Oh, That's Just The Old Testament

[centauri]

What I find ironic in the way Christians brush off the problems with "oh, that's just the Old Testament" is the fact that most Christians claim that morality is "absolute" (i.e., unchanging). So, when confronted with the morally reprehensible crap supposedly endorsed by God in the Hebrew Scriptures, brushing it off with "oh, that's just the Old Testament" actually completely undermines their "absolute morality" claim.

This is a great observation because it shows just how relative and subjective Christianity is when it comes to defining "God".

Any laws that are deemed tedious or outdated are cast aside under the excuse that God changed his system.

There is nothing in the Old Testament that says one can pick and choose which laws are temporary and which ones are "absolute".

[CliffordStamper]

 

The Trinity is not in the bible. It is from the Nicene Creed. (This is something very few Christians Know) The Nicene Creed was the first big attempt to unite Christianity under one banner (so to Speak)  By uniting the three (trinity) They make the God of the OT,the NT and the spirit into one God  with the Holy Spirit their presence  after Jesus was Crucified. There by tying the Jews and Christians into one group with only one God which separates Christianity from the pagan religions.

 

The father/God and the son/Jesus are one in purpose and spirit, NOT one God.

 

To know the  Holy Spirit ; Everywhere you see holy spirit/Ghost replace it with LOVE/ pure love/complete love/ Gods love/ 

If you have never felt the power of love this will mean nothing to you,

 

 

BTW To be "Christian" one must accept the Trinity doctrine as truth    I DO NOT!!!!

MisterTwo,

 

As far as the trinity not being in the Bible, although the word is not used there, the story of Jesus' baptism quite clearly has three the three personalities in one place at one time. Now there may be lots of arguments saying that it means something else, but Father speaks and Holy Spirit descends and lands on Son makes it pretty easy to accept that as a possible interpretation.

The father is in heaven, the son is in the flesh (mortal), and the "Holy Spirit" is God's love.  I believe that if you read the NT with this scenario in mind you will get a better understanding . maybe not???

 

Regarding having to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, the "oneness" groups reject the Trinity, and as far as I know everyone considers the to be Christians.

Christianity is such a cluster that there is no way one can determine who is or not "Christian"  They all are different in some way and all are positive their was is the only way "THE TRUTH"

 

 

Not that it matters a hill of beans. There's enough inconsistency in the New Testament to come up with all sorts of variations. Believing in a particular one is not a requirement, to be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus is the son of god, period. That's all the Ethiopian Eunuch confessed to.

The Ethiopian believed and accepted what was before him.  He had only part of a copy of one of the epistles(letters). The problem many have with scripture is that they leave it at the interpretation..They don't examine it, they don't consider it's context   they don't look for it's purpose it's reason.  They don't even consider other  possible translations, purposes or possible insight that may come from it.

 

You're the only person I've ever heard of trying to say that Jesus is their lord and savior but that they are NOT a Christian. Belief in the trinity is definitely not a requirement.

​By simple definition I am a "Christian" I follow His teachings by personal experience and the scriptures. The title means many things to most people most of which  stops, hinders or distorts communication.  

Cliff

[mymistake]

The father is in heaven, the son is in the flesh (mortal), and the "Holy Spirit" is God's love.  I believe that if you read the NT with this scenario in mind you will get a better understanding . maybe not???

 

 

 

 

The best understanding is achieved when you read the Bible with the scenario that it was written and then rewritten and then edited multiple times by flawed, ignorant men who mostly didn't agree with each other.  Some of them were rivals, perhaps even enemies.  They often saw each other's beliefs as false religion leading people astray.  That is why there are so many gospels - each one correcting the "mistakes" in the older versions that were already in print.  Paul mocked the other apostles and urged his followers to not listen to them.  Whoever wrote James was against Paul's followers.  Clearly the author of Revelation was also against Paul.  He wrote seven letters to seven churches (perhaps all that was left of his sect) and no shout out to Paul even though it was Paul's old stomping grounds.  These guys were con artists trying to carve out an empire of followers.

 

 

 

By simple definition I am a "Christian" I follow His teachings by personal experience and the scriptures. The title means many things to most people most of which  stops, hinders or distorts communication.

 

Well that explains why we are confused about you.

 

 

 

​  

[Ravenstar]

Hey  wait! How did this thread get hijacked? Isn't the topic about how some christians brush off the OT as irrelevant?

 

We already have a topic discussing Cliff's christianity/non-christianity... whatever, on the rants and replies section.

 

just sayin'  

[Lerk]

Hey  wait! How did this thread get hijacked? Isn't the topic about how some christians brush off the OT as irrelevant?

 

We already have a topic discussing Cliff's christianity/non-christianity... whatever, on the rants and replies section.

 

just sayin'  

I think we need a new board called "all Cliff all the time", which is the only be he is allowed to post in.

[sdelsolray]

Hey  wait! How did this thread get hijacked? Isn't the topic about how some christians brush off the OT as irrelevant?

 

We already have a topic discussing Cliff's christianity/non-christianity... whatever, on the rants and replies section.

 

just sayin'  

Some people need attention and will hijack threads to get it.

[mymistake]

I am sorry all here have been taught incorrect things about the Torah when you were still Christians.  That's all I gotta say about that.  Some of what I have read here has been the truth. 

 

It's okay.  We figured it out.  That is how we wound up here.  I wish Christians would stop indoctrinating children.  Religion really should be between consenting adults.  Let kids grow up and develop the capacity to think for themselves before you fill their heads with nonsense.

[RipVanWinkle]

The NT was, to a large extent, created from the OT so as to make it appear as though OT "prophesies" were being fulfilled. 

Jesus "explained" to his fellow travelers on the road to Emmaus how everything in the OT had been or will be "fulfilled", Of course he didn't elaborate exactly what or how this was done.

Many authors have demonstrated this, such as Randal Helms in "Gospels Fictions". It was a very clever, but deceitful tactic.  bill

[RipVanWinkle]

" I can reconcile those contradictions, but I assume some/most/all are beyond the point of having those inconsistencies in the bible answered?" funguyrye

 

One can reconcile any conflict, so long as he is not intellectually honest. Listen to the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Tell me, funguyrye, did you figure out how to reconcile the OT inconsistencies by yourself? If you had help, by whom and what did the help consist of?   bill

[Ravenstar]

What was your first guess?   Let me think now...

 

Could it be the EX.. before christian in the title of the site?

[slave2six]

"Sooo... God is bipolar?"

 

"So, God torments and kills people in the OT when there was no Hell. Then Jesus comes and preaches nicey nice but then invents eternal torture in Hell for people who don't believe in him. And St. John sees a vision in which god reverts back to tormenting and killing people in the last days and then sending all those people into an eternal hell. And you think that 'god is love'? Wow."

[mymistake]

 

 

I am sorry all here have been taught incorrect things about the Torah when you were still Christians.  That's all I gotta say about that.  Some of what I have read here has been the truth. 

 

It's okay.  We figured it out.  That is how we wound up here.  I wish Christians would stop indoctrinating children.  Religion really should be between consenting adults.  Let kids grow up and develop the capacity to think for themselves before you fill their heads with nonsense.

 

I guess you are at the point whether it doesn't matter whether Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, or a Sunday morning church goer, your faith is gone eh?  That the so called contradictions in the bible has been man made, yet God never said there was a new dispensation of grace versus law.  I can reconcile those contradictions, but I assume some/most/all are beyond the point of having those inconsistencies in the bible answered?

 

 

The easiest way to reconcile the contradictions is to realize that the Bible is the word of ignorant men who could not agree with each other.  You will not find a simpler solution to that problem.

 

Now apply Occam's Razor.  Which solution is better?  Is it the one that takes the Bible at face value and realizes that the Bible is just like every other work of antiquity or the aplologetic solution that has the words not meaning what they normally mean and we have to factor in local customs for why what it looks like isn't what it looks like all because the Bible is the word of an all powerful, all knowing, loving deity who for mysterious reasons doesn't act powerful, knowing, loving and cannot be detected by any means?

 

The Rabbi Jesus was a Torah observing Jew.  He died about a couple hundred years before Paul was born.  Jesus Christ was a spiritual being that Paul dreamed up.  Paul's credentials for being an apostle were contained entirely in Paul's claim to have seen a vision from Christ.  Paul created the new dispensation of grace over the law.  Jesus of Nazareth was an invention of the synoptic writers who were responding to Paul's Jesus Christ.  And the gospel writers didn't stop there.  They kept writing gospels into the 3rd and 4th century much like how the King Author legend continued to grow as that story got expanded by new authors.

 

There is no way you can reconcile all of the observations that have been made to favor an honest God.  The facts are not on your side.  You are practicing faith - that is belief despite the facts.  I've tried the fact-free believing and I'm done with that.

 

(edited to clarify)

[pawn]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry all here have been taught incorrect things about the Torah when you were still Christians. That's all I gotta say about that. Some of what I have read here has been the truth.

It's okay. We figured it out. That is how we wound up here. I wish Christians would stop indoctrinating children. Religion really should be between consenting adults. Let kids grow up and develop the capacity to think for themselves before you fill their heads with nonsense.

I guess you are at the point whether it doesn't matter whether Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, or a Sunday morning church goer, your faith is gone eh? That the so called contradictions in the bible has been man made, yet God never said there was a new dispensation of grace versus law. I can reconcile those contradictions, but I assume some/most/all are beyond the point of having those inconsistencies in the bible answered?

The easiest way to reconcile the contradictions is to realize that the Bible is the word of ignorant men who could not agree with each other. You will not find a simpler solution to that problem.

 

Now apply Occam's Razor. Which solution is better? Is it the one that takes the Bible at face value and realizes that the Bible is just like every other work of antiquity or the aplologetic solution that has the words not meaning what they normally mean and we have to factor in local customs for why what it looks like isn't what it looks like all because the Bible is the word of an all powerful, all knowing, loving deity who for mysterious reasons doesn't act powerful, knowing, loving and cannot be detected by any means?

 

The Rabbi Jesus was a Torah observing Jew. He died about a couple hundred years before Paul was born. Jesus Christ was a spiritual being that Paul dreamed up. Paul's credentials for being an apostle were contained entirely in Paul's claim to have seen a vision from Christ. Paul created the new dispensation of grace over the law. Jesus of Nazareth was an invention of the synoptic writers who were responding to Paul's Jesus Christ. And the gospel writers didn't stop there. They kept writing gospels into the 3rd and 4th century much like how the King Author legend continued to grow as that story got expanded by new authors.

 

There is no way you can reconcile all of the observations that have been made to favor an honest God. The facts are not on your side. You are practicing faith - that is belief despite the facts. I've tried the fact-free believing and I'm done with that.

 

(edited to clarify)

+1000,000,000,000,000

 

Exactly. It's so plainly obvious that christianity and the New Testament are distinctly "Pauline" because Paul and his cult-followers virtually invented christianity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is generally how I deal with this claim:

 

If you are going to tell me that the entire bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of god, then the old testament still applies.  If you think it doesn't, then you are dishonest in your claim that the bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of god.

[sdelsolray]

I guess you are at the point whether it doesn't matter whether Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, or a Sunday morning church goer, your faith is gone eh?

…

 

"Guessing" is rarely a good strategy.  Admitting you are guessing is a classic blunder, particularly in an adversarial context.

 

 

…

That the so called contradictions in the bible has been man made, yet God never said there was a new dispensation of grace versus law.

…

Complete and coherent sentences are important for coherent discourse.  I suggest you use them.

 

…

I can reconcile those [biblical] contradictions….

 

Just not in anyway you can demonstrate.

 

…but I assume some/most/all [of you] are beyond the point of having those inconsistencies in the bible answered?

 

You assume much, too much.  Your grandiosity drips from your posts.  I am not impressed.

 

However, I am not that important.  And neither are you.

[Jedah]

The only thing frustrating about this argument is that christian apologists, even the supposed "professional" apologists, continue to try and use this argument despite the fact that the flaws in it have been pointed out literally thousands of times.

 

-An omni-benevolent God by definition cannot change his morality.

-An omniscient God by definition cannot change his beliefs.

-The NT very explicitly states that none of the OT is invalid in multiple locations. Even Jesus himself said so In Matthew 5.17-18.

-Nowhere in the NT does it specifically state the OT is now irrelevant because of the passion.

 

You can point these glaring issues out the apologists all day and they will ignore them every time.

[mymistake]

 

Although I disagree with almost everything here, Paul created absolutely nothing.  He was simply speaking to a bunch of hellenist and greeks what the faith of Israel was and how to apply it to their lives.  He created nothing new, started nothing new, and spoke nothing new.  The reason why he could preach right away after his conversion was because he knew what Torah was.  He already knew what salvation, grace, etc was as it was already in the Torah.  He was preaching to a bunch of greeks these concepts because they had no idea what they were before.

 

 

There is no reference to Jesus Christ before Paul.  None.  Paul was writing in the middle of the first century CE.  That is the starting point for Jesus Christ.  Mark is the shortest and simplest of the gospel stories and contained the crudest theology thus it must have been the first written.  Yet Mark must have been written after it's source material found in Josephus' work.  The Gospels were written at least 30 years after Paul had died.

 

The only thing that even comes close to Paul's time is a source for Mark found in the heretical work The Gospel of Thomas ( a sayings gospel rather than a story gospel ).  Whichever faction or sect was using Thomas might have been the apostles that Paul mocked.  Clearly Paul had some competition.  But that competition preached a different gospel than Paul preached.  We have no reason to think the competing sects had Jesus Christ.

 

If Paul was against the Nazarene sect then maybe they had a Jesus the Nazarene.  That makes sense in that it would explain why gospel writers would invent Jesus of Nazareth.  If a Jesus the Nazarene existed then there would be a reason for deflecting his legacy away from the Nazarene sect to a competing sect.  However if this hypothetical Jesus the Nazarene existed there is no reason to think he was executed, died on a cross or did anything other than lead the Nazarene sect.  Remember that Jesus was a very popular name in the first century.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Although I disagree with almost everything here, Paul created absolutely nothing.  He was simply speaking to a bunch of hellenist and greeks what the faith of Israel was and how to apply it to their lives.  He created nothing new, started nothing new, and spoke nothing new.  The reason why he could preach right away after his conversion was because he knew what Torah was.  He already knew what salvation, grace, etc was as it was already in the Torah.  He was preaching to a bunch of greeks these concepts because they had no idea what they were before.

 

 

There is no reference to Jesus Christ before Paul.  None.  Paul was writing in the middle of the first century CE.  That is the starting point for Jesus Christ.  Mark is the shortest and simplest of the gospel stories and contained the crudest theology thus it must have been the first written.  Yet Mark must have been written after it's source material found in Josephus' work.  The Gospels were written at least 30 years after Paul had died.

 

The only thing that even comes close to Paul's time is a source for Mark found in the heretical work The Gospel of Thomas ( a sayings gospel rather than a story gospel ).  Whichever faction or sect was using Thomas might have been the apostles that Paul mocked.  Clearly Paul had some competition.  But that competition preached a different gospel than Paul preached.  We have no reason to think the competing sects had Jesus Christ.

 

If Paul was against the Nazarene sect then maybe they had a Jesus the Nazarene.  That makes sense in that it would explain why gospel writers would invent Jesus of Nazareth.  If a Jesus the Nazarene existed then there would be a reason for deflecting his legacy away from the Nazarene sect to a competing sect.  However if this hypothetical Jesus the Nazarene existed there is no reason to think he was executed, died on a cross or did anything other than lead the Nazarene sect.  Remember that Jesus was a very popular name in the first century.  

 

 

I always understood that jesus was meant to be a Nazarene in order to fulfill the prophecy that the messiah would be of the Nazarite order of priesthood, but the inventors of the myth misunderstood the prophecy and mistook Nazarite for Nazarene.

[mymistake]

@Professor

I could be wrong about the sect name.  I'm going off of memory.  I'll have to look it up.

 

@funguyrye

If you disagree so much how about you provide a simpler explanation that solves all of the apparent contradictions in the Bible.  "It is a work of men" addresses every single problem and renders all of them as expected.  Can you identify any exception?

[mymistake]

 

 

@funguyrye

If you disagree so much how about you provide a simpler explanation that solves all of the apparent contradictions in the Bible.  "It is a work of men" addresses every single problem and renders all of them as expected.  Can you identify any exception?

Understanding the historical context and who the Epistles were being written to helps understanding this.  Paul was writing to a bunch of Jews and Greeks who never had to contend with a bunch of Gentiles entering into the faith.  Paul was writing letters on how the two groups were to live together and while giving the Gentiles time to adopt Torah customs and commandments. 

 

Under law is probably the hugest misunderstood two words in the bible, that has created many, many theologies and unnecessary divisions in the church.  I shudder when I hear pastors try and understand those two words and teach it to their churches.  Makes me mad actually.

 

 

But all those divisions we see are consistent with the idea that the Bible is the word of men.  If God is real then we have to explain why God isn't doing something to prevent all that confusion.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

@funguyrye

If you disagree so much how about you provide a simpler explanation that solves all of the apparent contradictions in the Bible.  "It is a work of men" addresses every single problem and renders all of them as expected.  Can you identify any exception?

Understanding the historical context and who the Epistles were being written to helps understanding this.  Paul was writing to a bunch of Jews and Greeks who never had to contend with a bunch of Gentiles entering into the faith.  Paul was writing letters on how the two groups were to live together and while giving the Gentiles time to adopt Torah customs and commandments. 

 

Under law is probably the hugest misunderstood two words in the bible, that has created many, many theologies and unnecessary divisions in the church.  I shudder when I hear pastors try and understand those two words and teach it to their churches.  Makes me mad actually.

 

 

But all those divisions we see are consistent with the idea that the Bible is the word of men.  If God is real then we have to explain why God isn't doing something to prevent all that confusion.

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.  The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such. 

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.  The New Testament isn't new, it was only true.  Christianity said forget about it, and tried something different, and what you see now is a result of Christianity forgetting about the Torah.

 

 

How do you know he actually came down and taught and lived? What evidence do you have of this being the case?

[centauri]

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.

Per the Bible, God is not a man nor a son of man.

A messianic impostor that undermines the law, as Jesus did, is not fulfilling anything except perhaps the warnings Yahweh gave to his people about not being seduced by false teachers.

Jesus undermined the dietary law in Mark 7.

This was pointed out to you before and you ignored it.

 

The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such.

Then Jesus failed because undermining the law, as he did, is corruption.

All foods are not clean.

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.

Paul taught against circumcision, against the food restrictions, and claimed that Jesus was the end of the law.

Paul was also reprimanded for not adhering to the law, so there was indeed confusion.

Paul ended up caving in to the demands of the Jerusalem council.

The law was Paul's competition and it hindered his efforts to gain converts to the new religion.

[mymistake]

 

 

But all those divisions we see are consistent with the idea that the Bible is the word of men.  If God is real then we have to explain why God isn't doing something to prevent all that confusion.

 

He did do something about it.  Came down and taught and lived the proper fulfillment of Torah.  

 

Just like how Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star and saved the galaxy.  Fiction isn't real.

 

 

The teachers of the Torah in the day had so corrupted the Torah, Jesus came down, among other reasons, to teach and show the proper observance of such. 

 

Ironically it was the Christians who corrupted the teachings of the Torah.  They stole that book, called it the Old Testament and then tried to use it to give their own cult the appearance of legitimacy.

 

He further gave rise to Paul to tackle the conflicts of Jews and Gentiles cohabitating along each other in the same faith.  A Gentile getting saved back then was a radical idea in the day. Paul and James always, always pointed back to the Torah.  That was how there was to be no confusion.  The New Testament isn't new, it was only true.  Christianity said forget about it, and tried something different, and what you see now is a result of Christianity forgetting about the Torah.

 

The character that Paul invented didn't give rise to Paul.  Rather it was Paul who used Jesus.  "Hey guys I just saw a vision and Christ wants you to give me 10% of your money and make me your personal spiritual guru!  You got to believe me even though the only evidence is my own words because I wouldn't use guile on you"

 

2 Cor 12:16

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

 

(Color added to emphasize confession.)

 

 

Still the idea that the Bible is the word of ignorant men who could not agree with each other is the simplest explanation and you could not offer an alternative explanation that was superior.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Fungi, you were unable to prove the truth of the bible in The Lion's Den.  Do you really think a change of venue is going to help?

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

2 Cor 12:16

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

 

(Color added to emphasize confession.)

 

That was likely meant sarcastically (check out the context). Otherwise, good points.