. to make public a different set of laws, offering him a mandate to speak in his name... And this has no resemblance to a legislative process... Good one, rummy !

But let's not make any assumptions, not even for the sake of the argument. I'll just restate the challenge: could you give me a set of strict, clear, unambiguous laws that are for certain your god's words and that are the only true laws that humans must respect when it comes to relationship with their god?

 Jesus was not sent with a different set of laws.  How did you get that?  Fulfill or complete does not mean the same as replace.

 A set of laws that are God's words that are the only true laws that humans must respect.  I really don't think I understand.  Love God and love your neighbor as yourself are the two commandments that Jesus left(the original 10 are encompassed with those) and should be the one's that humans respect with their relationship to God.  That what you mean?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Enlight us, oh great and undoubtedly correct interpreter of scripture!

Actually, nevermind, just answer my first two questions. Your dodging efforts are remarkable.

Just wanted to add to that, different subject, different thread. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

You know I'm a bit curious where you got that. In accordance to Strong's and Thayer's, the word used is "pleroo" (4137) (TDNT 6:286,867) - couldn't copy it sorry. The definitions for this word are:

1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally

1) I abound, I am liberally supplied

2) to render full, i.e. to complete

And is used 50+ more times in the whole of the bible. I note that because of the usage of the word giving it tense and where we get "to fulfill".

    Hmmm, you may be right on this.  When I looked up πληρωσαι (or πληρόω which is the root verb), I had quickly done so on an online text, and it included (among with the ones you have said):

2c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise,

2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute

    However, when I looked at my own dictionary, it clarified it a bit more, and it has the same translations as Strong's and Thayer's, so you do seem to be right about the word πληρόω.  With that said, the rest of the passage Jesus is saying to keep the law until everything is fulfilled.  So yes, it does say that he has come to fulfill (or complete) the law, but it sounds like he hasn't done so yet, so keep doing what you were doing until you do.

razorphreak wrote:

Explicitly no you do not follow them but the law is implicitly followed through the teachings and example of Jesus. There is nothing contradictory about this.

    To me (and to many) this passage still sounds like he wants you to follow (not implicitly, but explicitly) the laws of the old testament.  In the end of course, it's your belief not mine, so feel free to twist it around to seem non-contradictory all you like.

    As for automatically assuming hell (which I forget to mention in my last post).  Where else am I supposed to assume one goes if they don't go to heaven?  I admit, there is still much Greek for me to learn, but I don't remember the bible (old or new) saying any other place for me to go if I don't go to heaven.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

todangst wrote:
Effectively answered?

Here's a tip for you: if you really want to, you can solve any contradiction, all you have to do is begin by insisting, no matter what, that what you believe is true.

Then, if you predict sunshine, and it rains... well then, the sun did shine... just you couldn't see it for all the raindrops.

I forget there is no effective answer unless I show you the certificate of origin that was written by God himself and signed off by Darwin and recertified by Hawkins.

Save this strawman styled rationalization for yourself.  Not even in your dreams could you pretend that you  have given solid answers that are being naysayed...   The reality is that there are no 'effective' ways to deal with the painfully obvious contradictions , both within the OT and the NT, between the OT and the NT, and between both sets of books and reality. 

The only means of settling the contradictions is to simply cling to the delusion that no problems exist... then, after this, it's a simple matter to shout out "translation error" or "out of context" - the theists usual collection of ad hoc rationalizations...

Quote:

Every point of contradiction has been answered as being taken out of context, mistranslation through Latin instead of Greek, or misunderstanding of the culture of the time.

LOL! 

Thanks for conceding the ad hoc nature of the rationalizations.

"Out of context!"

"Translation error"

You do realize that you can do this with ANY problem?

2+2=5

That's not an error. You took it out of context! It was a joke!

Or

That's not an error! "5" also means '4" in some cases. You have to know the original greek!

The reality is this: you don't have any rational means of solving these problems, you simply cling to your refusal to acknowledge any error. This is your sole real basis for your 'solutions'

Want proof? Simple: Even you theists bicker amongst yourselves over what the 'proper' solution is for the 'apparent' contradictions...

Quote:

The fact that they are not accepted by yourself or others...

...is based on the fact that we refuse to begin by simply clinging to dogma, no matter what. We look at it reasonably, and your painfully ridiculous ad hocisms come off as a joke.

 You can't be taken seriously. Anyone who claims that there are no internal and external errors in the bible is bullshiting himself. I don't say 'bullshitting me" because the claim is so laughable that no sane person would buy it.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Save this

todangst wrote:
Save this strawman styled rationalization for yourself. Not even in your dreams could you pretend that you have given solid answers that are being naysayed... The reality is that there are no 'effective' ways to deal with the painfully obvious contradictions , both within the OT and the NT, between the OT and the NT, and between both sets of books and reality.

The only means of settling the contradictions is to simply cling to the delusion that no problems exist... then, after this, it's a simple matter to shout out "translation error" or "out of context" - the theists usual collection of ad hoc rationalizations...

And out of all that you just proved the point I was making.

It doesn't matter that you don't accept the response.  The fact is the response was made and to that you call it "ineffective" or "delusional".  Great response... 

todangst wrote:
Thanks for conceding the ad hoc nature of the rationalizations.

See what I mean?

todangst wrote:
Want proof? Simple: Even you theists bicker amongst yourselves over what the 'proper' solution is for the 'apparent' contradictions...

Funny, when scientists do it, it's called constructive.  When a theist does it, it's bickering?  OK.  I guess you got me there.  Hate to break it to you but not even theists are perfect.  We get em wrong once in a while too ya know.

todangst wrote:
You can't be taken seriously. Anyone who claims that there are no internal and external errors in the bible is bullshiting himself. I don't say 'bullshitting me" because the claim is so laughable that no sane person would buy it.

 To which I'll say again the responses were given.  I cannot help you if you dismiss them as whatever excuse/name/fallacy/brush-off you wish you use this week.  Every time I've seen a rebuttal to your claim, no debate results because it seems you'd not say "maybe you're right" or, at least, come with a alternate explanation.  Believer or not I've never seen you once come with a rebuttal against the rebuke of the so called contradictions.  Always seems to be a "I'm right and you're wrong cause you're delusional so na-na-nanana".  I'd actually like to see a logical response other than:

  • why am I even arguing when it's not true
  • no scotsman or other fallacy
  • straight dismissal without reason.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
todangst wrote:
Save this strawman styled rationalization for yourself. Not even in your dreams could you pretend that you have given solid answers that are being naysayed... The reality is that there are no 'effective' ways to deal with the painfully obvious contradictions , both within the OT and the NT, between the OT and the NT, and between both sets of books and reality.

The only means of settling the contradictions is to simply cling to the delusion that no problems exist... then, after this, it's a simple matter to shout out "translation error" or "out of context" - the theists usual collection of ad hoc rationalizations...

And out of all that you just proved the point I was making.

No, I already refuted this lie. But hey, you have no choice but to repeat it again, and again, do you?

I am not just naysaying you. I've gone through these ridiculous debates for years, and I've seen the claims.

They are ridiculous.

So stop lying to yourself that you are being naysayed. Stop pretending that you are putting forward a rational argument that is being silenced without critical examination.

 

todangst wrote:
Want proof? Simple: Even you theists bicker amongst yourselves over what the 'proper' solution is for the 'apparent' contradictions...

 

Quote:

Funny, when scientists do it, it's called constructive. When a theist does it, it's bickering? OK. I guess you got me there.

 So, they are the same, because both groups bicker?

Theists are not relying on non arbitrary methodologies. Scientists are. Comparing what you do to 'science', just because both groups 'bicker' is ridiculous.

todangst wrote:
You can't be taken seriously. Anyone who claims that there are no internal and external errors in the bible is bullshiting himself. I don't say 'bullshitting me" because the claim is so laughable that no sane person would buy it.

 

Quote:

To which I'll say again the responses were given. I cannot help you if you dismiss them as whatever excuse/name/fallacy/brush-off you wish you use this week.

Again, you repeat the same lie that you are being brushed off without getting a say. I'm telling you that I've been through these fucking ridiculous contradiction-denial debates before, and it's just pathetic to see the ad hocs that come from theists.

 

Quote:
Every time I've seen a rebuttal to your claim, no debate results because it seems you'd not say "maybe you're right" or, at least, come with a alternate explanation. Believer or not I've never seen you once come with a rebuttal against the rebuke of the so called contradictions. Always seems to be a "I'm right and you're wrong cause you're delusional so na-na-nanana". I'd actually like to see a logical response other than:

What logical argument have you given? You've asserted this:

Quote:
The NT has it's roots from the OT and the NT does not contradict or overrule the OT (before you flame on remember I'm speaking of the message although the technicial contradictions have been effectively answered).

 

And I've told you that that's a pile of shit.

There's no argument here, just your assertion, and my counter assertion that you're a dogmatic, closed minded, self deluded person if you hold to this nonsense.  

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And as piper so

Quote:
And as piper so pointed out in this thread, there are translational losses so if you learn greek and read the original, you'll understand the translation issue.

So... uhm... I have to ask again... why can't you or another theist or a group of theists create a document that everyone can understand, complete with side notes explaining wat the intention of the writer was when there might be translation losses, that everyone will know to be the exact, unquestionable word of God?

JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION, PLEASE !!!

It's the third time I have to ask it! Is it so damn difficult? If it is, at least admit it, I won't bother you with it again.

Quote:
Jesus was not sent with a different set of laws.  How did you get that?  Fulfill or complete does not mean the same as replace.

 A set of laws that are God's words that are the only true laws that humans must respect.  I really don't think I understand.  Love God and love your neighbor as yourself are the two commandments that Jesus left(the original 10 are encompassed with those) and should be the one's that humans respect with their relationship to God.  That what you mean?

So... we were originally having all those laws and regulations in the Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and now, after Jesus, we have only 2 of them that we have to respect.

And you're telling me that doesn't include replacing?

OK, fine ! Let's consider that "love God" and "love your neighbour as you love yourself" are the only two laws that we should obey. Let's say that I'm a sado-masoquist, how am I supposed to obey the second law?

Certainly, if this is a complete set of laws God wishes us to live by, it's neither clear nor unambiguous. Why won't God give clear and unambiguous laws? Does he hate them, or fear them?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If you're going to say we

If you're going to say we have to learn the original Grrek for this, then any Christian who doesn't understand Greek should be escorted out of church.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Quote:
And as piper so pointed out in this thread, there are translational losses so if you learn greek and read the original, you'll understand the translation issue.

So... uhm... I have to ask again... why can't you or another theist or a group of theists create a document that everyone can understand, complete with side notes explaining wat the intention of the writer was when there might be translation losses, that everyone will know to be the exact, unquestionable word of God?

The late John Vernon McGee wrote a rather large set of commentaries that typically tries to do just that.  It is what he used for his "Thru the Bible" radio program (which I used to listen to while I was still a Christian).  I still have the books (there's like 50 of them), so if there are specific things that come up in that regard, I can look it up and tell you what his thoughts on it were.  I'd need specific verses to cross-reference in the thing, though.

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: There's no

todangst wrote:
There's no argument here, just your assertion, and my counter assertion that you're a dogmatic, closed minded, self deluded person if you hold to this nonsense.

You say you aren't "naysaying" yet you have never given me the answer to the question of why.  Why is my statement only assertion?  I'm not asking you to believe the bible before you start tearing it apart; you don't have to believe to tell me why you feel its only an assertion and as you so put, "delusional".  You've never offered an answer. 

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
why can't you or another theist or a group of theists create a document that everyone can understand, complete with side notes explaining wat the intention of the writer was when there might be translation losses, that everyone will know to be the exact, unquestionable word of God?

OK so now you want a document?  I've seen on google tons of sites that explain the list that rook posted on a different thread, answers to your questions, notes, the whole 9 yards.  They exist.  Now before you ask me to post those links, I will tell you that I have seen them posted on these forums, only to have them each time rejected, usually by the exact same "delusional" non-answer, non-debative inquiries, or my favorite, "I don't believe in it to begin with" dodge.  So tell me why should I bother when people like Matt will always answer the same (oh usually with the "do you know how many times we've answered this" kind of statement too).

I'm not avoiding your question.  I'm tired of the same rebuttals time and time again that say nothing.  If you ask me a question about the specific point in the bible much like piper did, and I give you an answer based upon my faith and my studies of the bible, I'd expect an answer like he gave - one that directly acknowledges my statement, not as one of disbelief but of debate and of intelligence.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
So... we were originally having all those laws and regulations in the Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and now, after Jesus, we have only 2 of them that we have to respect.

And you're telling me that doesn't include replacing?

No, it doesn't.  More below...

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Let's consider that "love God" and "love your neighbour as you love yourself" are the only two laws that we should obey. Let's say that I'm a sado-masoquist, how am I supposed to obey the second law?

Being involved with S&M is first not loving God.  God did not make us to enjoy pain.  Most people involved in S&M have other "issues", mostly psychological, and it is used as an out for those issues.  Which brings us to not loving yourself if you are hiding from your own pain.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Quote:

Jesus conferred the power to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, and to interpret the Scriptures on the Apostles in Matthew 18:  "'18* Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19* Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

This passage  clearly establishes the teaching Magesterium of the Church, that is, the authority of the Pope, in cimmuninion with the bishops, to define doctrine and teach infallibly.  The problem of multiple and dubious interpretations of Scripture enters the Church during the Reformation with the promulgation of the Protestant doctrine of "sola Scriptura", that is "Bible only".  Under this doctrine, interpreatation of Scripture became the matter of individual interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Obviously, the existence of more than 30k Christian denominations shows that this method doesn't work.

So let me get this straight, Jesus allowed his apostles to interpret and delegater interpretation? This means that your god's omnipotence, omniscience and, even worse, omnibenevolence, is the result of interpretation, and that they might not be actual characteristics ? You mean to imply something like "missiles in the mirror are closer than they appear" ? Oh come on ! Surely you can do better than that !

Exactly.  The Son of God guiding his Church through the Magesterium inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The Magesterium of the Church which traces its lineage directly to the Apostles through Apostolic Succession. This was the mission laid upon the Apostels in Matt 28: "19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."  

It is not the interpretation of men, but that of God himself.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: OK so now you want a

Quote:
OK so now you want a document?  I've seen on google tons of sites that explain the list that rook posted on a different thread, answers to your questions, notes, the whole 9 yards.  They exist.  Now before you ask me to post those links, I will tell you that I have seen them posted on these forums, only to have them each time rejected, usually by the exact same "delusional" non-answer, non-debative inquiries, or my favorite, "I don't believe in it to begin with" dodge.  So tell me why should I bother when people like Matt will always answer the same (oh usually with the "do you know how many times we've answered this" kind of statement too).

This reminds me of a quote from a cartoon series: "Why is my Englishness not understanding?"

I'll just have to take it slowly, it appears that my question is too complex for you.

I want a book that:

- contains an updated translation of the original Bible into modern language

- has footnotes or sidenotes or whatever to explain what was originally intended by the original author(s), where exact and correct translation cannot be made

- is as clear and not prone to interpretation as possible

- can be considered the updated, clear and true word of God that everyone should understand and obey

 

I KNOW there are hundreds of sites explaining things. There are hundreds of sites even contradicting each other in what they explain. Do you realize WHY I'm asking this? I'm asking this because people now make the following claims:

- we understand the culture and situation of the writers of the Bible

- we know and understand the word of God, unaltered

- the clerics are the true messengers of God

Yet, even though this is the case, we are clueless on what the message of God actually is. Should you have sex before marriage? Should you obey the OT? What are the exact laws that one must obey? When will Jesus come? Etc.

Quote:
No, it doesn't.  More below...

There was nothing more below that had any connection to replacing laws...

Quote:
Being involved with S&M is first not loving God.  God did not make us to enjoy pain.  Most people involved in S&M have other "issues", mostly psychological, and it is used as an out for those issues.  Which brings us to not loving yourself if you are hiding from your own pain.

OK, if I'm ever going to need examples of incoherence, I'll just quote your paragraph. I might be dumber, but I really don't get what you want to transmit here. I'll take it apart one sentence by one.

- "Being involved with S&M is first not loving God." - how do you know? where is that written? or which recognized religious leader said it?

- "God did not make us to enjoy pain." - well, apparently, he did, hence the existence of S&M

- "Most people involved in S&M have other "issues", mostly psychological, and it is used as an out for those issues." - that, however, dodges the point a bit, and I will explain why with an analogy: what should a schizophrenic do when his illness is so severe, that he cannot distinguish between illusion or reality anymore? What should he do if he sees someone attacking him with a knife, but that someone is, in reality, only the butcher at the counter in front of him chopping some pork? Should he react as if he's attacked, and hurt the butcher in the process, or should he simply accept the possibility that he might die, since he cannot know whether the man attacking him with the knife is illusion or reality?

- "Which brings us to not loving yourself if you are hiding from your own pain." - this one I didn't understand. Where did hiding away from your own pain even enter the discussion? And how did you conclude that one doesn't love itself if it hides away from own pain? Because actually, that's precisely what I would consider part of loving oneself.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Exactly.  The Son

Quote:

Exactly.  The Son of God guiding his Church through the Magesterium inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The Magesterium of the Church which traces its lineage directly to the Apostles through Apostolic Succession. This was the mission laid upon the Apostels in Matt 28: "19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."  

It is not the interpretation of men, but that of God himself.

Well, there goes the "free will" argument, right out the window. Thanks, totus_tuus, I couldn't have done it better myself.

If it is the interpretation of God, which would you say is the CORRECT interpretation? Catholic? Orthodox? Kalvinist? Lutheranist? Because, you know, they ALL trace back directly to the apostles.

Presuming that it is Catholic, then God sure changes his mind a lot... He changed his mind, and now the Earth isn't the center of the Universe anymore. He changed his mind, and now he didn't create us in 6 literal days, but in 6 periods of billions of years. He changed his mind again, and now he isn't sure whether he created us just by snapping his fingers, or he let us evolve...

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Quote:

Exactly.  The Son of God guiding his Church through the Magesterium inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The Magesterium of the Church which traces its lineage directly to the Apostles through Apostolic Succession. This was the mission laid upon the Apostels in Matt 28: "19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."  

It is not the interpretation of men, but that of God himself.

Well, there goes the "free will" argument, right out the window. Thanks, totus_tuus, I couldn't have done it better myself.

If it is the interpretation of God, which would you say is the CORRECT interpretation? Catholic? Orthodox? Kalvinist? Lutheranist? Because, you know, they ALL trace back directly to the apostles.

Presuming that it is Catholic, then God sure changes his mind a lot... He changed his mind, and now the Earth isn't the center of the Universe anymore. He changed his mind, and now he didn't create us in 6 literal days, but in 6 periods of billions of years. He changed his mind again, and now he isn't sure whether he created us just by snapping his fingers, or he let us evolve...

You assume correctly, I am Catholic.

I'm not sure how the guidance of the Holy Spirit destroys damages the free will argument in the least.  The Magesterium (ie, the teaching authority of the Church) defines doctrine.  Catholics have the free will to decide whether to acccept the Church's authority on a specific matter, or they can stop being Catholic.  It's their choice.  (I'm a pretty orthodox Catholic.)

I'd definitely say that the Catholic Church holds most truly to the fullness of the Faith.

Show me any ex cathedra pronouncement, by any Pope stating that, as a matter of doctrine, all Catholics must believe:

a.  that the Earth is the center of the universe.

b.  that the universe was created in six 24 hour days.

c.  that man is not the product of an evolutionary process.

Know what?  You can't.  They don't exist. 

I'll even help you out on the evolution issue.  From Papal Encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, August 12, 1950:

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God....

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."

And Pope John Paul II, in his Message to the Pontifical Council of the Sciences, October 22, 1996, "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [Humani Generis], new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory"

And finally from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 283,"The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies that have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers"

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm not sure how the

Quote:
I'm not sure how the guidance of the Holy Spirit destroys damages the free will argument in the least.  The Magesterium (ie, the teaching authority of the Church) defines doctrine.  Catholics have the free will to decide whether to acccept the Church's authority on a specific matter, or they can stop being Catholic.  It's their choice.  (I'm a pretty orthodox Catholic.)

Or, in other words, they have a choice between believing all nonsense and potentially going to heaven, or be realistic and going to hell.

Quote:
Show me any ex cathedra pronouncement, by any Pope stating that, as a matter of doctrine, all Catholics must believe:

a.  that the Earth is the center of the universe.

b.  that the universe was created in six 24 hour days.

c.  that man is not the product of an evolutionary process.

Know what?  You can't.  They don't exist.

Oh, aren't we having a wishful thinker amongst us?

"The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith." - taken from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html - Galileo Galilei's trial, and those are Pope Urban's words on the Earth not being the center of the Universe...

Also note this: "The cardinal [note: Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna], responding to an explosive debate on evolution in the US, had argued that Darwinian concepts of "random variation and natural selection" were incompatible with the Catholic belief that there is a divine purpose and design to nature.

The cardinal also said that the evolution had become an atheistic ideological dogma that was being used against the Church."

Taken from very interesting news: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811

 

Now... what were you saying, again ?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: I want

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
I want a book that:

- contains an updated translation of the original Bible into modern language

- has footnotes or sidenotes or whatever to explain what was originally intended by the original author(s), where exact and correct translation cannot be made

- is as clear and not prone to interpretation as possible

- can be considered the updated, clear and true word of God that everyone should understand and obey

The BEST one that I know of is the New American Standard Bible (NASB).  It has the most litteral Greek > English translation and, depending on which one you nab, would have footnotes. 

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
I'm asking this because people now make the following claims:

- we understand the culture and situation of the writers of the Bible

- we know and understand the word of God, unaltered

- the clerics are the true messengers of God

Yet, even though this is the case, we are clueless on what the message of God actually is. Should you have sex before marriage? Should you obey the OT? What are the exact laws that one must obey? When will Jesus come? Etc.

Who we?

There are basically two groups that I know of when it comes to God (and please remember I'm coming from the point of view as a Christian, not Islamic or Jewish) - believers and non-believers.  Non-believers may or may not understand parts but, it seems, will never understand the full message since they are (a) not meant to by the will of God and (b) do not want or care to understand it.

The other group, believers, are all unified in the belief of Jesus dying, being the Son of God, being God on Earth, and resurrecting on the 3rd day of death.  This is what defines a Christian.  After that definition, you'll have the dogmatic approaches on how to worship but none of the Christian denominations EVER alter the definition of what being a Christian is, not even Catholics which is the number 1 dogma in the world.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
how do you know? where is that written? or which recognized religious leader said it?

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Would God want you to abuse your body if that is like abusing God himself?  I don't think so... 

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
well, apparently, he did, hence the existence of S&M

You could say the same thing with drug users since when you use drugs you get a euphoric sensation but is that good for your body or mind?  No.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
that, however, dodges the point a bit, and I will explain why with an analogy: what should a schizophrenic do when his illness is so severe, that he cannot distinguish between illusion or reality anymore? What should he do if he sees someone attacking him with a knife, but that someone is, in reality, only the butcher at the counter in front of him chopping some pork? Should he react as if he's attacked, and hurt the butcher in the process, or should he simply accept the possibility that he might die, since he cannot know whether the man attacking him with the knife is illusion or reality?

But neither the person in S&M or the schizophrenic can justify based on God's word their actions because in both cases they can seek help before it got to the situation (much like with Cho at Virgina Tech).  There is one small catch to this and that's on Christians themselves - what does that say to us if we were unwilling to have extended a helping hand before it got bad?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: want a book that: -

Quote:
want a book that:

- contains an updated translation of the original Bible into modern language

- has footnotes or sidenotes or whatever to explain what was originally intended by the original author(s), where exact and correct translation cannot be made

- is as clear and not prone to interpretation as possible

- can be considered the updated, clear and true word of God that everyone should understand and obey

ask and you shall receive... (I am so funny!)

http://www.thirdmill.org/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=20&cat=Bibles

I would recommend an NIV version (doesn't have all that "Thou art ist" stuff that I can never understand)

Also, to understand cultural relevence try Halley's Bible Handbook. 

Quote:
Should you have sex before marriage? Should you obey the OT? What are the exact laws that one must obey? When will Jesus come? Etc

Sex:  well, some people say that Sex is the sign and seal of marriage, hence 'premarital sex' does not really exist.

The OT had lots of nifty stuff in it, like skin disease, etc.  JC came and clarified all those laws.  Kinda like the debate that goes on today within the Church, legalism vs libertarian.  The exact laws are "love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. and Love your neighbor."  This actually sums up the 10 commandments. (JC said that too).

Of course you should obey the OT in context to the NT, it helps a person see the work of redemtion in time.  But you are an Atheist, why does this matter to you?  If you give me an example of a law from the OT, I will show you (hopefully) in context how it works in the NT.

Will JC come again? 

There are three different answers to that question, this is an internal inconsistancy within Christianity.

Pre-millennium:  JC (soon) will come an "rapture" us all out of this God-forsaken place.  (See the movie Left Behind, or the episode of the Simpsons Left Below <highly recommended&gtEye-wink  (There are variations to this position and is taken very seriously, this is a mocking review)

A-millennium:  This is harder for me to explain, but essencially there is no pre-determined (for humans to know) time and then JC comes back.

Post millennium:  JC is currently ruling now (and has been since His acsention) and sin is gradually being removed from this world and restoring it to an Eden-like state.

As for your S&M questions.  Who is responsible for one's being?  If you do not believe in God, then how can you blame God?  You cannot, it is an incoherent statement.

Quote:
"Being involved with S&M is first not loving God." - how do you know? where is that written? or which recognized religious leader said it?

I will answer this from the theist's view to show how it is not by Who's authority, but What.

If I find pleasure in pain, and I seek to find more pleasure then I am not seeking God, I am seeking pleasure.  Therefore, since I seek after things that I hold in value, I value pain.  Or I come to love pain, and not God.  Pain is of "this world", God is of another, meaning that I either love what it is Holy, or unholy.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: I

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

I want a book that:
- contains an updated translation of the original Bible into modern language
- has footnotes or sidenotes or whatever to explain what was originally intended by the original author(s), where exact and correct translation cannot be made
- is as clear and not prone to interpretation as possible
- can be considered the updated, clear and true word of God that everyone should understand and obey

razorphreak wrote:
The BEST one that I know of is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It has the most litteral Greek > English translation and, depending on which one you nab, would have footnotes.

Jaden wrote:
I would recommend an NIV version (doesn't have all that "Thou art ist" stuff that I can never understand)

I love the fact that when asked for an authoritative book which is the most correct and most literal basis of Christianity, you immediately get two different answers from Christians. I wonder if the theists offering these answers are qualified to judge how literal and how correct the books are, and if not on whose authority they accept them. I'd also point out that neither of these editions address the contradictions between the various parts of the Bible, as they are just translations.

It seems like theism thrives on vagueness and confusion, leveraging them to insert authorities and interpretations as it suits their needs.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
I'd also point out that neither of these editions address the contradictions between the various parts of the Bible, as they are just translations.

I never said they would, you aren't reading.  They do solve most of the translation issues however and the good versions will give you both possible meanings of the words used in the context understood from Greek. 

rexlunae wrote:
It seems like theism thrives on vagueness and confusion, leveraging them to insert authorities and interpretations as it suits their needs.

And again, you don't know how to read posts on a forum much less the bible.

NIV and NASB are both well accepted translations of the greek texts. The difference between the two is the NIV is more of a "common English" version and the NASB is a "technical English" version. NIV reads easier but the NASB is the most word for word translation available.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
I'd also point out that neither of these editions address the contradictions between the various parts of the Bible, as they are just translations.
I never said they would, you aren't reading.

Then it isn't what was requested, was it? How can it be considered 'clear' if it does not address the inconsistencies?

razorphreak wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
It seems like theism thrives on vagueness and confusion, leveraging them to insert authorities and interpretations as it suits their needs.
And again, you don't know how to read posts on a forum much less the bible.

Well, you're right about one thing; I don't know how to read the Bible. How can it claim one thing on one page, contradict itself on another, and still convince so many people that it's authoritative for anything?

razorphreak wrote:
NIV and NASB are both well accepted translations of the greek texts.

Sure, but which one is authoritative? Surely you don't need two books to get across the same set of ideas. Why is it that believers are required to guess at even which sources they should turn to for the knowledge they need for 'salvation'? Why do Christians have to guess about the truth of basic parts of the story?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Then it

rexlunae wrote:
Then it isn't what was requested, was it? How can it be considered 'clear' if it does not address the inconsistencies?

First, I don't understand why you are making this argument on this thread when it's already been done on others.  Seems like you are trying to pick a fight.

Second, what inconsistencies?  This thread was in reference to a topic of what the Christian faith considers about the relationship between the OT and NT and it has been explained. 

rexlunae wrote:
Well, you're right about one thing; I don't know how to read the Bible. How can it claim one thing on one page, contradict itself on another, and still convince so many people that it's authoritative for anything?

And yet you are unwilling to accept the answers to these so called contradictions.  How can one debate with you if you aren't willing to address them?

rexlunae wrote:
Sure, but which one is authoritative? Surely you don't need two books to get across the same set of ideas. Why is it that believers are required to guess at even which sources they should turn to for the knowledge they need for 'salvation'? Why do Christians have to guess about the truth of basic parts of the story?

 Who said anything about one more authoritative than the other?  They both deliver the same message.

Do me a favor and understand that a forum has threads and each thread is a specific subject.  Stick to the subject at hand or make a new thread.

What you put as an inconsistency is laughable at best.  First, the two that describe it as the "same day", from Luke 24 and Mark 16, both indicate an extended time after he first appeared that he ascended.  In Luke, "And it came to pass", which if you understood writing styles (a) and culture descriptions for what we would as "some time later" meaning not that day, it would be clear that this web site simply is not reading the bible verse they site themselves.

In Mark, same thing with the passage, but this time even worse than the Luke reference because first he's using an annotated bible (meaning words were added for easier reading but nothing in the Greek texts indicate that those words would have actually been used. 

Mark 16:9-14 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

 Afterward (note there is no sense of time here, afterward in the context of this passage does not appear to be in the same day) Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

 Later (again, no sense of how long transpired) Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

 The John passage is incomplete, again.  This web author seems intent to make an inconsistency that does not exist.  Reference John 20:24-30 (it's long so I won't post it here but I'm sure you can click on a link) as not even his reference notes any time of ascension.

Lastly, the two Acts passages may be more accurate however could many days not be 40 days?  It makes no sense to how he's used these to show inconsistencies especially if you do not have the gospel wittings.  His argument falls apart.

It's interesting to know that you yourself did not actually research the validity of this.  Are you in the habit of accepting what anyone else tells you?  You think I came to believe in Jesus because of what someone else told me?  "Fairy tales" are made that way; God speaking directly to you is no fairy tale.  Read my quote...you do not come to believe by any action that you yourself can do nor will any person save you.

I think I've spent enough time off subject entertaining you.  Create a new thread or get back on subject if you want to continue this. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
It seems like theism thrives on vagueness and confusion, leveraging them to insert authorities and interpretations as it suits their needs.

And again, you don't know how to read posts on a forum much less the bible.

Actually, he's nailed the problem, and the fact that different christians 'solve' the contradictions with different interpretations, based on their particular christian views, proves his point.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

todangst wrote:
There's no argument here, just your assertion, and my counter assertion that you're a dogmatic, closed minded, self deluded person if you hold to this nonsense.

You say you aren't "naysaying" yet you have never given me the answer to the question of why. Why is my statement only assertion?

 

 

Because all you've done here is assert this:

The NT has it's roots from the OT and the NT does not contradict or overrule the OT (before you flame on remember I'm speaking of the message although the technicial contradictions have been effectively answered).
 
 

And I'm telling you for a third time that this is self delusional bullshit, born of apologetic ad hocism... "interpretation, translation error", etc.

The flaw in all of it is that you start with the biased assumption that the contradictions can be resolved, and you rely on this begged assumption as your sole non arbitrary method of 'interpreting away errors'

 

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'