At What Point?

Yakuda said:
Yes. Maybe but if that 90% ignored your teaching because they thought they knew more or better than you then that would be their downfall.
Click to expand...

When a huge swath of the class fails there is precious little chance they ALL ignored the teaching.


Yakuda said:
They werent humble enough to listen, just like you.
Click to expand...

Humility doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit.

Yakuda said:
You can't be taught because you've already decided God is unclear.
Click to expand...

LOL. No, unlike you I spent years and years thinking through my faith. Reading, listening, paying attention. I didn't come to the game decided. I spent >30 years as a Christian.

That's the kind of stuff that TERRIFIES the pious such as yourself. You have no real interest in understanding your faith, you just have it. It is static. And suddenly you run across someone who was a Christian but is no longer and it doesn't compute for you. And that is TERRIFYING to you.

Yakuda said:
Stuff happens you don't like or agree with so you conclude you know better than God. That you know more than God. Therein lies your downfall
Click to expand...

And you sit at the Right hand of the Father and come to judge the quick and the dead???? You are JESUS???????
 
Obtenebrator said:
When a huge swath of the class fails there is precious little chance they ALL ignored the teaching.





Humility doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit.



LOL. No, unlike you I spent years and years thinking through my faith. Reading, listening, paying attention. I didn't come to the game decided. I spent >30 years as a Christian.

That's the kind of stuff that TERRIFIES the pious such as yourself. You have no real interest in understanding your faith, you just have it. It is static. And suddenly you run across someone who was a Christian but is no longer and it doesn't compute for you. And that is TERRIFYING to you.



And you sit at the Right hand of the Father and come to judge the quick and the dead???? You are JESUS???????
Click to expand...
What's amazing is I told you God was quite clear in his teaching but you haven't asked once to show you where. That alone tells us you refuse to listen because your mind is made up.

If you ask me what is the sum of 1+1 and I answer 2 it's not prideful to answer 2.

Tell me what I don't understand about my faith.

No and never claimed to be but pride is mans greatest sin and the basis for the others.
 
Cypress said:
I understand it's very important to you to believe the OT is fundamentally important to Christian practice, theology, eschatology. The OT is a source of constant ridicule on atheist websites.

The OT is primarily included in the Christian bible for reference and prophecy, and the early Christians were keen to establish their bona fides as an ancient religion, because Roman authorities tended to be suspicious of new religious cults.

The fact is, almost all christian theology, practice, belief, ethics, eschatology are based on the New Testament, and as viewed and evolved through a lens of Platonic and Aristotelian Greek philosophy. That's why Augustine and Aquinas are just a important to the Christian tradition as Peter, Mathew, and Luke.
Click to expand...
Cypress...the one over-riding quote from the New Testament about this issue are the words attributed to Jesus himself. I quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE."

Matthew 5: 17ff

Unless you are suggesting that "Heaven and Earth have passed away"...this seems to be the salient thought on the topic...or you are suggesting that the word of Paul should be taken over Jesus. And I might add that the pronouncements of Paul on the issue prety much are limited to whether or not converts must get circumcized...and whether various diety retrictions apply to them.

The indications of what pleases and offends the GOD of the Bible is outlined in the Old Testament. To suppose the GOD changed his mind on many things is an absurdity.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Cypress...the one over-riding quote from the New Testament about this issue are the words attributed to Jesus himself. I quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE."

Matthew 5: 17ff

Unless you are suggesting that "Heaven and Earth have passed away"...this seems to be the salient thought on the topic...or you are suggesting that the word of Paul should be taken over Jesus. And I might add that the pronouncements of Paul on the issue prety much are limited to whether or not converts must get circumcized...and whether various diety retrictions apply to them.

The indications of what pleases and offends the GOD of the Bible is outlined in the Old Testament. To suppose the GOD changed his mind on many things is an absurdity.
Click to expand...

1) Gospel of Mathew seems to have been written for Jewish audience. Unlike Paul and Luke who seemed to be writing to a gentile audience. Presumably, the author of Matthew was still hoping Jews could be convinced Jesus was the Messiah, by writing his gospel from a Jewish perspective.

2) If you read the rest of the sermon on the mount, and compare it to the context of conventional Jewish expectations, Jesus reimagined or reinterpreted the laws of Torah, perhaps even radically so. The Jewish prophets said to love your neighbor. Jesus said to love the world and even your enemies. Even to turn the other cheek if smote by your enemies. The Decalogue says to avoid adultery. Jesus said it wasn't enough to simply refrain from adultery, you aren't even supposed to even have lust in your heart. Jesus routinely did not practice the laws of ritual purity or keep the Sabbath in the way the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes did.

3) Jesus did not bring Christianity to the gentiles or even claim to be establishing a new religion. Paul brought Christianity to the gentiles, and can reasonably be thought of as the founder of Christianity. Paul famously wrote that gentiles were not subject to the laws of Torah, and that the OT had been superceded by the revelation of Jesus.
 
Yakuda said:
What's amazing is I told you God was quite clear in his teaching but you haven't asked once to show you where.
Click to expand...

Because I don't need YOU to explain the Bible to me. Unless you are God it will be just one of a million other people telling me your own version of truth.


Yakuda said:
No and never claimed to be but pride is mans greatest sin and the basis for the others.
Click to expand...

You seem pretty proud.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Cypress...the one over-riding quote from the New Testament about this issue are the words attributed to Jesus himself. I quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE."

Matthew 5: 17ff

Unless you are suggesting that "Heaven and Earth have passed away"...this seems to be the salient thought on the topic...or you are suggesting that the word of Paul should be taken over Jesus. And I might add that the pronouncements of Paul on the issue prety much are limited to whether or not converts must get circumcized...and whether various diety retrictions apply to them.

The indications of what pleases and offends the GOD of the Bible is outlined in the Old Testament. To suppose the GOD changed his mind on many things is an absurdity.
Click to expand...
^^^^QFT.
 
Cypress said:
I'm not Catholic, and never have been. I am not even a practicing Christian. But I am probably the only person on this board who has been to a range of Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox services. That's one reason I have a deeper understanding and insight about Christianity than most bible thumpers do about their own religion
Click to expand...
no....you aren't......and you don't......
 
Cypress said:
1) Gospel of Mathew seems to have been written for Jewish audience. Unlike Paul and Luke who seemed to be writing to a gentile audience. Presumably, the author of Matthew was still hoping Jews could be convinced Jesus was the Messiah, by writing his gospel from a Jewish perspective.

2) If you read the rest of the sermon on the mount, and compare it to the context of conventional Jewish expectations, Jesus reimagined or reinterpreted the laws of Torah, perhaps even radically so. The Jewish prophets said to love your neighbor. Jesus said to love the world and even your enemies. Even to turn the other cheek if smote by your enemies. The Decalogue says to avoid adultery. Jesus said it wasn't enough to simply refrain from adultery, you aren't even supposed to even have lust in your heart. Jesus routinely did not practice the laws of ritual purity or keep the Sabbath in the way the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes did.

3) Jesus did not bring Christianity to the gentiles or even claim to be establishing a new religion. Paul brought Christianity to the gentiles, and can reasonably be thought of as the founder of Christianity. Paul famously wrote that gentiles were not subject to the laws of Torah, and that the OT had been superceded by the revelation of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Actions matter more than words.

Jesus can be thought of as a teacher or Rabbi because of his ministry.

For a Jewish teacher or prophet to hang out with lepers would be seen a a grave violation of ritual purity laws. Healing people on the Sabbath would likewise have been widely seen as taboo against the keeping of sabbath
 
Cypress said:
1) Gospel of Mathew seems to have been written for Jewish audience. Unlike Paul and Luke who seemed to be writing to a gentile audience. Presumably, the author of Matthew was still hoping Jews could be convinced Jesus was the Messiah, by writing his gospel from a Jewish perspective.

2) If you read the rest of the sermon on the mount, and compare it to the context of conventional Jewish expectations, Jesus reimagined or reinterpreted the laws of Torah, perhaps even radically so. The Jewish prophets said to love your neighbor. Jesus said to love the world and even your enemies. Even to turn the other cheek if smote by your enemies. The Decalogue says to avoid adultery. Jesus said it wasn't enough to simply refrain from adultery, you aren't even supposed to even have lust in your heart. Jesus routinely did not practice the laws of ritual purity or keep the Sabbath in the way the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes did.

3) Jesus did not bring Christianity to the gentiles or even claim to be establishing a new religion. Paul brought Christianity to the gentiles, and can reasonably be thought of as the founder of Christianity. Paul famously wrote that gentiles were not subject to the laws of Torah, and that the OT had been superceded by the revelation of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said here, with the exception of who wrote for whom. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to be writing primarily for a Jewish audience. So is Paul, except that Paul had expansion to the gentiles in mind.

But to suppose that the Old Testament is discarded in favor of a "New Covenant" is rationalization rather than rational or logical. There were many explicit things that the God indicated pleased him or offended him. To suppose that a new covenant was establish wherein he no longer is pleased/offended by those things simply does not pass the smell test.

The Old Testament is almost certainly nothing but a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.

Jesus recognized that some of the items in the mythology are an insult to any GOD worthy of worship...and worked to change things...despite his supposed words in Matthew.

The entire mythology should be disregarded by people today.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Because I don't need YOU to explain the Bible to me. Unless you are God it will be just one of a million other people telling me your own version of truth.




You seem pretty proud.
Click to expand...
No we can look at the words and reach agreement on whats being said. It was like that for 1500 years before Luther decided he didn't like what Scripture said so he changed it. That opened then door to personal interpretation now we have 30,000 Christian denominations.

Being proud and being prideful aren't the same thing
 
Cypress said:
Thanks for confirming what I wrote was correct and just stating it in a slightly different way: Jesus did not practice Torah ritual purity laws in the way it was expected by conventional Jews of Pharisaic, Sadducaic, and Essene traditions.

Thanks also for corroborating what I wrote about that Jesus reinterpreted or reimagined the laws of Torah contrary to the expectation of conventional first century Jews. Some posters on this thread were under the misimpression that Jesus was conforming perfectly to Torah in the way conventional Jewish tradition expected.
Click to expand...
Placing the Torah (or any other scripture) above Jesus Christ isn't going to work, Sybil.
 
Cypress said:
Actions matter more than words.

Jesus can be thought of as a teacher or Rabbi because of his ministry.

For a Jewish teacher or prophet to hang out with lepers would be seen a a grave violation of ritual purity laws. Healing people on the Sabbath would likewise have been widely seen as taboo against the keeping of sabbath
Click to expand...
And Jesus clearly shows healing is as important as the Sabbath Mark 2:27. God is glorified even when a healing happens on the Sabbath. Rabbis should be bringing comfort to lepers not just muttering words.
 
Yakuda said:
No we can look at the words and reach agreement on whats being said. It was like that for 1500 years before Luther decided he didn't like what Scripture said so he changed it. That opened then door to personal interpretation now we have 30,000 Christian denominations.

Being proud and being prideful aren't the same thing
Click to expand...

Yet here you sit in judgement of millions of Christians whom you don't agree with. You DO realize that the Catholic Church didn't just spring into existence one day when Jesus was talking to Peter, right? It would take many decades for the orthodoxy to be established. There were various proto-Christian sects all over the Middle East with different Gospels as well (!) It took a very long time to coalesce the religion you think is the only true faith.

It helps to actually learn the history of one's faith.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I agree with most of what you said here, with the exception of who wrote for whom. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to be writing primarily for a Jewish audience. So is Paul, except that Paul had expansion to the gentiles in mind.

But to suppose that the Old Testament is discarded in favor of a "New Covenant" is rationalization rather than rational or logical. There were many explicit things that the God indicated pleased him or offended him. To suppose that a new covenant was establish wherein he no longer is pleased/offended by those things simply does not pass the smell test.

The Old Testament is almost certainly nothing but a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.

Jesus recognized that some of the items in the mythology are an insult to any GOD worthy of worship...and worked to change things...despite his supposed words in Matthew.

The entire mythology should be disregarded by people today.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insights.

If the New Testament is supposed to show that Christians are subject to Torah, I'd really like someone to tell me which mainstream Christian denomination follows the laws of Torah.

Paul, the founder of Christianity, made the reasonable case that if anyone had received eternal salvation it was Abraham. Yet Abraham wasn't circumcised, didn't follow kosher laws, didn't have elaborate ritual purity practices. Which in Paul's view meant these were Jewish ritual laws, not eternal divine laws, and gentiles could ignore them.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Yet here you sit in judgement of millions of Christians whom you don't agree with. You DO realize that the Catholic Church didn't just spring into existence one day when Jesus was talking to Peter, right? It would take many decades for the orthodoxy to be established. There were various proto-Christian sects all over the Middle East with different Gospels as well (!) It took a very long time to coalesce the religion you think is the only true faith.

It helps to actually learn the history of one's faith.
Click to expand...
It's an observation not a judgement. Sola fide and sola Scriptura the theological base of supposed " bible believing" non Catholic Christians is not biblical. As to the history of the Catholic church have you read Polycarp, Origen or Ignatius of Antioch? If you have then you either didnt understand what you read or you just think you know moree than you actually know.
 
Hume said:
It is rather pathetic that someone who talks obsessively about Christianity (Cypress) pretends not to be a Christian.
Click to expand...
When people compose responses to me, I am generally going to try to answer them.

I didn't start this thread, and I didn't force anyone to write responses and retorts to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top