At What Point?

Yakuda said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus is right, and he was correct to go against convention, , but the NT and the apocrypha are still full of complaints by Jewish leaders that Jesus doesn't keep sabbath
 
Cypress said:
Jesus is right, and he was correct to go against convention, , but the NT and the apocrypha are still full of complaints by Jewish leaders that Jesus doesn't keep sabbath
Click to expand...
But again he did keep the Sabbath in the only way that mattered, glorifying God through his actions.
 
Yakuda said:
Dont need luck when you have truth. What I see is supposed bible believing protestants preaching things not found in the bible. That's ironic if not down right heretical. God will decide their judgement not me.
Click to expand...

That's the stuff! Good ol' schadenfreude for those who won't be safe up in heaven with you and your fellow pious people.
 
Yakuda said:
Where did I say I was going to to heaven? I hope I end up there but God will ultimately decide that based on my behavior.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm just laughing about how you secretly get a little thrill thinking of your superiority in regards to an "in" with God.

It's plastered all over every one of your posts. Hope that all who say "Lord, Lord"...well, you presumably know the rest of that verse. ;)
 
Obtenebrator said:
Nah, I'm just laughing about how you secretly get a little thrill thinking of your superiority in regards to an "in" with God.

It's plastered all over every one of your posts. Hope that all who say "Lord, Lord"...well, you presumably know the rest of that verse. ;)
Click to expand...
Why are you so angry? I just point out to you what scripture says and now you're twisted up like a pretzel. Try the decaf friend.

Right just saying the words alone isnt sufficient. They are necessary but not sufficient. You see the difference correct?
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not know of any mainstream Christian denomination that currently follows the laws of the Torah...but it appears that the early Christians (mainly Jews who considered Jesus to be the fulfillment of the Messianic prediction)...DID.

Here is an essay (one of several I have written on this topic) I wrote to someone in another forum where I participated. The points I made there apply to here.

In an excellent thread devoted to tolerance, charity, and compassion toward our fellow humans who happen to be homosexuals, Real Preacher mentioned several passages in Acts which he interprets, in effect, to disassociate Christianity from any obligations to “the law” of Old Testament.

The facts are these: Acts 15 (the material Preacher cites) deals with a meeting that took place in Jerusalem between the presbyters of the community church, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, possibly other unnamed apostles, and possibly lay members of the community. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a controversy that had arisen among the converted Pharisees of Antioch—who were of the opinion that Christianity was a religion that should be open only to Jews. They were openly distrustful of Paul, who was intent on converting gentiles as well.

In any case, the subject controversy was that the Pharisees were especially troubled by the fact that Paul allowed gentile converts to come into the new religion without being circumcised—a compromise they thought would lead to greater and more troubling (for them) concessions to the law. In fact, the specific item on the agenda appears to have been the non-circumcision of Titus (later, St. Titus)—a Greek gentile convert who was a frequently companion to Paul on his travels among the gentiles.

The meeting, an important early Christian meeting, is not only mentioned by Luke in Acts 15, but also by Paul in his letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 (particularly verses 1-10.)

Both Acts and Galatians indicate that the main instigation for the meeting was the question of whether or not the act of circumcision was a necessary requirement for gentile converts to the newly formed religion. The question of whether dietary restrictions should be imposed was quickly included…and while there are some differences of opinions as to how that last part was resolved, the “minutes” of the meeting (actually a letter to the Christian community in Antioch) indicate that some dietary obligations remained in effect.

The group, in the letter, invokes the agreement of The Holy Spirit in the decision. Circumcision, it was decided, was definitely NOT a requirement for membership. The dietary resolution has some minor ambivalence. Galatians seems to indicate that no dietary restrictions were required of the new gentile converts, or at least, none are specifically mentioned. Acts 15: 23-29 specifically states that the letter which outlined the results of the deliberations included the following, “…it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, that we will not lay upon you (gentile converts) any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union. You will be well advised to avoid these things.”

In any case, anyone who reads the material in Galatians or Acts as justification for divorcing Christianity from the Old Testament law really is stretching things a great deal. The deliberations seem to have been almost exclusively confined to considerations of circumcision and dietary laws.

But even if that stretch is deemed proper and reasonable (which intelligent, well-intentioned people can do), there is absolutely no logical way to suppose any perceived divorce from Old Testament law includes the right to suppose that the things that pleased or offended the god of the Bible as indicated in the Old Testament…no longer applied. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that murder and stealing and fornicating and lusting offended the god of the Bible—Christians were also. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that homosexuality offended the god—Christians were also.

Real Preacher was using the material in Acts 15 to say that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply to Christians. Specifically, he was challenging the passage at Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”

My argument is: Okay, if you want to stretch the passage in Acts to mean that “the law” no longer applies to Christians, you can logically argue that Christians are under no obligation to put homosexuals to death. But you cannot, on the basis of that stretch, logically argue that homosexual activity is not an abomination in the eyes of the god of the Bible.

NOTE: My personal opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the Bible is that it is a self-serving history of the early Hebrew people interspersed with a fanciful religious mythology. My opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the religious aspects of the Bible is that the people writing the material—the people inventing the god—put their prejudices into the mouth of the god they invented. Almost all of the anger, hatred, and prejudice against homosexuals today has their genesis in the biblical mythology—and has absolutely no place in the hearts and minds of people supposedly as intelligent as we. It is my opinion that the unwarranted prejudice against homosexuals should end not because people are able to justify disregarding the more obviously silly ravings of a mythical god…but because we, as an intelligent and basically fair species, should see such prejudice for the ignorance it is.
 
Yakuda said:
Why are you so angry? I just point out to you what scripture says and now you're twisted up like a pretzel. Try the decaf friend.
Click to expand...

Funny coming from someone who spends all day insulting everyone who even mildly disagrees with them.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I do not know of any mainstream Christian denomination that currently follows the laws of the Torah...but it appears that the early Christians (mainly Jews who considered Jesus to be the fulfillment of the Messianic prediction)...DID.

Here is an essay (one of several I have written on this topic) I wrote to someone in another forum where I participated. The points I made there apply to here.

In an excellent thread devoted to tolerance, charity, and compassion toward our fellow humans who happen to be homosexuals, Real Preacher mentioned several passages in Acts which he interprets, in effect, to disassociate Christianity from any obligations to “the law” of Old Testament.

The facts are these: Acts 15 (the material Preacher cites) deals with a meeting that took place in Jerusalem between the presbyters of the community church, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, possibly other unnamed apostles, and possibly lay members of the community. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a controversy that had arisen among the converted Pharisees of Antioch—who were of the opinion that Christianity was a religion that should be open only to Jews. They were openly distrustful of Paul, who was intent on converting gentiles as well.

In any case, the subject controversy was that the Pharisees were especially troubled by the fact that Paul allowed gentile converts to come into the new religion without being circumcised—a compromise they thought would lead to greater and more troubling (for them) concessions to the law. In fact, the specific item on the agenda appears to have been the non-circumcision of Titus (later, St. Titus)—a Greek gentile convert who was a frequently companion to Paul on his travels among the gentiles.

The meeting, an important early Christian meeting, is not only mentioned by Luke in Acts 15, but also by Paul in his letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 (particularly verses 1-10.)

Both Acts and Galatians indicate that the main instigation for the meeting was the question of whether or not the act of circumcision was a necessary requirement for gentile converts to the newly formed religion. The question of whether dietary restrictions should be imposed was quickly included…and while there are some differences of opinions as to how that last part was resolved, the “minutes” of the meeting (actually a letter to the Christian community in Antioch) indicate that some dietary obligations remained in effect.

The group, in the letter, invokes the agreement of The Holy Spirit in the decision. Circumcision, it was decided, was definitely NOT a requirement for membership. The dietary resolution has some minor ambivalence. Galatians seems to indicate that no dietary restrictions were required of the new gentile converts, or at least, none are specifically mentioned. Acts 15: 23-29 specifically states that the letter which outlined the results of the deliberations included the following, “…it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, that we will not lay upon you (gentile converts) any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union. You will be well advised to avoid these things.”

In any case, anyone who reads the material in Galatians or Acts as justification for divorcing Christianity from the Old Testament law really is stretching things a great deal. The deliberations seem to have been almost exclusively confined to considerations of circumcision and dietary laws.

But even if that stretch is deemed proper and reasonable (which intelligent, well-intentioned people can do), there is absolutely no logical way to suppose any perceived divorce from Old Testament law includes the right to suppose that the things that pleased or offended the god of the Bible as indicated in the Old Testament…no longer applied. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that murder and stealing and fornicating and lusting offended the god of the Bible—Christians were also. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that homosexuality offended the god—Christians were also.

Real Preacher was using the material in Acts 15 to say that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply to Christians. Specifically, he was challenging the passage at Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”

My argument is: Okay, if you want to stretch the passage in Acts to mean that “the law” no longer applies to Christians, you can logically argue that Christians are under no obligation to put homosexuals to death. But you cannot, on the basis of that stretch, logically argue that homosexual activity is not an abomination in the eyes of the god of the Bible.

NOTE: My personal opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the Bible is that it is a self-serving history of the early Hebrew people interspersed with a fanciful religious mythology. My opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the religious aspects of the Bible is that the people writing the material—the people inventing the god—put their prejudices into the mouth of the god they invented. Almost all of the anger, hatred, and prejudice against homosexuals today has their genesis in the biblical mythology—and has absolutely no place in the hearts and minds of people supposedly as intelligent as we. It is my opinion that the unwarranted prejudice against homosexuals should end not because people are able to justify disregarding the more obviously silly ravings of a mythical god…but because we, as an intelligent and basically fair species, should see such prejudice for the ignorance it is.
Click to expand...
There is no more or less prejudice in the church for homosexuals than there is for fornicators or rapists or bank robbers. It's not the people it's the behavior.
 
Yakuda said:
There is no more or less prejudice in the church for homosexuals than there is for fornicators or rapists or bank robbers. It's not the people it's the behavior.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, the old "Love the sinner but hate the sin" dodge. What a classic. Total BS but still a classic.

It's like saying one doesn't hate red-heads, they just hate it when people have red hair.

LOL.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Ahhh, the old "Love the sinner but hate the sin" dodge. What a classic. Total BS but still a classic.

It's like saying one doesn't hate red-heads, they just hate it when people have red hair.

LOL.
Click to expand...
Jesus was clear people are forgiven but he said to them sin no more. In other words love the sinner hate the sin.

It's not at all like that. That was nonsensical.
 
Yakuda said:
So you dont know that Jesus told people he forgave to not sin anymore? Would you like the passages?
Click to expand...

No, I think you just want to hate gay people and you are trying to figure out how to square the Bible with your hatred. It's a tale as old as time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top