One Verse At A Time...

[Ouroboros]

OM, good points.

 

First, SubZ, move on, you have explained, but many have not accepted you explanation, but you did what you promised, to explain what you thought was the "true" way of interpreting it.

 

OM, you might be right. The snake has been used in many religions, and mostly have been the symbol of time or wisdom. And when the Jewish religion got established they incorporated the snake as the evil embodiment to point out the other religions as evil. They had to make a religious reason to why the other religions were wrong. The leaders had to find a way to "explain" to the common people why they shouldnt' follow those other religions.

[white_raven23]

Okay Sub Zero. Now that the snake issue has been set aside, and no you did NOT win on that point, I want to go back to the issue of Genesis 19:31.

 

According to which the New International Standard Version states:

 

31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.

Now. God does not punish these girls for committing incest with their father. According to the way this verse flows, there are simply no men conveniently located. There is no impression that the three of them are the last people on the whole planet. These chicks are just too lazy to hike their butts to the nearest settlement. And god is okay with that.

 

But if you want to argue the point then here is the New American Standard version of the verse:

 

31Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to (A)come in to us after the manner of the earth.

Okay…in this version of biblical reality, these girls think they are the only three people left on earth. True, god promised never to destroy the world by water ever again…..so he just destroyed it by FIRE instead. Hooray for loopholes. Obviously if god ever promises anything, mankind better read the fine print…. But wait! All the people of the world are obviously NOT destroyed! The very next chapter has us back with Abraham! Oh thank goodness, these girls don’t have to screw daddy….they just have to go find people! Since god cared enough to ensure the survival of these three from S&G, god has taken responsibility for their welfare, so he will obviously inform these girls this big time taboo is not required right?..... Right?

 

Regardless of which of these verses you decide is THE Word of God, his image as an almighty, responsible lord over all sure isn’t measuring up to even the Christians purported standards of the nature of god. These standards fall below even below most human standards of responsibility.

 

The bible does not support the caricature of supreme being that the Christians have created. Since the Christians base their notions of what god is on this flaky book, there is a serious problem here.

[Ouroboros]

It sounds like God would make exceptions based on people intentions. The girls thought they were alone, and then sin is okay with God, only because the girls only meant well. It's just like A&E's kids that had to have sex with each other, and that was approved by God. David and Salomon had harems, and that was okay too, only because they were God's elected kings.

 

It's funny how people can commit sins as long as the intention is to somehow "please" God. Killing is okay, rape, and lying is okay too, if you only do it in the name of God. But when it's done outside the name of God, then all of a sudden just thinking of something makes you a sinner.

 

This is Biblical morality:

 

Lusting for your neighbors car is theft and is a sin, if you don't do it in the name of God.

 

But literally stealing your neighbors car in the name of God is not a sin.

 

Christianity is just a huge excuse to be able to sin and emotionally get away with it.

[Guest bdp]

Aww, sub_z came back and didn't address my verse... : (

 

bdp

[Ouroboros]

Aww, sub_z came back and didn't address my verse... : (

 

bdp

Because he doesn't have an answer?

[Guest sub_zer0]

I am saying no such thing, rather I am saying that the snake was actually a snake. I remaining true to the verse.

 

There is nothing in thoses Genesis Verses or any other verse in the OT which says that the snake was Satan figuratively or Satan possesed. On the contrary there is no cases of "satan - possession" in the OT. The whole idea of possesion comes from the NT(which borrowed it from the pagans).

 

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk. Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well? Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

Ezekial does not say that the golden cherub is Satan, once again it is aimed at the king of babylon

 

Where is the OT proof that Satan was a fallen angel

 

Stop rewriting and twisting the verses to serve your theological agenda

 

You are doing exactly what your God warned you not to do, which is to modify his word to suit you needs.

 

I guess you didn't read Ezekial 28. Since when is a king of Babylon a cherub or in the Garden of Eden? And actually it is the king of Tyre Ezekial is speaking about.

 

I know the history of the bible. Your biblical canon is nothing than list of book which is modified at the whims of men

 

Why does the word of god/Truth needs the democratic approval of men?

 

Apparently you do not know the history of the Bible. The Biblical canon was canon before man had anything to say about it. Read the link provided as it explains all of it in detail.

 

The New Convenants says no such thing. Read Jer 30.

 

What you are doing is actually double talk.

 

according to this sophistry the law wasn't destroyed, it was just set aside like an old shoe.

 

Jeremiah 31:31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,"

 

This claim that the "old law was done away with" is contradicted by Jesus himself.

 

Matt 5:17-20(Jesus speaking)

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

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

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

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

 

As Jesus clearly states, whoever breaks even the least commandment shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven and that people should have the righteousness of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were followers of the law.

 

Heaven and earth have not passed away, nor has everything been fulfilled.

 

In the passage in question, Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus is showing His superiority of His message to that of the Law of Moses. Jesus makes it clear that He had "not come to destroy the law." The NT gospel is not contrary or contradictory to the Old Testament law; rather it is the ultimate fulfillment of the spiritual intention of the law. The law had been degenerated to legalism by the Pharisees, Jesus now takes the law beyond mere outward ovservance to the inner spiritual intention of God. For He had come to "fulfill" the law and its fullest implications.

 

Because of the seriousness of the law Jesus emphasized the importance of keeping even its smallest deatails. The law was not to be an extra burden for man but rather it is for the way of salvation. The law convinced man that he needed a Saviour. Therefore whoever "shall teach men so" but does not try to live what he teaches, shall be made least in "kingdom of heaven."

 

the word "fulfilled" can mean anything christian want it to mean, which is why Christians define it according to their doctrinal needs.

 

Just like every other fundamentalist christian you cherry pick the laws of the OT that you like, and then state these represent god's morality, however if you don't like particular law, you just ignore it.

 

You mock the very god you worship

 

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill..."

 

What else would fulfill mean in this context other than Jesus fulfilled the law?

 

You don't fulfill the law by breaking it. Jesus broke several OT laws (and including his own). Paul also broke many OT laws.

 

No one ever said that Paul was perfect, but how did Jesus break several OT laws when Jesus was without sin?

 

The New Covenant is reaffirmation of the OT laws. And that certainly has not come to pass.

 

The New Covenatn is Christ.

 

Rom. 8:3-4 which says, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh."

 

As per your highlighted words are you saying that God's moral and absolute Law and code for his worshippers depends on which part of the world the live in and the time they were born?

 

Congratulations. You've reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

 

Where does the Bible say that God's Laws aren't in effect in certain countries and at certain times?

 

The OT law was specifically for Israel. Israel was to be a light for all nations. But Christ is now that, as Gentiles shall hearken towards Him now. Not just Israel and the Jews.

 

Okay Sub Zero. Now that the snake issue has been set aside, and no you did NOT win on that point, I want to go back to the issue of Genesis 19:31.

 

According to which the New International Standard Version states:

 

31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.

 

Now. God does not punish these girls for committing incest with their father. According to the way this verse flows, there are simply no men conveniently located. There is no impression that the three of them are the last people on the whole planet. These chicks are just too lazy to hike their butts to the nearest settlement. And god is okay with that.

 

I do not see where you can get God being OK with sinning like that. You forgot the penalty for sinning is death.

 

But if you want to argue the point then here is the New American Standard version of the verse:

 

31Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to (A)come in to us after the manner of the earth.

Okay…in this version of biblical reality, these girls think they are the only three people left on earth. True, god promised never to destroy the world by water ever again…..so he just destroyed it by FIRE instead. Hooray for loopholes. Obviously if god ever promises anything, mankind better read the fine print…. But wait! All the people of the world are obviously NOT destroyed! The very next chapter has us back with Abraham! Oh thank goodness, these girls don’t have to screw daddy….they just have to go find people! Since god cared enough to ensure the survival of these three from S&G, god has taken responsibility for their welfare, so he will obviously inform these girls this big time taboo is not required right?..... Right?

 

So basically you are upset because God didn't punish the girls that had sex with there father? You are forgetting that punishment of sin is death and ALL will be judged according to their actions on this earth. God cannot intervene constantly unless you call for Him and abid in Him. They didn't, there FREE WILL was affected by evil not good in this case.

 

Regardless of which of these verses you decide is THE Word of God, his image as an almighty, responsible lord over all sure isn’t measuring up to even the Christians purported standards of the nature of god. These standards fall below even below most human standards of responsibility.

 

The bible does not support the caricature of supreme being that the Christians have created. Since the Christians base their notions of what god is on this flaky book, there is a serious problem here.

 

Heard it all before.

[SkepticOfBible]

Well done, pritish, as usual. The irrefutable truth is that Cheesus, according to the Holah Babble, didn't come to eradicate the cruel and sick Judaic laws (even though he broke a few himself) but rather to reaffirm them, reaffirm the "goodness" of the Hebrew tribal god, and even broaden it all to include the whole world, not just Jews. In the end, it's still a justification of the same old garbage found in the Old Testament, which is why Xianity is so insidious. It's basically a form of Judaism for the rest of the world.

 

Actually God's law had always applied to the world.

 

Not surprisingly, the OT makes no mention of needing Jesus or accepting him to be "in God's fold".

The OT does give clear instructions on how to be accepted into God's fold:

 

Isa 56:1-8

Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

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.

The Lord GOD, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 

Even the laws in Numbers had extended it to non jews

 

Num 15:22-31

22 " 'Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the LORD gave Moses- 23 any of the LORD's commands to you through him, from the day the LORD gave them and continuing through the generations to come- 24 and if this is done unintentionally without the community being aware of it, then the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, along with its prescribed grain offering and drink offering, and a male goat for a sin offering. 25 The priest is to make atonement for the whole Israelite community, and they will be forgiven, for it was not intentional and they have brought to the LORD for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering. 26 The whole Israelite community and the aliens living among them will be forgiven, because all the people were involved in the unintentional wrong.

 

27 " 'But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven. 29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

 

30 " 'But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. 31 Because he has despised the LORD's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.' "

 

To my reading of the four Gospel, I don't see any verse where he said that law need not be followed. He may have emphasised a few, but never said anything about ignoring others

 

On one occasion he condemned to pharisees for not obeying God's law about stoning their rebelious kids to death.

 

He repeated said to follow the will of his father. And the OT makes it clear what that "will" is.

 

It is thanks to Paul, who turned the whole issue into a cult of Judaism.

[white_raven23]

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk. Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well? Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

 

Helllooooo.

It. Is. Over.

 

Forget the snake. You lost.

The Bible doesn't support the notion that satan was involved with the snake.

No verse in the Bible supports these assumptions from you.

Give it up.

If your logic followed, then it goes against Numbers 22:28.

28 Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"

 

So animals doing things they can't naturally do, according to YOU.....is satan.

But god does the same magic trick. And somehow it is known to be god......even though it's the same trick. The same trick satan pulls. Yet is is "known" to be god this time instead.

 

And NOTICE.....the Numbers verse specifies the exact source of the donkey talking. There is no such verse for the snake in Genesis ANYWHERE in the Bible. So don't try to say the bible implies....when obviously by this verse the bible is perfectly capable of being quite specific regarding the source of animal-speak.

[white_raven23]

Hey Sub Zero.

 

Here's a question.

 

We understand this verse Exodus 34:17

 

17 "Do not make cast idols.

 

How do you explain this event from Numbers 21:9?

 

9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

[SkepticOfBible]

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk.

 

Neither can a Donkey talk nor can there be a world wide flood. But it happens in the OT. Now you are applying naturalisitic explanation to your bible. The bible is full of miracles. This is just one of them

 

Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well?

 

OT proof please?

 

Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

OT proof please for the highlighted words.

 

Where does it say that when animal talks, it is directly defying god?

 

I guess you didn't read Ezekial 28. Since when is a king of Babylon a cherub or in the Garden of Eden? And actually it is the king of Tyre Ezekial is speaking about.

Sorry, about the messup. But yes as you pointed the Cherub is King of Tyre, not Satan

 

Apparently you do not know the history of the Bible. The Biblical canon was canon before man had anything to say about it. Read the link provided as it explains all of it in detail.

Yes I have read the history of the bible.

 

What you are reading is propaganda.

 

God determines the Canon

Where is the proof for that?

 

When did god come in the council of meetings?

 

Even the catholics will claim that god determined their canon?

 

The findings of Hippo were reiterated at this council..

 

See clerics deciding about the Canon, not god.

 

Here are more links about the canon of the bible

 

Different Biblical Canons of the World

Books of The Different Bible

Who Decided What Went In The Bible

Textual Intergrity of The Bible

Biblical Canon of The World

 

The canon is disputed amongst the various sects of the world. How do you know that you have the right one?

 

I just went over the reasons of rejecting the Apocrypha

 

The Apocryphal books were never included or accepted into the Hebrew canon

 

So now you want to invoke the orthodox jewish authoritity when it comes to deciding which books should be included as part of OT canon? What about the fact that this same jewish authority rejected all of the NT books?

 

Jesus, the Apostles and the New Testament writers never quote the books of the Apocrypha as Scripture

 

Neither do they quote many of the other OT books, but they are part of your canon.

 

In fact they have quoted many verses of the Apocrypha

 

“If Jude quoted the apocryphal book, he was affirming only the truth of that prophecy and not endorsing the book in its entirety

 

See cherry picking again?

 

Many Jewish and Christian scholars rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture “

 

many of the early chruch father had accepted the Apocrypha. So where is your god to resolve the dispute

 

The Apocrypha includes many historical and geographical inaccuracies

 

And you current bible does not?

 

Some of the Apocryphal books teach unbiblical or heretical doctrines

 

Unbiblical and heretical are once again defined by men, not god. The NT is considerd heretical by the Jews. The NT clearly teaches many things that go contrary to the OT.

 

Salvation by works Tobit 12:9 teaches salvation by works

 

Did you read James. It talks about salvation by work. why is that not rejected?

 

here is no claim within the Apocrypha itself that it is the Word of God

 

So do many of the other books. Why are they included in the bible?

 

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CRITERIA FOR THE CANONOCITY OF THE BIBLE IS DETERMINED BY MEN, NOT GOD.

 

Which is why it is disputed.

 

So my stance remains the same, the biblical canon changes at the whims of men

 

Jeremiah 31:31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,"

 

Where is this talking about laws being removed or not to be obeyed?

 

In the passage in question, Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus is showing His superiority of His message to that of the Law of Moses.

The law of moses was given by god, and was declared eternal and perfect in Psalm 119?Was there a defect in the God's law?

 

The law had been degenerated to legalism by the Pharisees,

 

and who empahised the legalism of the Law?The god of the OT.

 

Strict adherence of the law was a high priority of the OT God. Everytime a King was defeated, what was god's answer? He and the nation of Isreal failed to adhere to the torah.

 

You will not find a single verse in the OT which complains that laws are too hard or too tough or imperfect. However you will hundreds of verses which complains that it is people not following God's law.

 

Jesus now takes the law beyond mere outward ovservance to the inner spiritual intention of God. For He had come to "fulfill" the law and its fullest implications.

 

So you are saying you have to keep it?

 

Because of the seriousness of the law Jesus emphasized the importance of keeping even its smallest deatails. The law was not to be an extra burden for man but rather it is for the way of salvation.

 

The law convinced man that he needed a Saviour.

 

The Saviour was god, and the law was the way to salvation. It does not talk about anything faith in human sacrifice replacing the adherance to the law.

 

Therefore whoever "shall teach men so" but does not try to live what he teaches, shall be made least in "kingdom of heaven."

 

 

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill..."

 

What else would fulfill mean in this context other than Jesus fulfilled the law?

 

So you keep the law right?

 

No one ever said that Paul was perfect, but how did Jesus break several OT laws when Jesus was without sin?

So you saying it's ok to sin if it brings glory to God?

 

Didn't Jesus sin by doing the following

 

1)working on a Sabbath

2)Disregarding God's Food Prohibition

3)Claiming to be god himself

4)Introducing Blood drinking ritual

5)Participating in the Pagan ritual of baptism

6)Lied under interogation

7)Failed to uphold the law when a women was found guilty of adultery

 

The New Covenant is Christ.

 

Verse and scripture from OT please

 

The OT law was specifically for Israel. Israel was to be a light for all nations. But Christ is now that, as Gentiles shall hearken towards Him now. Not just Israel and the Jews.

 

I have addressed this another post. The law was meant for everybody, and anybody could join God's fold.

 

You forgot the penalty for sinning is death.

 

Not all violation of OT laws attracted the death penalty. There is a wide variety of punishments including fines and expulsion from the community.

[crazy-tiger]

I guess you didn't read Ezekial 28. Since when is a king of Babylon a cherub or in the Garden of Eden? And actually it is the king of Tyre Ezekial is speaking about.

So... since Ezekial is speaking about the King of Tyre, he wasn't talking about Satan, was he?

 

Oh, and since the King of Tyre was never a cherub nor in the Garden of Eden, I guess Ezekial got it wrong. (not that it says the King was a cherub... it just says he was annointed as one)

 

So... how does Ezekial prove that Satan was the snake in Eden? It doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

You used Isaiah 14 to try to prove it, but it was about the King of Babylon. You used Ezekial 28 to try to prove it, but that was about the King of Tyre.

 

The snake was not Satan... you have nothing to back it up and even go so far as to contradict yourself in your attempts to defend your claim.

 

You lost... move on to a new subject and try again.

 

 

Speaking of Isaiah 14... you once asked "Since when was the king of Babylon ever a cherub, or in the Garden of Eden, or named Lucifer?"

As Isaiah 14 doesn't mention anything about cherubs or the Garden of Eden, can we assume that the Bible got it wrong?

 

Or should we assume that YOU got it wrong? (way to go... proving that you or the Bible makes mistakes)

[♦ nivek ♦]

New load arriving daily!

[SkepticOfBible]

Sorry Zub_zero, I just realised I have the derailed your topic by talking about the canon and jesus sinning.

 

You may ignore those points, or if you want to discuss about them in more detail, you may do so in the following threads

 

Is Protestant Christianity Credible?

 

Did Jesus Sin?

[Asimov]

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk. Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well? Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

So why was the damn snake punished?

[crazy-tiger]

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk. Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well? Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

So why was the damn snake punished?

Because BibleGod is an arsehole?

[SkepticOfBible]

"SHOW ME VERSES FROM THE OT WHICH SAYS THAT LAWS WOULD NOT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED UNDER THE NC."

 

You are forgetting the point and purpose of the Law. It was to reveal the sin we all have. It was not for man to abide by forever.

 

The bible debunks your claims

 

The purpose and the point of the law is clearly given

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

God's Law was not, as you claim "to reveal sin", but represented righteousness which uplifted his people over others.

 

Deut 30:8-11

And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off(not too difficult to do).

 

The law is not a curse as Paul proclaimed. God stated clearly that the law was not too difficult to obey and follow.

 

Psa 119:1-5

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

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

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

Thou(God) hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!

 

Deut 6:17

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

 

The law is not a cafeteria line where you get to pick which ones you like.

Being one of God's people, as many Christians repeatedly claim they are, requires the hard work of actually following the laws he gave.

 

Psa 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

 

Psa 119:152

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

 

Deut 5:29

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me(Yahweh), and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

 

 

Psa 119:41,44

Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.

 

Your claim about men not keeping the law forever is debunked by the bible in the above verses.

 

Psa 119:144-146

The righteousness of thy testimonies(laws) is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live(have salvation).

I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes.

I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies(laws).

 

Deut 6:25

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

 

Righteousness and salvation are obtained by following God's Law.

 

The following was supposed to have been written by King Solomon, who was alleged to have been the wisest man on earth.

 

Eccl 12:13

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

 

It is the duty of god’s follower to follow his commandments

 

Psa 119:110,115

The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts(laws).

Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.

 

Those who teach that God's Law doesn't have to be followed anymore are wicked and evil.

 

It was given to them for the time that they lived -- Israel was to be the beacon of the world. Now it is Jesus Christ for the "Jew first but also the Greek". Of course the Law will be observed for eternity, the Law is Christ, because Christ fulfilled the Law.

Then who will observe the law?The law is supposed to be observed by the followers.

 

Do you also view the laws regarding sexuality(including homosexuality) in the same way?

 

You cannot pin me down to just OT verses, because we are not dealing with a books theme that is based on the OT law specifically.

 

The reason why I "pin" you down in OT because you are making claims about the "New Convenant" which are not in the OT.

 

The OT shows that the NT is not progressive revelation from the same god of the OT(as you claim it to be).

 

Just like the way a mormon would have to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is god’s further revelation, it is therefore for you to prove that NT is progressive revalation from god.

 

The Bible's center point is Christ and all things should be looked at through Him.

 

In other words I should look from your POV. Is the above assertion supported by the OT?

 

With that in mind, there is no need to show you verses that say the OT laws would not need to be followed because of Christ.

 

That's because the OT exposes your fraudalant claims about the OT laws not being followed in the NC.

 

It clearly spells out in the OT that during the NC the laws would followed.

 

You just want us to tightly close our eyes to those verses, and just pretend that they don't exist.

 

What I need to show you is how Christ, fulfilled those laws, thus becoming, in essence, the ultimate fulfiller of the law and the New law or Covenant.

 

Once again there is nothing the OT which says man/god/messiah will come and fulfill the law, and then people would be free to break some of the laws of OT.

 

The OT shows that Messiah was supposed to usher an era where the torah would be observed.

 

PS:If you want to key to my arguements and think you can beat them, just goto to the site in my signature ie if you genuinely want me to convert to christianity. Make sure you check out VARIOUS CHRISTIAN CLAIMS AND ARGUEMENTS

[Guest sub_zer0]

The bible debunks your claims

 

The purpose and the point of the law is clearly given

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

God's Law was not, as you claim "to reveal sin", but represented righteousness which uplifted his people over others.

 

Deut 30:8-11

And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off(not too difficult to do).

 

The Bible (OT and NT) as a whole is most important when speaking on the idea of the Law. You are referring to the OT with just OT context. That can't work when Christ's purpose was to fulfill it. You must bring Him into the picture. The specific passage of Deut 30:8-11 and the Law in general during Old Testament days is centered on Israel. That is how they aquired salvation.

 

It has changed now with Christ - i.e. the New Testament/Covenant. When the purpose of the Law during those times to the Jews was to "represent righteousness" as you say, I ask you this then:

 

What is righteousness? The absence of sin!

 

It may not reveal sin in the, I guess logical sense you would think, but it does reveal sin. The fact that the Law was supposed to represent righteousness, anybody who wasn't righteous was clearly identified not by righteousness but by their transgression (Galatians 3:19-23) or sinning against the Law. With that in mind you can see that the Law was indeed to reveal sin in some way or another.

 

The law is not a curse as Paul proclaimed. God stated clearly that the law was not too difficult to obey and follow.

 

Psa 119:1-5

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

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

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

Thou(God) hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!

 

Deut 6:17

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

 

I hope you know the word "diligent" means "Marked by persevering, painstaking effort."

 

The law is not a cafeteria line where you get to pick which ones you like.

Being one of God's people, as many Christians repeatedly claim they are, requires the hard work of actually following the laws he gave.

 

Psa 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

 

Psa 119:152

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

 

Deut 5:29

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me(Yahweh), and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

 

 

Psa 119:41,44

Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.

 

Your claim about men not keeping the law forever is debunked by the bible in the above verses.

 

And your claim is debunked by the fact that Christ was to fulfill the Law and become the New Law.

 

Psa 119:144-146

The righteousness of thy testimonies(laws) is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live(have salvation).

I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes.

I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies(laws).

 

Deut 6:25

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

 

Righteousness and salvation are obtained by following God's Law.

 

Exactly. Israel was the beacon to the world for God's Law. But God's Law was centered on Israel not the Gentiles. Now the beacon for Jews and the Greek as said in Romans, is Christ.

 

Then who will observe the law?The law is supposed to be observed by the followers.

 

We observe the Law forever through the belief of Christ, the ultimate fulfillment of that Law--a very important aspect of Christ. We observe the Law, as believers, because we have the OT and NT.

 

The OT shows that the NT is not progressive revelation from the same god of the OT(as you claim it to be).

 

Just like the way a mormon would have to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is god’s further revelation, it is therefore for you to prove that NT is progressive revalation from god.

 

How isn't it progressive revelation?

 

In other words I should look from your POV. Is the above assertion supported by the OT?

 

No, in other words take the BIBLE'S POV! It is Christ.

 

That's because the OT exposes your fraudalant claims about the OT laws not being followed in the NC.

 

It clearly spells out in the OT that during the NC the laws would followed.

 

You just want us to tightly close our eyes to those verses, and just pretend that they don't exist.

 

No you are tightly closing your eyes to the purpose of the Law, REVEAL SIN, and the purpose of Christ, fulfill the Law because He did NOT sin EVER!

 

Once again there is nothing the OT which says man/god/messiah will come and fulfill the law, and then people would be free to break some of the laws of OT.

 

It is key to remember that what is read explicitly in the NT is seen only implicitly in the OT.

 

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44).

 

I can't believe you are saying that the OT isn't set in a time when they longed for a Messiah to fulfill the Law. Perhaps THIS LINK will help.

 

 

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk. Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well? Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

So why was the damn snake punished?

 

Good question!

 

a. The snake would be a forever symbolic reminder of the Fall.

b. The snake would be a symbolic reminder of Satan’s future destruction.

c. Animals were culpable when used as instruments of sin.

 

Expanded on those topics is found HERE!

[Japedo]

 

The Bible (OT and NT) as a whole is most important when speaking on the idea of the Law. You are referring to the OT with just OT context. That can't work when Christ's purpose was to fulfill it. You must bring Him into the picture. The specific passage of Deut 30:8-11 and the Law in general during Old Testament days is centered on Israel. That is how they aquired salvation.

 

It has changed now with Christ - i.e. the New Testament/Covenant. When the purpose of the Law during those times to the Jews was to "represent righteousness" as you say, I ask you this then:

 

What is righteousness? The absence of sin!

 

It may not reveal sin in the, I guess logical sense you would think, but it does reveal sin. The fact that the Law was supposed to represent righteousness, anybody who wasn't righteous was clearly identified not by righteousness but by their transgression (Galatians 3:19-23) or sinning against the Law. With that in mind you can see that the Law was indeed to reveal sin in some way or another.

 

 

Even looking thru the Jesus goggles you can't say these "Laws" don't exist, to say the law is no more is to change or take away the law, which in and of itself is against the law. Nice conundrum ya have...

 

 

Not to add to the commandments of the Torah, whether in the Written Law or in its interpretation received by tradition (Deut. 13:1)

 

Not to take away from the commandments of the Torah (Deut. 13:1)

 

Anything doing either one of these listed above is breaking the law which you claim is fufilled.

[white_raven23]

 

Right the snake is just a snake. But snakes cannot talk. Since Satan was an angel, angels can turn into men, why not animals as well? Satan becomes or influences the snake to deceive Eve. You are missing the point that the first words from the snake, an animal which CANNOT talk, is directly defying God. That is Satan.

 

So why was the damn snake punished?

Good Question!

Follwed by a bad answer!

a. The snake would be a forever symbolic reminder of the Fall.

 

Ah good. God is making an example of the poor lil' critter. How loving and sensitive.

b. The snake would be a symbolic reminder of Satan’s future destruction.

 

Ah.

By this you are referring of course to Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

 

I was hoping you'd bring that up. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Ripley's "Just So" stories......or even creation myths from other cultures. Perhaps you know the story of how Raven came to be black. Or how the spider came to spin webs.

 

Christians like to focus mainly on just the first half of this verse. The crushing of the snake's head.

 

This section of Genesis is no different from any "Just so" style myth. It explains the relationship between people, and poisonous snakes native to the region.

 

There has always been enmity between people and poisonous snakes! You find a snake in the field....you crush it's head (if you cut the head off, the jaws can still bite). And the reference to "He" as being the offspring? Christians want to assume it's referring to Jesus. Despite there being nothing more on that subject in all of Genesis.

Men were in the fields! They were usually the ones doing the clear cutting (thus the most likely people to encounter snakes first).

And the part of the verse you like to forget.....the snake stinging the heel? Only the easiest target on a person in a field where everyone is walking around wearing nothing sturdier than reed or thin leather SANDALS.

All that verse is about is God telling the snake that the offspring of the woman would be out to get him on sight, but sometimes the snake would manage to get them too.

 

All this is is very basic story myth explaination for a fairly common occurance in human and snake relations.

 

c. Animals were culpable when used as instruments of sin.

 

Animals sinning?

 

Okay.....that is just beyond ridiculous. Not to mention requiring brains structures snakes don't even HAVE......namely the cerebral cortex.

[Amanda]

Good question!

 

a. The snake would be a forever symbolic reminder of the Fall.

b. The snake would be a symbolic reminder of Satan’s future destruction.

c. Animals were culpable when used as instruments of sin.

 

Expanded on those topics is found HERE!

 

Hi Sub Zero! I'm just curious as to following this logic... would a little girl molested by a pedophile be culpable for being used as an instrument of sin? Would she be punished for a reminder of the fall that took place? And would her punishment therefore be a reminder of her perpetrator's future destruction?

[Lycorth]

Hi Sub Zero! I'm just curious as to following this logic... would a little girl molested by a pedophile be culpable for being used as an instrument of sin? Would she be punished for a reminder of the fall that took place? And would her punishment therefore be a reminder of her perpetrator's future destruction?

 

No - according to the Scripchahs, she'd be forced to marry her rapist and live with him for the rest of her life. That's the justice of the Lard Gawd.

[Amanda]

Hi Sub Zero! I'm just curious as to following this logic... would a little girl molested by a pedophile be culpable for being used as an instrument of sin? Would she be punished for a reminder of the fall that took place? And would her punishment therefore be a reminder of her perpetrator's future destruction?

 

No - according to the Scripchahs, she'd be forced to marry her rapist and live with him for the rest of her life. That's the justice of the Lard Gawd.

 

Wolfheart, if you have the location of that scripture handy, would you share it with me. If not... just forget it. Of course I believe you that it exists, I'd just like to read the context in which it is written, amongst other things... but only if it is conveniently placed somewhere for you.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Just for subby...

[Fweethawt]

Hi Sub Zero! I'm just curious as to following this logic... would a little girl molested by a pedophile be culpable for being used as an instrument of sin? Would she be punished for a reminder of the fall that took place? And would her punishment therefore be a reminder of her perpetrator's future destruction?

No - according to the Scripchahs, she'd be forced to marry her rapist and live with him for the rest of her life. That's the justice of the Lard Gawd.

Wolfheart, if you have the location of that scripture handy, would you share it with me. If not... just forget it. Of course I believe you that it exists, I'd just like to read the context in which it is written, amongst other things... but only if it is conveniently placed somewhere for you.

I got dis, Wolfy!

 

CLICK HERE, AMANDA. Within the first post of that thread, you'll see what verses Wolfheart is talking about. Don't forget, while you're there, you're more than welcome to comment in that thread also.

[Ouroboros]

(niveks picture. Fwee managed to sneak between again.)