Suzanne Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What did the Mosaic law prefigure. Was the levitical priesthood supposed to end? Was there a priesthood that predated the levitical one? You're trying to answer my question with another question. That is not an answer. I'll rephrase more clearly if my (admittedly slightly ironic) first question wasn't clear, and I hope to get a clear answer from you. If it is a no no to "ditch" the Old Testament, then why it is okay not to behave according to its laws? (I've never seen a Christian stone someone to death, so I assume it's okay not to live by this law.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What did the Mosaic law prefigure. When does the Mosaic law end according to the Old Testament? Was the levitical priesthood supposed to end? Not according to God. Was there a priesthood that predated the levitical one? Explain how this ends the levitical priesthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I looked at the video. First off, I would say that that missionary was monumentally ignorant of scripture and ill prepared for mission work. I noticed he believed in ditching the OT and that's a no no. Christians routinely ditch the Old Testament whenever it's convenient for them to do so. That may be true in SOME cases but you should not generalize. Generalizing in this case is quite appropriate. Most Christians will cite Paul, the uber apostate, as justification for their picking and choosing which laws are important. I've yet to hear any Christian radio station or encounter a preacher that doesn't praise and quote Paul's theological musings. Hey darlin', I don't know what the den would be like without you. Paul was not an apostate, he was a sincere man who finally found the truth. Now, if you permit the spittle and clay you'll find it too Paul was selling a "new and improved" religion, Thou hast said. He was expounding the New Covenant. He was doing this: 1 John 2:7 . The Old Covenant failed because the people were faulty but Jesus being the fulfillment of the types and shadows caused the gospel to truly be understood and the law can now be written on people's hearts. Cite the passage from the Old Testament that says the new covenant would be based on belief in a pagan human sacrifice that dies for your sin. Cite the passage from the Old Testament that says the law would be changed by a king messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thou hast said. He was expounding the New Covenant. He was doing this: 1 John 2:7 . The Old Covenant failed because the people were faulty but Jesus being the fulfillment of the types and shadows caused the gospel to truly be understood and the law can now be written on people's hearts. How could the Old Covenant have failed, if it was perfect? (See quote below.) The people may have been faulty, but then again, they always had been (since Adam and Eve) and still the law was written. Why, if it could never work? The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psa 19:7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 He gives us choices, He's a gentleman and does not force Himself on people. In reality if someone does that it will be called rape. You do know that the bible states that there will be wolves in sheep's clothing, right? There are also people who behave badly now but will eventually change their ways. What I'm trying to figure out is why I'm drawn to atheistic types when they are so mischievous. I reckon God loves them and wants them to know it, some people see them as nobodies In that case, you and many others like you are raping us every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I looked at the video. First off, I would say that that missionary was monumentally ignorant of scripture and ill prepared for mission work. I noticed he believed in ditching the OT and that's a no no. Christians routinely ditch the Old Testament whenever it's convenient for them to do so. That may be true in SOME cases but you should not generalize. Generalizing in this case is quite appropriate. Most Christians will cite Paul, the uber apostate, as justification for their picking and choosing which laws are important. I've yet to hear any Christian radio station or encounter a preacher that doesn't praise and quote Paul's theological musings. Hey darlin', I don't know what the den would be like without you. Paul was not an apostate, he was a sincere man who finally found the truth. Now, if you permit the spittle and clay you'll find it too Paul was selling a "new and improved" religion, Thou hast said. He was expounding the New Covenant. He was doing this: 1 John 2:7 . The Old Covenant failed because the people were faulty but Jesus being the fulfillment of the types and shadows caused the gospel to truly be understood and the law can now be written on people's hearts. So, forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist was just misunderstood in the past? What, did "moses" write it down wrong? How is that specific command to be interpreted now? Force her to only date the rapist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What did the Mosaic law prefigure. Was the levitical priesthood supposed to end? Was there a priesthood that predated the levitical one? You're trying to answer my question with another question. That is not an answer. I'll rephrase more clearly if my (admittedly slightly ironic) first question wasn't clear, and I hope to get a clear answer from you. If it is a no no to "ditch" the Old Testament, then why it is okay not to behave according to its laws? (I've never seen a Christian stone someone to death, so I assume it's okay not to live by this law.) Some christians stone witches in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What did the Mosaic law prefigure. Was the levitical priesthood supposed to end? Was there a priesthood that predated the levitical one? You're trying to answer my question with another question. That is not an answer. That's how Jesus did it. He liked people to THINK. I get weary with bombastic biblically illiterate atheists who I can usually spot because they usually like to use the mantra " No true Scottsman" and they regurgitate the stuff from SAB and evilbible websites. They usually have a good measure of ad homs and drama too. Asking questions can sometimes weed them out. I'll rephrase more clearly if my (admittedly slightly ironic) first question wasn't clear, and I hope to get a clear answer from you. If it is a no no to "ditch" the Old Testament, then why it is okay not to behave according to its laws? (I've never seen a Christian stone someone to death, so I assume it's okay not to live by this law.) The bible has historical books, not because certain events are recorded means that they should be carried out. Those events were part of the Mosaic law when Isrrael was under a theocracy and the Lord led. We learn from history so we won't have to LEARN from history, do you get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 He gives us choices, He's a gentleman and does not force Himself on people. In reality if someone does that it will be called rape. You do know that the bible states that there will be wolves in sheep's clothing, right? There are also people who behave badly now but will eventually change their ways. What I'm trying to figure out is why I'm drawn to atheistic types when they are so mischievous. I reckon God loves them and wants them to know it, some people see them as nobodies In that case, you and many others like you are raping us every day. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Some christians stone witches in Africa. I've never seen it, though. Okay, slight adjustment: I've never heard of it happen in Europe or the US and I think it's safe to assume that even the most fundamentalist churches don't regularly practice stoning. Question remains the same: why is that okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 What did the Mosaic law prefigure. Was the levitical priesthood supposed to end? Was there a priesthood that predated the levitical one? You're trying to answer my question with another question. That is not an answer. That's how Jesus did it. He liked people to THINK. I get weary with bombastic biblically illiterate atheists who I can usually spot because they usually like to use the mantra " No true Scottsman" and they regurgitate the stuff from SAB and evilbible websites. They usually have a good measure of ad homs and drama too. Asking questions can sometimes weed them out. I'll rephrase more clearly if my (admittedly slightly ironic) first question wasn't clear, and I hope to get a clear answer from you. If it is a no no to "ditch" the Old Testament, then why it is okay not to behave according to its laws? (I've never seen a Christian stone someone to death, so I assume it's okay not to live by this law.) The bible has historical books, not because certain events are recorded means that they should be carried out. Those events were part of the Mosaic law when Isrrael was under a theocracy and the Lord led. We learn from history so we won't have to LEARN from history, do you get it? THUMBY. THE. BIBLE. IS. NOT. HISTORICAL. let me say that again, to be clear. THE BIBLE IS NOOOOOOOOOTTTT HISSSTTOOORRRIICCAAALLL. Jews and Christians have been digging up the middle east from Egypt to Iraq for 100 + years and there is SHIT to prove anything in the bible. NO EXODUS, NO MOUNT SINAI, NO ACTUAL EMPTY TOMB, NADA!!! git u sum a dat der edyoomacayshun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @ Centauri, you do not trace doctrines throughout the bible and you don't PERMIT the HS to guide you. Unless you do you will keep on repeating those questions for you will see and not perceive ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 He gives us choices, He's a gentleman and does not force Himself on people. Unless he predestines certain actions or choices for them, and the Bible states that God does do this. You're not in a position to know how much is predestined and how much is choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thou hast said. He was expounding the New Covenant. He was doing this: 1 John 2:7 . The Old Covenant failed because the people were faulty but Jesus being the fulfillment of the types and shadows caused the gospel to truly be understood and the law can now be written on people's hearts. How could the Old Covenant have failed, if it was perfect? (See quote below.) The people may have been faulty, but then again, they always had been (since Adam and Eve) and still the law was written. Why, if it could never work? The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psa 19:7) I did say the fault was with the PEOPLE; God allows CHOICE! Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: The law is perfect, us dang humans are a mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @ Centauri, you do not trace doctrines throughout the bible and you don't PERMIT the HS to guide you. Unless you do you will keep on repeating those questions for you will see and not perceive... Thumby, you will not see or perceive SCIENTIFIC FACT AND ARCHAELOGICAL PROOF. when its staring you in the dang face! You'll take the words of some ancient nomadic sheep herders that lived 2-3000 years ago with their superstitions, death cult sacrifice habits and zero scientific understanding of anything over solid, bedrock scientific theory (and no, "theory" doesnt mean "hypothesis"). WAAAAKKEE UUUPPP. *snap snap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 @ Centauri, you do not trace doctrines throughout the bible and you don't PERMIT the HS to guide you. Unless you do you will keep on repeating those questions for you will see and not perceive... And you make up doctrine that has no support from the Old Testament, attempting to pass it off as divine revelation. Rest assured, I'll keep repeating the questions because it holds you accountable for your claims. The lack of answers on your part is quite revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thumby, you DO realize throwing bible verses at non believers amounts to chimps throwing poo at humans, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 He gives us choices, He's a gentleman and does not force Himself on people. In reality if someone does that it will be called rape. You do know that the bible states that there will be wolves in sheep's clothing, right? There are also people who behave badly now but will eventually change their ways. What I'm trying to figure out is why I'm drawn to atheistic types when they are so mischievous. I reckon God loves them and wants them to know it, some people see them as nobodies In that case, you and many others like you are raping us every day. So which Christian plucks out your orbs and forces you to read, huh? See what I mean about mischievous atheist types? I like you but not those shenanigans of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The bible has historical books, not because certain events are recorded means that they should be carried out. But those events are not just a recording, they are a direct command from God. He does not change his mind. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. (1Sam 15:29) Those events were part of the Mosaic law when Isrrael was under a theocracy and the Lord led. We learn from history so we won't have to LEARN from history, do you get it? Don't you consider yourself under the rule of God (Greek: theokratia = rule of God), led by him? Then what makes the present situation different from that period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I looked at the video. First off, I would say that that missionary was monumentally ignorant of scripture and ill prepared for mission work. I noticed he believed in ditching the OT and that's a no no. Christians routinely ditch the Old Testament whenever it's convenient for them to do so. That may be true in SOME cases but you should not generalize. Generalizing in this case is quite appropriate. Most Christians will cite Paul, the uber apostate, as justification for their picking and choosing which laws are important. I've yet to hear any Christian radio station or encounter a preacher that doesn't praise and quote Paul's theological musings. Hey darlin', I don't know what the den would be like without you. Paul was not an apostate, he was a sincere man who finally found the truth. Now, if you permit the spittle and clay you'll find it too Paul was selling a "new and improved" religion, Thou hast said. He was expounding the New Covenant. He was doing this: 1 John 2:7 . The Old Covenant failed because the people were faulty but Jesus being the fulfillment of the types and shadows caused the gospel to truly be understood and the law can now be written on people's hearts. So, forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist was just misunderstood in the past? What, did "moses" write it down wrong? How is that specific command to be interpreted now? Force her to only date the rapist? That's not what happened and if you read it and study for YOURSELF with the help of the HS it will show that it was fornicators that had to marry. Rapists were killed. Don't ask me to look that up, I did it on here already and scoffers IGNORE it because they don't WANT to see it. Then they jump to something else to pick on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thou hast said. He was expounding the New Covenant. He was doing this: 1 John 2:7 . The Old Covenant failed because the people were faulty but Jesus being the fulfillment of the types and shadows caused the gospel to truly be understood and the law can now be written on people's hearts. How could the Old Covenant have failed, if it was perfect? (See quote below.) The people may have been faulty, but then again, they always had been (since Adam and Eve) and still the law was written. Why, if it could never work? The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psa 19:7) I did say the fault was with the PEOPLE; God allows CHOICE! Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: The law is perfect, us dang humans are a mess! What choice does God allow? He allows the choice between loving him and burning in hell eternally. That's not a choice, no one willingly submits themselves to an eternity of pain. The only reasonable of the two is to love God in order to be saved of hell. Again, that is not a real choice. In Psalms (above) it says that the perfect law 'makes wise the simple'. Still, a New Covenant was necessary. Because the perfect law of old did not actually make wise the simple? How does that work? Interesting that you would quote from the New Testament to say that a New Covenant was necessary. Could you give me one verse in the Old Testament where it says such a thing? Because as far as I know, the Old Testament is all about the Old Covenant, and never once mentions a new one. Then suddenly Jesus comes along and we do need a new one, provided by Jesus, according to his followers. Does this seem a little shady to you also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The bible has historical books, not because certain events are recorded means that they should be carried out. But those events are not just a recording, they are a direct command from God. He does not change his mind. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. (1Sam 15:29) Those events were part of the Mosaic law when Isrrael was under a theocracy and the Lord led. We learn from history so we won't have to LEARN from history, do you get it? Don't you consider yourself under the rule of God (Greek: theokratia = rule of God), led by him? Then what makes the present situation different from that period? This is why the bible recorded certain events: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: The bible does not sugar coat. Christians are not part of the commonwealth of Israel and the Old Covenant came to an end when Jesus died anyway. He was the fulfillment of all those ceremonies. Some laws were enforced to protect the lineage of the Messiah and they are not needed anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 " If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deut. 22:28-29 THUMBY. it says NOTHING about 'fornicators'. it says if a man is CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF RAPING a young woman, he has to pay her dad (you break it you buy it). Then the poor girl is to be married to that shitbag. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thumb, is jealousy a sin? Yes. Gal 5:19-20 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions Then God is a sinner. Exodus 34:14 "For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 This is why the bible recorded certain events: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: You keep using the word 'record', yet clearly that is not what the verse is about. Recording implies a passive bystander, a neutral party. Yet this is a direct command from God, nothing neutral about it. If this verse is doctrine or instruction for righteousness, then why are you not living by it? Reproving or correcting it, however, is not permitted. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt 5:18) The bible does not sugar coat. No, it has an awful lot of nasty things in it, some of which supposedly inspired by the benevolent and loving God. I'm still not sure how to reconcile those two things. Christians are not part of the commonwealth of Israel and the Old Covenant came to an end when Jesus died anyway. He was the fulfillment of all those ceremonies. Some laws were enforced to protect the lineage of the Messiah and they are not needed anymore. So you're saying that the law (and that encompasses the entire Old Testament, I might add) was written only for the commonwealth of Israel? You don't have anything to do with it, then. That, to me, sounds an awful lot like ditching it... Again, where in the Old Testament does it say that Jesus would do away with the Old Covenant? You haven't answered that yet. I'm off to have dinner, be back later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts