Chatting With Centauri

[Thumbelina]

 

 

 

 

Thumbelina said: The Ten Commandments are mentioned in the Bible under many names. In the first nine verses of Psalms 119, the Ten Commandments are given seven different names: the law of the Lord (verse 1); his testimonies; thy precepts (verse 4); thy statutes (verse 5); thy commandments (verse 6); thy righteous judgements (verse 7) and thy word (verse 9)."

 

Centauri said: This is rather deceptive.

Psa 119 does not refer exclusively to only ten commandments, but to all of God’s laws.

 

 

Thumbelina said: As I said, the Ten Commandments are comprehensive. Do you think the people who had to sacrifice animals for their sins felt ooey gooey and nice inside? They were supposed to feel terrible because sin causes death! It was to help them to feel sorrowful and repentant.

 

 

Centauri said: Well, Psa 119 is also comprehensive when it declares all of God’s laws to be everlasting.

 

 

 

 

Thumbelina: You gave the chapter but where's the verse? Anyway, in the bible everlasting means as long as the thing lives or lasts; if the thing is immortal, like God, then it lasts forever. Sacrificing animals could not be everlasting because it will immortalize sin and death. So it has to mean the commandments that are summarized by loving God and your neighbor as yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thumbelina said: The Ten commandments or Covenant consists of two parts: the first four commandments, written on both sides of one tablet, are concerned with man's obligation toward God. The last six commandments, written on both sides of the other tablet, are concerned with man's obligation toward others. Jesus Christ clarified the importance of those two parts when He said:

 

Matthew 22:36-40 (New King James Version)

 

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

 

Other parts of the bible affirm the above principles, See Luke 10:27; Deuteronomy 6:4,5; Leviticus 19:18

 

Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

 

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

Centauri said:The command to love your neighbor as yourself isn’t one of the ten commandments.

It comes from Lev 19:18, which is titled in the NIV Bible as “Various Laws”.

Loving your neighbor does not automatically fulfill all of the law.

If the greatest commandment was to love God, then obeying all of his laws (as he asked) is the verification of that love.

It certainly doesn’t mean ignoring some laws while keeping others.

 

 

Thumbelina said: It's a SUMMARY of the last 6 Commandments. I did not say loving ones neighbor fulfills all the law, one has to love God and then ones neighbor and those two principles SUMMARIZES the entire 10 commandments.

 

 

Centauri said: This is Paul’s handiwork.

While declaring the law as being outdated and a curse, he still pays lip service to the theme for 5 of the ten commandments.

Rom 3:10 creates the impression that complying with one edict fulfills “the law”.

I’ve had preachers tell me that’s why believers are not required to obey all of God’s law but a few of them.

It begs the question of why Paul would pay lip service to a few commandments with a vague platitude while telling people that the bulk of the law was outdated and no longer binding.

The edict about killing (or murder) is rather subjective seeing that God gave instructions to kill other populations and even his own people that violated key laws.

 

 

 

 

 

Thumbelina: Paul was talking about the ceremonial laws and not the Ten Commandments. Romans 3:10 http://bible.cc/romans/3-10.htm is letting us know that we are ALL sinners and that it is God who draws us to Himself. Are you sure it was Romans 3:10 you wanted to quote? Which laws were the preachers referring to? I have had some experiences with preachers before and some things they said did not square with the bible. Paul knew the prophecies well and just like the Jews he had misinterpreted some of the prophecies about the Messiah but God realized Paul was sincere so God confronted Paul on the Damascus Road and Paul fully understood Christ's mission and Paul then expounded the scriptures but Paul did not add or take away anything that was necessary; he obeyed the Holy Spirit's leading.

 

God had to establish somewhat secular governments during those times and God chose to eradicate some of the evil during that time, otherwise the wicked would have really grown to exponential proportions; God wanted to curb that. The essence of murder is that it requires meditation and MALICE, secular authorities were/are supposed to be impartial and their role was/is to mete out judgment to offenders based on the evidence for or against the accused. There was a time when Israel was under a Theocracy and that is mainly the time when God instructed them to eradicate the evil nations that wanted to destroy Israel. God is the ultimate judge and God is NEVER malicious.

[Darklady]

and still she goes on and on posting crap

aren't we over the continuous posting of verses from the bullby

[buffettphan]

and still she goes on and on posting crap

aren't we over the continuous posting of verses from the bullby

 

I agree. And at the very least, she should be contributing financially to this website. Look at all the free advertising she's getting -- not to mention, ego-boosting attention -- not that most of us pay any mind to all the stuff she vomits up here. But she gets to see herself in "print". Me, I just keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling... looking for someone else's comments!

[bornagainathiest]

Here you go, Thumbelina!

 

 

Posted 12 November 2009 - 05:57 PM (#1)

Read First.

Especially Christians.

Proselytizing, evangelizing, or any other form of religious harassment of Ex-Christians in the Ex-Christian Life forum will be dealt with severely. Posts that violate the sanctity of the Ex-Christian Life forum will be deleted and the offender will be issued a warning, leading up to potential banning from the site for repeated disregard of this stated rule. Otherwise, all who are interested in participation in the spirit of common respect and support of members here, will in turn be shown respect and understanding. Thank you.

 

The emboldening is mine.

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

 

If you are capable of considering any other viewpoint than your own Thumbelina, then consider what Darklady and buffettphan have just posted.

Does it sound like they want you proselytizing and evangelizing here?

In direct contravention of the above ruling?

[★ Citsonga ★]

bornagainathiest, to be fair, that is referring to the Ex-Christian Life forum. There is a similar prohibition in the Testimonies forum. Here in the Lion's Den, proselytizing is not actually forbidden.

 

Thumby's posts are actually pretty good in the sense of showing how some christians have zero capacity to be reasonable and productive in a debate.

 

By the way, did you intentionally misspell "athiest" in your user name? Just curious....

[buffettphan]

Thumby's posts are actually pretty good in the sense of showing how some christians have zero capacity to be reasonable and productive in a debate.

Yup, a lively debate is one thing. Constantly cutting and pasting bible verse after bible verse after bible verse is quite another. But you're right, it speaks volumes on Thumby's debating skills.

 

 

But that's why I generally stay out of the Lion's Den when I see threads started and/or hijacked by certain individuals.

 

I still think that anyone who isn't here to support ex- and deconverting christians should have to pay to post. Thumby's on her 330th post. Has she really said anything new in the past 300?

 

Maybe give them 20-30 free posts, then start charging by the word! (I'm kidding. I think). But WebMDAve could get rich with some of these apologists with diarrhea of the mouth around here.

[centauri]

Centauri, what do you think about what Paul wrote in Hebrews 4:9 http://bible.cc/hebrews/4-9.htm?

Assuming Paul wrote Hebrews, which is uncertain, I don’t see what relevance Heb 4:9 has to the discussion of Paul’s instructions about not giving heed to the Sabbath day (discussed later) and his repeated declarations that believers were no longer under the law.

The “rest” in Psa 95:11 is referring to the resting place for God’s glory and blessings.

The generation in Exodus was banned from entering this rest because of their transgression.

Hebrews 4 is the same chapter that claims Jesus is a high priest, something that he is not qualified to be under God’s law.

 

Centauri said: Paul denounced the law in various ways and claimed it had been replaced (Gal 3).

He told people they were no longer under the law if they were led by “spirit”.

 

Thumbelina: Centauri you keep on intertwining the ceremonial and sacrificial laws which pointed to the coming Messiah and which reminded the people that they sinned and they needed a savior, respectively, with the Ten Commandments. I did try to communicate this to you with my analogy: "Centauri, if you break a civil law and you have appear in front of a judge, does the law you broke not condemn you? The judge might use grace and pardon you but if you broke the law you are guilty!" Those texts meant that if you are being led by the HS you won't break the law and therefore you won't break the law.

So the Holy Spirit will keep Christians from eating shellfish or pork, from not observing the Sabbath properly, and from breaking other regulations that make up the law?

I don’t see any evidence for that being the case.

When the Bible states that all of God’s laws are eternal, where does it indicate which laws would become obsolete?

The Bible states that ceremonial laws would be functioning in the messianic era (also discussed later).

 

Centauri please look at Gal 5:23 http://bible.cc/galatians/5-23.htm and the cross references particularly Gal 5:18 http://bible.cc/galatians/5-18.htm and 1 Tim 1:9 http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-9.htm

 

To reiterate, when you break the law you are under the law, it CONDEMNS you, it's a witness against you but when you are led the the Spirit you then have the power to keep the 10 Commandments and therefore you won't be under the law because you are not breaking it.

Other than Seventh Day Adventists, I don’t know of any Christians that observe the Sabbath, which is the fourth commandment.

Apparently being led by a spirit doesn’t automatically translate into keep the law.

As I noted before, the second commandment of the ten urges the keeping of God’s commandments.

That’s why I asked you to explain why this only means ten of them rather than all of them.

Is the following referring to more than ten commandments?

 

Deut 11:1 (ESV)

You shall therefore love the LORD your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always.

 

I was looking at a Christian program this week and that particular episode was entitled "The Hearing Of Faith"; on the program they were discussing Galatians 3. During that time Paul was dealing with heresies that came into the church at Galatia, false teachers were turning that church upside down. The false teachers were teaching that the Galatians can save themselves by their works and that is NOT true; adopting that attitude leads one into disobedience.

Well, the false teachers were correct and Paul was wrong.

Ezek 18:20-27 clearly affirms that each person can save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

 

Centauri said: The law was Paul’s competition in the arena of salvation.

The law did bring death but it also brought blessings and salvation, and that is the part that Paul conveniently forgot to tell his readers.

 

Thumbelina: You know Centauri, you are so close to agreeing with what Paul meant and I think you and Paul sort of think alike. Paul did not distinguish by saying the ceremonial law and the Ten Commandment Law but the context allows one to discern which laws Paul meant plus one needs to compare scripture with scripture and then it will be known which laws Paul was referring to. BTW, Paul did agree with you http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-8.htm 1 Tim 1:8 "But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;"

Paul paid lip service to the law but failed to acknowledge it as a vehicle for salvation.

Instead, he cast it aside and substituted faith in a pagan human sacrifice as its replacement.

The magical blood of Jesus is a New Testament myth that runs counter to the Old Testament teachings.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: Jesus never broke any of the Commandments, if He had He couldn't be our high priest. Look at the context, that potential disciple was stalling and trying to say that he will follow Jesus when his parents are dead, maybe the parents death were nowhere imminent. Not only that, God comes first in all things.

 

Centauri said: Jesus undermined the dietary law in Mark 7 and undermined the commandment (in the ten commandments) to honor parents.

 

Centauri said:

Jesus can’t be a high priest according to God’s law and his promise to Aaron.

The office of high priest can only be held by a Levite, which Jesus wasn’t.

 

Basically, you’re assuming that the man was lying about his father needing to be buried.

I didn’t glean that from these verses:

 

Matt 8:21-22

And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

 

You still need to validate Jesus telling this man to “let the dead bury their dead”, and show how this is consistent with honoring parents.

By claiming that God comes first in all things you’re trying to pass Jesus off as God, which is a dubious claim and utilizes a form of special pleading.

 

Thumbelina: Those purported "dietary laws" were not from God. The Jews made up some extra laws, some of which was because they were bigoted against the gentiles and they wanted Jews to wash their hands after coming into contact with gentiles; they wanted Jesus and His disciples to follow their stupid, man-made discriminatory fads! The texts say that it was a TRADITION ---->

 

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

 

 

 

Jesus had to instruct them via a parable, Peter knew it was a parable http://bible.cc/matthew/15-15.htm

 

Their ceremonial uncleanness was only an IMAGINED defilement.

So your position is that the instructions given in Lev 11 were not from God?

In Mark 7, Jesus declared that food entering a person cannot defile them.

 

Mark 7:18-19 verbatim from the (ESV Bible)

 

And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?"

(Thus he declared all foods clean.)

 

Mark 7:19 (NLT)

… (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

 

Mark 7:19 (NIV)

… (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

 

All foods are not clean or acceptable according to God’s law.

On what basis is Jesus not undermining God’s rules concerning acceptable foods when he declares all foods clean?

 

Is this instruction from God also imagined?

Lev 11:46-47 (ESV)

This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

 

 

Centauri, it would be nice if you give me the verses you are referring to. I did read some information about Jesus' priestly ministry and I'm afraid I will have to re-read it. Maybe we can discuss that later?

Sure, later is fine with me.

The verses are in Exo 40 and other sections of the Torah that declare the priesthood to be the exclusive office of the Levites, specifically the sons of Aaron.

Jesus wasn’t a Levite and is disqualified from holding the office of high priest.

 

Based on some investigative reading, that man was trying to harden his heart even though he was hearing God's voice http://bible.cc/hebrews/4-7.htm . this is why I had mentioned in other threads that the bible should be read thematically, historically, culturally and contextually.

If you’re referring to the man that asked Jesus if he could bury his father before following Jesus, I didn’t see anything in the text that validates such an assumption.

But even if that was the case, Jesus was obligated to tell the man to honor his parents by burying his dead father before chasing after a rabbi to be with him.

Jesus didn’t do that, he set himself as the top priority for the man to attend to, and not his parent as the law would instruct.

 

Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

 

"This verse reveals one man's response to Christ's call of discipleship. From the context of this passage, it seems quite apparent that the man's father was not yet dead. If the father had been dead, the son would have had no opportunity to accompany Christ and the disciples. In that hot country, with no embalming, bodies had to be buried immediately. The man was asking to postpone following the Lord until his father had passed away and been buried.

On what basis did you determine from the context of this text that the man was lying?

 

Matt 8:21-22 (ESV)

Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."

And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

 

Luke 9:59-60 (ESV)

To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."

And Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

 

The context of the passage is that following Jesus comes at great cost, even to the extent of turning attention away from responsibility to a parent.

 

The text indicates the father was dead.

The apologetic fails on two points.

It cannot establish the man was a liar and Jesus gave the wrong moral instruction.

The proper response would have been to tell the man to attend to his dead parent and then seek out Jesus.

 

Christ's answer exposed the procrastinator. It indicated the high priority of obedience.

Jesus was exposed as a false teacher.

Telling the man to obey the high priorities of a wandering rabbi instead of honoring a parent is not what the law of God teaches people to do.

Remember, honoring parents is one of the ten commandments.

Obeying the personal agenda of a cult leader is not.

 

Nothing must stand in the way of instant response to the call of Jesus.

I’m sorry but did you get this nonsense from an apologetics handbook?

The ambitions of a man do not trump obedience to God and duty to parents.

This is yet another form of special pleading which is compounded if the “Jesus is God” excuse is employed.

On what basis, other than Christian wishful thinking and circular logic, do you base this mandate on?

Can you provide validation from the Old Testament law that instructs people to turn away from their family responsibility in order to follow an aspiring and unproved messiah?

 

The Bible speaks of a certain sinner being "dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:6). In Luke 9:60, Jesus was rebuking the man with these words: "Let the (spiritually) dead bury their (physically) dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." In other words, make your decision while the call is strong and the conviction of truth is urgent. Delay could result in discouragement and loss of interest."

The text of Luke 9 doesn’t say what you’ve revised it to say.

Jesus also said he came to create division and strife between family members (Luke 12:49-53).

The instruction to ignore the man’s father to follow him was right in line with such a purpose.

Jesus was anti-family values in his answer and it would have fostered disharmony within the family unit.

The man would have had an interesting time explaining to his mother why he went chasing after Jesus rather than attending to the duty of a proper burial for his father.

Regardless of whether you want to portray the man as a liar or not, the instruction that Jesus gave was a violation of the commandment to honor parents.

 

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God.

There are Christians that don’t share your perspective, Jehovah’s Witnesses being one such sect.

They have plenty of support from the New Testament for their position.

The Old Testament also does not share that perspective.

 

Thumbelina said: In Acts 15 there was some squabbles going on, the Jewish Christians were trying to tell the gentile Christians that they needed to follow some of their traditions otherwise they cannot be saved. Paul had to settle that. He admonished the gentile Christians to follow the rules that uphold the Ten Commandments such as not fornicating or eating clean meats that had no blood in it and he told the Jewish Christians not to bother the gentile Christians with non issues. Even Paul had a few squabbles with Barnabas about Mark. Commandment keeping is promoted in the book of Acts.

 

Centauri said: The problem is that the depiction of Paul in Acts is far different than what’s found in the epistles directly attributed to him.

Upholding some rules but not others is an affront to God, who commanded that his law was not to be tampered with by removing or adding elements to it (Deut 4:2).

Paul scorned circumcision, a holy law that pre-dates Moses, so while some commandment keeping went on in Acts, that does not reconcile Paul’s declarations of not being under the law.

 

Thumbelina: Paul did not scorn circumcision, I'm pretty sure he was circumcized *laugh*. He was scorning the view that someone had to be circumcized in order to be saved. Paul had realized that we are all saved by grace through faith and works then follow true faith. However, circumcision was a law that became obsolete it was not needed but it can be done if an individual wanted it; it was not mandatory.

Paul’s position was that circumcision was of no importance in the relationship with God.

Gal 6:15

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

 

On what basis are you denying the following instruction from God as being important and now obsolete, when it’s declared to be binding in perpetuity on God’s people?

What does it mean when God says the uncircumcised shall be cut off?

Does being cut off affect one’s salvation?

 

Gen 17:10-14

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

 

In the epistles Paul was addressing certain heresies or certain squabbles or clearing up misunderstandings in the new Christian churches.

Well, being a heretic himself, he was probably in a good position to give instructions on heresy.

Psa 119:118

Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood.

 

Paul certainly erred from the statutes of God by declaring them no longer binding.

 

More will follow later as you posted a large amount of material.

[bornagainathiest]

bornagainathiest, to be fair, that is referring to the Ex-Christian Life forum. There is a similar prohibition in the Testimonies forum. Here in the Lion's Den, proselytizing is not actually forbidden.

 

Thumby's posts are actually pretty good in the sense of showing how some christians have zero capacity to be reasonable and productive in a debate.

 

By the way, did you intentionally misspell "athiest" in your user name? Just curious....

 

 

Fair enough then Cits.

 

Let her proselytize away... see where it gets her.

 

Imho, the Lions' Den section of Ex-Christian.Net has to be THE worst possible place in the whole Internet for a Christian to attempt to evangelize in. Why?

Well, by Thumbelina's own admission, she can prove nothing. Nothing at all. She can't prove her ordinary claim to be praying for us. So if we aren't inclined to believe her ordinary claims, why the **** should we be inclined to accept her extraordinary claims about being guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

According to her, we Ex-Christian's have to take every claim (ordinary or extraordinary) she makes on... 'faith'. Faith in what, I ask myself? Faith in her? Faith in the Bible? Faith in God? All of those things are as rare as hen's teeth in the Lion's Den!

So, to echo your point about some Christians having zero capacity to be reasonable and productive in a debate...

Thumbelina can't seem to see that to proselytize here is just about the most UNreasonable and UNproductive activity for her to pursue with such misplaced zeal.

 

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the more unreasonable and unproductive a challenge looks to her, the more she thinks she'll 'win'!

Maybe she just likes to fill her life with unreason and unproductive, misplaced effort????

 

 

 

And yes, it's 'ie' not 'ei' intentionally.

Because I wanted nothing at all to do with God when I de-converted, I chose a handle that didn't have the word 'Theist' in it.

 

BAA.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: The Ten Commandment Law CANNOT save a being or a person who transgresses its precepts, therefore the Law cannot save mankind.

 

Centauri said: This is typical false and deceptive Christian propaganda.

Obedience to the law, along with a contrite heart and repentance does save a person. (Ezek 18:20-27)

 

Thumbelina said: Centauri, if you break a civil law and you have appear in front of a judge, does the law you broke not condemn you? The judge might use grace and pardon you but if you broke the law you are guilty!

 

Centauri said: It appears that you deny God’s word about salvation.

 

Ezek 18:20-27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

21But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

24But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

25Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

26When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

27Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

Repenting, do what is right, and keeping the law are the ingredients for salvation.

None of a person’s past offenses will be held against them if they do this.

Each person dies for their own sin and no vicarious human sacrifice is needed.

A human being isn’t even a valid sacrifice for sin under the law of God.

 

Thumbelina: In July 2010, we were studying righteousness by faith and the Pastor said that some people have a doctrine called dispensationalism, he said that they teach that Christians are saved by faith in the NT and the Jews were saved by keeping the law. I think that maybe you have been strongly influenced by this teaching?

Not really, although I’ve been subjected to it.

It falls in the same category as progressive revelation.

Unfortunately, it makes a shambles out of the concept of moral absolutes and contradicts the Old Testament concerning the nature of the law.

 

In both OT and the NT people were saved by grace through faith.

Ezek 18:20-27 says nothing about being saved by grace.

Faith and works save a person.

The New Testament also promotes faith and works as the recipe for salvation.

If you don’t take certain affirmative actions, you don’t get saved.

This is discussed in more detail later.

Being saved by grace alone would involve predestination.

 

The COVENANTS were different. The Old Covenant had the ceremonial systems and sacrifices AND the people made poor promises, they tried to be saved in their own strength which is why so many failed, they lacked FAITH. In the New Covenant the sacrificial system and ceremonies were done away with and it was based on better promises, they asked God to be their righteousness by helping them to obey.

Please show me where the definition of the new covenant as defined in the Old Testament says that the sacrificial system and ceremonial laws would be done away with.

Chapter and verse for this one please.

You’re trying to use the New Testament Book of Hebrews as circular proof that the New Testament Book of Hebrews is true.

In other words, the revisionist theology of Christianity is true because Christian revisionist writings say it is.

 

The people saw the reality of Messiah living a righteous life and laying down His life for them and that, that is what writes the Law on their hearts; therefore, MORE people will be saved under the new covenant.

Please back up a moment.

Who is this Messiah that the people saw?

Since I suspect you’re going to say Jesus, I’d like to know when Jesus sat of the throne of David and when he was anointed as king of the Jews by a prophet or priest.

Where does the Old Testament say that an expected king messiah was to die in order usher in the new covenant?

 

Also, a dead messiah is vital to having the law written on their hearts?

Where do you see that scenario confirmed in the following:

Ezek 11:19-20

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

 

Is the following messiah dead or alive when God’s people are led into great compliance with the law?

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Since writing the law on people’s hearts will result in more obedience to the law, how does ignoring the law in favor of a doctrine of “grace” qualify as actually performing the requirements of the law?

 

Dispensationalism is a sort of a spin on the doctrine of penance; it does away with justification. Pagan religions, including Hinduism also embrace such a concept. It teaches that God is wrathful and need to be appeased through works. I believe Islam and Judaism for the most part, believe that concept of God also.

 

I got this commentary from a bible: Ez. 18:21-24 "Ezekiel shifted his focus to the present state of affairs with an individual. Past guilt could not nullify current repentance and past righteousness could not excuse present rebellion. By stressing their present response to God, Ezekiel sought to bring the exiles to a better understanding of their current opportunities and responsibilities."

If salvation was provided as Ezek 18 indicates, then there is no need for Jesus.

 

The wages of sin is death, how can a law bring people in at one ment (atonement) with the Lawgiver? It is the Lawgiver who can extend grace to the defendant. In God's case He decided to let the defendant free and He took the penalty upon Himself. However,the defendant may now be free but they are NOT supposed to go break the law again.

Obedience to God means keeping his laws, and keeping his laws brings blessings and life.

Psa 119:1-4

Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

 

Atonement is not vicarious as each person will die for their own sin and can save themselves through proper action.

That’s the crux of Ezek 18.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: Look at these OT texts:

 

Ezekiel 33:13 When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

 

Jeremiah 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this [is the name] wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.

 

Centauri said: Jer 33 pertains to the messianic era, in which a restoration will occur under a Davidic king.

This king will lead the people into great compliance with the law, something that Jesus never did.

 

Ezek 33 reaffirms Ezek 18.

Note that it says if a person does what is right they will have life.

Doing is taking affirmative action and it represents a work.

 

Ezek 33:14-16(NIV)

And if I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ but they then turn away from their sin and do what is just and right— if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil—that person will surely live; they will not die.

None of the sins that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.

 

Thumbelina: Jesus did not come to destroy the law and the prophets aka the old testament, He came to fulfill it (bring in into fruition). Jesus kept the law and He provided the way for anyone who wants to, to keep it also.

I get a bit tired of this “Jesus kept the law” talking point being pumped out over and over again when I’ve gone to great lengths and spent considerable time to demonstrate that such is not the case.

Every time I do this you (and other Christians) just ignore it and deny the evidence.

I’ve seen this behavior in every forum I’ve ever participated in, so it’s a common Christian tactic.

However, for the sake of lurkers, we’ll do it this again and we’ll keep it simple for now.

Point of fact:

A person doesn’t fulfill the law by undermining parts of it and ignoring other parts.

 

What are the requirements of the law regarding sin sacrifices?

How did Jesus comply with the legal requirements for a valid sin sacrifice?

Are all foods clean as Jesus declared?

What does Lev 11 say about eating unclean food?

 

I am not disagreeing with you; faith in the bible is an active word. In Hebrews 9, what some call the faith chapter, it shows that after naming all the redeemed, it is shown that their faith had a corresponding action. Their actions showed the belief that they had. What I disagree with you on is the need for God to help people achieve good works.

 

You're free to disagree with anything I write.

I'm not trying to convert you to anything.

My goal is to offset the steady stream of Christian propaganda that permeates the culture.

This forum is one way to do that.

Your posts reflect the standard talking points used by professional Christian propagandists.

 

Without specific works, salvation doesn’t happen.

I already know you don’t like predestination so we’ll go straight to your “free will” doctrine.

The requirements for salvation are:

-Belief is required. (Mark 16:16, John 3:16,18,36, John 16:9)

-A confession of belief is required. (Rom 10:9-10)

-Maintaining belief is required. (Heb 6:4-6, 2 Peter 2:20-21)

-Repenting is required. (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Luke 13:3}

-Being baptized is required. (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16)

-Doing some good works is required. (Matt 25:41-46)

 

If people don’t do these works, they don’t obtain salvation.

These are not simply side effects of faith, they’re requirements in order to receive the prize.

Faith is what compels the person to do these things.

If a person didn’t have faith that these things were desired by God, and believed they wouldn’t be rewarded for doing them, then they wouldn’t bother to do them.

Since you like free will, I’m assuming that you think these are actions taken by the individual rather than being automatic hardwired responses directed by God.

Faith alone doesn’t automatically make one perform these actions, but they are all required for the faith to translate into salvation. James echoes this with his “faith without works is dead” theme.

Ezek 18 also shows that works are the catalyst to salvation…repenting and keeping the law.

If you want to dispute any of these as not really being needed, we can address that as well.

 

Thumbelina said: Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness .

That text is talking about Abraham. God's goodness led the sincere OT people to obey Him.

 

Centauri said: Obeying God is doing what he said.

Doing is an active action (i.e. work) on the part of the believer.

 

Thumbelina: Centauri, what do you think about these texts? Do you not see that in both testaments people were justified by faith? The OT, has a lot of verses like the following ---

 

Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

 

Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

 

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

 

Job 14:3 And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?

 

 

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. (cf Acs 15:9; Eph 2:10) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2051:10;%20Acts%2015:9;%20Eph%202:10&version=KJV

 

 

Psalm 51:2 http://bible.cc/psalms/51-2.htm Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

 

Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels

Faith without works of obedience is useless, which is what James and the Old Testament teach.

Faith is what motivates and justifies doing works that God wants done.

Keeping the law is a work.

If you didn’t have faith that pleasing God would save you, then you wouldn’t bother.

 

Abraham wasn’t saved by faith alone, he performed proper works.

He did everything that God required of him, which included keeping laws.

Gen 26:4-5

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

 

Righteouness isn’t automatically imputed based on faith alone, works provide it.

Deut 6:17,25

Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

As I had mentioned, the 10 Commandments can be likened to a mirror; you look at it and it shows all your defects. If you have a lot of schmutz (mess) on your face, the mirror does not function as a cleanser, you need soap and water http://bible.cc/ephesians/5-26.htm to clean your face; God provides the soap and water.

The soap and water is a contrite heart, sincere repentance of sin, and following the law.

Eccl 12:13

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

 

Thumbelina said: Cain and Saul trusted in their own righteousness therefore they were disobedient and consequently ended up lost.

 

 

Centauri said: Cain was told by God that although sin was ever present, waiting to ensnare him, that he (Cain) could master it.

They were lost by their own actions and they could be saved by their own actions.

Simple faith alone doesn’t automatically save you.

The Book of James confirms this.

 

Thumbelina: Yes but how would Cain have been able to master sin? He needed to do like Abel and SUBMIT to or have FAITH in God and that would have resulted in his obedience. He believed in doing his own works, which leads to disobedience. I know simple faith alone does not save a person but simple faith can grow http://bible.cc/luke/17-6.htm and then the works NATURALLY follow.

Cain could master sin by doing what God wanted.

Abraham did it so I assume Cain could have as well.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thumbelina can't seem to see that to proselytize here is just about the most UNreasonable and UNproductive activity for her to pursue with such misplaced zeal.

 

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the more unreasonable and unproductive a challenge looks to her, the more she thinks she'll 'win'!

Maybe she just likes to fill her life with unreason and unproductive, misplaced effort????

 

I agree that her efforts here are futile. With her inability to present a solid argument, she'll get absolutely nowhere around here. So much for the holy spirit empowering believers, huh?

 

And yes, it's 'ie' not 'ei' intentionally.

Because I wanted nothing at all to do with God when I de-converted, I chose a handle that didn't have the word 'Theist' in it.

 

That's cool. I was just curious. Some people actually erroneously spell it "ahiest," and I even saw an atheist on another board start spelling christian "christain" because he was tired of christians not only misspelling atheist but also throwing fits when someone pointed out the correct spelling.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: God's Law CANNOT be changed, therefore Christ HAD to die in our place in order to uphold the Law.

 

Centauri said: This is convoluted in the extreme.

If God’s law cannot be changed, then Jesus couldn’t have upheld the law.

A human sin sacrifice is not legal under that very law.

 

Thumbelina said: God's law said if you break it you die; all of us are born terminal, the dying process continues in our lifetime. God found a way to uphold His Law AND His justice! Mankind dies once, Jesus/ God came and took our place so we won't have to die the eternal death (non existence) therefore He gave is the gift of eternal life.

God’s law also says that if you keep it, you save your soul.

There is no vicarious human sacrifice involved.

God couldn’t uphold his law by violating it, which is what the sacrifice of Jesus was, a violation.

It wasn’t justice either because God declared that each person would die for their own sin and the death of a third party doesn’t atone for the sins of individuals.

The new covenant doesn’t say a thing about laws being replaced by a one-size-fits-all savior in human form.

What do Ezek 11 and Jer 31 say God would do to ensure that people kept the law?

Does the Old Testament validate faith in a dead messiah replacing the need to keep the law?

If so, where does the Old Testament confirm such a teaching?

 

As an aside…

If mankind only dies once, how do you explain the resurrections of dead people in both the OT and NT?

Did they die twice or once?

Did Elijah and Enoch die?

How about Melchizedek,, did he die?

 

Centauri said: The law isn’t upheld by violating it.

Neither the life of Jesus nor the sacrifice of Jesus provided atonement for sin according to God’s law.

You’re trying to circumvent God’s law via special pleading, claiming that Jesus is a magical one size fits all answer for everything.

It’s revisionist theology.

Where does the Jewish Bible say that a king messiah would end the requirements of the law, be killed, rise from the dead after three days and three nights, and require a second coming thousands of years later in order to do what he failed to do the first time?

 

Thumbelina: "Where does the Jewish Bible say that a king messiah would end the requirements of the law, be killed, ...? " Daniel 9 predicted it. The Jews KNEW the time that the Messiah was supposed to arrive and arrive He did. The old testament sanctuary service also depicts what would have happened and what will happen, including Jesus' priestly ministry after His resurrection.

Please provide the exact verses from Dan 9 that say the death of a king messiah would end the law.

The law is eternal (Psa 119:152,160)

Please reconcile your claim with the following, which states that an expected king would lead people into great compliance with the law.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Dan 9 speaks of two anointed ones, the first being a prince and the second being simply anointed, which could be a king or a priest.

Why are you assuming that Jesus has anything to do with this passage?

Where does Dan 9 say anything about a resurrection or a second coming?

 

If you’re claiming that Jesus was a king messiah, then please validate that from the Old Testament scripture.

When was Jesus anointed as king by a prophet or a high priest?

When did Jesus sit on the throne of David?

When did Jesus lead the people into great compliance with the law?

When did Jesus gather the exiles and rule the nations?

 

" ... rise from the dead after three days ..." Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (cf Acts 2:31 "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.; http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-4.htm 1 Cor. 15:4 "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: ")

Psa 16:10 is about David and his prayers / hopes in regard to his relationship with God.

David is saying that if he puts God first and trusts him, he will not be ultimately abandoned.

Psa 16:9

Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.

 

I don’t see anything in Psa 16 about three days.

 

Using 1 Cor 15:4 to validate death, three days in the grave, and a resurrection is employing circular evidence.

The New Testament cannot be used to prove the New Testament is true.

Do you have anything other than bits and pieces of out of context quotes from the Old Testament to support this?

When Paul said “according to the scriptures”, what scriptures was he referring to?

 

Centauri said: Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

It cannot be any clearer than this.

Salvation is achieved by seeking God’s law and doing it, not by chasing after a pagan human sacrifice.

Moses claimed that the law was not too difficult to obey.

Was Moses a liar?

 

Thumbelina said: Ah, the point is to SEEK, to diligently SEEK and God will do the rest; it's a CHOICE! The bible says that God will help us:

 

I'm convinced that God, who began this good work in you, will carry it through to completion on the day of Christ Jesus. Philippians 1:6

 

 

Psalm 138:8 The LORD will perfect [that which] concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, [endureth] for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

 

1 Corinth 1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, [that ye may be] blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.

 

 

Centauri said:The Lord wasn’t working in Paul, who was an apostate that sought to replace God’s law with his own version of righteousness.

Where does the Jewish Bible confirm that the law would no longer be in effect after the death of a king messiah?

Where does it say that faith in a human sacrifice would replace obedience to the law?

 

Thumbelina: Did you look at one of the cross references to Psa 119:155? It's Psa 73:27 http://bible.cc/psalms/73-27.htm . If one forms a doctrine out of one verse it does or can lead to dubious conclusions. The bible teaches that Jesus is the Word who became flesh --> John 1:1 http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm . The Word and God are used interchangeably. The Psalms and other OT books are replete with people praising or depending on God, the lawgiver, Isaiah 26:3 "Thou wilt keep [him] in perfect peace, [whose] mind [is] stayed [on thee]: because he trusteth in thee.'

Forming and establishing doctrine from pieces of unrelated verses is exactly what Christianity does.

It hop scotches through the Old Testament lifting pieces of scripture and then it pastes them together to justify Jesus as being the expected king messiah.

 

As an aside:

John 1:1 is distortion of Psa 33:6, and there's a distinction to be made.

 

John 1:1 says the Word was God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

Psa 33:6 says the Word was of God.

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

 

If the word of God creates as Psa 33:6 indicates, then Adam was also the word made flesh.

Did that make Adam God?

The word becoming flesh doesn't establish that the word was God himself. If word made flesh was simply the product of his creation, Jesus was no more God himself than Adam was, and Jesus even admitted as much in John 20:17.

 

Virtually everybody familiar with Christianity knows Psalm 27:1

http://bible.cc/psalms/27-1.htm"The LORD [is] my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD [is] the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"

 

Look at Psalm 119:105 calling God's word a lamp and a light ---> "Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

 

See? The word and Lord are used interchangeably. The Saints (redeemed sinners) understood/understand this.

It appears you’re saying that seeking God, without actually obeying him, is sufficient to earn salvation.

Perhaps this is where the magical blood of Jesus takes over.

Given God’s denouncement of those that don’t keep his laws, while only pretending to honor him, that seems to be a risky plan.

I’m not sure you ever resolved how salvation and the law can be separated.

The magical (and illegal) sacrifice of Jesus doesn’t solve anything if the Old Testament is taken seriously.

Can you provide anything from Psa 119 that says seeking after Jesus is just as good as seeking the law?

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: Check out Paul identifying with our struggles in Romans Chapter 7.

We do tend to acknowledge that the Commandments are good and Holy but in our flesh we can't obey them rightly but Paul understood that Jesus is the way to obey them: Romans 7:24- 25 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. ... "

 

 

Centauri said: You keep quoting this apostate (Paul) who preached directly against God’s word under the guise that he had received revelations which overturned God’s prior system.

He attempts to pay lip service to the law while tossing it aside like an old shoe.

Then he urges others to follow his example in a quest for candy coated salvation that bypassed the work of keeping the law.

Paul was a false teacher according to the standard set down in God’s word.

This was the type of thing God warned his people not to be seduced by.

 

Thumbelina: Paul wrote most of the NT and I am a Christian. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul wanted others to be saved also. Paul was obedient to God.

Yes, I understand you’re a Christian and are obligated to constantly promote Christian talking points as facts.

But most people here have already been down that dead end road.

You’re relying primarily on a type of mystical guru for your “facts” about God.

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh and relied on visions, trances, and dreamy revelations for his theological information.

 

Believers lap up this stuff like honey even when it’s shown to be grossly inconsistent with what “God” allegedly told his people long before Paul ever appeared.

[centauri]

Thumbelina,said: What text are you referring to, about Moses saying that the law was not too difficult to obey? Actually it is easier to be saved than to be lost. In order to be lost one has to RESIST the Holy Spirit and God pursues us.

 

 

Centauri said: Per Moses, the law is not too difficult to obey.

Deut 30:11-14(NIV)

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?”

Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?”

No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

 

Thumbelina: The bible basically teaches that faith is the victory that overcomes the world. Maybe you would like to read some commentaries:

 

Deuteronomy 30:11-14. "The righteousness which is of faith" is really and truly described in these words of the Law; and, under Paul's guidance (see marginal references) we affirm was intended so to be. For the simplicity and accessibility which Moses here attributes to the Law of God neither is nor can be experimentally found in it except through the medium of faith; even though outwardly and in the letter that Law be written out for us so "that he may run that readeth," and be set forth in its duties and its sanctions as plainly as it was before the Jews by Moses. The seeming ease of the commandment, and yet its real impossibility to the natural man, form part of the qualifications of the Law to be our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.

This Christian commentary is basically word salad.

It also implies that the law cannot be kept, which is false even by New Testament standards.

Luke 1:5-6 shows that some people could keep the law, just as Moses said.

 

Thumbelina said: Christ (who was WITHOUT sin) became sin for man.

 

Centauri said: Standard Christian propaganda and wishful thinking.

Jesus wasn’t qualified to be a “christ”, specifically a king messiah.

Jesus did sin (as noted below), so the cozy notion that he was sinless is nothing more than an empty talking point.

 

Thumbelina said: Foundational biblical teaching! Jesus was fully God and fully man so He can minister from both sides (I think that is written in Hebrews somewhere) Jesus fulfilled the Law of loving the Father and loving mankind; love fulfills the Law.

 

 

Centauri said: The foundational teaching is that atonement for sin is provided for without the need for pagan human sacrifices.

The foundational teaching is that God is not a man.

Num 23:19, Hosea 11:9, 1 Sam 15:29

 

The Hebrew deity is a singular being, the only savior, there are no others beside him, and he will not give his glory to another.

The Hebrew foundational scriptures were written long before Christian clerics evolved Jesus into God.

 

Jesus did not fulfill the law, undermining parts of it, and he never conformed to the requirements for a valid sin sacrifice.

You don’t fulfill the law by violating it, and claiming otherwise is a sign of revisionist theology and wishful thinking.

Your God-man creation is similar to a magical shirt that’s 100% cotton and 100% wool at the same time.

You’ve also created a conundrum for yourself by claiming Jesus as being fully God and fully man at the same time.

What died on the cross, Jesus the God or Jesus the man?

The death of a man as a sin sacrifice cannot save anyone and no part of God can die at any time due to his eternal and unchanging nature.

Furthermore, if Jesus was fully man, then he wasn’t sinless, having the stain of Adam present because of his human mother.

Jesus wasn’t fully God, he claimed to have a God and did not know things that only God knew.

 

Thumbelina: According to you, how is the atonement (at one ment) achieved between God and man then? God as God is not man. God incarnate came in the likeness of sinful flesh and became a man.

Atonement is made through repenting and following the instructions for atonement.

Lev 16 (the Day of Atonement) is one example.

God does not become a human being.

I previously provided three verses that testify to this.

 

Jesus did not violate any of His own laws.

Jesus was subject to the law of God.

There are no laws in the Old Testament that were given by Jesus.

He undermined some of those laws by teaching contrary to them.

 

What died on the cross was sin. Jesus became sin for us. He died for the whole world but not everyone will accept His gift.

If sin died, then I wouldn’t expect it to still be alive and kicking.

According to many Christians sin has never been more active.

The death of a man cannot atone for the sin of anyone.

Humans are not used in sin sacrifices and are not legal according to God’s law.

If you think otherwise, please show from the law that they are.

Also, according to Acts the early Christians were still making sin sacrifices many years after Jesus had died.

If sin and the law were abolished there would have been no need to do so.

 

Here's an excerpt from my friends over at http://creation.com/ regarding why I said Jesus is fully God and fully man:

 

http://creation.com/dawkins-and-divine-forgiveness#endRef2

 

"This Substitute couldn’t be just anyone. He had to be fully human to substitute for humanity (Hebrews 2:14–17), and perfectly sinless so He would not have sins of His own to atone for (Hebrews 7:27). Furthermore, the Substitute had to be fully divine to endure God’s infinite wrath (Isaiah 53:10).2

There is no substitute needed.

Each person will die for their own sin and can redeem themselves by keeping the law. (Ezek 18:20-27)

Even in the case of communal atonement (Lev 16), the scapegoat that carried sins into the wilderness was a goat and not human being.

It wasn’t killed but released.

The Day of Atonement was to be performed every year in perpetuity.

There is nothing about it being canceled, annulled, or done away with by a human-god hybrid.

Jesus wasn’t sinless according to his own actions and if he were fully human he would have the inherited sin of Adam present as well.

Isaiah 53 is a metaphorical story about the servant Israel and the travail it would go through in order to show the world the restorative power of God, which would be on display in the messianic era.

 

Thus God Himself paid the penalty for our sin by sending His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, to die for the sins of the world. And we see Christ’s resurrection from the dead as proof that God accepted the death of Christ, and that the penalty for sin was “paid in full” (Romans 6:9–10)"

Naturally, this assumes the Trinity is valid, which I maintain is fundamentally flawed and contradicts scripture.

This scenario posits that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to change the rules that he previously made.

God then accepted the death of himself as a solution for a problem he created in the first place.

The penalty wasn’t even paid in full under this absurdity because if the penalty for sin is the ultimate eternal separation from God, then Jesus isn’t serving that punishment and sentence.

Jesus was rewarded by sitting at the right hand of God, he’s not blinked out of existence or in hell.

God is perfectly able to forgive sin without the need for any sacrifice and he did so in Jonah 3.

The Christian version of God is not unlike a volcano god that needs a virgin human sacrifice to appease its wrath.

 

I like the translation of Heb. 2:14,15 from The Living Bible: "Since we, God's children, are human beings -- made of flesh and blood -- He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread."

Why do you like quotes from a book that makes false assertions?

Heb 2:13 claims Jesus said something that was actually said by Isaiah.

Heb 9:22 states that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

That’s a blatantly false statement.

 

Jesus "claimed to have a God" because He was teaching us, He spoke in relational terms so we can comprehend the relationship between Him and the Father. Jesus also laid aside some of His divinity in order to identify with us hence at that time He did not know some of the things God knew.

David spoke of God in relational terms long before Jesus came along.

This apologetic portrays Jesus pretending not to be God when he really was all along.

However, if he set aside his divine nature even for a moment, then he wasn’t fully God.

This also paints a picture of Jesus the man existing on earth while Jesus the God was in a stasis pod somewhere in heaven.

Jesus claimed to have a God even after he was ascended.

The ascended Jesus sits at the side of God. That which sits outside of God isn’t God.

 

That leads back to the original conundrum.

If Jesus the man died on the cross, nobody was saved because the death of a man can’t ransom anyone.

If Jesus the God died, then at least part of God died, which is impossibile.

That which is eternal and omnipresent must be alive or existing at all times.

All of this Trinitarian theological gibberish is avoided simply by sticking to what God said in the Old Testament and not embarking on a magical mystery tour that engages in revisionist theology.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: Christ has been the ONLY being to NOT transgress the Law.

 

Centauri said: False claim.

Jesus undermined God’s dietary law in Mark 7.

Jesus undermined the law to honor parents in Matt 8:21-22.

Jesus gave false testimony to a high priest about his teaching activity in John 18:20.

Undermining the law and teaching against it is sin, along with lying.

 

Thumbelina said: It's the truth! The Jews perverted God's laws and turned them into a system of works. Outwardly they seemed to be following the laws but inwardly they were full of sin. The washing was symbolic and they were hypocritical.

Interesting logic.

The Jews perverted God’s laws by emphasizing their importance, which is what God told them to do.

Paul on the other hand, isn’t a pervert for claiming people are no longer under the law, which is what God told people not to do.

 

Centauri said: The law is a system of salvation based on doing works, the “work” being the affirmative action of keeping the law.

You still haven’t addressed how teaching that the food law was no longer binding is obeying God’s command to avoid eating certain foods.

How is it holy to eat things that God said were abomination?

 

Thumbelina: How are this Jews who are fighting for a piece of bloody (literally) real estate keeping the law of loving their fellow man? They are not under a theocracy now. I had mentioned about the washing in one of my previous posts and I did say that in that particular instance, the washing was a man made edict so I was mistaken when I said: "The washing was symbolic and they were hypocritical."

 

It is not holy to eat abominations; people who knowingly eat abominations when they know they should not, will end up lost (see Isa 66:17) .The health or dietary laws still apply today. The health laws are a positive aspect of the 6th commandment, by eating healthfully one promotes life.

Well, that’s a problem because Jesus declared all food clean.

If all food is clean then the dietary law does not apply today.

 

In Acts chapter 10 vs 14 (The NT), Peter knew that the animals in the vision were unclean and Peter followed Jesus for 31/2 years and he received that vision in 34 AD, 7 years after Jesus had been gone.

If Peter followed Jesus and knew about unclean food, why didn’t he know that Jesus had declared all food clean?

Also, if Peter had this vision in 34 AD, you’re placing the death of Jesus at around 27 AD.

How are you arriving at these dates with such certainty?

 

Thumbelina said: No He did not give a false testimony, He taught openly but the soft hearted people understood His doctrine and the hard hearted people did not understand it.

 

Centauri said:When arrested and questioned by the high priest about his teachings, Jesus made the following statement:

 

John 18:19-20

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

 

There are three claims presented here:

1. Jesus said he spoke openly to the world.

2. Jesus said that he always taught in the synagogue or Temple.

3. Jesus said that he did not teach anything in secret or privately.

 

These points create the impression that Jesus was frank and forthcoming in all his teaching activities, and that he publicly taught in authorized places where the Jews gathered for such activity.

In making these statements, Jesus was misleading and lying to the priest.

Jesus did not always speak openly to public, but at times deliberately concealed information with the use of parables, which were designed to confuse the people.

 

 

Jesus did not always teach the public in a synagogue or Temple setting, the Sermon on the Mount being an example.

Jesus did teach secrets to his inner circle that he never disclosed to the public, and he did this in private.

 

Thumbelina: Centauri, you do know that when writings are translated from one language to another, they can lose their "flavor", right? May I suggest you read some of the commentaries: http://bible.cc/john/18-20.htm John 18:20

 

"I spake openly to the world - To every person in the land indiscriminately - to the people at large: the τῳ κοσμῳ, here, is tantamount to the French tout le monde, all the world, i.e. every person within reach. This is another proof that St. John uses the term world to mean the Jewish people only; for it is certain our Lord did not preach to the Gentiles. The answer of our Lord, mentioned in this and the following verse, is such as became a person conscious of his own innocence, and confident in the righteousness of his cause. I have taught in the temple, in the synagogues, in all the principal cities, towns, and villages, and through all the country. I have had no secret school. You and your emissaries have watched me every where. No doctrine has ever proceeded from my lips, but what was agreeable to the righteousness of the law and the purity of God."

The commentary doesn’t address the problems.

Openly also means without obfuscation.

Jesus deliberately used parables that were designed to keep some people confused.

He claims to always have taught in official synagogues or Temple settings, which is not true.

He did teach secretly or in private to his inner circle in a school master manner.

He never disclosed these teachings and secrets to the general public.

The problem is that if the Gospel of John was the only gospel written, Jesus wouldn’t be in hot holy water regarding his testimony.

However, the other gospels trip him up on his facts, something the author of John either wasn’t aware of or ignored.

 

Jesus did not go anywhere to teach or preach without yapping Pharisees and sadducees at his heels.

I don’t recall any Pharisees being present when Jesus taught his disciples about the end of the age signs in Matt 24, at the Mount of Olives.

Can you find these yapping Pharisees in the text and point it out please?

[centauri]

Centauri said: Were the Israelites required to keep all the law or only parts of it?

 

Thumbelina: Up until Christ died, the Israelites were required to keep all the laws which include the ceremonial laws.

Where does the Old Testament confirm that when a king messiah died, the law would not have to be kept?

Ezek 37:24 says something quite different.

 

Thumbelina said: 4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

Centauri said: This commandment was undermined by Paul, and is ignored by the majority of Christians.

 

Thumbelina said: The bible says "We must obey God rather than men". A person is responsible for what truths they knew and did not follow; to whom much is given much is required. Surely you know that people are going to be judged INDIVIDUALLY, they won't be able to tell God 'I did not do such and such because professed believers did not do such and such'.

Well, those that follow Paul’s teaching will have no excuse then.

They’ll have a lot of explaining to do.

 

Centauri said: Does God want his Sabbath to be observed according to his stipulations or not?

 

Thumbelina: If one is to follow the bible and the bible alone the texts do say that God did want his Sabbath to be observed according to the Ten commandments.

Thanks for that clarification.

I’ll keep it in mind on Sundays when the TV preachers, NASCAR racers, Christian football players, and religious right-wing politicians break this commandment.

 

Thumbelina said: Paul did NOT undermine that commandment. The Sabbath is mentioned 9 times in the book of Acts:

 

Centauri said: I snipped all your links to Acts because they don’t solve the problem or absolve Paul.

The Book of Acts wasn’t written by Paul, it’s attributed to Luke.

 

Thumbelina: Did you at least read the links? Yes I know you like to snip Mr. Centauri Scissor Hands *smile*. When one looks at the texts it shows that Paul's travels and proselytizing were recorded in that book.

 

Acts 13:13-16 13Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. 15And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. 16Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience

 

Acts 13:42 http://bible.cc/acts/13-42.htm 42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath

 

Acts 13:43-45 43Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

44And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

 

Acts Chapter 15 starts off talking about Paul --------> http://kingjbible.com/acts/15.htm and vs 21 which I cited says this: For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

I left the quotes in this time and I was well aware of them.

The problem is that they don’t resolve Paul’s teaching against the sabbath in Col 2:16-17, where Paul declares it a “shadow” and no longer a criteria for judging a persons behavior toward God.

The Paul in Acts is portrayed as a team player, a far different creature than Paul of the epistles.

That’s why I snipped the quotes from Acts. They do not resolve Paul of his own teaching.

Nor do they resolve the problem of what the apostles told the gentiles to do regarding the law.

In Acts 15, where do the apostles tell the gentiles to keep the ten commandments?

What laws do they tell them to keep and where do they tell them to observe a strict seventh day Sabbath?

 

Centauri said: This was allegedly written by Paul:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

 

According to Paul, the written code was rendered obsolete by Jesus, and observing the sabbath day was no longer a meaningful measure of obedience to God.

That teaching directly undermines the fourth commandment.

 

Thumbelina: Yes Paul did write that but he was referring to the feast days and the ceremonies.

 

"It refers only to the sabbaths which were "a shadow of things to come" (verse 17), and not to the seventh-day Sabbath. There were seven yearly holy days in ancient Israel which were also called sabbaths. These were in addition to or "beside the sabbaths of the Lord" (Lev. 23:38), or seventh-day Sabbath.

I don’t see anything in Col 2 verse 16 that exempts the seventh day sabbath from being part of this category of sabbaths.

In fact the GWT Bible shows your apologetic to be false.

Col 2:16 (God’s Word Translation)

Therefore, let no one judge you because of what you eat or drink or about the observance of annual holy days, New Moon Festivals, or weekly worship days.

 

So does the Good News Translation Bible

Col 2:16 (GNT)

So let no one make rules about what you eat or drink or about holy days or the New Moon Festival or the Sabbath.

 

The Amplified Bible is also not very accommodating.

Col 2:16

Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath.

 

God’s instruction for Gentiles was to keep the sabbaths, which includes all of them.

Isa 56:2-7

Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

 

Any way you slice it, Paul’s teaching in Col 2:16 does not line up with God’s word.

[centauri]

Please note also the following texts showing that the law that was a shadow was not the Ten Commandment law, but the law of "ordinances."

 

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect" (Heb. 10:1).

 

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:" (Eph. 2:11-16).

You’re using Paul’s writing to validate his own teachings and then you’ve tweaked his “no more law” mantra into a “no more law except the ten commandents” doctrine.

That’s not a very objective validation and represents expedient rationalization.

 

Apologists don’t want to say the entire law was obsolete so they subjectively pick and choose which laws are still binding. Then they pass the resulting mess off as God’s “new covenant”.

You’re trying to separate the ten commandments from the law and exempt them from Paul’s edict about the law being ended by Christ.

If you can cite a verse from the Old Testament confirming that only the ten commandments would be active in the messianic era I’d love to see it.

Where does the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 confirm this?

Where does Psa 119 confirm this?

This seems rather decisive on the matter:

Deut 11:1 (ESV)

"You shall therefore love the LORD your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always.

 

2 Kings 17:37

And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

 

I don’t see anything in these lists that says anything about “shadow” laws, statutes, rules or ordinances that don’t need to be kept after an expiration date.

 

These all foreshadowed the cross and ended at the cross, but God's seventh-day Sabbath was made before sin entered, and therefore could foreshadow nothing about deliverance from sin. That's why Colossians 2 differentiates and specifically mentions the sabbaths "which are a shadow." These seven yearly sabbaths which were abolished are listed in Leviticus 23.

Col 2:16 isn’t clear at all about the weekly Sabbath not being included.

I provided translations that unquestionably reject your assertion.

Apparently Christians cannot agree on a proper translation of this verse.

The regulations for the Sabbath don’t appear until Exodus, and sin had entered by that time.

The Catholic Church won the battle and the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

I have yet to see any TV evangelicals preaching on Saturday, so they must be in agreement with the Catholics.

The fourth commandment is considered obsolete.

 

There is no “cross” in the Old Testament and it’s Christian revisionism that attempts to downplay God’s law and stuff a cross into the salvation equation.

As noted, the regulations concerning the Sabbath were given in Exodus and to violate them is sin.

I addressed your dubious differentiation theme concerning Col 2. (see above)

 

Are you seriously claiming that the Passover, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles are to be abolished according to Lev 23?

Lev 23 also includes the seventh day Sabbath on the list of holy convocations.

Lev 23:2-3

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

 

These holy convocations are to observed in perpetuity, they aren’t to be abolished at all.

The Passover was defined prior to the ten commandments and is to be kept for all generations.

Exo 12:14

And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

 

The Day of Atonement

Lev 23:31 (NIV)

…This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.

 

The Feast of Tabernacles

Lev 23:41(NIV)

Celebrate this as a festival to the LORD for seven days each year. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come; celebrate it in the seventh month.

 

The apologetic assertion that these are merely “shadows” and were done away with by the “cross” is false and represents a beautiful example of Christian revisionism in all its dishonest glory.

 

The context of this passage in Colossians 2 makes it clear that the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law of Ten Commandments, is being referred to.

No, it is not at all clear, as the Sabbath day is specifically identified in the translations I provided.

It’s also included in Lev 23 as a holy convocation along with the feast days, Passover and the Day of Atonement.

If you want to erase the seventh day sabbath from the lists, then I suggest you write to the editors of the Christian Bibles I quoted and inform them of their faulty translations.

 

In verses 11-13 he states that the circumcision God requires of Christians is not the physical circumcision of the Jewish faith, but a "circumcision made without hands" (verse 11)—that is, the new birth experience. Then he speaks of the "handwriting of ordinances" which was nailed to the cross (verse 14).

That’s yet another heresy, the elimination of the circumcision requirement.

Gen 17 says that’s a lie according to God’s plan and will.

 

Moreover, the sabbaths described in Colossians 2 are associated with meat and drink. The weekly Sabbath had no special requirements concerning meat and drink, but the annual sabbaths did.

The weekly sabbath is included on the list.

 

Col 2:16 (God’s Word Translation)

Therefore, let no one judge you because of what you eat or drink or about the observance of annual holy days, New Moon Festivals, or weekly worship days.

 

Apparently the translators and editors of this Christian Bible haven’t read your apologetic and corrected their error.

Moreover, Paul claimed in Rom 10:4 that Christ was the end of the law.

He did not differentiate that some laws were still in effect and others were not.

 

Indeed these requirements were also a shadow of things to come, pointing forward to the broken body and spilt blood of our Saviour (John 6:50-56). Leviticus 23 clearly indicates the connection between the annual sabbaths and offerings of meat and drink (Lev. 23:13, 17, 18, 37).

This apologetic fails because in the messianic era, the Feast of Tabernacles will still be observed yearly.

It is not merely a “shadow”, nor does it have anything to do with the “blood of our Saviour”.

 

Zech 14:16

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

 

This decisively refutes the Christian claim about the festivals being abolished.

 

Thumbelina said: The Ten Commandment law is moral, spiritual and comprehensive, they contain universal principles and they REFLECT God's character. "The utmost importance of The Ten Commandments to the LORD is evident: the Ark of the Covenant was the exclusive receptacle for the covenant with nothing else inside (Exodus 25:16,21 ); 1 Kings 8:9).

 

Centauri said: According to Heb 9:4 the Ark contained more than just the tablets.

There was something else inside.

It also contained a gold jar and Aaron’s staff.

 

Thumbelina said: The gold jar and Aaron's staff were not in the Ark, the Ark which contained the Ten Commandments written in stone, as well as those objects were in the compartment of the sanctuary that was called the Holy of Holies.

 

Centauri said: Well, what do these verses say about what was inside the Ark?

 

Heb 9:4(NIV)

which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

 

Heb 9:4 (NLT)

In that room were a gold incense altar and a wooden chest called the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered with gold on all sides. Inside the Ark were a gold jar containing manna, Aaron’s staff that sprouted leaves, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

 

Thumbelina: Maybe you are right Centauri, initially it was only the Ten Commandments inside the ark (1 Kings 8:9 http://bible.cc/1_kings/8-9.htm) but apparently the other items may have been added later.

I checked into this further and according to Exo 16:33-34 and Num 17:10, the pot was placed in the Ark and the staff was placed in front of the Ark, not in the Ark.

It was inside the Tent but outside of the Ark to serve as a warning.

Since the Ark was only about 45 inches long, it wasn’t long enough to hold a staff of much length.

 

The pot could have been stolen or taken out at some later date, but the staff was never inside the Ark as best as I can determine.

The author of Hebrews only got his history half correct.

[centauri]

Thumbelina said: The Ten Commandments are mentioned in the Bible under many names. In the first nine verses of Psalms 119, the Ten Commandments are given seven different names: the law of the Lord (verse 1); his testimonies; thy precepts (verse 4); thy statutes (verse 5); thy commandments (verse 6); thy righteous judgements (verse 7) and thy word (verse 9)."

 

Centauri said: This is rather deceptive.

Psa 119 does not refer exclusively to only ten commandments, but to all of God’s laws.

 

Thumbelina said: As I said, the Ten Commandments are comprehensive. Do you think the people who had to sacrifice animals for their sins felt ooey gooey and nice inside? They were supposed to feel terrible because sin causes death! It was to help them to feel sorrowful and repentant.

 

 

Centauri said: Well, Psa 119 is also comprehensive when it declares all of God’s laws to be everlasting.

 

Thumbelina: You gave the chapter but where's the verse?

Psa 119:152,160

Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

 

Psa 119:152,160 (NIV)

Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever.

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

 

Anyway, in the bible everlasting means as long as the thing lives or lasts; if the thing is immortal, like God, then it lasts forever. Sacrificing animals could not be everlasting because it will immortalize sin and death. So it has to mean the commandments that are summarized by loving God and your neighbor as yourself.

It doesn’t have to mean that.

Loving your neighbor, which isn’t even one of the ten commandments, doesn’t take the place of performing the work of obeying all of the laws.

 

The law is the word, the word is of God, and the word endures forever.

Psa 105:8

He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

 

Psa 119:89

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

The sacrifice of animals would take place continually when these rituals are practiced during the messianic era.

Jer 33:18 (NIV)

For this is what the LORD says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,

nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’”

 

These are ceremonial laws regarding sacrifice and burnt offerings and it shows that they will not be abolished at all.

 

Thumbelina said: The Ten commandments or Covenant consists of two parts: the first four commandments, written on both sides of one tablet, are concerned with man's obligation toward God. The last six commandments, written on both sides of the other tablet, are concerned with man's obligation toward others. Jesus Christ clarified the importance of those two parts when He said:

 

Matthew 22:36-40 (New King James Version)

 

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

 

Other parts of the bible affirm the above principles, See Luke 10:27; Deuteronomy 6:4,5; Leviticus 19:18

 

Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

 

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

Centauri said:The command to love your neighbor as yourself isn’t one of the ten commandments.

It comes from Lev 19:18, which is titled in the NIV Bible as “Various Laws”.

Loving your neighbor does not automatically fulfill all of the law.

If the greatest commandment was to love God, then obeying all of his laws (as he asked) is the verification of that love.

It certainly doesn’t mean ignoring some laws while keeping others.

 

Thumbelina said: It's a SUMMARY of the last 6 Commandments. I did not say loving ones neighbor fulfills all the law, one has to love God and then ones neighbor and those two principles SUMMARIZES the entire 10 commandments.

This is going in circles.

Either you’re supposed to obey the laws or you aren’t.

The Old Testament says you cannot pick and choose which laws are binding.

Paul’s sophistry undermines that edict and claims that people are no longer bound by the law.

He claims a human sacrifice did away with the law.

That’s a contradiction in a multitude of ways and I haven’t read anything here that resolves it.

You are never supposed to add or subtract from the law. (Deut 4:2)

The laws do not go away or become obsolete when a king messiah arrives, leaving only ten of them in place.

If you disagree with that, then cite the Old Testament passage that says they will be abolished.

 

Centauri said: This is Paul’s handiwork.

While declaring the law as being outdated and a curse, he still pays lip service to the theme for 5 of the ten commandments.

Rom 3:10 creates the impression that complying with one edict fulfills “the law”.

I’ve had preachers tell me that’s why believers are not required to obey all of God’s law but a few of them.

It begs the question of why Paul would pay lip service to a few commandments with a vague platitude while telling people that the bulk of the law was outdated and no longer binding.

The edict about killing (or murder) is rather subjective seeing that God gave instructions to kill other populations and even his own people that violated key laws.

 

Thumbelina: Paul was talking about the ceremonial laws and not the Ten Commandments.

There is no such qualifier in any of the following:

Rom 10:4

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

Gal 5:18

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

Gal 3:24-25

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

 

Eph 2:14-15(NLT)

For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us.

He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

 

Eph 2:14-15(GNT)

For Christ himself has brought us peace by making Jews and Gentiles one people. With his own body he broke down the wall that separated them and kept them enemies.

He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace

 

As already demonstrated, festivals, sacrifices, and ceremonial laws would be functioning in the messianic era.

Even if Paul had written something like this:

Gal 5:18

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law, except for the ten commandments, which you are still under.

 

His message would be false, for there is nothing in the Old Testament that confirms it.

 

Romans 3:10 http://bible.cc/romans/3-10.htm is letting us know that we are ALL sinners and that it is God who draws us to Himself. Are you sure it was Romans 3:10 you wanted to quote? Which laws were the preachers referring to? I have had some experiences with preachers before and some things they said did not square with the bible. Paul knew the prophecies well and just like the Jews he had misinterpreted some of the prophecies about the Messiah but God realized Paul was sincere so God confronted Paul on the Damascus Road and Paul fully understood Christ's mission and Paul then expounded the scriptures but Paul did not add or take away anything that was necessary; he obeyed the Holy Spirit's leading.

What do suppose God meant when he commanded his people not to add or subtract from the law but to keep his laws always?

Your assertion that God confronted Paul is highly questionable.

Paul was confronted by a light beam that identified itself as "Jesus".

Jesus isn't God and the light beam could just as easily have been Satan.

 

God had to establish somewhat secular governments during those times and God chose to eradicate some of the evil during that time, otherwise the wicked would have really grown to exponential proportions; God wanted to curb that. The essence of murder is that it requires meditation and MALICE, secular authorities were/are supposed to be impartial and their role was/is to mete out judgment to offenders based on the evidence for or against the accused. There was a time when Israel was under a Theocracy and that is mainly the time when God instructed them to eradicate the evil nations that wanted to destroy Israel. God is the ultimate judge and God is NEVER malicious.

So you have no problem with the complete extermination of all breathing life forms as long as God desires it?

I'm not sure how donkeys, sheep, etc are evil.

Can you expound on that?

[bornagainathiest]

Thumbelina can't seem to see that to proselytize here is just about the most UNreasonable and UNproductive activity for her to pursue with such misplaced zeal.

 

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the more unreasonable and unproductive a challenge looks to her, the more she thinks she'll 'win'!

Maybe she just likes to fill her life with unreason and unproductive, misplaced effort????

 

I agree that her efforts here are futile. With her inability to present a solid argument, she'll get absolutely nowhere around here. So much for the holy spirit empowering believers, huh?

 

Agreed.

 

But, that now throws up a tricky question - for me, at least.

 

If I acknowledge that everything she does here is ultimately futile, should I be bothered with her? She'll fail if I go up against her and she'll fail if I don't. That's a given, even she can't or won't see it. So, is she really worth the effort?

And yes, it's 'ie' not 'ei' intentionally.

Because I wanted nothing at all to do with God when I de-converted, I chose a handle that didn't have the word 'Theist' in it.

 

That's cool. I was just curious. Some people actually erroneously spell it "ahiest," and I even saw an atheist on another board start spelling christian "christain" because he was tired of christians not only misspelling atheist but also throwing fits when someone pointed out the correct spelling.

 

No problem!

 

P'raps we should use 'Xian' in preference to Christian or Christain? Fewer keystrokes, for a start.

 

BAA.

[★ Citsonga ★]

If I acknowledge that everything she does here is ultimately futile, should I be bothered with her? She'll fail if I go up against her and she'll fail if I don't. That's a given, even she can't or won't see it. So, is she really worth the effort?

 

That's for you to decide for yourself. As for myself, I gave up on Thumby a long time ago, because she has a horrible habit of ignoring what you point out, tossing in a bunch of unsubstantiated bible quotes and repeating things you've already debunked. She's like a talking doll, where the string gets pulled and the same few things keep repeating, regardless of what you say to it. I can't tolerate that, so I haven't bothered to debate Thumby for a while.

 

I think Centauri is doing a great job here, though, and I wish him luck.

[agnosticator]

Centauri,

 

I think Thumbelina is a Seventh-Day Adventist, or she just agrees with their doctrines about the Sabbath and 10 Commandments. Maybe it will help you to Google and search the SDA sites. You'll find the same beliefs there.

[centauri]

Centauri,

 

I think Thumbelina is a Seventh-Day Adventist, or she just agrees with their doctrines about the Sabbath and 10 Commandments. Maybe it will help you to Google and search the SDA sites. You'll find the same beliefs there.

Yes, I think you're right.

Maybe she can identify exactly which flavor of Christianity she belongs to.

If she does believe in the Saturday Sabbath, then she certainly has her work cut out to inform other Christians about the error of their ways.

It might be interesting to have some true Christians duel over that issue.

That would keep them busy for years.

[bornagainathiest]

If I acknowledge that everything she does here is ultimately futile, should I be bothered with her? She'll fail if I go up against her and she'll fail if I don't. That's a given, even she can't or won't see it. So, is she really worth the effort?

 

That's for you to decide for yourself. As for myself, I gave up on Thumby a long time ago, because she has a horrible habit of ignoring what you point out, tossing in a bunch of unsubstantiated bible quotes and repeating things you've already debunked. She's like a talking doll, where the string gets pulled and the same few things keep repeating, regardless of what you say to it. I can't tolerate that, so I haven't bothered to debate Thumby for a while.

 

I think Centauri is doing a great job here, though, and I wish him luck.

 

Yes, more power to Centauri!

 

Re: the Thumb...

Yes, debate (in the usually accepted definition of that word) is impossible with her. As is holding her accountable for the claims she makes. As is asking her to see anything from any other p.o.v. than her own. As is... (You get the picture?)

On the plus side, she does give us a sad insight into the irrational mind-set we've left behind. She's also moderate value and good for a chuckle, now and then. And she provides good fodder for the likes of Centauri.

 

Currently I'm maintaining a holding pattern to see what her next move is. That's because I'm inclined to think that Mriana's onto something. Is Thumbelina a Bibliolater? Could be...

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[agnosticator]

Maybe she can identify exactly which flavor of Christianity she belongs to.

If she does believe in the Saturday Sabbath, then she certainly has her work cut out to inform other Christians about the error of their ways.

 

She could tell Paul how he's wrong about celebrating the Resurrection on The Lord's Day! Ask Thumbellina what she thinks about Ellen G. White. She's the SDA's Prophetess.