People abuse scripture all the time. I think that people using the Bible for the defense of evil practices will get what is coming to them, at some point.
It's abuse of scripture to follow the scripture? That doesn't even make sense. Just because you don't agree with a particular biblical law doesn't make it any less a commandment, nor the people opting to follow it less Christian.
Again, these are Levitical Laws that are ordained by God, they are His Laws, Statutes and Commandments. The particular laws we are discussing are found in the Book of the Covenant section of Exodus. These statutes were given at the same time as the Decalogue, so if you're going to toss them then out goes the 10 commandments.
Theres two things that should really never be discuss because of the flame wars/ riots that break out because of it (not saying that that is happening here)
religion and politics
Its not a taboo subject but rather one that should not be discuss and just left alone
From page #1
Well, we made it a little farther than page 1 before some tempers flared.
Hopefully, at least a few people were introduced to some topics to ponder.
I was also rather enjoying this thread : ) So LETS keep it going. Here's the thing inflammatory remarks are made soley to stir up trouble, but they only work if they are 'responded to' . I was enjoying everyones views on the matter, I love to hear how different people have come to believe what they do; however, more often than not, people don't KNOW why they believe what they do and when they're questioned, they get defensive because they don't have the answers. That's actaully a GOOD thing. EVERYONE should consider what it is they really believe and WHY they feel that way! Questions can do one of two things, strengthen your already firm views or make you realize you didn't have as much 'faith' as you thought. So lets keep this baby going, from hardcore religous fanatics to the athiests I'd love to hear where everyone comes from and why : ).
People abuse scripture all the time. I think that people using the Bible for the defense of evil practices will get what is coming to them, at some point.
It's abuse of scripture to follow the scripture? That doesn't even make sense. Just because you don't agree with a particular biblical law doesn't make it any less a commandment, nor the people opting to follow it less Christian.
Again, these are Levitical Laws that are ordained by God, they are His Laws, Statutes and Commandments. The particular laws we are discussing are found in the Book of the Covenant section of Exodus. These statutes were given at the same time as the Decalogue, so if you're going to toss them then out goes the 10 commandments.
It's abuse of the scripture to mince words and encourage evil by using things out of context.
As far as the slavery issue, there were specific laws that governed it, but I don't view that the same as an endorsement. Again, times were different, and the practice isn't what springs to mind in the average person when you mention the word "slavery". A lot of it, back then, had to do with debt repayment by people who didn't have assets or wealth. You can't really have debt like we do today without fiat currency.
Also, all of the old testament laws are superseded by the New Covenant delivered by Jesus Christ, so Leviticus is a nice history lesson, but reflects the Old Covenant with Abraham.
I was also rather enjoying this thread : ) So LETS keep it going. Here's the thing inflammatory remarks are made soley to stir up trouble, but they only work if they are 'responded to' . I was enjoying everyones views on the matter, I love to hear how different people have come to believe what they do; however, more often than not, people don't KNOW why they believe what they do and when they're questioned, they get defensive because they don't have the answers. That's actaully a GOOD thing. EVERYONE should consider what it is they really believe and WHY they feel that way! Questions can do one of two things, strengthen your already firm views or make you realize you didn't have as much 'faith' as you thought. So lets keep this baby going, from hardcore religous fanatics to the athiests I'd love to hear where everyone comes from and why : ).
I agree with you, and I'll stick around as long as people can avoid a mocking attitude. Nothing good comes from that, for anybody.
"If a man beats his slave, male or female, and his slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. But should the slave survive for one or two days, he shall pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase."
The context is pretty clear. And I think you'll find more than a few passages mentioning the taking of slaves when slaughtering neighboring tribes.
100 years from now someone like yourself will be saying to someone like me that the Christians using Leviticus to persecute homosexuals were abusing the scripture, and were not real Christians. Even though the meaning of Lev 20:13 could not be more clear.
Also, all of the old testament laws are superseded by the New Covenant delivered by Jesus Christ, so Leviticus is a nice history lesson, but reflects the Old Covenant with Abraham.
That's a misinterpretation of St. Paul from Romans, who in fact said that the Law was indeed necessary. Christ also said that he had not come to banish the law, and that not one jot or title would removed from the law until the heavens and earth had passed.
now i may regret posting this so please keep an open mind i mean this not as mocking or anything ....
I have read a good portion of the bible (manly the childrens version when i was younger) and to me it all seems like fictitious storytelling. like how it was all created (genesis)chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories of the same event, and how noah go two of every species on a boat and distributed them to the right area of the world. and how moses crossed the river. and the 40 years of wondering the desert (exedus) (there is no evidence of this historicaly outside the bible or archaeologically)... just to name a few.
these are some of the reason i dont read the bible and believe.
and again please take no offence i was just trying to share my opinion. im trying to get this thread back on track
i too am to blame for getting defensive. but in my defense i never said any of you believers were wrong i merely said i don't believe the same.
now i may regret posting this so please keep an open mind i mean this not as mocking or anything ....
I have read a good portion of the bible (manly the childrens version when i was younger) and to me it all seems like fictitious storytelling. like how it was all created (genesis)chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories of the same event, and how noah go two of every species on a boat and distributed them to the right area of the world. and how moses crossed the river. and the 40 years of wondering the desert (exedus) (there is no evidence of this historicaly outside the bible or archaeologically)... just to name a few.
these are some of the reason i dont read the bible and believe.
and again please take no offence i was just trying to share my opinion. im trying to get this thread back on track
i too am to blame for getting defensive. but in my defense i never said any of you believers were wrong i merely said i don't believe the same.
I also agree with you on some of the Old Testament stories, but I believe that may have been the intention. Not really sure if those stories were meant to be taken 'literally', but maybe so. But then again it's really of no concern. If you believe that you are saved through grace because Jesus died for our sins does it really matter if Noah existed, or if the flood happened? Trying to prove or disprove the stories in the Bible is as fruitless as trying to prove that God exists, because no one will know, and know on can know.
^^ I think the main problem encountered with allowing for errancy and fallibility in the bible, is that suddenly no passage becomes more reliable or credible than any other.
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
"If a man beats his slave, male or female, and his slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. But should the slave survive for one or two days, he shall pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase."
The context is pretty clear. And I think you'll find more than a few passages mentioning the taking of slaves when slaughtering neighboring tribes.
100 years from now someone like yourself will be saying to someone like me that the Christians using Leviticus to persecute homosexuals were abusing the scripture, and were not real Christians. Even though the meaning of Lev 20:13 could not be more clear.
The thing about Leviticus, again, is that it was the law for the Israelites to keep them different from other people of the ancient world.
It doesn't apply in the context of gentile Christians. Rather, it applies to the Jewish people. Also, it's important to remember that the whole point of the New Covenant is that NO ONE can live by the laws of the old testament strictly. It's just not possible.
I don't think you have to allow for "fallability" in the Bible, just recognize that certain things like the creation story are metaphorical. I'm a devout Christian, but I certainly recognize the plausibility of evolutionary theory. I suppose you'd sum it up as "intelligent design".
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
Also, something good to realize, is that while the blood line from David to Jesus is fixed and important, the "begat... begat... begat" from Adam to Noah to Abraham, doesn't necessarily mention EVERY generation that occured therein. You could be "begat" by your great granddad, if only he and you are worth mentioning in the history books. It just refers to direct decendency.
My point here being, that the old testament is not false or wrong about the timeline. Just that the monk a few hundred years ago that interpreted that timeline was wrong, and the hardcore creationists that think the earth is only 6500 years old haven't thought about the big picture, or realized that the age was cooked up by somebody OTHER than the Bible.
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
A historical account of Christ would be a historian contemporary to Christ making a firsthand record of his life or the events surrounding his life...no such account exists. And please don't bring up Josephus, Pliny the Younger, or Tacitus, those accounts have been dismissed, and even if they weren't they do very little to establish a historical Jesus. The truth is that there is so little historical information about the origin of the Christian movement and Jesus of Nazareth that the exact date the Gospels were written cannot be determined.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
The thing about Leviticus, again, is that it was the law for the Israelites to keep them different from other people of the ancient world.
It doesn't apply in the context of gentile Christians. Rather, it applies to the Jewish people. Also, it's important to remember that the whole point of the New Covenant is that NO ONE can live by the laws of the old testament strictly. It's just not possible.
You skipped the post where I pointed out that both St. Paul, and Christ claimed that the OT laws should be upheld. 90% of the parabels don't even make sense without their OT counterparts, most of them are how Jesus lived his life according to the law. There are a great many where Jesus is establishing his credibility among the people by showing more knowledge of his father's law than the priests. The story of adulteress is a classic example. That has been perverted into a story of forgiveness, but it is actually a story about Jesus outwitting the priests by knowing more about the OT laws concerning adultery and bearing false witness.
Yes, of course the modern church wants to distance itself from the covenant, the religion would be untenable if it had to be upheld. Which is precisely why there is a New Convenant interpretation of St. Paul's writings. But if you actually read Romans, you'll quickly see that Paul never once said that the law was dead. What he said was that following the law will keep you free from sin, but being free of sin alone will not lead to salvation, one must also have faith in Christ. Transgression of any OT law is still a sin, whether or not the modern church cares to recognize it as such or not.
I guess 'historical accounts' is a bit strong... more like intruiguingly similar accounts of his life and works in the canonical Gospels. Seems it would be odd for the writers of the Gospels to waste their time creating one of the LARGEST scams in history, conspiring together to write 4 similar accounts of a fictional man named 'Jesus'.
ahh, I thought you were referring to extra-biblical sources. Wow we're really going A to Z on this discussion.
You're right, the gospels are presented as being 4 seperate accounts of the life Christ by four of his disciples.
The best alternative explanation discussed by New Testament scholars is the theory of Markan Priority and the Gospel of Q. The basic idea is that Mark was written first as it is the shortest and least developed account. If Mark had access to the Gospels of Matthew or Luke then important details, such as the nativity story, would not be omitted in his own account. Luke and Matthew are thought to have been written at roughly the same time, as they share many identical passages with each other, and they both indicate that they draw from the Gospel of Mark. They also contain passages that indicate they are drawing from another non-extant source that has been titled Q. And John being a unique, and far more developed account, is thought to have been written much later. There is a bit more to it than that, but that's the basic idea.
Ultimately, what the theory lends itself to is that these are not 4 firsthand accounts by 4 disciples, but the evolution of one story.
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
A historical account of Christ would be a historian contemporary to Christ making a firsthand record of his life or the events surrounding his life...no such account exists. And please don't bring up Josephus, Pliny the Younger, or Tacitus, those accounts have been dismissed, and even if they weren't they do very little to establish a historical Jesus. The truth is that there is so little historical information about the origin of the Christian movement and Jesus of Nazareth that the exact date the Gospels were written cannot be determined.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
The thing about Leviticus, again, is that it was the law for the Israelites to keep them different from other people of the ancient world.
It doesn't apply in the context of gentile Christians. Rather, it applies to the Jewish people. Also, it's important to remember that the whole point of the New Covenant is that NO ONE can live by the laws of the old testament strictly. It's just not possible.
You skipped the post where I pointed out that both St. Paul, and Christ claimed that the OT laws should be upheld. 90% of the parabels don't even make sense without their OT counterparts, most of them are how Jesus lived his life according to the law. There are a great many where Jesus is establishing his credibility among the people by showing more knowledge of his father's law than the priests. The story of adulteress is a classic example. That has been perverted into a story of forgiveness, but it is actually a story about Jesus outwitting the priests by knowing more about the OT laws concerning adultery and bearing false witness.
Yes, of course the modern church wants to distance itself from the covenant, the religion would be untenable if it had to be upheld. Which is precisely why there is a New Convenant interpretation of St. Paul's writings. But if you actually read Romans, you'll quickly see that Paul never once said that the law was dead. What he said was that following the law will keep you free from sin, but being free of sin alone will not lead to salvation, one must also have faith in Christ. Transgression of any OT law is still a sin, whether or not the modern church cares to recognize it as such or not.
I guess I phrased my words poorly.
The law definitely applies to the Jews, at least. There are plenty of passages that refer to Christians not having kosher laws.
But on the topic of slavery, which is why the law discussion started: In the ancient world it was a common practice, and every culture did it in some form. They had laws that governed it. It's not an endorsement. It's not saying that the practice should continue forever. And the types of slavery that exist in the world today don't even come close to following those rules, anyway.
The Jews don't recognize St. Paul or the synoptic gospels, so those passages about upholding the law are directed at Christians. I can't recall any gospel passage renouncing the dietary laws, but I would be curious to see one.
You're really struggling with the slavery concept. God's slogan may not have been 'slavery is the greatest thing since sliced bread.' but the fact God issued specific laws concerning terms of slavery, compensation for purchase etc. more than suggests God didn't have an issue with the practice. If God gives the greenlight on something, I would say that his thumbs up is one hell of an endorsement. Again, the laws in question are not simply a mention of the practice, they are every bit the God given decree that 'thou shalt not kill' is.
In Romans Paul breaks it all down, but he's talking to the ROMANS. They don't have the Levitical laws, as they ONLY applied to the 12 tribes. The law that Paul refers to would be the Ten Commandments.
But no the Levitical laws are not a decree to Christians, any more than Jewish kosher laws are.
They are distinctly practices to keep the Hebrew people separate and different from the people around them at the time.
You are choosing a context that serves your argument, but would be incorrect.
Additionally, in Romans, Paul makes the point that the ONLY thing necessary for salvation is accepting Christ's sacrifice, and thus being transformed living in a way that doesn't cause harm to others.
You should reread that book in it's entirety. I believe you are picking and choosing to suit your view.
Also, to the arguments of "I don't think I like a god that would condemn somebody"...
The only true condemnation comes from refusing to trust and accept God.
The admission ticket is already bought and paid for, you just have to accept it and live a life of Love.
It's not an exclusive club reserved for "white men" like somebody said. There aren't any barriers.
We have already lost one member cause of this bullshit being discussed here
Matt, that's not how we operate around here. Intelligent, adult conversation, no matter how controversial, is never grounds for a thread lock. And anyone who has chosen to leave these boards has done so of their own volition - nobody has been attacked, ostracized or been told to bugger off thusfar (at least not in so many words, and I don't believe even indirectly). The world's a much harsher place than this thread has gotten at any point, and I don't believe any member could truthfully cite this thread as their sole reason for leaving.
It's not ReligionAge, it's NintendoAge. If anyone doesn't like this thread, we have about 10,000 other great ones to read -- they have but to avoid this one. And if anyone wants to avoid reading an erudite debate between beliefs and instead would rather join a conversation of only like-minded individuals, that's only a quick google search away. There are hundreds of places where everyone can agree with each other in their convenient little microcosms.
But here, no thread should be censored simply because people disagree. That's kind of how we get things done around here, actually.
We have already lost one member cause of this bullshit being discussed here
Matt, that's not how we operate around here. Intelligent, adult conversation, no matter how controversial, is never grounds for a thread lock. And anyone who has chosen to leave these boards has done so of their own volition - nobody has been attacked, ostracized or been told to bugger off thusfar (at least not in so many words, and I don't believe even indirectly). The world's a much harsher place than this thread has gotten at any point, and I don't believe any member could truthfully cite this thread as their sole reason for leaving.
It's not ReligionAge, it's NintendoAge. If anyone doesn't like this thread, we have about 10,000 other great ones to read -- they have but to avoid this one. And if anyone wants to avoid reading an erudite debate between beliefs and instead would rather join a conversation of only like-minded individuals, that's only a quick google search away. There are hundreds of places where everyone can agree with each other in their convenient little microcosms.
But here, no thread should be censored simply because people disagree. That's kind of how we get things done around here, actually.
Yeah, I agree. I've been largely ignoring this thread myself. I'm Christian and fairly set in my ways and don't think any amount of internet debate will really sway me one way or the other (and I don't think it will change anyone else either).
Anyway, if it's not your thing, I'd just leave it alone. Half of me would like to jump in and debate but I just don't think it would accomplish anything.
Comments
People abuse scripture all the time. I think that people using the Bible for the defense of evil practices will get what is coming to them, at some point.
It's abuse of scripture to follow the scripture? That doesn't even make sense. Just because you don't agree with a particular biblical law doesn't make it any less a commandment, nor the people opting to follow it less Christian.
Again, these are Levitical Laws that are ordained by God, they are His Laws, Statutes and Commandments. The particular laws we are discussing are found in the Book of the Covenant section of Exodus. These statutes were given at the same time as the Decalogue, so if you're going to toss them then out goes the 10 commandments.
Theres two things that should really never be discuss because of the flame wars/ riots that break out because of it (not saying that that is happening here)
religion and politics
Its not a taboo subject but rather one that should not be discuss and just left alone
From page #1
Well, we made it a little farther than page 1 before some tempers flared.
Hopefully, at least a few people were introduced to some topics to ponder.
I was also rather enjoying this thread : ) So LETS keep it going. Here's the thing inflammatory remarks are made soley to stir up trouble, but they only work if they are 'responded to' . I was enjoying everyones views on the matter, I love to hear how different people have come to believe what they do; however, more often than not, people don't KNOW why they believe what they do and when they're questioned, they get defensive because they don't have the answers. That's actaully a GOOD thing. EVERYONE should consider what it is they really believe and WHY they feel that way! Questions can do one of two things, strengthen your already firm views or make you realize you didn't have as much 'faith' as you thought. So lets keep this baby going, from hardcore religous fanatics to the athiests I'd love to hear where everyone comes from and why : ).
People abuse scripture all the time. I think that people using the Bible for the defense of evil practices will get what is coming to them, at some point.
It's abuse of scripture to follow the scripture? That doesn't even make sense. Just because you don't agree with a particular biblical law doesn't make it any less a commandment, nor the people opting to follow it less Christian.
Again, these are Levitical Laws that are ordained by God, they are His Laws, Statutes and Commandments. The particular laws we are discussing are found in the Book of the Covenant section of Exodus. These statutes were given at the same time as the Decalogue, so if you're going to toss them then out goes the 10 commandments.
It's abuse of the scripture to mince words and encourage evil by using things out of context.
As far as the slavery issue, there were specific laws that governed it, but I don't view that the same as an endorsement. Again, times were different, and the practice isn't what springs to mind in the average person when you mention the word "slavery". A lot of it, back then, had to do with debt repayment by people who didn't have assets or wealth. You can't really have debt like we do today without fiat currency.
I was also rather enjoying this thread : ) So LETS keep it going. Here's the thing inflammatory remarks are made soley to stir up trouble, but they only work if they are 'responded to' . I was enjoying everyones views on the matter, I love to hear how different people have come to believe what they do; however, more often than not, people don't KNOW why they believe what they do and when they're questioned, they get defensive because they don't have the answers. That's actaully a GOOD thing. EVERYONE should consider what it is they really believe and WHY they feel that way! Questions can do one of two things, strengthen your already firm views or make you realize you didn't have as much 'faith' as you thought. So lets keep this baby going, from hardcore religous fanatics to the athiests I'd love to hear where everyone comes from and why : ).
I agree with you, and I'll stick around as long as people can avoid a mocking attitude. Nothing good comes from that, for anybody.
Exodus 21:12
"If a man beats his slave, male or female, and his slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. But should the slave survive for one or two days, he shall pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase."
The context is pretty clear. And I think you'll find more than a few passages mentioning the taking of slaves when slaughtering neighboring tribes.
100 years from now someone like yourself will be saying to someone like me that the Christians using Leviticus to persecute homosexuals were abusing the scripture, and were not real Christians. Even though the meaning of Lev 20:13 could not be more clear.
Also, all of the old testament laws are superseded by the New Covenant delivered by Jesus Christ, so Leviticus is a nice history lesson, but reflects the Old Covenant with Abraham.
That's a misinterpretation of St. Paul from Romans, who in fact said that the Law was indeed necessary. Christ also said that he had not come to banish the law, and that not one jot or title would removed from the law until the heavens and earth had passed.
I have read a good portion of the bible (manly the childrens version when i was younger) and to me it all seems like fictitious storytelling. like how it was all created (genesis)chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories of the same event, and how noah go two of every species on a boat and distributed them to the right area of the world. and how moses crossed the river. and the 40 years of wondering the desert (exedus) (there is no evidence of this historicaly outside the bible or archaeologically)... just to name a few.
these are some of the reason i dont read the bible and believe.
and again please take no offence i was just trying to share my opinion. im trying to get this thread back on track
i too am to blame for getting defensive. but in my defense i never said any of you believers were wrong i merely said i don't believe the same.
now i may regret posting this so please keep an open mind i mean this not as mocking or anything ....
I have read a good portion of the bible (manly the childrens version when i was younger) and to me it all seems like fictitious storytelling. like how it was all created (genesis)chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories of the same event, and how noah go two of every species on a boat and distributed them to the right area of the world. and how moses crossed the river. and the 40 years of wondering the desert (exedus) (there is no evidence of this historicaly outside the bible or archaeologically)... just to name a few.
these are some of the reason i dont read the bible and believe.
and again please take no offence i was just trying to share my opinion. im trying to get this thread back on track
i too am to blame for getting defensive. but in my defense i never said any of you believers were wrong i merely said i don't believe the same.
I also agree with you on some of the Old Testament stories, but I believe that may have been the intention. Not really sure if those stories were meant to be taken 'literally', but maybe so. But then again it's really of no concern. If you believe that you are saved through grace because Jesus died for our sins does it really matter if Noah existed, or if the flood happened? Trying to prove or disprove the stories in the Bible is as fruitless as trying to prove that God exists, because no one will know, and know on can know.
*ahem*
Exodus 21:12
"If a man beats his slave, male or female, and his slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. But should the slave survive for one or two days, he shall pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase."
The context is pretty clear. And I think you'll find more than a few passages mentioning the taking of slaves when slaughtering neighboring tribes.
100 years from now someone like yourself will be saying to someone like me that the Christians using Leviticus to persecute homosexuals were abusing the scripture, and were not real Christians. Even though the meaning of Lev 20:13 could not be more clear.
The thing about Leviticus, again, is that it was the law for the Israelites to keep them different from other people of the ancient world.
It doesn't apply in the context of gentile Christians. Rather, it applies to the Jewish people. Also, it's important to remember that the whole point of the New Covenant is that NO ONE can live by the laws of the old testament strictly. It's just not possible.
I don't think you have to allow for "fallability" in the Bible, just recognize that certain things like the creation story are metaphorical. I'm a devout Christian, but I certainly recognize the plausibility of evolutionary theory. I suppose you'd sum it up as "intelligent design".
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
Also, something good to realize, is that while the blood line from David to Jesus is fixed and important, the "begat... begat... begat" from Adam to Noah to Abraham, doesn't necessarily mention EVERY generation that occured therein. You could be "begat" by your great granddad, if only he and you are worth mentioning in the history books. It just refers to direct decendency.
My point here being, that the old testament is not false or wrong about the timeline. Just that the monk a few hundred years ago that interpreted that timeline was wrong, and the hardcore creationists that think the earth is only 6500 years old haven't thought about the big picture, or realized that the age was cooked up by somebody OTHER than the Bible.
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
A historical account of Christ would be a historian contemporary to Christ making a firsthand record of his life or the events surrounding his life...no such account exists. And please don't bring up Josephus, Pliny the Younger, or Tacitus, those accounts have been dismissed, and even if they weren't they do very little to establish a historical Jesus. The truth is that there is so little historical information about the origin of the Christian movement and Jesus of Nazareth that the exact date the Gospels were written cannot be determined.
The thing about Leviticus, again, is that it was the law for the Israelites to keep them different from other people of the ancient world.
It doesn't apply in the context of gentile Christians. Rather, it applies to the Jewish people. Also, it's important to remember that the whole point of the New Covenant is that NO ONE can live by the laws of the old testament strictly. It's just not possible.
You skipped the post where I pointed out that both St. Paul, and Christ claimed that the OT laws should be upheld. 90% of the parabels don't even make sense without their OT counterparts, most of them are how Jesus lived his life according to the law. There are a great many where Jesus is establishing his credibility among the people by showing more knowledge of his father's law than the priests. The story of adulteress is a classic example. That has been perverted into a story of forgiveness, but it is actually a story about Jesus outwitting the priests by knowing more about the OT laws concerning adultery and bearing false witness.
Yes, of course the modern church wants to distance itself from the covenant, the religion would be untenable if it had to be upheld. Which is precisely why there is a New Convenant interpretation of St. Paul's writings. But if you actually read Romans, you'll quickly see that Paul never once said that the law was dead. What he said was that following the law will keep you free from sin, but being free of sin alone will not lead to salvation, one must also have faith in Christ. Transgression of any OT law is still a sin, whether or not the modern church cares to recognize it as such or not.
You're right, the gospels are presented as being 4 seperate accounts of the life Christ by four of his disciples.
The best alternative explanation discussed by New Testament scholars is the theory of Markan Priority and the Gospel of Q. The basic idea is that Mark was written first as it is the shortest and least developed account. If Mark had access to the Gospels of Matthew or Luke then important details, such as the nativity story, would not be omitted in his own account. Luke and Matthew are thought to have been written at roughly the same time, as they share many identical passages with each other, and they both indicate that they draw from the Gospel of Mark. They also contain passages that indicate they are drawing from another non-extant source that has been titled Q. And John being a unique, and far more developed account, is thought to have been written much later. There is a bit more to it than that, but that's the basic idea.
Ultimately, what the theory lends itself to is that these are not 4 firsthand accounts by 4 disciples, but the evolution of one story.
except that there are actuall historical accounts of Jesus and his works. Jesus is not a fictional character, the only debate concering Jesus is whether or not he truly is/was the son of God. The four Gospels are strikingly similar to be written from four different accounts at various times after his death. In terms of credabillity, the story of Jesus is much more believable than Noah and nowhere in th Bible does it state that you have to believe in the story of the flood to be saved.
A historical account of Christ would be a historian contemporary to Christ making a firsthand record of his life or the events surrounding his life...no such account exists. And please don't bring up Josephus, Pliny the Younger, or Tacitus, those accounts have been dismissed, and even if they weren't they do very little to establish a historical Jesus. The truth is that there is so little historical information about the origin of the Christian movement and Jesus of Nazareth that the exact date the Gospels were written cannot be determined.
The thing about Leviticus, again, is that it was the law for the Israelites to keep them different from other people of the ancient world.
It doesn't apply in the context of gentile Christians. Rather, it applies to the Jewish people. Also, it's important to remember that the whole point of the New Covenant is that NO ONE can live by the laws of the old testament strictly. It's just not possible.
You skipped the post where I pointed out that both St. Paul, and Christ claimed that the OT laws should be upheld. 90% of the parabels don't even make sense without their OT counterparts, most of them are how Jesus lived his life according to the law. There are a great many where Jesus is establishing his credibility among the people by showing more knowledge of his father's law than the priests. The story of adulteress is a classic example. That has been perverted into a story of forgiveness, but it is actually a story about Jesus outwitting the priests by knowing more about the OT laws concerning adultery and bearing false witness.
Yes, of course the modern church wants to distance itself from the covenant, the religion would be untenable if it had to be upheld. Which is precisely why there is a New Convenant interpretation of St. Paul's writings. But if you actually read Romans, you'll quickly see that Paul never once said that the law was dead. What he said was that following the law will keep you free from sin, but being free of sin alone will not lead to salvation, one must also have faith in Christ. Transgression of any OT law is still a sin, whether or not the modern church cares to recognize it as such or not.
I guess I phrased my words poorly.
The law definitely applies to the Jews, at least. There are plenty of passages that refer to Christians not having kosher laws.
But on the topic of slavery, which is why the law discussion started: In the ancient world it was a common practice, and every culture did it in some form. They had laws that governed it. It's not an endorsement. It's not saying that the practice should continue forever. And the types of slavery that exist in the world today don't even come close to following those rules, anyway.
You're really struggling with the slavery concept. God's slogan may not have been 'slavery is the greatest thing since sliced bread.' but the fact God issued specific laws concerning terms of slavery, compensation for purchase etc. more than suggests God didn't have an issue with the practice. If God gives the greenlight on something, I would say that his thumbs up is one hell of an endorsement. Again, the laws in question are not simply a mention of the practice, they are every bit the God given decree that 'thou shalt not kill' is.
But no the Levitical laws are not a decree to Christians, any more than Jewish kosher laws are.
They are distinctly practices to keep the Hebrew people separate and different from the people around them at the time.
You are choosing a context that serves your argument, but would be incorrect.
Additionally, in Romans, Paul makes the point that the ONLY thing necessary for salvation is accepting Christ's sacrifice, and thus being transformed living in a way that doesn't cause harm to others.
You should reread that book in it's entirety. I believe you are picking and choosing to suit your view.
Also, to the arguments of "I don't think I like a god that would condemn somebody"...
The only true condemnation comes from refusing to trust and accept God.
The admission ticket is already bought and paid for, you just have to accept it and live a life of Love.
It's not an exclusive club reserved for "white men" like somebody said. There aren't any barriers.
The only barrier lies in your heart.
... atheism has somehow won the argument.
Just wanted to make sure I quoted this for posterity.
[/misquote of the century]
[/still done with this thread]
otherwise I would have brought out the big guns!! I must WIN, you must AGREE with ME!! lol
PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD
Matt, that's not how we operate around here. Intelligent, adult conversation, no matter how controversial, is never grounds for a thread lock. And anyone who has chosen to leave these boards has done so of their own volition - nobody has been attacked, ostracized or been told to bugger off thusfar (at least not in so many words, and I don't believe even indirectly). The world's a much harsher place than this thread has gotten at any point, and I don't believe any member could truthfully cite this thread as their sole reason for leaving.
It's not ReligionAge, it's NintendoAge. If anyone doesn't like this thread, we have about 10,000 other great ones to read -- they have but to avoid this one. And if anyone wants to avoid reading an erudite debate between beliefs and instead would rather join a conversation of only like-minded individuals, that's only a quick google search away. There are hundreds of places where everyone can agree with each other in their convenient little microcosms.
But here, no thread should be censored simply because people disagree. That's kind of how we get things done around here, actually.
... atheism has somehow won the argument.
Just wanted to make sure I quoted this for posterity.
[/misquote of the century]
[/still done with this thread]
PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD
Matt, that's not how we operate around here. Intelligent, adult conversation, no matter how controversial, is never grounds for a thread lock. And anyone who has chosen to leave these boards has done so of their own volition - nobody has been attacked, ostracized or been told to bugger off thusfar (at least not in so many words, and I don't believe even indirectly). The world's a much harsher place than this thread has gotten at any point, and I don't believe any member could truthfully cite this thread as their sole reason for leaving.
It's not ReligionAge, it's NintendoAge. If anyone doesn't like this thread, we have about 10,000 other great ones to read -- they have but to avoid this one. And if anyone wants to avoid reading an erudite debate between beliefs and instead would rather join a conversation of only like-minded individuals, that's only a quick google search away. There are hundreds of places where everyone can agree with each other in their convenient little microcosms.
But here, no thread should be censored simply because people disagree. That's kind of how we get things done around here, actually.
Yeah, I agree. I've been largely ignoring this thread myself. I'm Christian and fairly set in my ways and don't think any amount of internet debate will really sway me one way or the other (and I don't think it will change anyone else either).
Anyway, if it's not your thing, I'd just leave it alone. Half of me would like to jump in and debate but I just don't think it would accomplish anything.
He is my savior, He is the truth.
MLN'er