Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2014, 10:43 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 06:10 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 06:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You write...

"Mithraism closest link to Christianity concerning blood is here:
A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum (c A.D. 200)[24] in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti (?) . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this text is unclear, although presumably it refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. However the servasti is only a conjecture.[25] According to Robert Turcan,[26] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil.[27] Which puts it's belief 200 years after Christianity."

No no no. Wrong dates, wrong facts. Let me school you about Mithraism...

Mithraism

In the hundred years before and the few hundred years after Jesus’ death, the most popular religion in the Roman Empire was Mithraism. Many of the main mantras of Mithraism found their way into the bible and the traditions of Christianity.

It was one of the oldest religious systems on earth, dating from the dawn of written history, circa 2000 BCE, long before Judaism, and before the primitive Iranian race divided into the branches that became Persian and Indian. It dominated Persia and the vast regions of the Orient in ancient times. Zoroaster, a Persian philosopher who gave final form to the faith, lived at least six hundred years before Christ, (some say earlier, http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/monot...aster.htm) so when the Christ myth was new, Mithraism was already ancient.

It involved the idolization of the Indo-Iranian sun-god Mithra. It was a monotheistic religion, a feature sometimes falsely claimed to be peculiar to the Abrahamic traditions. The Persians who practiced Mithraism influenced the Jewish scripture writers during the Babylonian Captivity.

The religion entered Europe following the conquests of Alexander the Great. The faith found its way to Rome in the 60s BCE, when Pompey’s legions first encountered it in Syria and brought it back home. Its foremost fans in the Roman Empire were the legionnaires (who were the soldiers in a Roman legion.)

Mithraism did not flourish in Rome until the beginning of the second century AD, when it spread with great rapidity. It was patronized and protected by a number of emperors up to and including Constantine (Emperor from 306-337 CE.) Several of them built temples to Mithras (Mithra became Mithras in the empire’s version of the cult.) By the year 200 CE, it flourished throughout the empire. It had spread widely throughout the army, and also among traders and slaves. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Armenia, Britain, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, North Africa, Persia, Romania, Syria, and Turkey. It reached its zenith during the third century, only to be stamped out by Christianity in the fourth.

There were no Mithraic scriptures, and no texts written by its adherents have survived. Most of what we know about this cult has been surmised only from the archaeological evidence. Consequently, historians often have markedly different spiels about the details, and the topic of Mithraism’s influence on Christianity is a lively one on the Internet.

The religion revolved around reverence of the sun. The character Mithras was the son of the “sun god.” Mithras represented fidelity, manliness, and bravery. The cult emphasized fellowship and brotherliness among its members. It excluded women.

The mysteries of Mithras were celebrated in underground temples, built in imitation of caves, called methraei. In every Mithraic temple, the place of honor was occupied by a tauroctony, an image of Mithras killing a sacred bull. Mithras is depicted as an energetic young man, wearing a cap, a short tunic that flares at the hem, pants, and a cloak that streamed out behind him. He grasps the bull to force it into submission, with his knee on its back and one hand heaving back its head, while he stabs it in the neck with a short sword. This scene was reenacted in real life, when each initiate into the religion was baptized in the bull’s blood, partaking of its life-giving properties.
Joseph Wheless, writing in the 1930s, provided some of the following insights into Mithraism. (http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...r_1.html). Mithras was the mediator between God and humans. There was an ethical system built upon the principle that a war raged between good and evil. A Good Spirit had given men his divine revelation and law through the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster). An Evil Spirit tempted people to transgress the Law. Humans had free will, able to place themselves on the side of good or evil. The believers were good guys who battled on Mithras’ side.

Virtues and vices were enumerated and estimated. Special value was attributed to the virtues of adherence to religious practices, truthfulness, purity, and generosity to the poor. Importance was placed on the necessity of goodness in thought, word, and deed. Heresy, untruthfulness, perjury, sexual sins, violence, and tyranny were especially frowned upon.

After death, one’s destiny was decided according to whether the Good Spirit had been obeyed. It was hoped one’s soul would pass over a bridge into a happy eternity, heaven. The wicked soul fell from the bridge into hell.

I think Paul, the creator of Christian theology, incorporated Mithraic ideas into what became Christianity. Some commentators have even suggested Paul was a Mithraic priest. Christian pioneers copied details of Mithraism too. As a result, there are some remarkable similarities between Mithras and Jesus. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfAHsUHt...nity.html, http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/gospel-mithras.html).
Mithras’ virgin mother was the “mother of God.”

Mithras was born on the twenty-fifth of December, three days after the winter solstice. Long before Jesus, every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, his birth was celebrated. The sun “dies” on December 22, the winter solstice, when it stops its movement south. On December 25, the Natalis Invictis, the rebirth of the winter sun occurs, and the sun resumes its movement north. At the first minute of December 25, priests in white garments celebrated the birth of Mithras, the son of God. The temples of Mithras were lit with candles, and boys burned incense. It was only in the fourth century that Western Christians chose the twenty-fifth of December to celebrate Jesus’ birth.

Mithras was baptized and remained celibate throughout his life. He performed miracles. He was called “the Good Shepherd” and the “Light of the World,” terms that came to be used when referring to Jesus.

Mithras celebrated a “Last Supper” with his twelve disciples, who each stood for a sign of the zodiac.

Mithras sacrificed himself by dying on a cross for the sins of mankind. His body was laid to rest in a rock tomb. He descended into the underworld, and appeared in heaven three days later.

Sunday was the sun god’s holy day. Onto Jesus’ head fell Mithras’ sun disc, the halo.
For those who worshipped Mithras, invoking his name was supposed to heal the sick and work miracles. They believed Mithras would grant them immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They drank wine and ate bread, which symbolized the blood and body of Mithras.

There were “fathers” of the Mithraic religion. Their chief, who lived in Rome, was called Pater Patratus. He wore a red cap and a ring and carried a shepherd's staff, attire afterwards adopted by Christian bishops.

At the end of time, the story is strikingly similar to that of the Apocalypse in the book of Revelations. A colossal combat takes place between the savior, Mithras and demons, who he destroys. Mithras orchestrates the resurrection of the dead, the judgment and then the renewal of the whole world. A terrible fire rages, which cleanses all creatures; the wicked are cleansed of all stains. A new heaven and earth appear.

Mithraism was flexible, universal and appealed to the men in all classes in society, yet Mithras was not an historical god-man savior. Nor was he directly connected to Judaism, which I think the government was trying to undermine. He had to be replaced by a more suitable candidate; someone Jewish who the common people could relate to. Enter Jesus.

The Church Fathers Justin, Origen, and Tertullian were very familiar with Mithraism. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch70.htm , http://www.religionfacts.com/greco-roman...aism.htm). The standard explanation they gave for the unmistakable similarities with Jesus was that Satan had gone back in time and copied contemporary Christianity! Critics at the time were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply reproduced the popular beliefs of a prominent pagan cult.

There were some differences between Christianity and Mithraism. There were no bulls in Christianity. Mithraism was tolerant of other cults; Christianity was exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, even Judaism.

When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, Mithraism was driven from the scene by attacks from Christians. It had no hierarchical organization, lacked a professional clergy, and was heavily dependent upon State patronage, so soon came to an ignominious end. During the reign of Emperor Gratian (367–383 CE), its sanctuaries were sacked of their wealth and wound up. Christians seized Mithra’s cave-temple on the Vatican Hill in 376 A.D. Part of the Vatican was built on top of it. (http://www.ambrosiasociety.org/mithra__avesta.html, http://www.websitesonadime.com/ffwic/mithra.htm). Christianity’s architectural and theological foundations were both Mithraic!

Thirty years later, the Emperor Theodosius made worship of Mithras punishable by death. Mithraism vanished, vanquished by the cult of Christ.

References:
Atwill, Joseph “Caesar’s Messiah”
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html
http://mlk kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/volume_i_13_september_to_23_november_1949/
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/scriptures...mithra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development...ible_canon
http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion...mithra.htm
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/...anity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...istianity/
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/churches.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U1Grl4HSRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1IfFMoIZQ
http://www.egodeath.com/bensonmysteryrels.htm
http://department.monm.edu/classics/cour...ropattern/
http://fuzzyquark.comxa.com/original.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRKhZ81aqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lGG1fgSkl4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJk_nBNqejg

TL/DR but I am pretty sure you know the bible more then a lot of people. Which reminds me do you think that John 3:16 is talking about everyone or just other christians?

Mmmmm.

John 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Well....it says whoever "believes in him" will live forever. So whoever wrote this was trying to get anyone stupid enough to "believe in Jesus" i.e. do as they were told, and he was promising an eternal theme park in the sky as a reward. Fucking pathetic.

It's the same piss poor argument as the 72 virgins.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Christians today try to disconnect them selves from the old testament.

They do? Who are these Christians you speak of?


(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The old testament is the first part of the bible, and contains laws that should be followed.

True go on.

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  I will explain 3 reasons Christians today don't want to follow the old testament

Who are these Christians again?


(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  There are three reasons Christians try to get rid of following the old testament laws are:

1. They are trying to make Christianity look like the most peaceful of all the religions.. The old testament contains laws that are extremely violent and stupid. For example here is a verse for an example Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13.

2. They are already accustomed to the lives they live. Christians get a kick out of doing things like working on the Sabbath or eating a bacon wraped catfish with fried shrimp. They want to still live their lives they way they do.

3. It is so that they can make christianity seem more logical. The laws like stoning people for working on the Sabbath would be reasonable to somebody who follows the law, but to no one else and because christians have to make more sense then the other religions that have to make sure they don't follow such a ridiculous law.

Who are these Christians? I do not know any Christians that have the attitude towards the OT that you claim they do.

Maybe you mean to say: "Some of the Christians I have personally spoken with on whether or not the OT is applicable."?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  However Christians don't know that they should follow the old testament.

How do you know what a Christian does or does not know?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. Jesus is said to have told people that the old testament should still be followed. For example this verse "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

How does the above lead you to the conclusion that Jesus told people that the OT should still be followed? Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. He also stated that not one letter would pass from the Law until all things have taken place.

No where in the passage you provided do we find Him telling people the OT should still be followed.

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  So this would mean that the old testament still applies.

What do you mean "applies"?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. The fact that those who don't follow the old testament will be called least in heaven. Sure you could see this as not bad but would you rather have a old car or a sports car? Well think of least in heaven as a old car and heaven for those who follow the old laws as a sports car?

If that is the case then Jesus has the old car, for He did not stone the woman caught in adultery which was the penalty prescribed by the Law. Surely Jesus did not think Himself to be least in the Kingdom of Heaven did He?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  3. The fact that many things from the old testament christians follow now. For example the ten commandments are found only in the old testament. Another thing Christians follow is masturbation is evil. However christians will use old testament laws to justify this. So they them selves will use old testament laws they like in a attempt to justify their motives, but will ignore laws they don't like.

Who is this addressed to?

Have you been smoking something, or are you just stupid?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
22-03-2014, 05:16 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 10:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  They do? Who are these Christians you speak of?



True go on.


Who are these Christians again?



Who are these Christians? I do not know any Christians that have the attitude towards the OT that you claim they do.

Maybe you mean to say: "Some of the Christians I have personally spoken with on whether or not the OT is applicable."?


How do you know what a Christian does or does not know?


How does the above lead you to the conclusion that Jesus told people that the OT should still be followed? Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. He also stated that not one letter would pass from the Law until all things have taken place.

No where in the passage you provided do we find Him telling people the OT should still be followed.


What do you mean "applies"?


If that is the case then Jesus has the old car, for He did not stone the woman caught in adultery which was the penalty prescribed by the Law. Surely Jesus did not think Himself to be least in the Kingdom of Heaven did He?


Who is this addressed to?

Have you been smoking something, or are you just stupid?

Neither.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 05:37 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. Paul said they were freed from the old law.

When I said, "true, go on..." it was in reference to the statement, "The old testament is the first part of the bible, and contains laws that should be followed."

It is true that the OT is the first part of the bible. It is also true that it contains laws that should be followed. If there are at least two laws in the OT that should be followed then the statement is true. The existence of at least two laws would be what philosophers call "necessary conditions". In order for the statement to be true, there must be at least two laws in the OT that NT Christians should follow. Why just two? Well, he said that the OT contains "laws". This is plural, thus, at least two would be required.

Notice what he does not say. He does not say that the OT contains laws and all of them should be followed.

He does not say that. If he had said that, I would have taken issue with the statement.

So are there at least two laws in the OT that are applicable to NT Christians? Yes. Commandments seven and eight. You shall not commit adultery and you shall not steal.

Paul said Christians were no longer under the law. Does this mean that we can steal or commit adultery. No. It means that Christians are no longer under the condemnation of the law for those who be in Christ fulfill the law. As Paul himself said, "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Romans 3:31

(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So .. Christians may kill their disobedient children then, and it's an abomination to wear plaids ?

No. Christians may not kill their disobedient children and no it is not an abomination to wear plaids.

As I stated earlier with regards to the statement, "the OT contains laws that should be followed.." this is a true statement. It being true does not necessitate us following every law. Some apply, some no longer apply.




(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. He also stated that not one letter would pass from the Law until all things have taken place.

(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Jebus actually said nothing of the sort. His followers made claims about what he said. There is no evidence he ever even existed.

In your first reply, you used the Bible and what Paul said to argue your point. Now you are saying that I cannot use the Bible and what Jesus is recorded to have said to argue my point.

So which one is it? You cannot use the NT to argue your point and then say I cannot use the NT to argue my point. You have not only advocated a double-standard but you have moved the goalposts to the subject of Jesus' existence.



(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So ... banned at AF, and you come here. Can you tell us why you're here ?

I am here in part, to correct the erroneous views and logic behind arguments against Christianity like the views you have expressed in this post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 07:53 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 05:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No. Christians may not kill their disobedient children and no it is not an abomination to wear plaids.

As I stated earlier with regards to the statement, "the OT contains laws that should be followed.." this is a true statement. It being true does not necessitate us following every law. Some apply, some no longer apply.

Now, maybe you're taking exception to the broad language Bucky is using regarding "disobedient" children. That being said, however you want to word it to be logically consistent, the OT does contain rules for killing children under certain situations siting stubbornness and rebellion:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
Quote:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


So, you said "no" regarding that. Are you:
  • rejecting Bucky's choice of wording?
  • rejecting the above-quoted passage from Deuteronomy?
  • saying the NT has some rule that invalidates the above-quoted passage? If so, what is it? If not, why isn't this law in effect?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
22-03-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 05:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong. Paul said they were freed from the old law.

When I said, "true, go on..." it was in reference to the statement, "The old testament is the first part of the bible, and contains laws that should be followed."

It is true that the OT is the first part of the bible. It is also true that it contains laws that should be followed. If there are at least two laws in the OT that should be followed then the statement is true. The existence of at least two laws would be what philosophers call "necessary conditions". In order for the statement to be true, there must be at least two laws in the OT that NT Christians should follow. Why just two? Well, he said that the OT contains "laws". This is plural, thus, at least two would be required.

Notice what he does not say. He does not say that the OT contains laws and all of them should be followed.

He does not say that. If he had said that, I would have taken issue with the statement.

So are there at least two laws in the OT that are applicable to NT Christians? Yes. Commandments seven and eight. You shall not commit adultery and you shall not steal.

Paul said Christians were no longer under the law. Does this mean that we can steal or commit adultery. No. It means that Christians are no longer under the condemnation of the law for those who be in Christ fulfill the law. As Paul himself said, "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Romans 3:31


This is too rich. So your apologetic is to argue about the semantics of the English translation, try to argue (and terribly I might add) that a statement that means 'two or more' should instead be read as 'only two', then selectively pick which of the only two OT laws you just happen to like. All of this of course assuming that Jesus existed, and that Paul actually happened to write this letter, and that even this is an accurate conveyance of his meaning. Color me not impressed. Facepalm

Even then, you still fail to establish his reasoning to sufficiently support your subjective personal interpretation over any other; as in you have no better argument than someone arguing for the inclusion of addition OT laws, or different OT laws.

Could you cherry pick any harder? Weeping



(22-03-2014 05:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So .. Christians may kill their disobedient children then, and it's an abomination to wear plaids ?

No. Christians may not kill their disobedient children and no it is not an abomination to wear plaids.

As I stated earlier with regards to the statement, "the OT contains laws that should be followed.." this is a true statement. It being true does not necessitate us following every law. Some apply, some no longer apply.

Who gets to pick which ones though? You've yet to establish the justification for being selective in the application of the Law, nor under which criteria are OT laws vetted for inclusion or rejection.



(22-03-2014 05:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. He also stated that not one letter would pass from the Law until all things have taken place.
Jebus actually said nothing of the sort. His followers made claims about what he said. There is no evidence he ever even existed.
In your first reply, you used the Bible and what Paul said to argue your point. Now you are saying that I cannot use the Bible and what Jesus is recorded to have said to argue my point.

So which one is it? You cannot use the NT to argue your point and then say I cannot use the NT to argue my point. You have not only advocated a double-standard but you have moved the goalposts to the subject of Jesus' existence.

It's real simple dumbass. Nothing written in the Gospels can be authentically attributed to anybody. You cannot take the Gospels as the word of Paul, God, Jesus, or anybody else. This simple fact subsumes all others, no matter how many layers above this you may be arguing. Sometimes it's funny to argue within the Bible to show contradictions to those who buy into it, but that's doesn't make the bible any less full of shit.

So arguing about what Paul or Jesus said is a pointless he-said-she-said battle using millennia old hearsay, because you're not actually arguing over what they said. You're arguing over what you think was attributed to them decades (if not centuries) after the 'fact', accounts that were transcribed by non-eyewitnesses in a language (Greek) other than what was originally spoken (Hebrew, Aramaic), and for which we lack the originals (autographs) and instead only have copies of copies of copies, for which we have clear evidence of both mistranslation, interpolation, and purposeful editing for temporal gain.

So do tell what Jesus (assuming he even existed as described) or Paul said about anything... Laugh out load



(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So ... banned at AF, and you come here. Can you tell us why you're here ?
I am here in part, to correct the erroneous views and logic behind arguments against Christianity like the views you have expressed in this post.

For someone claiming 'logic', you sure do fucking suck at it! Laugh out load

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-03-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Quote:And we can't be sure the others were either.

We can assume that they were all written by the same person...that's all that "style" gets you. The fact that 10 supposed epistles of "paul" showed up in Marcion's canon strongly suggests that they were written by Marcion or one of his scribes.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 07:53 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Now, maybe you're taking exception to the broad language Bucky is using regarding "disobedient" children. That being said, however you want to word it to be logically consistent, the OT does contain rules for killing children under certain situations siting stubbornness and rebellion:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
Quote:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


So, you said "no" regarding that. Are you:
  • rejecting Bucky's choice of wording?
  • rejecting the above-quoted passage from Deuteronomy?
  • saying the NT has some rule that invalidates the above-quoted passage? If so, what is it? If not, why isn't this law in effect?

1. No
2. No.
3. The prescribed punishment for disobedient, rebellious, obstinate, stubborn children who refused to heed correction was only applicable to the Israelites who were a part of a Theocratic government. In the Leviticus passage, this law is part of a section dealing with egregious sins, sins that would tear a nation and family apart. The trespass in question was not a casual, slip-of-the-tongue curse, but a deep-seated rebellion, an ongoing attitude of hatred that had to be dealt with severely. In other words, the punishment was not for minor infractions but for determined defiance.

The reason we don't is because the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

There are several things to keep in mind about this particular sin and about the law:

The sin was ongoing and continuous. Deuteronomy 21:18 indicates that the punishment was only meted out after a persistent refusal to heed both father and mother and after all discipline had failed. The parents have tried to deal with their son in a loving, firm way, but nothing worked.

It was deep-seated sin. Verse 20 specifies that the son is stubborn in his rebellion. This is not a case of a child who misses curfew or plays ball in the house. This a true menace, a child who is causing trouble in society and grieving his parents, possibly to the point of endangering them physically and financially.

The punishment was not an impulsive act of anger or vengeance. Verse 19 says that the city elders had to oversee the case and determine the guilt of the child. It is only after the elders pronounced a sentence of death that the execution could take place. The law did not allow an angry parent to arbitrarily stone a child. A modern equivalent of this is when a parent sees news footage of his child committing a crime and subsequently turns the child in to the police. If parents know their child is acting in a way that endangers society, they are responsible to obey the civil authorities and report the crime.

The punishment was designed to preserve the nation. As verse 21 explains, the reason for this law was to purge evil from society and act as a deterrent to further rebellion. Israel was a nation chosen by God to be holy (Exodus 20:6). God gave the Israelites three types of laws: judicial, moral, and ceremonial. This is a judicial law. A child who was actively and deliberately rejecting the laws of the land needed to be punished judicially.

Which brings us to the last and most important factor:

Rebellion against one’s parents is direct rebellion against God. The 5th Command is to honor one’s father and mother (Exodus 20:12). Parents are a God-ordained authority. Disobedience to parents is disobedience to God (Ephesians 6:1-3). Throughout the Bible, there are only a handful of things we are told to fear: God (Proverbs 1:7) and parents (Leviticus 19:3) are among them.

The law requiring rebellious children to be stoned to death was meant for extreme cases to protect God’s people. It would have been heartbreaking for parents to bear the responsibility of initiating such severe measures. However, the Bible never records this law being enforced.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebell...z2wjiudk7K
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 05:19 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 07:53 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Now, maybe you're taking exception to the broad language Bucky is using regarding "disobedient" children. That being said, however you want to word it to be logically consistent, the OT does contain rules for killing children under certain situations siting stubbornness and rebellion:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)


So, you said "no" regarding that. Are you:
  • rejecting Bucky's choice of wording?
  • rejecting the above-quoted passage from Deuteronomy?
  • saying the NT has some rule that invalidates the above-quoted passage? If so, what is it? If not, why isn't this law in effect?

1. No
2. No.
3. The prescribed punishment for disobedient, rebellious, obstinate, stubborn children who refused to heed correction was only applicable to the Israelites who were a part of a Theocratic government. In the Leviticus passage, this law is part of a section dealing with egregious sins, sins that would tear a nation and family apart. The trespass in question was not a casual, slip-of-the-tongue curse, but a deep-seated rebellion, an ongoing attitude of hatred that had to be dealt with severely. In other words, the punishment was not for minor infractions but for determined defiance.

The reason we don't is because the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

There are several things to keep in mind about this particular sin and about the law:

The sin was ongoing and continuous. Deuteronomy 21:18 indicates that the punishment was only meted out after a persistent refusal to heed both father and mother and after all discipline had failed. The parents have tried to deal with their son in a loving, firm way, but nothing worked.

It was deep-seated sin. Verse 20 specifies that the son is stubborn in his rebellion. This is not a case of a child who misses curfew or plays ball in the house. This a true menace, a child who is causing trouble in society and grieving his parents, possibly to the point of endangering them physically and financially.

The punishment was not an impulsive act of anger or vengeance. Verse 19 says that the city elders had to oversee the case and determine the guilt of the child. It is only after the elders pronounced a sentence of death that the execution could take place. The law did not allow an angry parent to arbitrarily stone a child. A modern equivalent of this is when a parent sees news footage of his child committing a crime and subsequently turns the child in to the police. If parents know their child is acting in a way that endangers society, they are responsible to obey the civil authorities and report the crime.

The punishment was designed to preserve the nation. As verse 21 explains, the reason for this law was to purge evil from society and act as a deterrent to further rebellion. Israel was a nation chosen by God to be holy (Exodus 20:6). God gave the Israelites three types of laws: judicial, moral, and ceremonial. This is a judicial law. A child who was actively and deliberately rejecting the laws of the land needed to be punished judicially.

Which brings us to the last and most important factor:

Rebellion against one’s parents is direct rebellion against God. The 5th Command is to honor one’s father and mother (Exodus 20:12). Parents are a God-ordained authority. Disobedience to parents is disobedience to God (Ephesians 6:1-3). Throughout the Bible, there are only a handful of things we are told to fear: God (Proverbs 1:7) and parents (Leviticus 19:3) are among them.

The law requiring rebellious children to be stoned to death was meant for extreme cases to protect God’s people. It would have been heartbreaking for parents to bear the responsibility of initiating such severe measures. However, the Bible never records this law being enforced.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebell...z2wjiudk7K

So where does it say that in the book? Cause it seems that you are just cherry picking.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
22-03-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 07:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is too rich. So your apologetic is to argue about the semantics of the English translation, try to argue (and terribly I might add) that a statement that means 'two or more' should instead be read as 'only two', then selectively pick which of the only two OT laws you just happen to like. All of this of course assuming that Jesus existed, and that Paul actually happened to write this letter, and that even this is an accurate conveyance of his meaning. Color me not impressed. Facepalm

I am not trying to impress you. You think too highly of yourself.

Secondly, I was agreeing with what the gentleman said, i.e. that the OT is the first portion of the Bible and that it contains laws we should follow.

That is what the gentleman said first. I just agreed with him.

(22-03-2014 07:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Even then, you still fail to establish his reasoning to sufficiently support your subjective personal interpretation over any other; as in you have no better argument than someone arguing for the inclusion of addition OT laws, or different OT laws.

Of course I do. I have the New Testament to use as my support.

(22-03-2014 07:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Who gets to pick which ones though? You've yet to establish the justification for being selective in the application of the Law, nor under which criteria are OT laws vetted for inclusion or rejection.

My justification is found in the teachings of Christ and the apostles.


(22-03-2014 07:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's real simple dumbass. Nothing written in the Gospels can be authentically attributed to anybody. You cannot take the Gospels as the word of Paul, God, Jesus, or anybody else. This simple fact subsumes all others, no matter how many layers above this you may be arguing. Sometimes it's funny to argue within the Bible to show contradictions to those who buy into it, but that's doesn't make the bible any less full of shit.

So arguing about what Paul or Jesus said is a pointless he-said-she-said battle using millennia old hearsay, because you're not actually arguing over what they said. You're arguing over what you think was attributed to them decades (if not centuries) after the 'fact', accounts that were transcribed by non-eyewitnesses in a language (Greek) other than what was originally spoken (Hebrew, Aramaic), and for which we lack the originals (autographs) and instead only have copies of copies of copies, for which we have clear evidence of both mistranslation, interpolation, and purposeful editing for temporal gain.

So do tell what Jesus (assuming he even existed as described) or Paul said about anything... Laugh out load

Then no atheist here who agrees with you should use the bible as support for their argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: