Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2012, 02:36 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(01-08-2012 09:04 AM)xieulong Wrote:  
(01-08-2012 04:54 AM)ryanfox Wrote:  Hi guys! Not a first time poster here but it's been awhile.

I recently slapped down [temporarily] an anti-gay Christian by pointing out all the ridiculous laws and oppression of women contained in Leviticus and various other parts of the Bible; asking why he clings to god's anti gay policy but not the anti-shaving, anti-pork, and anti-women policies, to name a few. He said he'd get back on to me on my "misunderstanding." In the meantime, I'm trying to educate myself on what Christians usually say in response to such things. I know they say it's the OT and Jesus abolished that, but I've argued against that before so I'm ready for that. This, however, is a smart guy who's good with words so I'm curious what he might throw at me. Have any of you been in a similar situation? An actual smart Christian arguing about why certain biblical rules should be followed and others shouldn't?

Thanks a lot!

Well you can point him to Matthew 5:17, but no fun in that. Point him to this!! http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reason...efault.htm
Read it, it's pretty funny.

Let me quote from it:

"If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust."

Conclusion: Jebus garanteed the OT NOT abolish it.

Thanks a lot xieulong, that link should be money!

Thanks a lot to everyone for the information! This might be easier than I thought; another Christian has joined the discussion but appears to be on my side, so it seems I can probably just pop the Scotch and enjoy the show, occassionally add some comic relief. Tongue

Nonetheless, this is all great info and if I don't want to expend too much effort, the bottom line is, sometimes Jesus says he fulfills the law, other times he says he abolishes it. So I can play the "the Bible is full of contradictions, tell me something I don't know" card.

Thumbsup Thanks again!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 02:45 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
Filox Wrote:Hahahahahahahaha, smart Christian. If I haven't met KC, I'd say this is an oxymoron, but I guess he is just an exception that proves the rule.

I agree. I would get into a debate with KC but he obviously way more biblical knowledge than me and has debated a lot before so he would kick my ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 03:08 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(01-08-2012 09:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  God didn't change.

If God is all knowing and infinite, then it was His plan for the ancient Hebrews to follow these laws and not the new believers via Jesus. His plan was always this, so it didn't change.

If God knew how everything would happen, then there is no such thing as free will. Which, I gather, is your view anyway. So, he knew that Adam & Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge.

And why did the Garden of Eden have a tree of knowledge? If God is omniscient, the last thing he would need to grow is a plant that bore knowledge fruit. But anyway... he knew they'd eat from the tree, and punished them (and every following generation) for disobeying a law that he knew they'd break. But if he knew they'd break it, why create the law?

So... humanity is full of sinners because that's how God wanted it.

(insert: you actually worship this creature?)

And the flood (which wasn't copied wholesale from the story of Gilgamesh, honest governor) and all of the humans and creatures that were drowned... which God knew would happen from the outset... what a bastard.

So, the whole of the OT was for his chosen people... and Jesus was sent along to organise plan B. So, why didn't God tell Jesus that? Jesus was reluctant to treat Gentiles. I'd quote chapter and verse if I remembered it, but at one point, he refused to help a non-Jew... then uhmed and ahhed... then decided to help them anyway, to the disbelief of his followers.

Jesus didn't know that plan B was intended for non-Jews. Nor did any other Christian, until Saul of Tarsus was on his way to Damascus.

And then we get a very different version of Christianity. St Paul was a misogynistic cunt-bucket. But hey, he was given the proper plan B that Jesus hadn't been working with... and he seemed to know the mind of Jesus better than Jesus did, himself.

Why do you believe this mess of a story? Tolkein's was much more plausible... and a shit-load more consistent.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 09:21 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 03:08 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  If God knew how everything would happen, then there is no such thing as free will. Which, I gather, is your view anyway.

Yep.

Quote:So, he knew that Adam & Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge.

And why did the Garden of Eden have a tree of knowledge? If God is omniscient, the last thing he would need to grow is a plant that bore knowledge fruit. But anyway... he knew they'd eat from the tree, and punished them (and every following generation) for disobeying a law that he knew they'd break. But if he knew they'd break it, why create the law?

I don't believe in a literal creation account.

Quote:So... humanity is full of sinners because that's how God wanted it.

Yes. That's by God's design for Christ's purpose.

Quote:And the flood (which wasn't copied wholesale from the story of Gilgamesh, honest governor) and all of the humans and creatures that were drowned... which God knew would happen from the outset... what a bastard.

Same as creation account.

Quote:So, the whole of the OT was for his chosen people... and Jesus was sent along to organise plan B. So, why didn't God tell Jesus that? Jesus was reluctant to treat Gentiles. I'd quote chapter and verse if I remembered it, but at one point, he refused to help a non-Jew... then uhmed and ahhed... then decided to help them anyway, to the disbelief of his followers.

Jesus wasn't omniscient - He was God incarnate relinquished His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence to become human. He only had what God allowed Him to have.

Quote:Jesus didn't know that plan B was intended for non-Jews. Nor did any other Christian, until Saul of Tarsus was on his way to Damascus.

And then we get a very different version of Christianity. St Paul was a misogynistic cunt-bucket. But hey, he was given the proper plan B that Jesus hadn't been working with... and he seemed to know the mind of Jesus better than Jesus did, himself.

Jesus said that salvation was for all the "believing ones" (elect) - regardless of who they were.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 09:27 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
Still waiting for your reply, KC. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 09:35 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(01-08-2012 09:20 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(01-08-2012 09:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  God didn't change.

If God is all knowing and infinite, then it was His plan for the ancient Hebrews to follow these laws and not the new believers via Jesus. His plan was always this, so it didn't change.
Didn't you just refer me to a quote in which Jesus (aka God) claimed that the Old Testament's laws are still valid? If Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, then obviously the laws weren't meant solely for the ancient Hebrews. If God didn't want anyone but the Hebrews to follow the old laws, then Jesus would have come precisely to abolish them and establish new ones.

I pointed you to a verse that describes this scenario. Jesus introduces a new law that refutes the previously valid law. The law of seeking revenge for someone hurting you and the law of letting yourself get hurt without defending yourself cannot co-exist. They directly contradict each other.

Jesus was addressing the Jews.

It was only on rare occasions that Jesus addressed non-Jews.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 09:41 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 09:35 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Jesus wasn't omniscient - He was God incarnate relinquished His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence to become human. He only had what God allowed Him to have.


[Image: ql-fg-pic4.gif]

Anybody up to watching Quantum Leap: The Jesus Chronicles?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
02-08-2012, 09:44 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 09:35 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Jesus was addressing the Jews.

It was only on rare occasions that Jesus addressed non-Jews.
How does that change anything at what I said? It's irrelevant to whom he was speaking when he said that he isn't going to abolish the law if he did it anyway.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 10:04 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 09:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 09:35 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Jesus was addressing the Jews.

It was only on rare occasions that Jesus addressed non-Jews.
How does that change anything at what I said? It's irrelevant to whom he was speaking when he said that he isn't going to abolish the law if he did it anyway.

I knew I should have been clearer. Sorry.

Okay:

Didn't you just refer me to a quote in which Jesus (aka God) claimed that the Old Testament's laws are still valid? If Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, then obviously the laws weren't meant solely for the ancient Hebrews. If God didn't want anyone but the Hebrews to follow the old laws, then Jesus would have come precisely to abolish them and establish new ones.

Jesus came to establish the New Covenant. The OT laws were meant directly and only for the Hebrews. Jesus addressed the Jews in those verses. He was letting them know that He didn't come to abolish the law that they understood and lived by; however, He came to fulfill it by being God incarnate.

The New Covenant was for all the "believing ones" which wasn't just Jews - this is why Jesus was addressing this issue with the Jews. The Jews thought, that because of the law, that salvation was only for them. They heard this New Covenant and thought Jesus was trying to abolish what they knew as salvation. Jesus was reassuring them that this wasn't true; however, salvation was extended to all "types of men".

Also, see what I posted earlier when I said:

The blueprint that Jesus follows is teaching people what God has instructed. His speaking against these things because He is God incarnate and this is what God wants.

The following of the law is following God. Jesus has come to fulfill God's instructions and to follow what God has commanded.


I pointed you to a verse that describes this scenario. Jesus introduces a new law that refutes the previously valid law. The law of seeking revenge for someone hurting you and the law of letting yourself get hurt without defending yourself cannot co-exist. They directly contradict each other.

See bolded

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 10:51 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 10:04 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Jesus came to establish the New Covenant. The OT laws were meant directly and only for the Hebrews. Jesus addressed the Jews in those verses. He was letting them know that He didn't come to abolish the law that they understood and lived by; however, He came to fulfill it by being God incarnate.

The New Covenant was for all the "believing ones" which wasn't just Jews - this is why Jesus was addressing this issue with the Jews. The Jews thought, that because of the law, that salvation was only for them. They heard this New Covenant and thought Jesus was trying to abolish what they knew as salvation. Jesus was reassuring them that this wasn't true; however, salvation was extended to all "types of men".
You're still saying that Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, which is wrong. I referred you to one instance of him doing so and if you want me to, I can search up a compilation of both the OT and the NT laws point out the contradiction.

(02-08-2012 10:04 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Also, see what I posted earlier when I said:

The blueprint that Jesus follows is teaching people what God has instructed. His speaking against these things because He is God incarnate and this is what God wants.

The following of the law is following God. Jesus has come to fulfill God's instructions and to follow what God has commanded.
You're using the fallacy of the false analogy.

blue·print [bloo-print]
noun
a detailed outline or plan of action

Saying that the OT laws are the blueprint for the teachings of Jesus in the NT is simply false. His teachings cannot be based on something that has nothing to do with what he's preaching. If you really want to use that analogy, then the OT laws are the blueprint for a car and Jesus built an airplane based on that. Also, something based on a blueprint doesn't work properly if you take out parts of it, which Jesus does on a frequent basis.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: