Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2012, 10:54 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 10:51 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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.

Ugh... semantics.

I just used the word "blueprint". I didn't mean it's literal definition.

I explained what I meant with the previous bolded passage.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 10:59 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 10:54 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 10:51 AM)Vosur Wrote:  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.

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.

Ugh... semantics.

I just used the word "blueprint". I didn't mean it's literal definition.

I explained what I meant with the previous bolded passage.
Not really, you should have said fundemental base, instead of blueprint.

Your usage of the word blueprint is incorrect, because in order for it to be a blueprint, it has to be something unfinished, which, by you, would admit that, but the finished product has to resemble the blueprint.

Jesus built something totally new, and went against the said blueprint.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 10:54 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I explained what I meant with the previous bolded passage.
What part are you talking about?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:04 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 10:59 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 10:54 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Ugh... semantics.

I just used the word "blueprint". I didn't mean it's literal definition.

I explained what I meant with the previous bolded passage.
Not really, you should have said fundemental base, instead of blueprint.

Your usage of the word blueprint is incorrect, because in order for it to be a blueprint, it has to be something unfinished, which, by you, would admit that, but the finished product has to resemble the blueprint.

Jesus built something totally new, and went against the said blueprint.

Okay, fine, I used the wrong word.

Sheesh.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:04 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 11:00 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 10:54 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I explained what I meant with the previous bolded passage.
What part are you talking about?

The blueprint model 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.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:07 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2012 11:10 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 11:04 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The blueprint model 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.
How is that any different? How does that eliminate the contradictions? How does this change the fact that he refutes himself when he says he doesn't abolish the laws and still does it? Using the word "model" isn't much better than using the word "blueprint". It still implies that Jesus teachings are based on the OT laws, which they are not.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:12 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 11:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 11:04 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  The blueprint model 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.
How is that any different? How does that eliminate the contradictions? How does this change the fact that he refutes himself when he says he doesn't abolish the laws and still does it? Using the word "model" isn't much better than using the word "blueprint". It still implies that Jesus teachings are based on the OT laws, which they are not.

Jesus' teachings, like I said, are about following God and what He wants. That's what the law was about. It was about following what God wanted. This is what Jesus came to do.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 11:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Jesus' teachings, like I said, are about following God and what He wants. That's what the law was about. It was about following what God wanted. This is what Jesus came to do.
If both the OT and the NT are what god wants and the two of them are different, then logically we can conclude that "what god wants" has changed ever since Jesus came. Since, according to the Bible, god does not change, god refutes his own existence and therefore doesn't exist. qed

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
02-08-2012, 11:27 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
(02-08-2012 11:23 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 11:12 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Jesus' teachings, like I said, are about following God and what He wants. That's what the law was about. It was about following what God wanted. This is what Jesus came to do.
If both the OT and the NT are what god wants and the two of them are different, then logically we can concldue that "what god wants" has changed ever since Jesus came. Since, according to the Bible, god does not change, god refutes his own existence and therefore doesn't exist. qed

Omniscience is knowing all - past, present, and future

If God is omniscient, then no, it's not Him changing. This was His decision from the beginning of infinity (sic).

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2012, 11:31 AM
RE: Christian responses to Leviticus et. al?
In Matthew 8:28-34, Jesus approached two demon-possessed men. When Jesus began to exorcise them, the demons asked that Jesus cast them into a herd of pigs. He did so, causing the pigs to run into the sea and drown themselves. The herdsmen then ran to the nearest town to report what they saw.


But wait pigs can swim. Does this make God angry?



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: