New ALabama governor openly asks for non-Christians to convert

[Shift]

Thank god you're here to cover for him.

Its my and many others interpretation, and makes the most logical sense when you look at everything else that happened later on.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Hey it's time for Bad^Hat's annual politics post!

And nothing of value was gained.

The long and short of it is, a Christian will read the New Testament and strive to be as good a Christian as they can be

Does that include treating your wife as a subordinate or condoning slavery? It's so good we have the New Testament to tell us what's really right.

Also If you went through life without knowing anything bad, could you really appreciate anything good?

Ironically, you just explained exactly why heaven is completely unappealing to me.

 

[No Limit]

Well if you read my post then you will see that I explained what Jesus meant in that statement.

I did read you post, and you didn't really explain anything. What you said is certainly an interesting idea that you made up. But it directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 5:17-20. Again, this is what Jesus actually said:

I tell you the truth, 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.

So you can try to brush that off all you want by making up beliefs about what you think Jesus meant. But what he said is clear, and unless you have another quote from the bible that supports what you said above (about how Jesus was just kidding) then you didn't actually explain anything, you just made a bunch of stuff up to make you feel better about your beliefs since you clearly aren't interested in following anything the OT says. You like to pretend that you are following the word of God, you aren't actually interested in doing so.

 

[Asknoone]

Well if you read my post then you will see that I explained what Jesus meant in that statement.

Its my and many others interpretation, and makes the most logical sense when you look at everything else that happened later on.

So you're the logical Christian with the logical interpretation, and in the hope that 'Jesus' is logical too, I should assume what you're saying here is right? Not to mention those many others.

I don't know about you guys but Shift is sure on to something!

 

[CptStern]

Its my and many others interpretation, and makes the most logical sense when you look at everything else that happened later on.

because it's convenient. the passage says he has come to uphold the laws not just the prophecy:

Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

that clearly says that the laws in the old testament, the torah is to be upheld:

The 'Law and the Prophets' which Jesus refers to in verse 17 is a clear reference to the Hebrew Bible – what we now call the Old Testament. This was known as 'The Law, Prophets and Writings' – 'The Law' was the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses), The Prophets (self-explanatory) and the 'Writings' were the wisdom books (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes etc). So this is a reference to the validity of the Old Testament: the Old Testament continues to have validity, it is and aways will be divinely-inspired Scripture! Jesus would soon make some quite sensational comments as He outlined how the New Covenant would be dramatically different to the 'ministration written on stones', but He first wished to ensure that His listeners correctly understood the ongoing validity of the Old Testament as Holy Scripture!

http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

 

[Solaris]

I'm not going to stomp on your spirituality or definition of christianity, but it as American christians perceive it, which is all that matters for my point. And solaris, wrong.

Could you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Eejit]

Could you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm genuinely interested.

He went to temple when he ran off as a kid too and presumably many other times I don't remember off the top of my head or they didn't bother documenting.

 

[Shift]

that clearly says that the laws in the old testament, the torah is to be upheld:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

No, Stern all you have gone and done here, is actually proven my point. That article, if you actually read it, explains the section perfectly, actually far better than I did.

This part sums it rather nicely:

Spoiler

The overall point of Matthew 5:17-19 is not – as so many carelessly assume – whether or not Christians still stand under any part of Old Covenant law (the Scriptures are quite plentiful which reveal that this cannot be the case), rather in the context of quite a long section of Matthew (chapters 5-7) which clearly challenges not only the previous Jewish interpretation of law but - clearly - also aspects of any law which comprises simply a list of 'do's and don't's' – our Lord wanted to firstly clarify the position of the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament). He tells us that it is divinely inspired Scripture which should continue to be seen as 'Holy Writ' – He did not come to overturn that authority; moreover, many things within it actually testified of, and looked forward to, the ministry of Jesus – who therefore fulfilled those things. Verse 18 tells us that the authority of the Old Testament will continue until 'all is fulfilled.' And verse 19 tells us that the basic teachings and instructions within the Old Testament should still be understood and appreciated (even though – as Christians standing under the grace of Christ and the New Covenant – we will understand the importance of obeying in the Spirit, rather than the letter – something which Jesus is especially at pains to ensure that we understand).

Any concept that Matthew 5:17-19 somehow places Christians back under the Torah – or even any part of it – is completely unbiblical, and would necessarily make many other New Testament statements especially by Paul and the writer of Hebrews to be heavily in error.

I would just close by pointing out that the verses which we have considered are, of course, in Matthew (5:17-19). Matthew, as is well-known, had a strong agenda to keep the Jews on-board and addressed his gospel account primarily to them. He wanted to win their support and to win them for Christ. To this end, his gospel does contain more than one statement which would not have found a home in the other, broader gospel accounts (especially Luke and John). For instance, it is Matthew who quotes this:
'But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24).

In complete contrast, the gospel of John describes Jesus as 'the Saviour of the World' in John 4:42 and John repeats this comment in 1 John 4:14. Matthew would not have described Jesus in such a manner in his gospel account (although surely privately having little doubt that Jesus was indeed the Saviour of the world). So we do have to note differing emphases and different anticipated audiences among the gospels with Matthew's gospel, for sure, mainly intending to address Jewish sensitivities, a fact well understood by all Bible commentators. Matthew 5:17-19 should also be understood in this light. We may ask this question: Would the Apostle John - writing several years later and with a deeper theological understanding of the Gospel than Matthew had in the 40s AD - ever have included Matthew's comments of Matthew 5:17-19? Almost certainly not, for the words are just a little prone to causing confusion and he, like Luke, was committed to a world-wide scenario beyond the small world of the middle east.

All this is backed up by Christ's disciples after his death for example:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passion, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

But their minds were hardened. For this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" - so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

By cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Her disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

 

[No Limit]

Literally nothing you just posted in any way changes what Jesus actually said, which again is this:

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. I tell you the truth, 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 breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same 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."

Which of your quotes above invalidates this statement? And the link you posted says that you would have to be uneducated to think this statement means you must still obey the old testament but it doesn't really explain why.

Now, you might have a point that the bible contradicts itself. I'll give you that.

 

[Eejit]

Also who the hell cares about Shift's interpretation, it's plain that huge numbers of Christians pick and choose from bits of the Old Testament that appeal to their prejudices so they can say "well I don't hate gays but God does rofl" or whatever.

 

[Shift]

Which of your quotes above invalidates this statement? And the link you posted says that you would have to be uneducated to think this statement means you must still obey the old testament but it doesn't really explain why.

All of the quotes I posted were all basically saying that we have been free of the ways of the Old Covenant through Christ, however what Jesus was saying was that still doesn't mean the Old Testament is unimportant, that he had come to in fact fulfill it. The link below does explain itself as stated below:

Spoiler

Certainly He is clearly not discussing the whole package of Old Covenant law in view of the comments He would later make in this chapter, and comments which people like Paul would later be inspired to make. Therefore I suggest that Jesus is simply discussing whether or not one is obedient toward God and to His revelation to Mankind; He backs up the authority of the Old Testament and is telling us that we should also back up its authority (It is true, of course, that the era of the 'Law and Prophets' has now passed and many things in the Old Testament may no longer be applicable to Christians – as Luke makes very clear in Luke 16:16). The point is: are we willing to obey God and walk in faith towards divine commands and instructions and admonitions – even what may appear to be more minor ones? This is surely what Jesus' central point is here!

Now, you might have a point that the bible contradicts itself. I'll give you that.

No it really doesn't, anyone who says otherwise is simply not reading it correctly, or not actually reading everything it says to get the context.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Disregarding whether or not Jesus wants you to uphold the teachings of the old testament (or the new one, for that matter), isn't it pretty heavily implied that he still views them as important, and that all christians should respect their relevance? In light of this, how do you repent for something if you don't personally feel it's moral? You speak of people picking and choosing verses from the old testament to try and trip christians up, but are these not still valid, if not in word, then in principle? It seems to me that Jesus gave man a "free pass" not to completely disregard these things, but to acknowledge our sinful nature as we could never live up to the virtues God set forth. Am I right, or have I misinterpreted something?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is any christian truly repentant for wearing certain fabrics together, or eating shellfish, or whatever? I mean, really?

 

[Shift]

Disregarding whether or not Jesus wants you to uphold the teachings of the old testament (or the new one, for that matter), isn't it pretty heavily implied that he still views them as important, and that all christians should respect their relevance? In light of this, how do you repent for something if you don't personally feel it's moral? You speak of people picking and choosing verses from the old testament to try and trip christians up, but are these not still valid, if not in word, then in principle? It seems to me that Jesus gave man a "free pass" not to completely disregard these things, but to acknowledge our sinful nature as we could never live up to the virtues God set forth. Am I right, or have I misinterpreted something?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is any christian truly repentant for wearing certain fabrics together, or eating shellfish, or whatever? I mean, really?

Through Christ, everyone is repentant from everything. As you rightfully said, Jesus wants us to recognize our sinful nature, and its not just about eating shellfish and wearing the wrong attire, its about recognizing how much we sin every single day, not just in actions and consciously through the mind, but deep down from the heart. For example there is an extract of him having a go at the Pharisees because they practice their written law to the word but stated that its pointless, because even if you don't physically sleep with another woman other than your wife, it still doesn't mean you haven't committed adultery, because even a mere thought of it or glance at another is committing adultery of the heart.

When one becomes Christian and truly accepts Christ as their Saviour one of the things that will happen is that you recognize your own weaknesses and sin like never before, the apostle Paul stated once that he viewed himself as the "worst sinner of all". But it doesn't make you feel guilty at all, it just makes you fully appreciate Jesus and his sacrifice, because if he didn't do what he did, humanity would be screwed when it came to God's judgement. All he asked for in return was not to go and sacrifice anything, not to flay yourself, not to go to church and give away all your money, just simply to have faith in him and what he did.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I think I can appreciate where you're coming from. In any case I don't really have a personal problem with the way you choose to practice (as far as I know :v), more the contradictory nature of certain christian philosophies, and beliefs that I perceive to be incompatible with reality.

Anyway, I've forgotten what I was trying to accomplish by bringing this up (if anything), so maybe I'll drop it again for now.

 

[Shift]

I think I can appreciate where you're coming from. In any case I don't really have a personal problem with the way you choose to practice (as far as I know :v), more the contradictory nature of certain christian philosophies, and beliefs that I perceive to be incompatible with reality.

Anyway, I've forgotten what I was trying to accomplish by bringing this up (if anything), so maybe I'll drop it again for now.

Well if its any consolation, I was in your shoes at one point, I just could not bring myself to conform myself to Christian principles, not to mention all the scientific contradictions I thought at the time. All I did was a lot of research, read a lot of books on the subject, looked at all the angles and came to my own conclusions, I mean you obviously may not come to the same conclusions I did, but its worth keeping an open mind and looking at all the possibilities

 

[No Limit]

All of the quotes I posted were all basically saying that we have been free of the ways of the Old Covenant through Christ, however what Jesus was saying was that still doesn't mean the Old Testament is unimportant, that he had come to in fact fulfill it. The link below does explain itself as stated below:




No it really doesn't, anyone who says otherwise is simply not reading it correctly, or not actually reading everything it says to get the context.

Again, you can pull out as many quotes from the bible as you want. Unless anyone of those quotes say Matthew 5:17 doesn't matter then those quotes mean nothing in the context of this discussion.

We are looking at a single quote that Jesus made, I'm not gonna repost it since that's been done over and over. But that quote clearly says that jesus has not come to abolish the old testament, just to fulfil it. And until heaven, hell, and earth no longer exist you must follow it. He goes in to even more detail in saying that if you are not atleast as righteous as the pharisees you will not get in to heaven.

Does heaven, hell, and earth still exist?

There really is nothing to interpret here, it's a very simple very easy to understand statement Jesus makes. If the bible in other sections says that the old testament is no longer valid (which I still don't agree with) then you have to acknowledge that the bible is inconsistent. Otherwise you need to explain why Jesus would say such at thing if he didn't really mean it (remeber that the quote starts off with "I tell you the truth" not "I'm just yanking your chain when I say this").

 

[unozero]

This thread is way to long for what's being discussed.

 

[Shift]

Again, you can pull out as many quotes from the bible as you want. Unless anyone of those quotes say Matthew 5:17 doesn't matter then those quotes mean nothing in the context of this discussion.

We are looking at a single quote that Jesus made, I'm not gonna repost it since that's been done over and over. But that quote clearly says that jesus has not come to abolish the old testament, just to fulfil it. And until heaven, hell, and earth no longer exist you must follow it. He goes in to even more detail in saying that if you are not atleast as righteous as the pharisees you will not get in to heaven.

Does heaven, hell, and earth still exist?

There really is nothing to interpret here, it's a very simple very easy to understand statement Jesus makes. If the bible in other sections says that the old testament is no longer valid (which I still don't agree with) then you have to acknowledge that the bible is inconsistent. Otherwise you need to explain why Jesus would say such at thing if he didn't really mean it (remeber that the quote starts off with "I tell you the truth" not "I'm just yanking your chain when I say this").

I have explained what he meant, and Stern even posted a link about it which further proved my point from an outside source. I will reveal that the statement he made has caused confusion in the past, but in the context of his mission and the purpose behind it, and from what basically all the apostles say afterwards and from things Jesus himself says, then the interpretation I gave is, I'm afraid, correct.

If he genuinely meant that we are still to follow all the rules brought from the Old Covenant, then he wouldn't be there to eventually sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity would he? Like 'I'm going to save humanity from sin, I will take all of it and faith in me will grant you salvation.... oh but you still have to commit to animal sacrifices and clothing rules...'. Logically that would be plain silly and any man with half a brain wouldn't make a mistake like that, never mind Jesus.

Also his quote about the righteousness of Pharisees was a dig at them, he was basically saying that if people go around following the same example as them, thinking of righteousness in the same way, then you simply won't enter heaven, because of course it was only through him that would grant people salvation.

 

[No Limit]

You keep going on about what you think he meant. What he said was very clear. What exactly is not clear about this statement:

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. I tell you the truth, 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.

You can keep repeating that you already explained this but repeating it doesn't make it true. Why would Jesus say this if he didn't mean it?

Also, since i have a feeling you wont give me an answer on why Jesus said this can I ask you how you feel about porn? Because the new testament has some really interesting tid bits in there about that.

 

[Shift]

Are you actually listening to anything I'm saying? Its like an explanation comes up about it and either you either so stubborn that you won't accept that there maybe one to your question or you simply don't understand the verse. I'm not repeating myself, scroll up and check the link Stern posted, it explains the verse perfectly.

And I think porn is disgusting and I think every single porn star in the world needs to seriously reconsider what they class as a career. And for the record, I thought this before I was a Christian, although I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

 

[No Limit]

So you don't own nor ever look up porn? Not once in your life?

The link Stern himself posted makes up a lot of stuff about what Jesus meant. But it doesn't say why they think Jesus said that. I am yet to see any explaination from you about what Jesus meant when he specifically stated in his most famous sermon that until earth and heaven no longer exist not a single letter will pass from the old testament. As you know the old testament says you must follow it or go to hell. Jesus just told you that until heaven and earth are no longer that is still the case. In which of your quotes did you explain to me why Jesus used the phrase "until earth and heaven are no more". I didn't see it in that link nor did I see it in any of your other bible quotes. I just saw a bunch of made up crap about what fulfil means without any explaination about what "until heaven and earth are no more" means as if Jesus never said that part.

If you truly believe that the old testament is no longer law then you must believe that it is not a sin to marry your mother, or that gay people can be priests. Because none of that is found in the new testament. Do you believe these things?

I'm all ears.

 

[Shift]

Are you actually listening to anything I'm saying? Its like an explanation comes up about it and you're either so stubborn that you won't accept that there maybe one to your question or you simply don't understand the verse. There are many verses in the Bible that require an after thought, require further reading to give it more context, not everything is just given to you on a plate, its a few millennial old historical document translated from Hebrew. Anyway I'm not repeating myself, scroll up and check the link Stern posted, it explains the verse perfectly.

And I don't know what porn has to do with anything, but I don't think there is anything in the New Testament that talks about it, talks about sexual immorality a lot yes, but thats a broad subject in itself. But for the record, I think porn is disgusting and porn stars really need to find some more worthwhile careers, an opinion I held even before I became Christian.

 

[No Limit]

So now you are just going to repeat yourself? As I just said, you are yet to explain why jesus said "until heaven and earth disappear". You did explain what fulfil meant and how jesus fulfilled the old testament. But you didn't explain what the words "until heave and earth are no more" mean.

Second, I asked you a simple question. Do you believe that it is not a sin to have sex with your mother or that gay people should be allowed to be preists. Because literally none of that is found in the new testament.

Finally on the porn thing. Have you actually read the new testament? You might find chapter 5 of matthew interesting (very short, great read). Says that if you look at a women in lust you have commited adultury and if you want to avoid going to hell you should gouge your eye out. So do you ever look at porn? Have you ever? Jesus also said some thing about if you do anything obscene with your hand you should cut your arm off, but he didn't get very specific in what he meant so I won't speculate (but I think we both know what he was talking about).

 

[Shift]

So now you are just going to repeat yourself? As I just said, you are yet to explain why jesus said "until heaven and earth disappear". You did explain what fulfil meant and how jesus fulfilled the old testament. But you didn't explain what the words "until heave and earth are no more" mean.

Second, I asked you a simple question. Do you believe that it is not a sin to have sex with your mother or that gay people should be allowed to be preists. Because literally none of that is found in the new testament.

Finally on the porn thing. Have you actually read the new testament? You might find chapter 5 of matthew interesting (very short, great read). Says that if you look at a women in lust you have commited adultury and if you want to avoid going to hell you should gouge your eye out. So do you ever look at porn? Have you ever? Jesus also said some thing about if you do anything obscene with your hand you should cut your arm off, but he didn't get very specific in what he meant so I won't speculate (but I think we both know what he was talking about).

This is my original reply, it repeated my other post for some reason.

The Old Testament contained a law, a variety of things that God passed down to people for us to obey, also what could been known as the Old Covenant. What on earth do you think Jesus meant when he says the 'Law'? The Jews follow the Torah, the Torah being the 5 books of Moses, also being Hebrew for the Law. Jesus is saying that until heaven and earth pass away (which is the second coming of Jesus and all stuff in Revelation), the Old Testament will always be important, it is after all God's word, and that everyone should recognize its importance, but the crucial thing you seem to be missing is the fact that he said he had come, to fulfill it. He had to come to accomplish everything that the Old Testament is there for, himself, through his death, which then leads onto for example, all the quotes I posted before by his apostles. Its called the New Testament for a reason, because its a new Covenant or agreement, time had passed into a new way of living for Christians under Jesus.

Also you are also missing the point, regardless or whether I looked at porn in the past, or whether I look at it now, none of it matters because that sin has already been payed for preemptively. Also, you're dodging the argument now, by saying that you're implying that because the New Testament applies, the Old Testament was reverted to being wrong. No, the whole point of my argument, the quote we're in fact debating on, said that the Old Testament was important, but Jesus fulfilled it because we can't. He took the blame for our sins meaning that whether we keep them or not, if we are saved, it doesn't revoke our salvation.

Also to those specific points; incest falls under sexual immorality which is spoken against in the New Testament, and there shouldn't even be any priests anymore because Jesus was the ultimate priest in the same way he was the ultimate sacrifice, because his death (and ressurection) was the lease of life for so many. That's why catholic and C of E churches have issues, they have alters and adorned priests which theologically just says "What Jesus did is irrelevant, we're still stuck in the old ways."

And that chapter in Mathew is in reference to adultery, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in saying you should gouge your eyes out, basically saying that you have still committed to the worst crime by even glancing at another woman. It was his way of explaining to the Pharisees of how their mere written law was pointless and no matter how religiously they followed it, that doesn't mean they are sinless. It more evidence to the point that you aren't actually reading my posts because I explained that very verse a few posts back.

 

[No Limit]

See, but you are changing what Jesus said. He didn't say "the old testament is important until heaven and earth disappear because I am here to fulfil it". He said that eventhough he is here to fulfil the old testament not a single stroke, not a single letter in the old testament is invalidated or removed until heaven and earth are no longer (heaven and earth still exist). You keep going on about all the other stuff the bible said, but that's not important here. What's important is chapter 5 of matthew where jesus was very specific. So do you understand why I keep harping on this? You are not explaining it. If the old testament specifically says you must follow it if you want to get in to heaven (it does) then not a single word of that is invalidated by Jesus until the final prophecy is fulfilled (no more heaven and earth / no more good or evil). Therefore today the old testament is still God's law.

What do you mean that the sins were payed for? Does that mean you are free to do as you wish (rape, kill people) because jesus already died for your sins? The gouge your eye out part if you look at a woman in lust is not from the old testament, it is from the new one. SO contrary to what you think the fact if you do or don't look at porn is very relevent here. And if you want to say that the gouge your eye out part is a metaphor I will give you that not because I agree with your idea that when you don't want to follow something you simply call it a metaphor (what a lame cop out for someone that calls themselves a chirstian) but because the important point here, which you are agreeing with, is that by looking at porn you are committing a very grave sin. And unless you stop looking at porn and hot women from here on out (since you now know it's a serious sin) you will spend eternity in hell (thats what happens to sinners as far as I understand).

Where is insest outlined in the new testament? Where are gay priests outlined in the new testament? These things are all over the old testament but appear no where in the new one. So if we go back to your logic on how the old testament is no longer God's law then to be consistent you must think those things are perfectly fine in the eyes of God, right?

You know what you might want to do if you are going to selectively pick and choose what you believe? Go the Catholic route bro, it's ****ing great. You do what you want as long as you apologize for it every other week. The downside is the guilt they constantly shove down your throat. But I'd rather feel guilty over the fear of constantly thinking you are going to hell because no matter how hard you try you can't ever live the life the bible commands you to.

 

[Shift]

See, but you are changing what Jesus said. He didn't say "the old testament is important until heaven and earth disappear because I am here to fulfil it". He said that eventhough he is here to fulfil the old testament not a single stroke, not a single letter in the old testament is invalidated or removed until heaven and earth are no longer (heaven and earth still exist). You keep going on about all the other stuff the bible said, but that's not important here. What's important is chapter 5 of matthew where jesus was very specific. So do you understand why I keep harping on this? You are not explaining it. If the old testament specifically says you must follow it if you want to get in to heaven (it does) then not a single word of that is invalidated by Jesus until the final prophecy is fulfilled (no more heaven and earth / no more good or evil). Therefore today the old testament is still God's law.

Congratulations on your argument for Judaism...
If your interpretation of this is true, then Jesus came to earth as the son of God to say "Yo, Jews, you got it right, carry on with your rules, that's cool." Then goes and dies, rises and does all manner of things with no meaning. Although this is a completely rediculous argument considering some of the later books of the new testament specifically say that the jewish ways are wrong.
However, as with anything, you have to look at the context of what is being said to get the truth of it. Picking out the odd few words and publishing them to mean a completely different thing from what was said is a favourite trick of journalists...
If you refuse to apply this to reading the bible (or anything really) then you're not going to get what it actually says.

Basically; you're saying that something in the new testament was created and said to 'prove' that the new testament itself shouldn't exist...

It makes NO sense.

What do you mean that the sins were payed for? Does that mean you are free to do as you wish (rape, kill people) because jesus already died for your sins? The gouge your eye out part if you look at a woman in lust is not from the old testament, it is from the new one. SO contrary to what you think the fact if you do or don't look at porn is very relevent here. And if you want to say that the gouge your eye out part is a metaphor I will give you that not because I agree with your idea that when you don't want to follow something you simply call it a metaphor (what a lame cop out for someone that calls themselves a chirstian) but because the important point here, which you are agreeing with, is that by looking at porn you are committing a very grave sin. And unless you stop looking at porn and hot women from here on out (since you now know it's a serious sin) you will spend eternity in hell (thats what happens to sinners as far as I understand).

Nonononono, It's not you do bad- you go to hell. That's salvation by works. The very thing Jesus came to tell us doesn't work. Jesus came to say that salvation is by grace.
Also, it's not an issue of women, it specifically means adultery. Basically, if you want sex with another girl other than the one you have, even if you don't actually do it the intention is bad. I think we'd all agree that cheating isn't a good thing.
But no, anyone who is saved realises the magnitude of their sin, anyone who claims to be saved but still wants to do bad things (rape, kill etc) clearly isn't a christian.

Also, "when you don't want to follow something you simply call it a metaphor" ...This is getting silly now. Things which are important to actually do in the new testament are made clear and most importantly repeated. It's a hyperbole just to stress the severity of the action! Never done that before?

Where is insest outlined in the new testament? Where are gay priests outlined in the new testament? These things are all over the old testament but appear no where in the new one. So if we go back to your logic on how the old testament is no longer God's law then to be consistent you must think those things are perfectly fine in the eyes of God, right?

I repeat again; Jesus said the old testament is still important, but he fulfilled it by living the perfect life which we can't.

Something else I'm repeating, this verse alone has caused confusion, but this is unnecessary considering what follows makes it make sense. Again, take it in context.

You know what you might want to do if you are going to selectively pick and choose what you believe? Go the Catholic route bro, it's ****ing great. You do what you want as long as you apologize for it every other week. The downside is the guilt they constantly shove down your throat. But I'd rather feel guilty over the fear of constantly thinking you are going to hell because no matter how hard you try you can't ever live the life the bible commands you to.

Picking and choosing? No, I'm taking the bible literally, not literalistically. Go look up the difference.
Catholics-"God died to make you feel bad now feel guilt and grovel... GROVELLLL (and give us your money)"
Christians- Jesus died in place of you to save you from something you can't escape by your own means, that's amazing really... respect for God and a want to live for him ensues.

 

[No Limit]

Congratulations on your argument for Judaism...
If your interpretation of this is true, then Jesus came to earth as the son of God to say "Yo, Jews, you got it right, carry on with your rules, that's cool." Then goes and dies, rises and does all manner of things with no meaning. Although this is a completely rediculous argument considering some of the later books of the new testament specifically say that the jewish ways are wrong.
However, as with anything, you have to look at the context of what is being said to get the truth of it. Picking out the odd few words and publishing them to mean a completely different thing from what was said is a favourite trick of journalists...
If you refuse to apply this to reading the bible (or anything really) then you're not going to get what it actually says.

Context? The context is that Jesus was giving his famous speech on the mount to his disciples and his followers. In it he specifically said that eventhough he is here to fulfil the old testament until heaven or earth are no more nothing about the old testament changes. I don't believe this issue is even mentioned in the rest of Matthew's gospel. So how much more context could you possibly need?

And any rationalization you want from me about why Jesus came to earth and gave us a new gospel while he said the old one is still Law you wont get from me. I think the entire thing is irrational, that's what I'm trying to show you. All I can talk about with you is the facts of what the bible said. And what I just summized above is exactly what the bible said. Any excuses you want to come up with in your head as to why God does what he does even though it makes absolutely no sense and is totally irrational is up to you. I don't know why he gave you a new gospel when you already had one, maybe he wanted to expand on it. But the simple fact is that he said the OT is law until the time when there is no earth and no heaven. You are yet to prove that this is not what he specifically said in Matthew 5:17, we have all the context we need. Any time I confront you on that very specific question you go to a totally different place in a totally different part of the bible often not even in the same gospel.

Nonononono, It's not you do bad- you go to hell. That's salvation by works. The very thing Jesus came to tell us doesn't work. Jesus came to say that salvation is by grace.
Also, it's not an issue of women, it specifically means adultery. Basically, if you want sex with another girl other than the one you have, even if you don't actually do it the intention is bad. I think we'd all agree that cheating isn't a good thing.
But no, anyone who is saved realises the magnitude of their sin, anyone who claims to be saved but still wants to do bad things (rape, kill etc) clearly isn't a christian.

Ahh okay, so you are saying if you know something is a sin but keep sinning anyway that it's okay. I mean you shouldn't do it but as long as you give it your best that's all that matters. Forget becoming a catholic, sounds like you have it way easier.

Also, for christ sake, stop trying to minimize the sins your bible says are wrong. You just admitted above that looking in lust at a women not married to you is a very grave sin, which is why Jesus used the gouge your eye out metathor. It's not that the intention is bad when you look at a nude women in lust (even if its on the internet) as if it's no big deal, what you are doing is a grave and serious sin as you said earlier.

I repeat again; Jesus said the old testament is still important, but he fulfilled it by living the perfect life which we can't.

Something else I'm repeating, this verse alone has caused confusion, but this is unnecessary considering what follows makes it make sense. Again, take it in context.

You keep repeating yourself but you keep repeating an answer to a question I didn't ask you. Yes, I know that the old testament is still important. But your entire argument here is that for the most part the old testament is just meant to be some form of a guide, not God's law. So like when it says you can't eat shell fish you say that doesn't really apply because the old testament doesn't apply as law any more. So if you want to be consistent you have to acknowledge that God feels having sex with your mother or having a gay man teach the bible to you is on the same non-sinful level as eating shell fish since none of this is found in the new testament. No big deal. Right?

Also, "when you don't want to follow something you simply call it a metaphor" ...This is getting silly now. Things which are important to actually do in the new testament are made clear and most importantly repeated. It's a hyperbole just to stress the severity of the action! Never done that before?

Please don't come up with a lame excuse to leave this thread. Pretty please?

You said Jesus was speaking metaphorically, don't you think that it's just a bit absurd for you to be able to decide what is literal and what isn't in your holy book? Especially since I'm pretty sure that Jesus himself said that the bible is not open to interpretation (too lazy to look up the quote right now)?

You gotta admit, it's just a bit illogical.

Picking and choosing? No, I'm taking the bible literally, not literalistically. Go look up the difference.
Catholics-"God died to make you feel bad now feel guilt and grovel... GROVELLLL (and give us your money)"
Christians- Jesus died in place of you to save you from something you can't escape by your own means, that's amazing really... respect for God and a want to live for him ensues.

You are telling me you are taking the bible literally when you refuse to take a statement Jesus made at face value? What Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 is very specific, it is in context, and it is not open to your own interpretation.

Your argument is that if I tell you today my car is Blue and a month later I tell you it's Red that I couldn't have possible meant it when I said it was blue the first time. And anyone suggesting that I told you the car was blue isn't looking at my statements in context. Do you ever consider the idea that maybe I don't even drive a car and I was bullshitting you the whole time and I simply forgot what I told you the first time? Nah....the much more rational and reasonable explaination is that there must be some hidden context nobody can understand behind what I told you the first time.

 

[Banana]

Hi, I'm new here. Does EVERY thread in this part of the forum end like this?

 

[Yuri]

Hi, I'm new here. Does EVERY thread in this part of the forum end like this?

yeeep


OOPS IM JUMPING IN

It seems a fairly popular method of Christian-bashing around here is taking out the terrible sexist, racist, violent, homophobic shit from the Bible, and concluding that the entire religion is worthless.

Does this apply to everything? A quasi-modern example: has anyone seen Birth of a Nation? That movie is ****ing racist as shit. Except it is also a milestone in the history of cinema and a rather excellently directed and produced film. Oh well, it's racist, right? Anyone who respects it is clearly a horrible piece of shit that does not deserve a modicum of our respect.

In short, **** you all. It makes me ****ing sick reading the ignorant, intolerant and simple minded generalized bullshit based on faulty logic and assumption. Maybe you could put these things in the context of their origin instead of making harsh blanket statements about other people's beliefs due to your own blind ignorant rage. Or maybe you can take a Bible and ****ing shove it up your own boorish assholes if you hate it so much.

 

[No Limit]

Hi, I'm new here. Does EVERY thread in this part of the forum end like this?

End how?

OOPS IM JUMPING IN

Great. Good to have another person try to defend religion, glad you decided to step up. Just don't bail when the only argument you have left is telling people to go **** themselves.

It seems a fairly popular method of Christian-bashing around here is taking out the terrible sexist, racist, violent, homophobic shit from the Bible, and concluding that the entire religion is worthless.

Right, spelling out what your religion tells you about how to treat people is christian bashing. Telling people how the bibile tells you to live your life is christian bashing. Asking you to explain a statement in the bible is christian bashing. Even saying the word christian if you aren't a christian is christian bashing.

Does this apply to everything? A quasi-modern example: has anyone seen Birth of a Nation? That movie is ****ing racist as shit. Except it is also a milestone in the history of cinema and a rather excellently directed and produced film. Oh well, it's racist, right? Anyone who respects it is clearly a horrible piece of shit that does not deserve a modicum of our respect.

Never seen it. But a quick google search shows up that it's produced by the KKK about the KKK. So yeah bro, I'm pretty sure the movie is ****ing racist and if you have a copy on your DVD shelf you probably are not a very big fan of black people. The only possible excuse you could have for not being a racist is that you are a huge movie history buff (which is fine). Either way your point makes no sense.

In short, **** you all. It makes me ****ing sick reading the ignorant, intolerant and simple minded generalized bullshit based on faulty logic and assumption. Maybe you could put these things in the context of their origin instead of making harsh blanket statements about other people's beliefs due to your own blind ignorant rage. Or maybe you can take a Bible and ****ing shove it up your own boorish assholes if you hate it so much.

You want to give some specifics of what you are refering to? What in this thread was taken out of context? And you are aware that you have every right to give us all the proper context, this is a message board open to everyone (you are aware of that, right?).

But I guess blowing your shit without giving any specifics is far more rational.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

This thread is way to long for what's being discussed.

Are you new here or something?

 

[Yuri]

Never seen it. But a quick google search shows up that it's produced by the KKK about the KKK. So yeah bro, I'm pretty sure the movie is ****ing racist and if you have a copy on your DVD shelf you probably are not a very big fan of black people. The only possible excuse you could have for not being a racist is that you are a huge movie history buff (which is fine). Either way your point makes no sense.

hahahahaha and there you have it. you suck guy

 

[No Limit]

Strange, most people usually get smarter as they age.

 

[No Limit]

So is this how this thread ends? Erestheux pretends he's mentally retarded and Shift pretends this never happened?

 

[Shift]

On the contrary...

Context? The context is that Jesus was giving his famous speech on the mount to his disciples and his followers. In it he specifically said that even though he is here to fulfil the old testament until heaven or earth are no more nothing about the old testament changes.

Okay I’m going to explain this one more time in the hope that you get it this time.

His death on the cross was he ‘fulfilling’ the Old Testament or the ‘Law’ as he put it. The entirety of the Law was a huge build up to the coming of Jesus, he was prophesized about on many occasions from the various prophets, everything written in it was all tied to his eventual arrival. That is why when he did finally appear, it is placed in the New Testament, the new agreement which Jesus and later on his apostles planned to set with humanity.

For Jesus to say the Old Testament is no longer valid is just like saying the word of God is no longer valid, and the word of the prophets and the words regarding the origins of everything in Genesis no longer apply etc. The Old Covenant, the series of laws passed down by God and mentioned in the Old Testament were what God expected of people but its what we simply could not adhere to, no one but Jesus himself could live the life that God wanted, a life of pure and radical holiness. So of course Jesus wanted to say that all that would still apply! Regardless of his coming, God won’t simply change his mind about how he wants people to live, the only difference is that he knows that no one can live that way, which is why he sent Jesus to set things right with us, to give humanity a chance at getting into Heaven. So Jesus lived that perfect life for us, and took all our sin away and took upon himself when he died on the cross.

That was his purpose and that is what he meant when he said he was going to ‘fulfill’ the Law. God’s word in the Old Testament will not simply disintegrate with his arrival, and he went as far to say that anyone who thought and taught that will be called least in Heaven (notice also that he said you would be called least in the kingdom of Heaven, signifying that you would still get into Heaven even if you did this which further proves my point), but all the rules and regulations set by God, the life he wanted us to live, is what Jesus lived for us, and as he and his apostles after him stated, that after his death, belief in him and what he did, would grant people salvation.

And any rationalization you want from me about why Jesus came to earth and gave us a new gospel while he said the old one is still Law you wont get from me. I think the entire thing is irrational, that's what I'm trying to show you. All I can talk about with you is the facts of what the bible said.

So you won’t even rationalize with the very thing you are trying to debate over, and then have the audacity to say you are talking about the facts? Basically you are saying, just because I’ve found an inconsistency with your argument (which is fact that your interpretation of what Jesus is saying does not add not up because it would contradict the entire New Testament and its purpose including the magnitude of quotes in support of my argument), you will not accept it on the basis that the Bible is, in your opinion, irrational? And why on earth do I continue to debate with you…

And what I just summized above is exactly what the bible said. Any excuses you want to come up with in your head as to why God does what he does even though it makes absolutely no sense and is totally irrational is up to you.

One of your problems is that you think all my arguments are from my head when they are actually backed up by the Bible itself, for instance all the quotes I posted before from the apostles stating that we are no longer under a specific covenant. I’ll give you another one if you want?

Spoiler

Or do you not know, brothers – for I am speaking to those who know the law – that the law is binding on a person only as long as his lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we service in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

I don't know why he gave you a new gospel when you already had one, maybe he wanted to expand on it.

In other words, I’ve found a clear flaw with your argument and you simply have no answer to it.

But the simple fact is that he said the OT is law until the time when there is no earth and no heaven. You are yet to prove that this is not what he specifically said in Matthew 5:17, we have all the context we need. Any time I confront you on that very specific question you go to a totally different place in a totally different part of the bible often not even in the same gospel.

I go into different areas to give more meaning behind my argument, to prove my point that Jesus was not telling us that we had to follow all the laws of the Old Covenant, because it contradicts everything else he did, everything the apostles say. As I have mentioned before, on its own that statement Jesus makes has caused confusion among Christians about whether we are still bounded by the Old Covenant, but in light of everything that happens in the New Testament, and things that Jesus himself says, and the apostles, then it is simply not case. And within that context it fits perfectly with the premise that Jesus was merely stating the importance of the Old Testament, and that everyone should recognize its continued importance, but any of the laws associated with it, we now do not have to follow, because he intended to do that himself.

Ahh okay, so you are saying if you know something is a sin but keep sinning anyway that it's okay. I mean you shouldn't do it but as long as you give it your best that's all that matters. Forget becoming a catholic, sounds like you have it way easier.

Its probably something you will find hard to grasp, but upon becoming a Christian and having faith in Christ, you also walk in spirit with Christ, you strive to live like he did and you turn your back from sin. But that unfortunately does not mean you are ultimately free of sin, no one is, but it’s that faith in Christ that will seal one’s salvation.

Also, for christ sake, stop trying to minimize the sins your bible says are wrong. You just admitted above that looking in lust at a women not married to you is a very grave sin, which is why Jesus used the gouge your eye out metathor. It's not that the intention is bad when you look at a nude women in lust (even if its on the internet) as if it's no big deal, what you are doing is a grave and serious sin as you said earlier.

Since when was I trying to minimize sin? I stated that upon becoming Christian, you start to recognize your own sin, in basically everything you do, but you don’t feel guilty of it because you have Christ. Sin is an awful thing, and it plagues everything, no one knows that more than a Christian, but where Jesus wanted us to recognize that, he also wanted us to be unafraid of it, because he dealt with it on the cross.

You keep repeating yourself but you keep repeating an answer to a question I didn't ask you. Yes, I know that the old testament is still important. But your entire argument here is that for the most part the old testament is just meant to be some form of a guide, not God's law.

I never said that.

So like when it says you can't eat shell fish you say that doesn't really apply because the old testament doesn't apply as law any more.

The Law applies; we just don’t have to follow it anymore. Jesus did that for us, its perfectly simple.

You said Jesus was speaking metaphorically, don't you think that it's just a bit absurd for you to be able to decide what is literal and what isn't in your holy book? Especially since I'm pretty sure that Jesus himself said that the bible is not open to interpretation (too lazy to look up the quote right now)?
You gotta admit, it's just a bit illogical.

No, what is illogical is suggesting that Jesus actually wanted people to gouge their eyes out for even thinking of another woman in terms of adultery, that even contradicts the man himself. It is quite clearly a graphic and shocking metaphoric term to hammer home forth the premise, that even if (addressing the Pharisees) you were following the written laws to the word, that still did not make you sinless, he had to make it shocking because he was addressing those who were seen as the most righteous of all in the Jewish circle. I mean its not even worthy of being an interpretation, it’s the clear message given with nothing else there to contradict it, its like if someone was really angry with someone and they yelled ‘I’m going to rip his spine out!’ and then thinking he was actually going to going to rip the person’s spine out.

You are telling me you are taking the bible literally when you refuse to take a statement Jesus made at face value? What Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 is very specific, it is in context, and it is not open to your own interpretation.

Its clear you don’t know the difference between literal and literalistic, I am taking the Bible literally in the sense that I know exactly what it is meant to say, for instance if someone used a clear sarcastic comment, I would know that it was sarcasm, not literalistically, which is adhering all of it exactly to the word, to do it that way is to suggest that Jesus did indeed want people to gouge their eyes out etc as I mentioned above. You also do sometimes have to read more into the book, to give certain comments more context, this verse we are debating on is a prime example. Is that so different from any other book you read? How often would you come across a statement made, or a scenario given, in any book, which may at first would have given you a different interpretation or made little sense, until you read further into the book, until it gave this particular verse more sense, or the correct interpretation?

Your argument is that if I tell you today my car is Blue and a month later I tell you it's Red that I couldn't have possible meant it when I said it was blue the first time. And anyone suggesting that I told you the car was blue isn't looking at my statements in context. Do you ever consider the idea that maybe I don't even drive a car and I was bullshitting you the whole time and I simply forgot what I told you the first time? Nah....the much more rational and reasonable explaination is that there must be some hidden context nobody can understand behind what I told you the first time.

That’s a rubbish analogy, because first of all we are addressing the Bible, a few millennia old historical document translated from Hebrew, and a verse that talks about the ‘Law’, and the ‘commandments’, and that not one stroke or letter would be removed from the Law until everything had been accomplished etc. All this in turn is, if taken in its literalistic sense, is contradictory to pretty much everything else said. So I’m sorry, but it’s a little bit more complicated than that.

 

[No Limit]

You keep acting like I don't understand what fulfil means. I do. But the quote we are talking about doesn't say that not a single stroke from the OT becomes invalid unitl it is fulfilled. The quote we are talking about says that it doesnt become invalid until earth and heaven are no longer.

Do you agree that heaven and earth are still here and therefore not a single thing about what the old testament says gets overturned?

You totally missed my point about how it is not my job to rationalize the bible. You act as if only an idiot could say such a thing. It is not my job to explain to you what God meant because I don't believe in God. All I can do is show you the inconsistencies in what God said in the hopes that you come to the same conclusion as me (that's its all bullshit). Again, if I say my car is blue today and say a month later its red you can't pretend that someone who questions I even have a car is absolutely insane.

But out of everything you said above you know what seems to stand out the most about your post? You quoted every last line of my post except for one. So I will repeat that line for you in the hopes I get a response this time.

If what you say is true, that the old testament has been fulfilled and you no longer have to follow it (you said this above when you said "The Law applies; we just don’t have to follow it anymore. Jesus did that for us, its perfectly simple.") then this is also true: Having sex with your mother or having a gay men teach you religion is no longer a sin since it is not found in the new testament. Do you agree with that simple question?

Also, is your argument that if I'm a strong christian and I kill 30 people just for the **** of it as long as I am a reborn christian again a few decades down the road God will forgive all? I can see why your religion is so appealing to prisoners serving life sentances.

That’s a rubbish analogy, because first of all we are addressing the Bible, a few millennia old historical document translated from Hebrew, and a verse that talks about the ‘Law’, and the ‘commandments’, and that not one stroke or letter would be removed from the Law until everything had been accomplished etc. All this in turn is, if taken in its literalistic sense, is contradictory to pretty much everything else said. So I’m sorry, but it’s a little bit more complicated than that.

Does it matter the book is a couple thousand years old? Is everything in the bible infallible or is it not? That's the basic question. If Jesus makes a very clear statement not open to interpretation in chapter 5 of Matthew is it your job to interpret that statement anyway because of something contradictory you read in the book of romans?

 

[Shift]

You keep acting like I don't understand what fulfil means. I do. But the quote we are talking about doesn't say that not a single stroke from the OT becomes invalid unitl it is fulfilled. The quote we are talking about says that it doesnt become invalid until earth and heaven are no longer.

Do you agree that heaven and earth are still here and therefore not a single thing about what the old testament says gets overturned?

Of course I agree, I always have agreed with that statement. That doesn’t however, invalidate the argument that, despite the Law still being applicable, I have to follow and live by it. Jesus did that for me, what I have to do is follow Jesus’s and the apostles’ teachings in the New Testament and pay most attention that, as that applies to my lifestyle as a Christian under Jesus.

You totally missed my point about how it is not my job to rationalize the bible. You act as if only an idiot could say such a thing. It is not my job to explain to you what God meant because I don't believe in God. All I can do is show you the inconsistencies in what God said in the hopes that you come to the same conclusion as me (that's its all bullshit). Again, if I say my car is blue today and say a month later its red you can't pretend that someone who questions I even have a car is absolutely insane.

There are no inconsistencies, the fact that God deemed it fit to start a New Testament under Christ is due to the same reason of how your original argument falls flat on its face. It’s a new agreement with humanity that under Christ and only through Christ, are people granted a place in Heaven, this is in despite of the fact that God’s law given in the Old Testament still applies, because Jesus took it upon himself to live by that Law himself, in place of every person who chose to believe in him.

But out of everything you said above you know what seems to stand out the most about your post? You quoted every last line of my post except for one. So I will repeat that line for you in the hopes I get a response this time.

If what you say is true, that the old testament has been fulfilled and you no longer have to follow it (you said this above when you said "The Law applies; we just don’t have to follow it anymore. Jesus did that for us, its perfectly simple.") then this is also true: Having sex with your mother or having a gay men teach you religion is no longer a sin since it is not found in the new testament. Do you agree with that simple question?

What part of “The Law applies” do you not understand?

Also, is your argument that if I'm a strong christian and I kill 30 people just for the **** of it as long as I am a reborn christian again a few decades down the road God will forgive all? I can see why your religion is so appealing to prisoners serving life sentances.

Anyone who becomes a Christian, and truly accepts Jesus as their savoir, will simply not murder 30 people, I mean I would have thought that was common sense. The idea is of redemption through Christ, that those that go through life and commit a whole manner of sin, find Christ and are redeemed in him, and from that point on they turn their back on sin, they do not strive to commit it because they strive to be just like Jesus.

Does it matter the book is a couple thousand years old? Is everything in the bible infallible or is it not? That's the basic question. If Jesus makes a very clear statement not open to interpretation in chapter 5 of Matthew is it your job to interpret that statement anyway because of something contradictory you read in the book of romans?

It’s my job to interpret that statement correctly if the entirety of the New Testament contradicts it if it’s taken in the literal sense, yes. You were applying a very black and white logical analogy to something that is clearly not a black and white comment; it’s a comment that uses very broad terms, a comment that only appears in Matthew’s gospel since his target audience were the Jews primarily, it’s a comment that requires further reading to give it context, to give the reader a better idea of what he was talking about. Why on earth do you have such a problem with this?

 

[No Limit]

Of course I agree, I always have agreed with that statement. That doesn’t however, invalidate the argument that, despite the Law still being applicable, I have to follow and live by it. Jesus did that for me, what I have to do is follow Jesus’s and the apostles’ teachings in the New Testament and pay most attention that, as that applies to my lifestyle as a Christian under Jesus.

You say of course you agree. But in your prior post you just said that the old testament although valid, you don't have to follow. I still don't know what that means. Does that mean you can sleep with your mother just as you can eat shell fish?

What part of “The Law applies” do you not understand?

So you can't eat shell fish? If your answer to this is that in fact you can eat shell fish since jesus cleared you of that sin then you agree you can also have sex with your mother and you can have a gay priest, correct? I hate to keep repeating this question, I just want to have a clear answer from you to a very basic question.

Anyone who becomes a Christian, and truly accepts Jesus as their savoir, will simply not murder 30 people, I mean I would have thought that was common sense. The idea is of redemption through Christ, that those that go through life and commit a whole manner of sin, find Christ and are redeemed in him, and from that point on they turn their back on sin, they do not strive to commit it because they strive to be just like Jesus.

Really? I cant think of an example of a christian extremist killing 30 people but I can think of a recent hardcore christian named Scott Roeder killing an abortion doctor. Are you saying that even though Scott Roeder took a human life you are telling me there is a place in heaven for him because he is a true believer in christ?

There are no inconsistencies, the fact that God deemed it fit to start a New Testament under Christ is due to the same reason of how your original argument falls flat on its face. It’s a new agreement with humanity that under Christ and only through Christ, are people granted a place in Heaven, this is in despite of the fact that God’s law given in the Old Testament still applies, because Jesus took it upon himself to live by that Law himself, in place of every person who chose to believe in him.

So can you or can you not have sex with your mother and have a gay priest? Can you eat shell fish?

It’s my job to interpret that statement correctly if the entirety of the New Testament contradicts it if it’s taken in the literal sense, yes. You were applying a very black and white logical analogy to something that is clearly not a black and white comment; it’s a comment that uses very broad terms, a comment that only appears in Matthew’s gospel since his target audience were the Jews primarily, it’s a comment that requires further reading to give it context, to give the reader a better idea of what he was talking about. Why on earth do you have such a problem with this?

So you admit the bible has contradictions. In one place it tells you not a single letter or pen stroke from the old testament is invalidated by Jesus until heaven and earth or no longer while in another place it tells you that you don't need to follow the old testament? How does that make sense when the old testament specifically says that anything outlined in it (such as eating shell fish) is God's law and if you don't follow it you are a sinner (again, does eating shellfish make you a sinner)?

 

[Shift]

You say of course you agree. But in your prior post you just said that the old testament although valid, you don't have to follow. I still don't know what that means. Does that mean you can sleep with your mother just as you can eat shell fish?

The Old Testament is God's word, it still applies, and it always will apply. Within that agreement came a whole section of rules to follow, along with an entire outline of how God wanted every person to live in order to enter heaven. I now as a Christian do not have to adhere to all these rules, despite the fact that that these rules are still valid (eating shellfish or whatever), because Christ lived his life and lived by those rules perfectly, in my place, so I didn't have to. Its that simple.

So you can't eat shell fish? If your answer to this is that in fact you can eat shell fish since jesus cleared you of that sin then you agree you can also have sex with your mother and you can have a gay priest, correct? I hate to keep repeating this question, I just want to have a clear answer from you to a very basic question.

Despite the fact that I don't have to follow these rules, because of Christ and his actions, that doesn't mean the everything God said in the Old Testament no longer applies. Whatever he condemned then, he condemns now.

Really? I cant think of an example of a christian extremist killing 30 people but I can think of a recent hardcore christian named Scott Roeder killing an abortion doctor. Are you saying that even though Scott Roeder took a human life you are telling me there is a place in heaven for him because he is a true believer in christ?

As I said, to be a true believer in Christ is to walk with Christ in spirit and to turn away from sin indefinitely, the fact that he went and killed someone clearly indicates that he not walking with Christ in spirit, if one is striving to kill someone after they are claiming to be Christian then they are simply not Christian.

So you admit the bible has contradictions. In one place it tells you not a single letter or pen stroke from the old testament is invalidated by Jesus until heaven and earth or no longer while in another place it tells you that you don't need to follow the old testament? How does that make sense when the old testament specifically says that anything outlined in it (such as eating shell fish) is God's law and if you don't follow it you are a sinner (again, does eating shellfish make you a sinner)?

There are no contradictions, you just can't fathom and a very simple concept. See my replies above.

 

[No Limit]

The Old Testament is God's word, it still applies, and it always will apply. Within that agreement came a whole section of rules to follow, along with an entire outline of how God wanted every person to live in order to enter heaven. I now as a Christian do not have to adhere to all these rules, despite the fact that that these rules are still valid (eating shellfish or whatever), because Christ lived his life and lived by those rules perfectly, in my place, so I didn't have to. Its that simple.

So which rules from the old testament do you HAVE to live by and which do you not? Be specific.

Despite the fact that I don't have to follow these rules, because of Christ and his actions, that doesn't mean the everything God said in the Old Testament no longer applies. Whatever he condemned then, he condemns now.

So can you give me a simple yes or no answer to these questions:

- Is it a sin to eat shell fish?
- Is it a sin to have sex with your mother?
- Is it a sin to permit a gay men to be a preacher in your church?

As I said, to be a true believer in Christ is to walk with Christ in spirit and to turn away from sin indefinitely, the fact that he went and killed someone clearly indicates that he not walking with Christ in spirit, if one is striving to kill someone after they are claiming to be Christian then they are simply not Christian.

So who gets to decide what interpretation is correct and which one isn't? He interpreted the bible in a way that said killing abortion doctors was okay. You interpret the bible in a way that says you don't have to stone the gays just because the old testament tells you to. Who gets to decide who is right and who isn't? Aren't both of you (in your head) deciding to give your life to christ? In Roeder's case he went all out, he decided to spend the rest of his life in prison for christ. As you know God doesn't really have a problem with war as long as the war is meant to uphold the law of God. So maybe Rodder saw this as a war?

I assume you do agree that abortion is a very grave sin (if this assumption is wrong on my part I just want to apologize in advance, I'm trying my best not to make any assumptions about your position here). Do you agree it's on the same level as murder?

There are no contradictions, you just can't fathom and a very simple concept. See my replies above.

Ok, fine. So you agree that the bible is consistent in saying that not a single word from the old testament was invalidaded by Christ (not a single word, not a single pen stroke). If you could just say you agree to this that would save me a lot of headache. As I understand it you do, I just want to make sure I am understanding you 100% correct.