Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 06:28 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(08-03-2014 07:11 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 06:57 PM)Miss Meng Wrote:  The Bible contains many wonderful passages, proverbs, psalms and hymns, if only you exercise your free will to look for them.

~ Miss Meng

2 Kings 2
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

This verse is amazing as balls guys, just shows how wonderful GOD is!

My old Pastor once taught on this verse, and the people in our congregation actually laughed - many of them were parents. I thought "God" was supposed to be "love". Clearly not. Wink It's just another stupid, uncultured story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Flowergurl's post
11-03-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Boys will be boys, and apparently... bears will be bears.

Next time an apologist brings up something creepy in the Bible, I'll just chuckle, shake my head, and say YHWH will be YHWH.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
14-03-2014, 06:15 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(11-03-2014 03:47 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 03:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  Laughat
Ah, No. The OT Repersented another Religion. Christians are not Jews thus not bound by the tenaments of Judism.

LaughatLaughat Ahh, No Again.
Peace nor the appearence of peace is not the purpose of Christianity.

Laughat 1/2 right. In that Christians are free from the law as a mean to try and Earn our righteousness before God.

Ahhh, No. "I have Not come to abolsih the law, BUT To Full Fill It." What does it mean to "Full Fill the Law?" Your whole arguement is made or broken on this term, and you read over it with out concern or notice.

"The Least in Heaven" Is not a bad thing. Matter of fact it is a place of Honor. Was Christ the Greatest Man who lived here? or was he considered to be least? Christ served man and served Humanity, we are to strive to walk in His foot steps..

Outside the 7th day adventest I do not know of a Christian group who follows all 10 commandments.

Lusting after women youre not married to is a sin. masturbation is not.

Which is out right. Why? Because Christ tells us whatever we bind ourselves with on Earth will be Bound in Heaven, and what we loose ourselves from here on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

Christianity is Freedom from the Law as a means to Righteousness. When Christ full filled the Law (according to Paul in the Book of Romans) Our Righteousness, was given to us by the work of Christ on the cross. This means we have complete freedom to Love and worship anyway that all of our Hearts, Mind, Spirit and Strength will allow.

Drich...you don't have a good understanding of the history. I challenge you to stop firing bullets and digest the following. It may be a bit long for you, so you might accuse me of being verbose, but it's a topic that addresses the very legitimacy of your (Pauline) Christianity. (Well done with your spelling and grammar btw...I mean it....but "tenament" isn't a word...I think you meant "tenet")

Here’s the historical reality. Devout Jews (such as the family and followers of Jesus) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who heralded in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and,
importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and “Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They knew there was no such thing as a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he used it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of it were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and I think would have been perplexed and offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and never imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant them a place in heaven!

Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.) Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for biblical infallibility! (http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm).

Many people today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. They’re not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s (or Paul’s proponents like Luther or Calvin.)

Most Jews believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:
“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and “Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.) He was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first century Jews this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:
“Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and “Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.) He wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, he was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, he was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks; a repetitive pattern portrayed in Acts. They liked to think they were a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder they physically attacked him? Jesus’ own people were attacking Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. They also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the empire. They definitely didn’t preach the divinity of Christ, nor intend to start a new religion. Paul, when he wasn’t pretending to be one of them, considered them competitors. He got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He cursed them, using the undeniable truth of his own gospel as justification:
“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a differ- ent version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.) He sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It’s ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! He clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a messiah, but today’s God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He claimed he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

The two faced Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew, (see Acts 21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV) which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Paul was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect him from angry Jews. They were looking after one of their own. That’s about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus.

Paul wasn’t deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome.

His modern-day reputation as an honest evangelist, and the implication he taught Yeshua’s message, have no foundation, yet they’ve become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. Paul’s legitimacy must have lacked credibility, so the author had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously a fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet Paul failed to mention Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles; impossible omissions if they were true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely wasn’t one of them.

Again history of Christianity has nothing to do with it's intended practice. If you look to an elementry/Sunday school understanding of Christianity you would note we have the freedom to practice it anyway we wish.. This Fact is Spelled out in the bible even to the determent of the ideas of the 'mainstream Christians' who believe their specific brand is the only way to 'truly' practice it.

(Oh and I did spend 2 years studying the 1st century church and Judaism of that period.) While I do not need to march out my pedagree everytime I have the oppertunity I do know that the majority of what you have to say about 1st century history is at best a sloppy sumation of an anti God/Anti Paul website. as I've seen your tired arguement (in better form) before. It's all conjecture and speculation without source material.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 06:34 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(11-03-2014 06:28 PM)Flowergurl Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 07:11 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  2 Kings 2
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

This verse is amazing as balls guys, just shows how wonderful GOD is!

My old Pastor once taught on this verse, and the people in our congregation actually laughed - many of them were parents. I thought "God" was supposed to be "love". Clearly not. Wink It's just another stupid, uncultured story.

I've never been a church goer or had a pastor/vicar/priest so it intrigues me how this passage would be presented to a congregation. Is it just told as it is and you're left to figure out your own meaning? Or is it explained in anyway to illustrate why this particular god chose to kill these children for what is essentially a pretty minor crime/sin/mischief?

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(14-03-2014 06:15 AM)Drich Wrote:  ... as I've seen your tired arguement (in better form) before. It's all conjecture and speculation without source material.

It's okay if you don't agree with him.

But the sources he has based his opinions on are the same freaking texts themselves. He has precisely the same source material Christians do.

So there's that.

But I guess we shouldn't expect you of all people to understand what a "source" is, Mr "there's no source for Augustus".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
14-03-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(14-03-2014 06:15 AM)Drich Wrote:  (Oh and I did spend 2 years studying the 1st century church and Judaism of that period.)


Yanno what? I did too. How weird that we'd walk away from the basic same information with diametrically opposed views.

odd that

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
14-03-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(14-03-2014 06:15 AM)Drich Wrote:  Again history of Christianity has nothing to do with it's intended practice.

As much as Christians like to complain that atheists take the bad parts of the Bible out of context, I think it's important to realize why we feel Christians take the entire New Testament out of context.

Whether or not you want your religion to piggyback on an exceptionally creepy bronze age religion, it does. You're still stuck with an all loving god who, in his infinite mercy, drown a bunch of children because he was mad at their parents. This gets brought up because these things aren't mentioned in the sermons where we talk about how wonderful God is. They're quickly hand-waved and ignored the other 99% of the time to keep the narrative intact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
18-03-2014, 02:53 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
From my understanding, the NT is just OT 2.0. Jesus does many miracles that Moses does. Not exactly, but it has to do with water and does the same amount.

Also, we do NOT know who wrote the old testament but we can say it still follows the same story as many other beliefs at the time. Robert. M Price covered this.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2014, 03:23 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(14-03-2014 07:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But I guess we shouldn't expect you of all people to understand what a "source" is, Mr "there's no source for Augustus".

Wait, Augustus? As in Gaius Octavius, the adopted son of Gaius Julius Caesar? The Princeps Civitatis ("First Citizen") and the de facto first Emperor of the Roman Empire? That Augustus?


Wow, what a fucking dumbass!

[Image: 309406_200x130.png?v=1387413428.75]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(18-03-2014 02:53 AM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  From my understanding, the NT is just OT 2.0. Jesus does many miracles that Moses does. Not exactly, but it has to do with water and does the same amount.

There are some similarities (and you'd expect this, with Christianity piggy-backing on Judaism), but they really are different religions.

Judaism deals a lot more with the real world. God makes threats to actually kill people (not send them to hell), and supposedly does many times. He also promises them decisive military victories when they behave themselves. YHWH was basically the war god of their culture who promised to keep them safe so long as they listened. People don't go to heaven or hell in the OT; when a person dies, they go to Sheol, which basically means grave.

Christianity got into the the whole cosmic battle between good and evil, salvation, immortal souls, and heaven and hell. So, it upped the stakes in that if you pissed off God, rather than him just killing you (and maybe your children!), he'll have you tortured for infinity years. Of course, this punishment system is non-falsifiable, and it sort of has to be. I imagine a lot of what drove this change is that people realized that the righteous often suffered and the wicked often prospered, so they wanted to believe there was some cosmic form of justice being carried out (just world hypothesis, and all).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: