Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2014, 06:31 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There were no "biographies". The gospels are not "biographies". No scholar says they are "biographies".

Cite your references please.

(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "personal correspondence". The letters included in the NT were written to local church groups.

Fail again. The letters to Timothy and the letter to Philemon are all personal correspondences.

(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Every (single) law and injunction in the Bible was imported from already existing cultural norms. NOT one thing came from a "deity".

Reference citations? Evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 06:28 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Let us debate the issue then.

Again no.

I just don't feel like it. I debate scientific discoveries. Also the fact that things that science once couldn't explain(like mercury's rotation around the sun) it now does.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 06:45 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 06:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 06:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There were no "biographies". The gospels are not "biographies". No scholar says they are "biographies".

Cite your references please.

(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "personal correspondence". The letters included in the NT were written to local church groups.

Fail again. The letters to Timothy and the letter to Philemon are all personal correspondences.

(22-03-2014 06:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Every (single) law and injunction in the Bible was imported from already existing cultural norms. NOT one thing came from a "deity".

Reference citations? Evidence?

If you actually are so totally fucking ignorant that you need "references" to be told what a "gospel" (the GOOD NEWS) is, (and why they are NOT "biographies", or why and how certain letters ended up in the canon ..THERE WERE NO PERSONAL LETTERS just because it "says" it was addressed to someONE). Your question demonstrates your complete IGNORANCE of the topic at hand. https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harv...ianity-927
It's not my job to educate you, you ignorant Fundie troll. There are MANY references in the links I posted. You are SO DISHONEST you didn't even look at them. There is NOT ONE thing in them YOU can refute.

If you need to learn about ancient Hebrew culture, take Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 101. I don't have to "reference" anything. Anyone making a claim that ANY piece of human culture, (which the Bible is, in its entirety), has to PROVE it has a source other than the human culture that cooked it up. Nice try. Utter Fail. If you claim your deity "inspired" something, you get to prove it.

Dishonesty was the hallmark of early Christian Fathers. They admitted it.
Not only do I NOT have to "reference" anything, YOU have to prove they were actually telling the truth, in light of their admissions they purposely lied.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 06:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 06:28 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Again no.

I just don't feel like it. I debate scientific discoveries. Also the fact that things that science once couldn't explain(like mercury's rotation around the sun) it now does.

Drinking Beverage

Drinking Beverage I already know what your are probably thinking.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(22-03-2014 06:17 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 06:11 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  On religion I won't.

I think science has its limitations and to insist that if science cannot answer a question about reality then that question has no answer is unjustified.

Agree or disagree?

LOL -- You don't even know what science is.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
22-03-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
From Dictionary.com:

Quote:sci·ence [sahy-uhns]
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Just for reference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Charis's post
22-03-2014, 08:41 PM
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

(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.

Christians confidently claim the bible is not a book of men’s opinions but the unerring word of God, so they can’t justify ignoring parts of it, (which is what they all do.) I say if you can cherry pick God’s instructions, his whole rulebook is redundant.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
22-03-2014, 08:46 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

"The law requiring rebellious children to be stoned to death was meant for extreme cases to protect God’s people."

The fact you could write something as grossly immoral as this and not feel any guilt or shame demonstrates how brainwashed you are by your ancient tome.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
22-03-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
The OT is a foreshadowing or precursor to the NT. It foretells Jesus' coming. It is designed to be a complete book, yet the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, which is why Jesus tells his followers to be mindful of "the law," but he has come to fulfill it.

That said, Christians don't have a problem whipping the OT out to justify why gays shouldn't marry or to tout their Creationism nonsense. But don't follow it at other "inconvenient" times.

And they think non believers are stupid and don't notice the hypocrisy.

lol

The beauty of the heart, is the lasting beauty. - Rumi Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deidre32's post
22-03-2014, 08:55 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

"We are under a new covenant."

No mate...YOU are.


"Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.""

If you had even a slight understanding of the real history you would know that Jesus, if he ever even existed, said nothing of the sort.

What makes you think anyone on the thinking atheist forum has the slightest interest in being preached to about your interpretation of the babble?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: