Let Him Rest In Peace.

[LNC]

What clear standards?

 

It seems to have been a gradual process, and the inclusion of texts was determined mostly by vote, but they were voting on lists compiled by some people like Eusabius, the Forger.

 

Irenaeus used the following standard in his list: "A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it."

 

Does that about sum it up?

 

Those are good questions. First, let me start with the standards. They include:

 

1. Apostolic Origin

2. Accepted universally by the church

3. Used in church early worship

4. Consistent with the rest of Scripture/Internally coherent

 

This test was applied to the complete NT canon. The earliest lists that we know of that include the 27 books of our current NT go back to the mid 2nd century (150 A.D.)

 

So, as you can see from this list, it was not based upon a "vote" as to which documents were considered to be canonical. I hope that fills out your understanding in greater detail.

 

LNC

[LNC]

LNC, your ego stinks. I can see you sitting there, in my mind's eye, on your computer just so satisfied with yourself and your post graduate classes so to become set above others.

 

Why do you say that? I am simply trying to answer questions and respond to posts. I don't believe you can judge my "ego" through your computer screen.

 

If what you profess to be Christianity is Christianity, you are not a Christian. Your fruit is pretty rotten to be setting yourself above others in this manner. There are several people here that surpass your education, so don't feel so damn self-righteous. And wipe that smug look off your face as you set back and read what you have written.

 

Sheesh...

 

I believe you are being judgmental, which is setting yourself above me. I'm sure that there are people who have higher education that me and I don't ask anyone to judge my answers based upon my education, nor do I think that anyone does. I don't believe, based upon your post to me that you are in any position to be critical of me. It appears that you are smugly criticizing me for being smug.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Well that's about one of the stupidest questions I have ever seen. It's like asking for a basis for subjective morality apart from the existence of humans. Same result.

 

I'm not going into this further in this thread though, but really, why throw in the word objective?

 

OK, so I take it that you are denying the existence of objective morality apart from God. At least you are being honest about this. Thanks.

 

I throw out the word objective as people on this thread are judging the people from WBC and I would like to know if they are merely expressing their opinions or are they discussing something that is genuinely wrong with the behavior of these people. Without an objective basis, the complaints are merely the expression of opinion (whether that of an individual or a group).

 

LNC

[LNC]

Why was it important to stone her in one period of time and to forgive her in another period? What changed? What would the consequences have been for just forgiving her in OT times, without the stoning? Why would the consequences be different in the time she actually existed?

 

Phanta

 

That is an excellent question. The change was Jesus, being God in human flesh, who fulfilled the law and took our sins upon him. Only he could truly forgive her sins and only he could fulfill the law to make that forgiveness possible. Apart from that, the law called for her to be stoned to death (assuming she was a Jew). There was no provision for her forgiveness in the OT law.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

Why was it important to stone her in one period of time and to forgive her in another period? What changed? What would the consequences have been for just forgiving her in OT times, without the stoning? Why would the consequences be different in the time she actually existed?

 

Phanta

 

That is an excellent question. The change was Jesus, being God in human flesh, who fulfilled the law and took our sins upon him. Only he could truly forgive her sins and only he could fulfill the law to make that forgiveness possible. Apart from that, the law called for her to be stoned to death (assuming she was a Jew). There was no provision for her forgiveness in the OT law.

 

LNC

Exo. 9: 9. "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes," he said, "then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance."

 

Lev. 4:27. "`If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, he is guilty.

28. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect.

29. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering.

30. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar.

31. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

 

Lev. 5:17. "If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible.

18. He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven.

 

Num. 14:19. In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now."

20. The LORD replied, "I have forgiven them, as you asked."

 

Psalms 25: 11. For the sake of your name, O LORD, forgive my iniquity, though it is great.

12. Who, then, is the man that fears the LORD? He will instruct him in the way chosen for him.

13. He will spend his days in prosperity, and his descendants will inherit the land.

14. The LORD confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them.

15. My eyes are ever on the LORD, for only he will release my feet from the snare.

16. Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.

17. The troubles of my heart have multiplied; free me from my anguish.

18. Look upon my affliction and my distress and take away all my sins.

 

Psalms 32:1. Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

2. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.

 

Psalms 103:1. Praise the LORD, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

2. Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits--

3. who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases,

 

Hosea 14: 2. Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Thank you LNC!

 

Your posts and your signature have inspired me to create a new signature.

 

What truth do you know and from what have you been set free? I thought that atheism was currently being defined as not having enough faith to believe that God (or gods) exist. Do you define it differently?

 

LNC

 

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as everyone should know.” 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 verse 12, gfcv (godsfavoritecolor version).

 

What truth? The truth that there are no gods.

[BlueGiant]

Hey, I think we've all forgotten something here: LNC's xtianity vs. WBC's xtianity have something key in common: they're both false. Really, we can debate what constitutes a True Christian™ until we're blue in the face, but really, this conversation has all the validity of whether Kirk or Picard is the better captain. We're looking for a true definition of a fictional element.

 

Sorry, you're both self-identified Christians. You both can pull out scriptures (which really have as much to do with reality as penmanship has to stock-car racing) to both show that you are sanctified and the other is a hell-bound false prophet. And there is no objective way within that system to make a judgment, largely because it has no objective basis to begin with, only the false assertion of one. Ultimately, the assertion of True Christianity is nonsensical.

 

Rest assured that all of you are not in danger of hell, but you're not saved either, as there isn't anything to save you from.

[Shyone]

Hey, I think we've all forgotten something here: LNC's xtianity vs. WBC's xtianity have something key in common: they're both false. Really, we can debate what constitutes a True Christian™ until we're blue in the face, but really, this conversation has all the validity of whether Kirk or Picard is the better captain. We're looking for a true definition of a fictional element.

 

Sorry, you're both self-identified Christians. You both can pull out scriptures (which really have as much to do with reality as penmanship has to stock-car racing) to both show that you are sanctified and the other is a hell-bound false prophet. And there is no objective way within that system to make a judgment, largely because it has no objective basis to begin with, only the false assertion of one. Ultimately, the assertion of True Christianity is nonsensical.

 

Rest assured that all of you are not in danger of hell, but you're not saved either, as there isn't anything to save you from.

I vote Picard, the New Testament Captain of the Enterprise.

[LNC]

Why was it important to stone her in one period of time and to forgive her in another period? What changed? What would the consequences have been for just forgiving her in OT times, without the stoning? Why would the consequences be different in the time she actually existed?

 

Phanta

 

This is one of my greatest issues with Christianity. How can you ignore or explain away the morally repugnant actions of the OT that were sanctioned by the God that supposedly never changes? What does this say about him?

 

I think the more difficult question is how does a person explain objective morality apart from God? If you cannot explain objective morality apart from God, then you have no basis to accuse God. However, if God exists, then objective morality exists. In light of God's existence, we then have to look at why God commanded people to be killed. I just finished reading an article that described what was going on back then in that culture and it makes the case that God simply commanded capital punishment upon these people in light of their wickedness. It seems harsh in light of our sensibilities; however, in light of what was going on back then (child sacrifice, incest, murder, rape, etc.), it was a just punishment. This is just a quick reply and doesn't go into the detail required to fully explain this situation; however, I might suggest that you read a couple of articles on the topic here and here.

 

LNC

[LNC]

why didn't Jesus stone the woman who anointed his feet with her tears rather than forgiving her. Even the Pharisees knew what kind of woman she was.

 

Jesus didn't stone her because the Torah required the person who had actually witnessed the crime to throw the first stone. Jesus had not witnessed any adultery, so he had no legal right to throw the first stone. Apparently neither had anybody else witnessed her actions (including any of the Pharisees). If they did, they didn't think to accuss her and stone her.

 

Jesus didn't change anything, he just had no legal right under the Torah to stone her.

 

Jesus called for the one who was without sin to cast the first stone and no one did (although many had stones in their hands ready to do so.) She was brought to Jesus by her accusers who would have included the witness as they were ready to stone her. They simply wanted a Rabbi's blessing, as it were, in order to proceed. Jesus turned the tables on them, not renouncing the law, but setting a higher standard for those who would carry out the punishment, and none was qualified to cast the stone. Jesus, on the other hand, was without sin and therefore, qualified to cast a stone, yet he chose not to do so either. All he would have required to do so would have been two or three witnesses, which he could have easily come by from the crowd, yet he didn't seek them out or desire to stone the woman. Instead, he forgave her sins and told her to sin no more.

 

LNC

[LNC]

What mistake would that be?

Where does the new covenant, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures, state that some laws would become obsolete?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures declare that some of God’s laws would be nullified when a king messiah arrives?

What does God warn his people, which would include Jesus, not to do to the law?

What law was Jesus referring to in Matt 5:18-20?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that the Levitical priesthood would not be functioning in the messianic era?

 

Confusing the different types of laws and universalizing and applying ceremonial and civil laws to people for whom they were never intended - non-Jews living in our day.

 

I never said that some laws were obsolete; however, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt. 5:17. So, if a Jew chooses to continue living under the OT law (which isn't possible since the Temple has been destroyed along with animal sacrifice), then they are obligated to keep the whole law (again, impossible to do today).

 

Jesus is referring to the moral law in Matthew 5 as you can tell from the balance of the Sermon on the Mount. Nowhere in that discourse does he refer to stoning or killing of offenders. He focuses completely on the moral law and God's judgment of those who transgress it. Why do you refer to the Hebrew Scriptures when discussing the NT? Obviously, the NT is the latest revelation and our understanding of the OT is clarified in it.

 

Can you tell me how the Levitical priesthood could function without the Temple? That question was answered when the Temple was destroyed.

 

Hope that helps.

 

LNC

[LNC]

You wrote : "One is not allowed to interpret the Scriptures in whatever way they deem best and still be a faithful Christian. Those types of people are generally called apostate"

 

Protestants starting interpreting the Bible differently from the RCC. That seems pretty apostate to me based on what you wrote. Oh silly me, you actually meant "interpret the Scriptures differently from mainline Protestants in whatever way they deem best". That is your definition of apostate.

 

Sorry, but that is some of your creative interpretation of events, rather than a factual recounting. You simply assume that the RCC is the official church of Christianity, which is not the case.

 

The key is the proper interpretation of Scripture and not adding to the Scripture. When that is taken into consideration the RCC does not fare well. Then again, many mainline Protestant churches don't fare well either, so I don't want to treat Protestantism as a monolithic group, since it is made up of many different churches. However, let me refine my statement and say that one (whether individual, group or church) is not at liberty to interpret Scriptures in whatever manner suits his or her pet interests. The Scriptures have a meaning that was intended by the authors and only that meaning is the legitimate one. Through proper study, that meaning and intent can be arrived at, which is the goal of good hermeneutics. Second, I was a bit loose with what defines apostasy. One is apostate when one denies the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit as being who the Bible says that they are. One is also apostate for adding to or subtracting from the Scriptures.

 

Yes, so during the Reformation, these Protestants were so in agreement on essential doctrines that they started killing and persecuting each other. Many Protestant sects today (mainly fundie or evangelical or Baptist) consider other sects to be heretics.

 

Yes there were some people who acted sinfully during the reformation time, and that is unfortunate. However, it goes to show that man has a sinful heart that needs to be changed, and only Jesus can do that. Yes, there are also some extreme fundamentalist groups that consider other sects to be heretical; however, they are a small minority.

 

Then again, there are atheists who believe that Christians should be killed and have done their share of carrying out those wishes throughout history, so I think again that it is more of an indication of man's sinfulness than any affiliation to which a person belongs.

 

Cognitive dissonance again. The Church of England broke with Rome because the King wanted to divorce his wife and RCC wouldn't allow it. The foundation is corrupt. It was never founded on the Bible, unless you consider the adultry to be biblical.

 

Right, I said that they had a shaky start, so where is the dissonance? However, you seem to ignore the developments of the church after that time, when they had Protestant monarchs like William of Orange. Can you really tell me that the Westminster Confession is not Biblical? Sorry, but your history seems stunted by the foundation and fails to look beyond that point. I have studied the history and know that there were some good things that came out of the Church of England.

 

So it took FOUR CENTURIES to figure out what books were real? Even if the Bible was real, it proves its God is stupid. And even then the Christians still got it wrong as modern scholarship has proven that several NT books were not written by Paul and others are questionable. Plus different churches still have different canons (at least five that I am aware of).

 

Did you even read my post? I already said that Origin and others had the list of 27 books by the mid 2nd century, which would have been 50-60 years after the final book was written. Really, to which books and which scholars are you referring? Different churches added to their canons later on (the RCC added the Apocrypha in the 16th century). I see no reason to be concerned that these churches added books for political reasons, that is not the canon that was recognized by the early church, nor do I recognize it.

 

The only reason the OT is what it is is because the Jews hurried to assemble their books while they were being deported to Babylon. The "intertestimental works" were not considered sacred simply because they weren't written in Hebrew. The "intertestimental works" are simply the same thing as the OT, but written in a different language.

 

The only clear standards that were applied to recognize some books and canon were whether some corrupt Christians thought they could justify their own theology from it. Like Martin Luther, he thought some books should be thrown out, but didn't for fear of public backlash.

 

Some of us have realized that all the books of the Bible should be thrown out because it's all bullsh*t. The amount of cognitive dissonance in your posts astounds me. You sound like Jack Chick to me.

 

Really, from where do you get your history? It sounds like you are using your imagination (or someone else's) again. The Apocrypha is a later work and was never considered to be canonical by the Jews. Why do you consider it to be so? What tests of canonicity have you applied to make your determination?

 

The canon was closed over a millennium before Martin Luther came on the scene, so he played no role in determining the canon. He simply didn't like James, however, he later came to understand it and accept it. The key is that James is still found in Bibles used by Lutherans and it had nothing to do with backlash.

 

What I find interesting is that you, sitting at your computer 500 years after Luther, seem to be able to read his mind and the mind of the Christians who lived almost 1,700 years ago as well!

 

It seems like you that wants to toss out the Bible for personal and doctrinal reasons rather than for reasons of authenticity. Who is Jack Chick?

 

LNC

[Kuroikaze]

 

I think the more difficult question is how does a person explain objective morality apart from God? If you cannot explain objective morality apart from God, then you have no basis to accuse God. However, if God exists, then objective morality exists. In light of God's existence, we then have to look at why God commanded people to be killed. I just finished reading an article that described what was going on back then in that culture and it makes the case that God simply commanded capital punishment upon these people in light of their wickedness. It seems harsh in light of our sensibilities; however, in light of what was going on back then (child sacrifice, incest, murder, rape, etc.), it was a just punishment. This is just a quick reply and doesn't go into the detail required to fully explain this situation; however, I might suggest that you read a couple of articles on the topic here and here.

 

LNC

 

*sigh* another bull shit answer right out of that asshole W. L. Craig's handbook.

 

 

You aren't even entertaining anymore LNC. You are so predictable it is painful to watch.

[Astreja]

I think the more difficult question is how does a person explain objective morality apart from God?

Quite easily, LNC. 'Objective morality' is a myth. If an opinion or judgement of any sort is involved -- Be it the opinion of one mortal, one god, or a whole bunch of either -- It becomes, and remains, subjective morality.

 

There are no universal, immutable standards regarding best practices in behaviour, but communities that follow the principle of "Try not to hurt to others, and help them if you can" are the ones that tend to survive. That is where the illusion of a universal moral standard comes from.

[The-Captain]

The key is the proper interpretation of Scripture and not adding to the Scripture. When that is taken into consideration the RCC does not fare well.

 

One would think that the continuation of the church that compiled the canon of Scripture would have the best handle on proper interpretation.

 

 

Really, to which books and which scholars are you referring? Different churches added to their canons later on (the RCC added the Apocrypha in the 16th century). I see no reason to be concerned that these churches added books for political reasons, that is not the canon that was recognized by the early church, nor do I recognize it.

 

As a side note the Apocryphal texts included in the Catholic Bible are considered distinct from canonical scripture.

 

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

 

The term apocryphal in connection with special Gospels must be understood as bearing no more unfavourable an import than "uncanonical". This applies to the Gospel of the Hebrews and in a less degree to that of the Egyptians, which in the main seem to have been either embodiments of primitive tradition, or a mere recasting of canonical Gospels with a few variations and amplifications. It is true, all the extant specimens of the apocryphal Gospels take the inspired evangelical documents as their starting-point. But the genuine Gospels are silent about long stretches of the life of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and St. Joseph. Frequently they give but a tantalizing glimpse of some episode on which we would fain be more fully informed. This reserve of the Evangelists did not satisfy the pardonable curiosity of many Christians eager for details, and the severe and dignified simplicity of their narrative left unappeased imaginations seeking the sensational and the marvellous. When, therefore, enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity.

 

Read more here. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#III1

[Skankboy]

The Scriptures have a meaning that was intended by the authors and only that meaning is the legitimate one. Through proper study, that meaning and intent can be arrived at, which is the goal of good hermeneutics.

Then you would think a unfied view of how the Bible should be read would be readily avialable. And yet, it's not. It's easy to say that the differences between denominational interpretion are purely cosmetic, but they aren't (just look at WBC). They hit fundamental points of what it means to be christian. Face it, to the majority of christians out there, you would most likely be considered something of a heretic.

 

The key is the proper interpretation of Scripture and not adding to the Scripture.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with alot of the Catholic church, but I always find it interesting when people say things like this.

[centauri]

What mistake would that be?

Where does the new covenant, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures, state that some laws would become obsolete?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures declare that some of God’s laws would be nullified when a king messiah arrives?

What does God warn his people, which would include Jesus, not to do to the law?

What law was Jesus referring to in Matt 5:18-20?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that the Levitical priesthood would not be functioning in the messianic era?

 

Confusing the different types of laws and universalizing and applying ceremonial and civil laws to people for whom they were never intended - non-Jews living in our day.

The laws of God are eternal, I wasn’t aware that they were only society specific and not intended to be a standard for human behavior in general.

The Bible says that if Gentiles want to be part of God’s fold they are to adopt the same covenant as the Jews.

 

I never said that some laws were obsolete; however, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt. 5:17. So, if a Jew chooses to continue living under the OT law (which isn't possible since the Temple has been destroyed along with animal sacrifice), then they are obligated to keep the whole law (again, impossible to do today).

But the laws are rendered obsolete by Paul.

Jesus may have said he came to fulfill the law but he didn’t do that, he undermined parts of it.

Regardless of whether or not a Jew can keep the law today isn’t relevant to the issue here.

An expected king messiah was supposed to lead people into great compliance with the law, which is something Jesus didn’t do.

 

Jesus is referring to the moral law in Matthew 5 as you can tell from the balance of the Sermon on the Mount.

As indicted by Matt 5:18-20, Jesus was referring to the entire law.

Matt 5:18-20

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

Nowhere in that discourse does he refer to stoning or killing of offenders. He focuses completely on the moral law and God's judgment of those who transgress it.

In Matt 5:17-20 he refers to the entire law, every jot and tittle.

He was quite emphatic about it.

 

Why do you refer to the Hebrew Scriptures when discussing the NT? Obviously, the NT is the latest revelation and our understanding of the OT is clarified in it.

Who says the NT is the latest revelation that should be used to properly understand the Hebrew Bible?

There is nothing obvious about it, except in the minds of Christians.

We’re discussing your accusation that skeptics make mistakes about the law of God as defined by the Bible.

The law was set down and defined in the Hebrew scriptures.

Your personal theological musings about the validity of the NT are secondary.

 

Can you tell me how the Levitical priesthood could function without the Temple? That question was answered when the Temple was destroyed.

That wasn’t the question.

The Temple was functioning when Jesus lived.

Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that the Levitical priesthood would not be functioning in the messianic era?

Where does it state that their function would cease to exist upon the arrival of a new covenant?

[Shyone]

LNC doesn't like some parts of the law, so he thinks only certain jots and tiddles apply now instead of Jesus obviously meant.

 

It only became necessary to abandon the old law (except for the parts that "tiddle" LNC and his ilk) when Paul couldn't sell the religion to gentiles. Like the Romans.

 

The worn out excuse of not applying "ceremonial and civil laws" because they were meant for the Jews is a dodge that fails. The OT is very specific about these laws being meant for any people that would adopt Yahweh as their god.

 

Here's an example:

 

Exo. 12:48. "An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.

49. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you."

 

Lev. 24:17. "`If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death.

18. Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution--life for life.

19. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him:

20. fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.

21. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

22. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.'"

 

Num. 15: 17. The LORD said to Moses,

18. "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When you enter the land to which I am taking you

19. and you eat the food of the land, present a portion as an offering to the LORD.

20. Present a cake from the first of your ground meal and present it as an offering from the threshing floor.

21. Throughout the generations to come you are to give this offering to the LORD from the first of your ground meal.

22. "`Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the LORD gave Moses--

23. any of the LORD's commands to you through him, from the day the LORD gave them and continuing through the generations to come--

24. and if this is done unintentionally without the community being aware of it, then the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, along with its prescribed grain offering and drink offering, and a male goat for a sin offering.

25. The priest is to make atonement for the whole Israelite community, and they will be forgiven, for it was not intentional and they have brought to the LORD for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering.

26. The whole Israelite community and the aliens living among them will be forgiven, because all the people were involved in the unintentional wrong.

27. "`But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering.

28. The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven.

29. One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

 

That should be enough I think. LNC has a short attention span.

[centauri]

It only became necessary to abandon the old law (except for the parts that "tiddle" LNC and his ilk) when Paul couldn't sell the religion to gentiles. Like the Romans.

And yet Christians go running to Paul as a source of divine revelation.

 

The worn out excuse of not applying "ceremonial and civil laws" because they were meant for the Jews is a dodge that fails. The OT is very specific about these laws being meant for any people that would adopt Yahweh as their god.

Christianity laughs in the face of Yahweh and has no shame in doing so.